Page 1

2011 Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit GOLDEN, COLORADO : DECEMBER 6-8


2011 Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 2011, Outdoor Alliance convened about 150 people at the American Mountaineering Center in Golden, Colorado for the first Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit. We designed the Summit to explore how partnerships between the Federal land management agencies and the human powered outdoor recreation community used recreation and stewardship to connect Americans to their public lands and waters in meaningful and sustainable ways. The Summit was inspired by President Obama’s “America’s Great Outdoors” initiative. Attendees included Federal land managers and policy officials, local and national leaders from the human powered outdoor world, and other key stakeholders. At the Summit, attendees presented and explored 19 partnership success stories in a highly interactive format, while a team of six professional note takers captured the intellectual content generated. After the Summit, Outdoor Alliance studied the content and discerned four “Best Partnership Practices,” as well as a few policy recommendations that, if applied, will increase the prevalence of effective partnerships across the nation. The Best Partnership Practices are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Understand Partnerships as Systems Give Partnerships the Care, Maintenance and Investments They Require Cultivate Partnership Mindsets and Behaviors Never Pass Up a Good Catalyst

A summary of each case study and a complete appendix of Summit materials and notes are included in this report.

1


TABLE OF CONTENTS The Origins of the Summit

3

What Happened at the Summit

4

Best Partnership Practices

5

Recommendations

8

Summaries of the 19 Success Stories

10

Conclusion

19

Appendix

20

“Partnerships
are
not
about
doing
more
with
less
–
they
are
about
 doing
more
with
more
partners”
 
 


2


THE ORIGINS OF THE SUMMIT Public lands and waters are part of our history, culture, and national character. From continental mountain ranges to urban pocket parks, the fact that these places belong to everyone is essential to what they mean and how we experience and conserve them. Given all our shared interests, it is no surprise that some of the most thoughtful and effective management of our public lands and waters involves partnerships between stakeholders who have strong associations with these special places. America’s Great Outdoors Initiative (AGO), from its basic design to the public feedback generated during the listening sessions, is premised on partnerships to reconnect people to the outdoors. Whether improving recreational use and enjoyment of public lands and waters, or creating a new generation of stewards and mentors, AGO looks to partnerships between people, communities, organizations, businesses, and the federal government to achieve its goals. This approach certainly makes sense to all of us at the Outdoor Alliance—we believe that partnerships are the best way to purposefully connect effective management of the outdoors with meaningful outdoor experiences. For decades, the human powered outdoor recreation community has successfully partnered with federal land managers at the local, regional and national level. These partnerships made tangible changes on the ground, whether building a well-designed trail, restoring a river, or protecting outdoor solitude. In addition to providing better, higher quality outdoor experiences, at their best these partnerships also restore landscapes and ecosystems, support local economies, reduce social conflict, and draw new populations to the outdoors, especially young people. Given the central role of partnerships in land management and AGO, the Outdoor Alliance knew it could help advance AGO by identifying and studying some the most successful, organic partnerships between the human powered recreation community and federal land managers. By developing a deeper understanding of how and why these partnerships worked, we could help inform the creation and application of policies and practices that might bring better partnerships to more places and, in turn, help further AGO’s goal of reconnecting people to the outdoors. With all of this in mind, we designed and produced the 2011 Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit, which took place over three days in Golden, Colorado at the American Mountaineering Center.

3


WHAT HAPPENED AT THE SUMMIT Originally, we hoped to gather at least 50 attendees, including policy and field staff from the federal land management agencies and leaders from the human powered outdoor recreation community, to study at least six partnership case studies. Rather than 50, we hosted almost 150 attendees from every region of the country. Nearly 50 people came from the major land management agencies, including all of their national recreation leads. The balance of attendees included local and national leaders from the human powered outdoor recreation community as well as people from the outdoor industry, hunting and angling, youth engagement, and traditional environmental worlds. In the end, we covered not six but 19 partnership case studies at the Summit. Senator Mark Udall helped us kick-off the Summit with a video welcome, and the attendees hit the trail running thanks to keynote addresses from climbing icon and Black Diamond CEO, Peter Metcalf, and Interior Secretary Salazar’s Counselor on AGO, Will Shafroth. The expertise, insight, passion and commitment all the attendees brought to bear during the Summit was inspiring. Outdoor Alliance collected and synthesized all the content that was presented and generated at the Summit. With the help of the Meridian Institute and their team of six professional note-takers we captured all of the presentations, comments, and discussions regarding the nature and key elements of successful partnerships. The notetakers generated 100 pages of notes and prepared a succinct summary of Day One that attendees were able to review for the Day 2 sessions. After the Summit, we pored over all of these notes, presentation abstracts, and all other available materials in order to outline key findings and recommendations. This document consolidates all the materials presented and distills them into usable information for both federal land managers and their private partners. The core of our findings from the Summit are four “Best Partnership Practices.” Rather than a partnership checklist or how to guide, these Best Partnership Practices attempt to provide a deeper, more nuanced understanding of effective partnerships and how they work. We hope those that read this report will be better equipped to build partnerships on their own terms. In addition to these Best Partnership Practices, we have a short list of recommendations that will help the Agencies and the human powered recreation community support partnerships. Also, included here are summaries that reflect the essential progression of events and key attributes for each of the 19 case studies we explored at the Summit. Lastly, included is a complete appendix with an organized version of all the raw material generated at the Summit and items such as prepared remarks, the Summit agenda, The Meridian Institute’s note summary and the attendee list.

4


BEST PARTNERSHIP PRACTICES

1.
Understand
Partnerships
as
Systems
 Before the Summit, we thought about partnerships in terms of two participants—a partner from the human powered community and a federal land manager. Although binary partnerships certainly exist and can be very successful, we learned that networked partnerships with three, four, or more partners, tended to be sturdier and more productive relationship systems. Key additional partners in these networked partnerships include state or local business development organizations, friends groups, research institutions, traditional environmental groups, and organizations focused on serving youth. The Raystown Lake and North Cascade case studies illustrate this concept nicely. One of the advantages of networked partnerships is that different partners in the system usually have different strengths, and therefore have comparative advantages relative to each other. As we learned in the Redding case study, federal partners often excel in planning, whereas the private partners often excel at implementation. Partnerships with multiple partners offer the opportunity to leverage each party’s strength, be it technical design expertise, advocacy savvy, fundraising prowess or youth engagement techniques, towards the partnership goals. When thinking about partnerships as systems, we must change the way we think about volunteers. Virtually every case study used the term “volunteer” and volunteers were sometimes identified as the heart and soul of a given partnership. However, volunteering may not be the best way to describe what is really going on in a partnership system. The case studies at the Summit demonstrated that people and organizations invested resources in their partnership not out of altruism or charity, but because each and every one of them wanted a return on their investment. From a conventional perspective, volunteers provide value for free, essentially as a gift. In successful partnerships, volunteers are more accurately described as investors who expect a return on the value they provide. Additionally, in the same way that different countries use different currencies, different partners look for different types of returns on their investments in the partnership. These currencies vary depending on their communities, organizational missions or statutory obligations. When a river is restored, the local community might put a premium on an uptick in economic activity, boaters may celebrate boatable flows, and a federal land manager might be relieved to finally increase habitat for a threatened or endangered species. Each one sees the partnership pay off in different currencies. The more interrelated these investment returns are, the stronger, more productive and longer lasting the partnership will be (and the greater likelihood that the partnership can lead to new projects). The essence of understanding and treating partnerships as systems is that the different interests, motivations, investment returns (and types of currency) can fit together in a systematic relationship. Understanding partnerships as systems enables the partners to focus on what they do best in a coordinated manner and help give insight into how each partner defines success.

5


2.
Give
Partnerships
the
Care,
Maintenance,
and
Investments
They
 Require The conventional justification for public-private partnerships is that partnerships enable an already overstretched federal government to “do more with less.” This justification is premised on the idea that federal land managers are resource deficient and the scarcity of money, staff, equipment and training necessitates partnering with private partners to somehow fill this resource gap. Unless the gap is filled, public lands and waters, as well as the experiences that they provide, are left to be less than they could or should be. Throughout the Summit, however, the more-with-less justification for partnerships was essentially rejected. As one attendee explained, “Partnerships are not about doing more with less, but doing more with more partners.” The idea of partnerships “doing more” suggests that the true value of a partnership is its capacity to do work. Indeed, rather than a means to remedy a deficiency, it is more accurate to treat partnerships as powerful mechanisms that can harness the energy and resources of disparate players to a common end that none of the players could effectuate working alone. The Sandy Ridge and Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie case studies nicely illustrate this dynamic. The capability to create new value (as opposed to merely remedying a deficiency) is not free. Indeed, one attendee observed, “Partnerships are not free and we should not treat them as though they are.” In the same way that physical machines require investments of time and money not only for acquisition, but also for proper care and maintenance, so do the most powerful and effective partnerships. In addition to financial investments and dedicated staffing, partnerships also require personal investments to build and maintain relationships between partners, and time investments to integrate new players into the partnership and to develop clear agreement as to the type of “work” the partnership is designed to do. The Friends of Pathways case study is a prime example of how caring for, investing in and maintaining a partnership can lead to robust, long-lasting outcomes that improve local landscapes and enhance local economies.

3.
Cultivate
Partnership
Mindsets
and
Behaviors
 At the Summit the attendees shared a wide variety of partnership techniques. A feature common to all of the successful partnerships was that they seemed to work most effectively when pursued under a distinct partnership mindset and behaviors. These mindsets and behaviors place interests over positions, diplomacy over conflict. The partnership mindset values the willingness to experiment and take risks, and key behaviors include a healthy dose of empathy, mutual respect, and simple goodwill. From what we learned in the case studies, developing a partnership mindset and practicing partnership behaviors takes time. Diplomacy requires not only focusing on your needs in a given setting, but taking the time to study and truly understand the needs of other stakeholders in that setting. To the extent that stakeholders have a clear sense of their own interests as well as the interests of the other stakeholders, they have a good chance of evolving a stakeholder relationship into a partnership relationship. Focusing on positions rather than interests is a trip down a rabbit hole that will eliminate the possibility of a successful partnership. The Colorado River case study illustrates how

6


partnerships can flourish when the partners focus not on positions, but on their respective interests and how those interests can be harmonized. The willingness to take risks, pursue experiments, and be comfortable in seeking forgiveness rather than permission are just as important to the partnership mindset as being diplomatic. Although some limited partnerships can occur without these traits, successful partnerships require an element of vision and purposeful design, neither of which can be secured without the willingness to experiment and the acceptance of risk. The Yosemite Facelift case study typifies this approach. The management of federal lands and waters are, of course, subject to federal laws and regulations. These laws and regulations impose a great deal of responsibility, both professional and legal, on federal land managers. These same laws and regulations also create rights and protections for citizens and private entities. What distinguished many of the case studies explored at the Summit was the brave willingness of both federal and private partners to understand and use laws and regulations as a platform that could support the work and vision of the partnership, rather than as a bunker to maintain the status quo and stubbornly protect their respective positions. Great partnerships are built when the parties say “Yes” before they say “No,” as the Snake River and King Range case studies illustrate. Lastly, the partnership mindset requires goodwill. Our case studies revealed that earnestly conveying a willingness to go a little farther than what is personally or professionally required, coupled with a recognition and respect of everyone’s personal and professional limits, went a long way towards building trust and cooperation. Sharing food, drink, and time outdoors are proven ways to build goodwill into partnerships.

4.
Never
Pass
Up
a
Good
Catalyst In our case studies catalysts for partnerships took many forms, from natural occurrences and scarcities, to personal relationships, and individual and community visions. All of these catalysts jump-started the process of building effective partnerships. A forest fire served as a catalyst to turn an existing partnership between the Forest Service and Colorado mountain bikers into a much more capable partnership at Buffalo Creek. Personal relationships as catalysts factored heavily in many of the case studies, but especially so in the Mount Rainier case study, where it developed for years via email and telephone across two states and hundreds of miles. Partnership catalysts run the spectrum from the personal and local to the national level. Indeed, whereas the SnowSchool case study was driven by the local recognition that kids in Boise had become disconnected from their abundant public lands (and that such disconnect was simply unacceptable), the partnership catalyst for the North Country Trail case study was actually an act of Congress. Although partnerships require structure and relationships to function, sometimes a singular or series of catalysts are responsible for truly bringing a partnership to life. Everyone involved in partnerships between federal land managers and the private sector should always be on the lookout for partnership catalysts.

7


RECOMMENDATIONS

1.
Encourage
Healthy
Risk
Taking
and
Give
Everyone
Space
to
Make
 Mistakes
 Successful partnerships require some level of healthy risk taking by each of the partners. The proverb “nothing ventured, nothing gained” is as good a justification as any for partners to invest time, resources, and personnel in partnerships that are not guaranteed to result in a worthwhile return. In terms of dealing with the risk of making mistakes and disrupting group norms, we think the Navy Rear Admiral “Amazing” Grace Hopper says it best, “It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission." We do not suggest that land managers and their partners actively seek opportunities to toe the line of what is allowed by federal statute and regulations. Rather, we recommend clear, unambiguous direction from agency leadership as to the value and necessity of experimenting with innovative partnership approaches at the field level. This direction must be accompanied with the express recognition that by putting a premium on innovation, some missteps are expected on the way to success.

2.
Include
the
Utilization
of
Partnerships
in
Agency
Goals
and
 Performance
Metrics
 Given the demonstrated potential of partnerships and the Agency’s commitment to them, the degree to which land managers and agencies use partnerships could be made a regular part of measuring their effectiveness and accomplishments. Adding partnerships to job descriptions, where appropriate, should encourage healthy risk taking and keep everyone on the lookout for potential partnership opportunities.

3.
Support
Laws
and
Regulations
that
are
Platforms
for
Partnerships
 Laws and regulations ought to be the platform on which successful partnerships are built. Partnerships flourish when all parties feel they have a seat at the table and (sometimes) a legal stake in the project. While many aspects of partnerships are, and ought to remain informal, there are ways federal laws, regulations, and agency policies can better create the space for partnerships. A first step towards instituting more supportive laws, regulations, and policies should be a Partnership Audit, where all the agencies (with input from their current partners) assess their statutes, regulations, and policies to see which can be tuned up to better support partnerships. In pursuing this audit, it should be recognized that robust partnerships will actually enhance the administration of laws and regulations. Indeed, to the extent that an agency cultivates a network of partners, it simultaneously primes the pump for subsequent meaningful public engagement on formal agency activities, such as revising a forest or resource management plan.


 
 
 


8


4.
Broadcast
Success
Stories
 We learned that different partners measure the success of partnerships in different currencies. One of the currencies the Agencies trade in is public support and awareness of success stories. The human powered recreation community, and the Outdoor Alliance, must do more to broadcast examples of successful Agency partnerships. More awareness of these exemplary case studies will bring light to the good work the Agencies are doing, and will snowball, as more land managers and their potential partners realize the power of partnerships and become more willing to take the risk of initiating them. Success can build on success, but only if the means and ends of successes are broadcast far and wide. Outdoor Alliance will publicize these Summit findings and success stories at the national, regional and local levels. We will also serve as a platform to feature a growing list of successes from across the nation.

5.
The
Human
Powered
Outdoor
Recreation
Community
Must
 Continue
to
Organize
 A key aspect of the human powered outdoor recreation community's ability to effectively partner with federal land management agencies is that it has a spectrum of organizational capabilities from the local to the national level. From the local leaders that know physical and social landscapes like the back of their hand, to major regional and national organizations that have a wealth of technical expertise and the ability to bring a broader policy perspective to bear, the human powered outdoor recreation community has the know-how to be effective partners with federal land managers. The better networked and more organized the community is, the greater our ability to share our expertise. Having built this organizational capacity and technical expertise, we will continue to develop consensus amongst the human powered community, in order to be better partners with federal land managers.

9


SUMMARIES OF THE 19 CASE STUDIES The Rebirth of the Cheoah River Robbinsville, NC

• •

Marisue Hilliard, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in North Carolina Kevin Colburn, National Stewardship Director, AW

Nine miles of the Cheoah River had been dewatered since 1928, leaving the native ecosystem, not to mention whitewater paddlers, high and dry. Federal relicensing provided the opportunity for AW and the Forest Service to work together to switch the river back on. After 7 years of negotiations, these partners, along with other interests, agreed on a flow regime that combined a steady amount of flow with periods of higher flow. While this new flow regime made only incremental changes, it made a huge difference for the ecosystem and for recreational opportunities. Rare and endangered species have returned, and thousands of boaters flock to the area, giving the local economy a much-needed boost. None of these multiple benefits would have been possible without the effort to demonstrate the economic value of recreation resources and, above all, the committed partnership between AW and Forest Service. Paths to Recreation and Economic Success in Redding Redding, CA • •

Francis Berg, Assistant Field Manager, Redding Field Office Bill Kuntz, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Redding Field Office

Trail projects can reinvigorate a community, and cooperation among a wide range of partners is what makes these sorts of projects possible. Nowhere is this shown more clearly than Redding, CA. Over the last 5 years, the BLM partnered with a diverse group of organizations and agencies, including local foundations and municipal governments, to develop more than 125 miles of non-motorized trails. Thanks to a long term vision, a culture of cooperation and the agreeable disposition of everyone involved, these trails now provide an urban-wildlands link and high quality recreation for the local community, along with economic benefits and a quality of life that draws people and businesses to the area. This project demonstrates that while process is sometimes important, people are always important; in their words, “You need tolerable personalities. Baked goods help.”

10


Winter-time Youth Engagement with SnowSchool Boise, ID • •

Edna Rey-Vizgirdas, Forest Botanist, Boise National Forest Kerry McClay, Director of Outdoor Recreation at Bogus Basin Mountain Recreation

Winter can be a tough time to get school kids outside, but a partnership between the Forest Service, and Winter Wildlands Alliance and Bogus Basin Mountain Recreation Area proves it can be possible. It all started with a pilot program at Bogus Basin on the Boise National Forest. From an initial season where 180 kids went on snowshoe and snow ecology trips, the program has grown immensely, adding more funding, staff and volunteers. Now the Bogus chapter of SnowSchool has introduced 6,300 students to winter outdoor recreation and the SnowSchool program has been replicated in 48 sites across the country. The success of the flagship site and the growth of the program since were only made possible by the commitment and enthusiasm of the land managers and their partners. They have worked together to make SnowSchool a success by growing the network of partners, opportunistically seeking funding from unexpected avenues, and sustaining volunteers for the long term. Building the North Country National Scenic Trail Lowell, MI • •

Andrea Ketchmark, Director of Trail Development, North Country Trail Association Jeff McCuster, Manager of the North Country National Scenic Trail

4,600 miles, 7 states, 10 National Forests, and more than 150 different public lands; the North Country National Scenic Trail certainly has its challenges. And it is only half way completed. Since 1980, a Congressionally-designated partnership between the North Country Trail Association and the Park Service has worked to leverage volunteers and funds in order overcome these challenges and complete the trail. So far, the partnership has made great progress. This exceptionally long-term, multi-faceted and legislatively-supported project is only possible with the cooperation of the NCTA and the Park Service, along with 30 chapter groups and other affiliate partners.

11


Effective Personal Partnership on Mt. Rainier Mt. Rainier, WA • •

Allen Sanderson, Research Scientist at University of Utah Mike Gauthier, Chief of Staff, Yosemite National Park

Brought together by an unlikely catalyst, a land manager and a concerned climber formed a partnership that has lead to significant improvements in Rainier National Park. While not involved in the incident, Mike Gauthier and Allen Sanderson were introduced to each other in the aftermath of a climbing accident on the mountain. This chance beginning sparked a conversation that ultimately led to the preservation and improvement of the historic Camp Muir. This partnership proved effective because each side could understand the other’s position—Allen understood Mike was a climber who happened to be a land manager, and Mike could identify with the climber’s perspective. Each knew the complexities the other faced in their jobs and while recreating on public lands. By capitalizing on a chance event, understanding each other’s point of view, and spending time together (often over beers), these two were able to make positive change in the Park, proving the importance of getting to know potential partners before a project even begins. Big Ideas Yield Big Rewards at Raystown Lake Raystown, PA • •

Dwight Beal, Raystown Lake Operations Manager, USACE Ryan Schutz, Rocky Mountain Field Director, IMBA

Raystown Lake had the potential to be a mountain bike destination, but it took a partnership between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Friends of Raystown Lake to turn this vision into a reality. With support from the Corps, the Friends of Raystown Lake, a volunteer organization founded just for this project, was able to raise funds and leverage volunteers to build the trails and other infrastructure around the lake. Together with other partners and with IMBA’s technical assistance and national legitimacy, the agency and the local group built 30 miles of trails. From the $800,000 initially invested, the project generated $2 million of local economic stimulus, in the first year alone. Raystown Lake has now filled a gap in mountain bike opportunities in the mid-Atlantic, and serves as a model for agency partnerships.

12


Clean-up and Cooperation with the Yosemite Facelift Yosemite, CA • •

Ken Yager, Yosemite Climbing Association Jesse McGahey, Climbing Ranger, Yosemite National Park

When the trash along the cliffs in Yosemite National Park got out of hand, climbers started the Yosemite Facelift project to do something about it. This grass-roots project would not have been able to overcome early challenges without persistent efforts to overcome administrative hurdles, as well as the trusting and respectful relationship climbers developed with the Park Service. Now, after 8 years, the Facelift attracts thousands of volunteers and over 80 other partners during the annual 5-day event. The effort now takes on large-scale restoration projects, along with the usual litter clean up work. The cooperation of the Park Service and the commitment of the climbing community have not only materially improved the Park, but also markedly improved relationships between all climbers and Park Service staff. Long-term Improvement on the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie Seattle, WA • •

Tom O’Keefe, Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director, AW Susan Rosebrough, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program

The Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River is a whitewater paddling run and fly fishing spot a mere 45 minutes from downtown Seattle. Until 2005, the area around this stretch of river was blighted and the recreation resources were underdeveloped. All this changed when the Park Service’s Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program partnered with AW to enhance opportunities to enjoy the river. By leveraging both funds and volunteer hours, river access improved, community engagement increased, and property values along the river went up. This project and its benefits were made possible by the Park Service’s willingness to partner with local stakeholders and the paddling community’s willingness to invest their time for the long-term improvement of the area.

13


Jackson Hole Trails Partnership Jackson, WY • •

Linda Merigliano, Recreation Wilderness Trails Program Manager, Bridger-Teton National Forest Tim Young, Adventure Design

Over the last 20 years, the Jackson Hole community has partnered with the Forest Service to create a world-class, on and off pavement trail system. This exceptional partnership recently completed a 28-mile, $1 million dollar singletrack and economic development project. This project not only connected more people to public lands and promoted a direct relationship with stewardship—it also generated $18 million dollars of economic benefits for the community. The impressive return on the time, energy and money invested in this partnership indicates the huge potential benefits from long-term, committed cooperation. Using Partnerships to Protect the Upper Colorado River Glennwood Springs, CO • • • •

Peter Fleming, Legal Council, Colorado River Water Conservancy Disctrict Rob Buirgy, Upper Colorado River Wild and Scenic Stakeholders Group Roy Smith, State Coordinator, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, BLM Nathan Fey, Director, Colorado River Stewardship Program, AW

The iconic Upper Colorado River is not only a world-class recreation destination, it is also the largest source of supplemental water for Denver and the Front Range cities. With so many overlapping interests, a new management plan and Wild and Scenic review presented a challenge. The solution: a locally driven, collaborative stakeholder group that included a diverse array of agencies and organizations. After 4 years of negotiations, this group was able to work together and agree on a plan that protected all of their interests. For large projects like this, broad partnerships that work to break down silos between organizations and government agencies have proven to be the most effective way to balance recreation and other goals.

14


Youth Corps and the Sandy Ridge Trail System Sandy, OR • •

Zach Jarett, Lead Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM Chris Bernhardt, Director of Consulting Services, IMBA

The innovative and internationally renown Sandy Ridge trail system bears witness to the success of the partnership between BLM and IMBA. These two partners, along with a network of others, not only built great mountain biking trails that meet some of the huge demand from Portland, they also to engaged local, at risk youth. Thanks to committed and dynamic land mangers and a trusting relationship with local youth corps groups, construction of the trails provided thousands of hours of employment and inspiration for thousands of young adults from the local area. Now a whole new generation of local youth have a connection with the land, and with mountain biking, that they never would have had otherwise. Moving from Conflict to Cooperation in the North Cascades North Cascades National Park, WA •

Roy Zipp, Environmental Protection Specialist, North Cascades National Park

When the development of a new sport climbing area in the North Cascades National Park caused resource concerns with the Park Service, a new partnership between AF and the Park Service allowed conflict to give way to cooperation. Both the climbers and the land managers worked on a compromise, where each side gave a little—and each side got a lot. The successful recognition of sport climbing made possible by this partnership paved the way for an even larger network of partners working to get local, gymclimbing kids outside through a national TeamWorks competition that encourages stewardship projects that instills a Leave No Trace ethic in youth, while also allowing them the opportunity to enjoy their local crags. This program laid the foundation for longterm relationships that not only fixed the original source of conflict but led to the additional benefit of introducing youth to the outdoors.

15


Effective Participation in Public Review on the White River National Forest White River National Forest, CO • •

Ben Dodge, Executive Director, 10th Mountain Hut Association Buck Sanchez, Deputy Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest

The Travel Management Plan revision process determines the management of entire National Forest road and trail systems. The successful 10-year TMP revision on the White River National Forest highlights the important roles for both the Forest Service and its partners. Fostering a effective, cooperative relationships during plan revisions like this require a healthy dose of patience and persistence, as well as empathy from both sides. With strong partnership mindsets, this planning process was able to incorporate more perspectives, create a more balanced plan, and increase the ease with which the plan was accepted. Stakeholder Engagement on Denali Denali National Park and Preserve, AK •

John Leonard, South District Ranger, Denali National Park and Preserve

A proposed increase to the Special Use Fee in Denali National Park put climbers and the Park Service at odds. But after a multiyear public engagement process, each side came to realize that both the agency and the climbers had the same interests in mind—the protection and enjoyment of public lands. This partnership overcame a contentious beginning to successfully institute a fee change that was acceptable to both parties. Out of the Ashes at Buffalo Creek Pine, CO • • •

Jason Bertolacchi, Marketing/Database Manager, IMBA Keith Clarke, Vice President, Colorado Mountain Bike Association Scott Dollus, Recreation Planner, South Platte Ranger District

In response to a fire, the local mountain bike community began volunteering by patrolling the burned area to assist the Forest Service. This small step precipitated a 15 year partnership with the Forest Service that ultimately lead to the creation of a mountain-bike specific trail system at Buffalo Creek. An unfortunate event, combined with a willingness to invest volunteer hours, sparked a long-term partnership that paid off for both the riding community and the land managers.

16


Cooperation in Indian Creek Indian Creek, UT • •

Mark Hesse, Rocky Mountain Field Institute Bob Leaver, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Monticello Field Office

Indian Creek presents a management challenge, with natural and cultural resources and world-renowned climbing spread over a mix public and private land. For 20 years, the Rocky Mountain Field Institute partnered with the BLM and AF to protect climbing access, educate the public, increase data collection, and improve the infrastructure for recreation. By acknowledging and leveraging the unique strength of every party in a broad network of partners, with the commitment of some core, sustaining members in the network, the RMFI and BLM were able to overcome the challenges, and maintain high quality recreation and a sustainable stewardship strategy for Indian Creek. Finding Paradise Royal King Range, CA • • •

Gary Pritchard-Peterson, Director of King Range National Conservation Area Tom Ward, IMBA Joey Klein Trail Specialist, IMBA

With a new wilderness bill closing several miles of trails to mountain bikers, the BLM and IMBA took the opportunity to propose trails in the adjacent King Range National Conservation Area. Thanks to trusting relationships amongst IMBA, BLM and a broad network of supporters and funders, this partnership was able to complete superior trails that demonstrate how mountain biking and conservation can go hand in hand. This partnership found fertile ground from the outset because the parties had sought out the type of people who can be the catalysis for partnership, and had invested in them before their roles in the project were definitively known. With this head start, the project took advantage of what could have been a negative situation to build a lasting partnership, as well as trails to protect both habitats and high quality recreation.

17


Creative Solutions: The Snake River Fund Jackson, WY •

David Cernicek, Wild and Scenic River Manager, BridgerTeton National Forest

After rising management costs necessitated an unpopular fee system on the Snake River, the Forest Service and the local community began looking for other options. Instead of the fee, they formed the Snake River Fund, a citizen group that partners directly with the agency. Over the course of this 14-year partnership, the Fund has provided $1 million in direct benefits and identified innovative solutions to issues on the Snake. In this case, open-mindedness and trusting relationships lead to a creative solution to a common problem. This partnership project is sustained not only by the improvements on the ground, but the good credit the success of this projects adds to the land management agency. Enhancing Public Access and Recreation in the Yampa River Basin Steamboat Springs, CO • •

Alan Gilbert, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior, Southwest and Rocky Mountain Ken Brenner, President, Friends of the Yampa

The Yampa River in North West Colorado is an icon of the West. For decades, the Yampa River Legacy Project, a voluntary, collaborative, incentive-based project to protect and enhance the Yampa basin, has worked to increase public access and enjoyment and sustain the regions historical character and economy. Despite a very diverse group of local communities, from ranchers to Steamboat progressives, this partnership project has been able to find common ground and complete a number of successful initiatives. Great Outdoors Colorado provided much of the funding for the Project, and due to its initial successes and promising future, it was identified as a major focal point for AGO. Given the unique phase of the Yampa River Legacy Project— enjoying some success already, but with great potential for the future—the Summit attendees used this case study as an exercise in applying the lessons learned from the previously explored case studies.

18


CONCLUSION The Summit was a watershed event for the Outdoor Alliance and the broader human powered outdoor recreation community. We discovered that although partnership success stories might appear to be isolated works of passion or genius, they happen all across the country and share distinct common threads. Following the Outdoor Alliance Best Partnership Practices will put federal land managers, the human powered outdoor recreation community and all of the other indispensable partners on better footing to make a go of their own partnership success stories now and into the future. The case studies we explored are really just a sampling of what has been happening for decades when Americans from different communities work together to take care of their outdoor places. We believe there is great potential for many, many more partnerships to start, thrive, and succeed to the benefit of all Americans and America’s Great Outdoors.

We
thank
REI
Inc.,
the
 Wyss
Foundation
and
the
 Turner
Foundation
for
 their
support
of
Outdoor
 Alliance
and
the
 Partnership
Summit.


19


APPENDIX – TABLE OF CONTENTS Attendee Registration List Agenda Meridian Summary of Day One (with attendee additions in red) Keynote Address Notes:

Jed Weingarten Will Shafroth Peter Metcalf Adam Cramer

18 Success Stories Each chapter includes the abstract and Meridian’s notes from the presentation and from the discussions that followed. 1. The Rebirth of the Cheoah River 2. Paths to Recreation and Economic Success in Redding 3. Winter-time Youth Engagement with SnowSchool 4. Building the North Country National Scenic Trail 5. Effective Personal Partnership on Mt. Rainier 6. Big Ideas Yield Big Rewards at Raystown Lake 7. Clean-up and Cooperation with the Yosemite Facelift 8. Long-term Improvement of the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie 9. Jackson Hole Trails Partnership 10. Using Partnerships to Protect the Upper Colorado River 11. Youth Corps and the Sandy Ridge Trail System 12. Moving from Conflict to Cooperation in the North Cascades

20


13. Effective Participation in Public Review on the White River National Forest 14. Stakeholder Engagement on Denali 15. Cooperation in Indian Creek 16. Finding Paradise Royal 17. Creative Solutions: The Snake River Fund 18. Out of the Ashes at Buffalo Creek Yampa River Basin Case Study Includes the abstract, a list of recommendations made by attendees, and the Meridian notes from the presentation. Federal Panel Discussion Contact Information

21


ATTENDEE REGISTRATION LIST Shannon Ames Attila Bality

Director, Government Relations

Brookfield Renewable Power

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Dwight Beall Jim Bedwell

Operations Manager Director of Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Resources Founder/President

National Park Service -- Rivers & Trails Program USACE USFS

Gus Bekker Francis Berg Chris Bernhardt Jason Bertolacci Wade Blackwood Scott Braden Ken Brenner Rachel Folk Jimbo Buickerood Rob Buirgy David Cernicek Aaron Clark Keith Clarke Heather Clish Kevin Colburn Michael Collins Chris Conroy Rich Cook Mary Coulombe Adam Cramer Marcia deChadenedes Jenn Dice Ben Dodge

Director of Consulting President

El Sendero Bureau of Land Management Redding IMBA Colorado Mountain Bike Association American Canoe Association

Executive Director Director of Conservation & Education President Public Lands Director Project Manager River Manager/Partnerships/Children's Forest Coordinator Recreation Program Director

Director of Conservation & Recreation Policy National Stewardship Director Vice President Public Affairs Board Member

Colorado Mountain Club Friends of the Yampa Southwest Conservation Corps San Juan Citizens Alliance Upper CO River Wild & Scenic Stakeholder Group Bridger-Teton National Forest Southern Rockies Conservation Alliance Colorado Mountain Bike Assn. Appalachian Mountain Club American Whitewater REI International Mountain Bicycling Association IMBA US Army Corps of Engineers

Development Director Chief, Natural Resources Management Policy Architect

Outdoor Alliance Bureau of Land Management

Government Affairs Director Executive Director

1

IMBA 10th Mountain Division Hut Association


Scott Dollus Sara Domek Sam Drevo Tim Dunn Peter Dykstra Chris Enlow Nissa Erickson Bryan Faehner Jeremy Fancher Robin Fehlau Nathan Fey Jamie Fields Bruce Fitch Peter Fleming Tom Flynn Katherine Fuller Mike Gauthier Julia Geisler Louis Geltman Alan J. Gilbert Glenn Glover Leigh Goldberg Martinique Grigg Ryan Hartwig Rem Hawes Jay Heeter Mark Hesse Marisue Hilliard Ned Hollenbach Susan Hollingsworth Dan Hudson Cate Huxtable Ed Jager Zach Jarrett

Recreation Planner Shoshone Wild Lands Director

USDA Forest Service Wyoming Wilderness Association

Chief, Natural Resources Mgt. Branch, Nashville District Regional Director Care and Community Manager District Representative

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Associate Director for Park Uses

National Parks Conservation Association IMBA

Policy Analyst Outdoor Recreation Planner Director, Colorado River Stewardship Program Outdoor Recreation Planner Executive Director General Counsel Grass-tops Advocacy Fellow Communications Specialist Chief of Staff Executive Director Senior Advisor to the Secretary Executive Director Access Director Executive Director Recreation Business Line Manager Monument Manager Campaigns Coordinator

The Wilderness Society KEEN Congressman Jared Polis

BLM American Whitewater New River Gorge National River / NPS Breckenridge Outdoor Center Colorado River District Outdoor Alliance IMBA Yosemite National Park Salt Lake Climbers Alliance Outdoor Alliance U.S. Department of the Interior Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance American Mountain Guides Association The Mountaineers US Army Corps of Engineers

Forest Supervisor

BLM Agua Fria National Monument Colorado Mountain Club Rocky Mountain Field Institute National Forests in North Carolina

Natural Resources Manager

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Writer and Regional Coordinator

American Whitewater

Trail Specialist

International Mountain Bicycling Association American Canoe Association Parks Canada Bureau of Land Management

Stewardship Coordinator Director, Visitor Experience Outdoor Recreation Planner

2


Jason Keith Patrick Kell Jay Kenney Andrea Ketchmark Kevin Kilcullen Joey Klein Jonathan Knight Ashley Korenblat Sarah Krueger Bill Kuntz Lyle Laverty Bob Leaver John Leonard Zachary Lesch-Huie Leslie Lovejoy Lisa Machnik Jerri Marr Bruce Matthews Forrest McCarthy Kerry McClay Jeff McCusker Jesse McGahey Austin McInerny Mark Menlove Linda Merigliano Peter Metcalf Hawk Metheny Greg Miller Dan Monaco Mary Monroe Bob Moore Tom O'Keefe Garry Oye

Senior Policy Advisor Executive Director

Director of Trail Development

The Access Fund Vermont Mountain Bike Association Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado North Country Trail Association U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Trail Specialist

International Mountain Bicycling Association Salt Lake Climbers Alliance

Public Lands Initiative, Director

IMBA

Conservation Manager Supervisory Recreation/Engineering Planner Board Member Outdoor Recreation Planner Party Planner Affiliate Director

The Mountaineers USDI-BLM

Director Sustainable Recreation Specialist Forest Supervisor Executive Director

Friends of the Routt Backcountry US Forest Service

Public Lands Director

Winter Wildlands Alliance

Education Director Tail Manager Yosemite NP Climbing Manger

Bogus Basin SnowSchool NPS North Country Trail National Park Service

Educational Program Director

National Interscholastic Cycling Association (NICA) Winter Wildlands Alliance USFS

American Hiking Society BLM Monticello Field Office Denali National Park and Preserve Access Fund

Forest Supervisor North Country Trail Association

Executive Director Recreation Wilderness Program Manager CEO New England Regional Director President Director President, 10th Mountain Division Hut Association Stewardship Director Chief of Wilderness Stewardship

3

Black Diamond Appalachian Trail Conservancy American Hiking Society Summit Fat Tire Society Trails 2000/Durango

American Whitewater National Park Service


Jill Ozarski RD Pascoe Ben Perdue Rob Perrin John Peterson Jack Placchi Phil Powers Mike Pritchard Gary PritchardPeterson Alan Ragins Bob Ratcliffe Amy Rathke Becky Reed Edna ReyVizgirdas Matt Rice Jason Robertson Brady Robinson Sherry Roche Susan Rosebrough David Rossi Carl Rountree Bob Rowen Joe Sambataro Buck Sanchez Allen Sanderson Paul Sanford Ryan Schutz Scott Segerstrom Will Shafroth Steve Sherwood Theresa

Natural Resources Policy Advisor Policy Director

Office of U.S. Senator Mark Udall

Trails and Travel Management Program Lead Deputy Forest Supervisor Recreation Planner Executive Director

King Range NCA Manager

Access Fund Friends of the Routt Backcountry BLM - Washington Office Forest Supervisor BLM - Colorado American Alpine Club Roaring Fork Mountain Bike Association Bureau of Land Management

Program Manager Deputy Assistant Director Environmental Stewardship Coordinator Executive Director Forest Botanist

National Park Service - RTCA Bureau of Land Management NOLS

Colorado Director Branch Chief, Social & Cultural

American Rivers BLM Colorado

Executive Director

Access Fund

NLCS Wilderness/Visual Resources Lead RTCA/Hydro Program Planner

BLM WY State Office

Board Member

Summit Fat Tire Society, Breckenridge Department of Interior - BLM

Assistant Director, National Landscape Conservation System VP - Advocacy Access Director

Rocky Mountain Field Institute Boise National Forest

National Park Service

Snowlands Network Access Fund

Deputy Forest Supervisor Reformed Activist

USFS White River NF Access Fund Invitee

Recreation Director Director of Field Programs Associate Director

The Wilderness Society IMBA Colorado Youth Corps Association

Counselor to the Secretary of Interior for America's Great Outdoors Recreation, Heritage, and Rocky Mountain Region, U.S. Wilderness Director Forest Service California Regional Coordinator American Whitewater

4


Simsiman Mark Singleton Roy E. Smith

Executive Director

American Whitewater BLM Colorado

Steve Smutko

Wild and Scenic River and Water Rights Lead Professor

Randi Swisher

President

Karen TaylorGoodrich

Superintendent

Mike Van Abel Joel Wagner Tom Ward Dana Watts Lana Weber Joel Webster

Executive Director Deputy CFO IMBA California Policy Director Executive Director Program Director Director, TRCP Center for Western Lands

Jed Weingarten David Weinstein Mark Wertheimer David White David Wiens Steve Winslow Betsy Winter Ken Yager Tim Young Roy Zipp

Ruckelshaus Institute for Environment & Natural Resources, University of Wyoming American Fly Fishing Trade Association Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, National Park Service IMBA Foundation for Youth Investment Leave No Trace Center Winter Wildlands Alliance Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Jed Weingarten Photography

Wyss Fellow

Outdoor Industry Association

Associate Director

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps

Chief, Natural Resources Kansas City District

USACE Ergon/Gunnison Trails Black Canyon National Park American Mountain Guides Association Yosemite Climbing Association Adventure Design National Park Service

District Ranger Executive Director President Principal Environmental Protection Specialist

5


AGENDA TUESDAY,
DECEMBER
6TH
 4:00
–
5:30pm
 Lobby
 
 5:30
–
6:30
 Room
ABCD
 
 6:30
–
7:30
 Room
ABCD


Registration
Open
 Join
us
at
the
American
Mountaineering
Center
 Welcome
Reception
 Refreshments
served
 Multimedia
Presentation
 Expedition
paddler
and
photographer
Jed
Weingarten
will
offer
slides
and
video
 from
his
time
in
China
and
explore
the
ever
changing
balance
between
 conservation
and
development.


WEDNESDAY,
DECEMBER
7TH
 7:30
–
8:00am
 Room
ABCD
 
 8:00
–
9:00
 Auditorium
 
 9:00
–
10:10
 Auditorium
 
 
 
 
 10:10
–
10:25
 
 10:25
–
11:50
 Room
AB
 Auditorium
 Room
CD
 
 12:00
–
1:00
 
 1:00
–
2:00
 Auditorium


Coffee
and
Pastries
Served
 Registration
open
 Opening
Session
 Summit
orientation
by
Outdoor
Alliance
Policy
Architect
Adam
Cramer
and
 address
from
Will
Shafroth,
Counselor
to
the
Secretary
of
Interior
for
America’s
 Great
Outdoors.

 First
Session
Plenary
Panel
–
The
Multiplier
Effect
 This
session
will
explore
partnerships
that
exhibit
the
“multiplier
effect,”
where
 human
powered
recreation
partnerships
are
leveraged
for
other
benefits. 1.
Ecological
Restoration:
Reviving
the
Cheoah
River,
NC
(AW,
USFS)
 2.
Economic
Benefits:
Multi‐use
trail
project
in
Redding,
CA
(BLM)
 3.
Youth
Engagement:
SnowSchool
program
for
kids
in
Boise,
ID
(WWA,
USFS) Break
 Concurrent
Breakout
Sessions 1.
Yosemite
Facelift
climber
clean‐up
project,
CA
(AF,
NPS).
Many
benefits
of
 whitewater
on
the
Middle
Fork
Snoqualmie,
WA
(AW,
USFS)

 2.
Economic
impact
of
Friends
of
Pathways
trails
project,
WY
(WWA,
USFS).
 Stakeholder
engagement
on
the
Colorado
River,
CO
(AW,
BLM)

 3.
Youth
building
and
riding
mountain
biking
trails
in
Sandy
Ridge,
OR
(IMBA,
 BLM).
Young
climbers
in
the
North
Cascades,
WA
(AF,
NPS)

 Lunch
Served
 Federal
Panel
Discussion
 Leaders
from
all
the
major
federal
land
management
agencies
will
discuss
their
 partnership
experiences.
Panelists
will
include:

Mary
Coulombe
(USACE),
Jim
 Bedwell
(USFS),
Carl
Rountree
(BLM),
Bob
Ratcliffe
(BLM),
Garry
Oye
(NPS),
Karen
 Taylor‐Goodrich
(NPS),
Kevin
Kilcullen
(FWS).


1


2:00
–
2:15
 2:15
–
3:25
 Auditorium



 
 

3:25
–
3:40
 
 3:40
–
5:05
 Room
AB

 Auditorium

 Room
CD

 
 5:15
–
7:00
 Museum


Break
 Second
Session
Plenary
Panel
–
Partnership
Techniques This
session
will
examine
specific
techniques
employed
by
successful
 partnerships:
hard”
techniques
driven
by
statute
or
agency
regulations,
“soft”
 techniques
that
build
effective
relationships,
and
visionary
techniques
used
to
 turn
an
innovative
project
into
reality.
 1.
Hard
Techniques:
Long
term
partnership
on
North
Country
Trail,
MI
(AHS,
NPS)
 2.
Soft
Techniques:
Climbing
community
engagement
at
Rainier
NP,
WA
(AF,
NPS)
 3.
Visionary
Techniques:
Innovative
trail
building
at
Raystown
Lake,
PA
(IMBA,
 USACE)
 Break
 Concurrent
Breakout
Sessions
 1.
Successful
Travel
Management
Planning
on
the
White
River
NF,
CO
(OA,
USFS).
 Building
consensus
in
Denali
NP,
AK
(
NPS)

 2.

Relationship
building
with
climbers
at
Indian
Creek,
UT
(AF,
BLM)
and
with
 mountain
bikers
at
King
Range,
CA
(IMBA,
BLM)

 3.
New
approach
to
funding
on
the
Snake
River,
WY
(AF,
USFS).
Creative
mountain
 bike
trails
at
Buffalo
Creek,
CO
(IMBA,
USFS)

 Reception
and
Keynote
Address Informal
happy
hour
and
hors
d’oeuvres.
Keynote
address
by
Black
Diamond
CEO
 Peter
Metcalf.



 THURSDAY,
DECEMBER
8TH
 7:30
–
8:30am
 Room
ABCD
 
 8:30
–
9:45
 Room
ABCD


9:45‐10:00
 10:00‐11:30
 Room
ABCD



 11:30‐12:00
 Room
ABCD


Coffee
and
Pastries
Served
 Copies
of
the
summary
report
available
for
review.
 Ground
Truth
Session This
session
will
build
on
the
previous
day’s
work
by
reviewing
the
core
elements
 from
the
partnership
stories
and
presentations
‐
with
an
eye
towards
collecting
 successful
management
practices
that
can
be
employed
into
the
future.
A
 facilitated
format
will
be
used
to
guide
participation.
 Break
 
 Case
Study
–
Yampa
River,
CO

 Using
the
outcomes
of
the
previous
session,
this
session
will
confront
a
real
world
 example
and
ask
–
what
would
you
do?
After
a
presentation
outlining
the
 collaborative
project
on
the
Yampa
River,
we
will
break
into
small
groups
and
 apply
what
we
have
learned
to
the
case
study
before
us.
Representatives
of
each
 
small
group
will
report
on
their
discussion.
 What
next? By
now,
we
have
amassed
a
wealth
of
information.
In
closing
remarks,
we
will
 describe
how
we
plan
to
distribute
these
lessons
and
recommend
how
we’ll
 transfer
our
knowledge
to
the
right
hands.





2


MERIDIAN HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF DAY ONE Additions from attendees are included in red. This document presents a high-level summary of the proceedings of the Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit on December 7, 2011 in Golden, Colorado. The agenda of the day involved storytelling presentations and group discussion about successful outdoor recreation partnerships forged through collaboration between private nonprofit groups and federal agencies. A total of 18 success stories were told in both plenary and breakout sessions. Throughout the day, presenters and participants (e.g., you!) reflected upon and identified key elements that lead to the successful partnerships. Thanks to you all for your active participation and insightful contributions! The balance of this document distills the key points of convergence and cross-cutting themes captured and synthesized by Meridian Institute note takers. It is not intended to be comprehensive or represent consensus outcomes. There are also additional raw notes with much more detail from which to draw for subsequent meeting products. In the short term, breakout facilitators will be reviewing the notes from their sessions to add nuance and detail as appropriate. As another next step, the Outdoor Alliance plans to generate a more polished and strategic document, or "recipe for partnership success" based on the ingredients outlined below. Possible features of this product include highlighted exemplary success stories as well as a matrix distinguishing between success elements and tools that apply across the board versus those that are more applicable to private or public partners, respectively.

The Case for Partnerships Partnerships are going to be an increasingly important component of successful land management and recreational projects. In a time of shrinking budgets, partnerships allow governments and private organizations to get more accomplished in spite of resource constraints. Partnerships will help land management agencies and partner organizations move away from an "old" paradigm where the government manages all aspects of public lands, and instead move towards a situation where the talents and resources of multiple organizations are brought to bear. This will help bring out the best solutions, where more interests are considered, silos are broken down, and better ideas are generated. By harmonizing interests, as opposed to having individual drivers of change, partnerships can begin to act as a catalyst for change on public lands, bringing about positive impacts such as: •

Explicit linkages between recreation and conservation;

Stewardship;

Economic benefits;

On-the-ground accomplishments;

Education;

1


A sense of responsibility in all users;

Advocacy (both hard advocacy which is interest passed and has legal implications and soft advocacy which is project based, focused on doing things together and building capacity.)

Better information on recreation activities and use patters

Enhanced user experiences

Better-informed users who have a strong outdoor ethic.

Core Elements of Success The core elements of success for any partnership include: •

Having a shared vision for what the partnership wants to accomplish and well thought out plans for how to get there;

Willingness to “let go” and let others engage and assume ownership (i.e., avoiding micro-management);

Committed leaders that are willing to put extra time and effort into developing a partnership;

Relationships that are built over time;

An expansive view of the interests involved and potential benefits (i.e., understanding and accounting for others’ needs and the kinds of benefits that can be derived through the partnership);

Determining early on the needs and capacities of all partners;

Sufficient staff and resources dedicated to the partnership to ensure success;

Patience and persistence;

Early and frequent communication;

Willingness to push or challenge the agencies on important issues and a willingness to be pushed by agencies (i.e., do not let a desire to nurture the relationship get in the way of forthrightness); and

Retaining adherence to core values.

Sharing and explaining interests, not positions.

2


Willingness to compromise.

Clear articulation and understanding of sideboards.

Ground rules for engagement, including how to interact with the media.

Work amongst diverse interests outside of Agency processes.

Empathy for others’ realities, agency missions, diverse ideas, etc.

Funding from a wide range of sources.

Co-sponsored events, which can be a great way to establish partnerships.

Buy-in from stakeholders.

Tools and Techniques There are a number of tools and techniques that can be used to enhance any partnership. Trust & Relationship Building Trust and relationships are key to successful partnerships and can be built by: •

Getting out of the office and meeting face to face;

Showing respect for other viewpoints;

Reaching out to others, including people you may not initially see eye to eye with;

Giving people with a stake access to the partnership;

Having fun (baked goods and malted beverages are always helpful);

Making sure there is clarity about roles and responsibilities within the partnership; and

Utilizing shared experiences – such as fieldtrips – to build camaraderie and learn together.

Early identification of issues and challenges.

Two-table briefing.

3


Partners need to get to offices and introduce new members to the current state of the project.

Acquiring and Leveraging Resources Any successful project will require some level of resources to be carried out. Partners can help acquire and leverage resources for a project by: •

Being assertive and not afraid to ask for funding;

Being creative, tenacious and persistent;

Finding partners who have capacity and expertise to help with fundraising (i.e., development corporation);

Demonstrating the financial and human health benefits that can result from a partnership, for example, by analyzing and documenting expected results;

Actively building constituencies to support the partnership;

Getting and using good information, science, facts, and technical expertise; and

Defining the roles and responsibilities of partners such as who is contributing what resources to the effort.

Youth Engagement Youth are critical to the long-term success of the outdoor recreation communities, government agencies, and any partnership developed for long-term use. Youth involvement can be a catalyst for change and can help sustain partnerships over the long-term. Specific measures to enhance youth engagement include: •

Taking advantage of teachers’ and students’ desire for outdoor educational opportunities by tailoring programs to curriculum, and creating volunteer and internship opportunities;

Making outdoor recreation opportunities more accessible to youth (i.e., graduated user fees);

Considering ways in which your partnership can engage and serve at-risk youth; and

Reaching out to young people in the increasingly diverse communities that will make up the future of America.

Make activities fun and engaging.

4


Implementation Successful implementation is a key ingredient for long-term success. Implementing successful partnerships in projects could be enhanced by: •

Getting out on the ground with fieldtrips, etc. to see methods and examples of new management techniques;

Ensuring that there are resources available for operations and maintenance for the foreseeable future;

Setting up a structure that prevents volunteer burnout (e.g., regional or national support for local volunteers);

Celebrating partners and relationships

Using partnerships to make recreational opportunities more accessible to a more diverse cross-section of people.

Ensuring joint monitoring of project success metrics

Creating adaptive management processes that build upon what is being learned during implementation.

Including stakeholders.

Challenges and Tools to Address Them Building strong partnerships is not without its challenges. Both agencies and private partners may face significant hurdles as they try to develop strong partnerships for human-powered outdoor recreation. Some of these challenges are broad and people and organizations need to be generally aware of them to avoid them. In other cases, specific actions may alleviate these challenges. Competition Among Partners – Partners may compete for limited resources that are available to complete a project, such as donor money, members, or volunteers. Control Tendency – Partner organizations may have a tendency to seek control. This may be control of a project, control of communications and branding, or control of specific aspects of a project. Government agencies specifically may be protective of or assert control over specific areas or issues (sometimes this is the result of their legal responsibilities) Understanding Agency Mandates – The public and potential partners may not always know and understand the conditions under which federal agencies operate, such as agency mandates, obligations, regulations, and policies, that will affect their role in any partnership. Educational materials and frank

5


conversations about these issues can help other partners develop understandings. Agency Coordination – Agencies may not always coordinate their actions on a specific topic or in a specific region. Outside partners may be able to help bring different agencies together to work on a specific topic. FACA – Setting up and managing federal advisory committees to advise federal agencies on specific issues is a cumbersome process that requires significant time, manpower, energy, and resources. Commitment over time – Funds and resources to operate and maintain a project need to be committed so that a project can last beyond the planning and development phase. Maintaining Continuity – There is a need to continue the process, preserve the story and maintain a knowledge base over time. This could happen by keeping a journal or notebook, archiving documents, or otherwise cataloging information. Quality vs. Quantity – As more partners and volunteers are engaged in a project, it may be difficult to maintain the quality of work and relationships that are necessary for a successful partnerships. Downsides to Success – Great success in a project can lead to increased visitors and tourists, which may lead to a strain on resources and impacts or unwanted changes in communities. Unengaged Agency Partners – In some cases agency staff and partners may be unengaged in an issue, or potential partners may not know who in an agency they can engage. In these cases, tools such as the Freedom of Information Act and other public access rules can help potential partners get information about an issue. They could then use that information to build a private coalition to start to show agencies the benefits of working on an issue. Contact a Congressperson – get political!

Remaining Questions and Issues The core elements of success, tools and techniques, and challenges presented are all key elements of building partnerships. However, as more people begin to forge partnerships for outdoor recreation across the country, there are remaining questions for discussion that may help build on the points identified in this Summit. •

How can these multiple, small-scale, disaggregated initiatives be "scaled up" or applied to multiple settings?

Is it possible to identify or articulate a model / checklist / replicable framework for partnerships that would be generally applicable in multiple settings? How would this model provide for the specific characteristics of local partner organizations, people, and agencies that make a project successful?

What would a tool for evaluating and documenting the successful components of a partnership (such as what happened, how partnerships were built, and what the benefits—recreational, ecologic, and economic—were) look like?

6


KEYNOTE ADDRESS NOTES

Jed
Weingarten


Jed
Weingarten
 From
the
slopes
of
sacred
Mt
Kailas
on
the
Tibetan
Plateau,
to
the
wild
and
remote
 rivers
of
Bhutan,
to
the
floe
edge
of
the
Canadian
Arctic,
Jed
is
devoted
to
capturing
 images
of
wildlife
and
culture
in
hard
to
reach
places.
Jed
has
spent
much
of
the
past
15
 years
exploring
and
shooting
the
rivers,
landscapes
and
people
of
the
Greater
Himalaya
 region.
Fluent
in
Mandarin
Chinese,
he
is
currently
working
on
a
project
with
Russ
 Mittermeier
of
Conservation
International
documenting
endangered
primates
of
China.
 Also
an
avid
whitewater
kayaker,
Jed
has
years
of
experience
shooting,
guiding
and
 paddling
on
class
V
rivers
around
the
world.
He
is
also
an
accomplished
underwater
 photographer,
specializing
in
coldwater
environs.
Jed
is
grateful
that
his
work
allows
him
 to
explore
rugged
landscapes
and
unique
cultures
while
pursuing
his
passions
for
 wildlife
and
adventure.

1


KEYNOTE ADDRESS NOTES

Will
Shafroth
 
 Will
Shafroth
serves
as
Counselor
to
the
Secretary
for
America’s
 Great
Outdoors
at
the
Department
of
the
Interior.


In
that
 capacity,
Shafroth
represents
the
Secretary
on
the
execution
of
 President
Obama’s
signature
conservation
and
recreation
 initiative.

He
led
the
department’s
efforts
in
organizing
the
 launch
of
AGO,
the
51
listening
sessions,
producing
the
report
to
 the
President
and
most
recently
the
Secretary’s
50
State
Report
 on
America’s
Great
Outdoors.
 
 Prior
to
this,
Shafroth
served
as
the
Acting
Assistant
Secretary
 and
Principal
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
for
Fish
and
Wildlife
 and
Parks
at
DOI.


In
that
capacity,
Shafroth
oversaw
the
 National
Park
Service
and
the
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and
 their
35,000
employees,
394
national
parks,
and
555
national
 wildlife
refuges.


 
 Before
coming
to
Interior,
Shafroth
served
as
founding
executive
director
of
both
the
Colorado
 Conservation
Trust
and
the
lottery‐funded
Great
Outdoors
Colorado
Trust
Fund.

Before
that,
he
 was
Assistant
Secretary
for
the
California
Resources
Agency
and
Western
Regional
Director
of
 the
American
Farmland
Trust.


 
 In
addition
to
these
positions,
Shafroth
has
served
on
the
boards
of
the
Land
Trust
Alliance
and
 the
Resources
Legacy
Fund
and
as
a
member
of
the
Marin
County,
CA
Planning
Commission.


 
 Shafroth
received
a
Master
of
Public
Administration
from
Harvard
University’s
John
F.
Kennedy
 School
of
Government
and
a
Bachelor
of
Arts
in
Political
Science
and
Environmental
Studies
 from
the
University
of
California
at
Santa
Barbara.
 
 Mr.
Shafroth,
a
4th
generation
Coloradan,
is
an
avid
outdoorsman
and
enjoys
biking,
hiking,
 fishing,
skiing,
camping,
and
canoeing.

He
is
married
and
has
three
children.



1


PERSONAL INTRODUCTION • I am a Colorado native. Lived in Boulder, grew up enjoying the outdoors of Summit County. Still an active with hiking and canoeing. • The America’s Great Outdoors Initiative has its roots right here in Colorado. Secretary Salazar founded the Great Outdoors Colorado program. • As Secretary of the Interior, Salazar has brought this vision to Washington AGO TIMELINE • Last year, President Obama launched the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative with a presidential memorandum directing the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a 21st century initiative on conservation and recreation. The goal was to reconnect Americans to the natural world. •

The America’s Great Outdoors Initiative turns the conventional wisdom about the federal government’s role in conservation on its head. Rather than dictate policies or conservation strategies from Washington, it supports grassroots, consensus-based initiatives.

LISTENING SESSIONS • Over the last year, we’ve heard from more than 100,000 citizens across America. The outcome of the conversation with ranchers, businessmen, land trusts, youth corps, and others is a series of recommendations and action items outlined in the AGO Report. This was presented to the President in February of this year. • I want to acknowledge the fantastic work the Outdoor Alliance did in developing homegrown AGO listening sessions and submitting the comments to us. • The outcome of this conversation with the American people was the AGO Report, which was presented in February 2011 to President Obama. It contains 100 recommendations and action items based on the suggestions of citizens. REPORT • The guiding philosophy of AGO is to make the federal government a better partner to efforts on the ground led by states, local communities, and nonprofits. • This philosophy manifests itself in a number of different ways, one of which is the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR). • Our youth education, engagement and employment efforts also rely heavily on working better with youth corps like SCA and the Corps Network. • The AGO Report listed four place-based priorities: Urban parks, rivers and other waters, landscape-scale conservation, and public lands. • 50 STATE REPORT • Guided by these overarching priorities, this spring and summer we returned to states and stakeholders to hear about specific AGO opportunities in each state.

2


In Wyoming, we heard from Governor Mead about how conservation easements are helping keep farms alive and wildlife corridors healthy.

In Arkansas, we heard from Governor Beebe about his vision of connecting the 750,000 people of Little Rock with almost 3,000 miles of recreational trails.

And here in Colorado we heard from Governor Hickenlooper about three priority projects that exemplify the main goals of America’s Great Outdoors: to establish or enhance great urban parks; to restore important river corridors; and to conserve rural, working landscapes.

Across the country, we have selected 101 projects from the priorities submitted by governors that the Department will work to advance. The full list includes:

24 projects to restore and provide recreational access to rivers and other waterways – such as establishing the Connecticut River as a National Blueway and expanding recreational opportunities at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers in the Twin Cities;

23 projects to construct new trails or improve recreational sites – such as completing gaps in the Ice Age Trail in Wisconsin and expanding the multi-use Shingle Creek Trail in Florida;

20 projects that will create and enhance urban parks – such as the Rocky Mountain Greenway.

13 projects that will restore and conserve America’s most significant landscapes – such as conserving Montana’s Crown of the Continent, establishing the Flint Hills of Kansas as a new easement-based conservation area, and conserving the native grasslands of North and South Dakota. Also the Yampa River Basin project, which involves NRCS and USFS.

The list also includes 11 initiatives requested by states to establish new national wildlife refuges, national park units and other federal designations; five projects that will assist states and communities to protect key open space; and five initiatives to educate young people and connect them to nature.

I am proud of these initiatives and look forward to working with the Governors to make them a reality.

3


ECONOMY • These projects will be part of the legacy of the President’s economic recovery efforts that will sustain economic activities for decades to come and spur tourism, recreation and high quality development in the surrounding areas.

According to a 2011 study by Southwick and Associates for NFWF, the combined value of outdoor recreation, nature conservation and historic preservation accounts for: o

8.4 million jobs

o

$100 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues

o

$1.06 trillion in total economic activity

Outdoor recreation sales (gear and trips combined) of $325 billion per year are greater than annual returns from pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing ($162 billion), legal services ($253 billion), and power generation and supply ($283 billion).

Overall, activities associated with Department of the Interior lands support $363 billion a year in economic activity and 2.2 million jobs for Americans in the United States.

Recreation at national parks, refuges, and other public lands alone led to nearly $55 billion in economic contribution and 440,000 jobs in 2009. One in twenty U.S. jobs are in the recreation economy – more than there are doctors, lawyers, or teachers.

Already this season, wintery blasts brought snow and cold to many parts of the country in October, helping boost outdoor product sales 7.0 percent to $735.3 million. Early season sales of outdoor apparel and hard goods were particularly strong near month’s-end, according to the OIA VantagePoint Monthly Trend Report for October. Year-to-date outdoor product sales were up 6.3 percent to $7.7 billion for the nine-month fiscal retail period running February through October.

Sales of outdoor products and the specialty retail channels that are primarily focused on sales of outdoor products fared better in October than the overall retail market.

President has requested full funding for LWCF in his 2012 budget – this is a strong statement of support in the current budgetary climate.

The need across America is far greater than the federal government can fund, however.

• PARTNERSHIPS

4


Real change starts from the ground up. AGO is only a catalyst for change -- an opportunity to expand the good work and partnerships you/we are already doing.

None of us can go it alone, the future of outdoor recreation in America lies in the success of public/private partnerships like the successes and models you are sharing and promoting here

Not about doing more with less - but combining resources and forces to do more together. Need to leverage public and private funds.

Outdoor Alliance is about human powered sports - each of your member driven organizations have what many interest organizations don't necessarily have you all have the power of people - to mobilize committed volunteers who can design/build/manage outdoor recreation opportunities and get things done on the ground - build trails, improve access, care for special places, engage youth -and have fun doing it!

ideas like IMBA's Ride Centers or NM Outdoors are just two of many examples of how we can work together to create more outdoor opportunities for millions to enjoy

This forum can help the public lands agencies work with partners to build capacities to better serve the American public and help conserve our public land heritage

CONCLUSION • AGO is only successful if there are strong partnerships •

Example: Longleaf Pine coalition has been working for more than a decade across the region and only recently has everyone bought in.

This is a good model for the Crown of the Continent and Dakota Grasslands, which are more nascent efforts.

With AGO, the federal government is committing to being a better partner. We are counting on you to be good partners as well, and hold us accountable.

This conference is a great opportunity to exchange ideas among influential people and organizations on a topic we all care deeply about. I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity.

5


KEYNOTE ADDRESS NOTES

Peter
Metcalf
 



 Peter Metcalf is the CEO/President of Black Diamond Equipment, a company he co-founded in 1989 in Ventura, California. and moved to Utah in 1991. Since his founding of Black Diamond, Peter has been named Small Business Person of the Year from Utah and Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year (2002, Utah), among other awards and recognition. In addition he has authored articles for Inc Magazine and been featured in an array of local and national business, trade and environmental press. Prior to BD’s founding, Peter worked in Marketing/Sales management at the Patagonia/Lost Arrow Corporation and prior to that he was a Colorado Outward Bound Instructor, an oil-field roughneck and a climbing guide/climbing bum (with hard technical first ascents to his credit from around the world and was one of the pioneer alpinists of Alaska in the 1970s and early 80s). He lives in Park City with his wife and three children. When not working Peter enjoys climbing, mountaineering, skiing, trail running and mountain biking and trying to make a difference.

1


Peter Metcalf, CEO / Lead Founder Outdoor Alliance Partne rship Summi t Keynote I’m honored to be addressing all of you at this, the first ever, Outdoor Alliance Partnership summit. Five years from now, I believe we will all look back at this summit as the true tipping point event in the ascendency and effectiveness of the Outdoor Alliance is an increasingly effective organization of which I’m very proud to be able to support. We should all acknowledge and applaud the inspired leadership of 3 individuals who made this happen – Adam Cramer, Jason Keith, and Mark Menlove. These men all have learned what John Gotti meant with his comment of “when a man assumes a position of leadership, he forfeits all right to mercy”. I have four fundamental & related topics to address with you this evening: First, to talk about where we came from and what were the mega forces that were the catalyst behind our creation. Secondly, we – all of us, need to celebrate the accomplishments of the Outdoor Alliance and the successes of its six membership groups over the past years. During that time the Outdoor Alliance’s mission has remained clear and unwavering. You’ve incorporated a collaborative approach to solving many of today’s pressing human powered recreation issues, and your numerous successes clearly demonstrate the power of partnerships and of bringing groups together. This event is a personification of this point and it is what we’ve learned from the outdoor sports we pursue and it is the narrative of great expeditions – partnerships… Shipton & Tillmen; Livingston & Stanley; Tasker & Boardmen; Hillary and Tenzing… Thirdly we also need to make sure we see this summit as the catalyst it is for creatively moving forward. To use a climbing metaphor, our gathering tonight is like a rest in the midst of a long, difficult lead. We can take solace in the fact that we’ve faced challenge after challenge and have only grown stronger, but we also need to turn our attention to the moves ahead. Our future lies in the upcoming trials, but we’ll face those issues with the benefit of the experience we’ve gained from the past and the insights gleaned here and shared here.

2


Finally, we’re here to celebrate the rich vitality of American’s Great Outdoors in the year 2011, and to acknowledge that this vibrancy was far from a given just four decades ago. Today, climbing, mountain biking, hiking, kayaking, canoeing and backcountry skiing are truly mainstream outdoor activities – and that’s something none of us who were climbers, skiers and backpackers in the early 70’s ever thought possible. I’v e en tit le d m y talk t his e ven in g : The Power of Change / The Power of Purpose. Change creates power in those who adapt to it and change brings opportunity for those who perceive it. As for purpose – there are few forces, not greed, nor money, which can be a match for “purpose”. So let’s start with a journey of sorts: To really understand both the recent evolution of human powered sports and the role the Outdoor Alliance has played in that evolution, you need to see the history of the active outdoor market from the 30,000-foot level. From here, we can look down and clearly see the broad sweep of western history. Throughout this history, two generic narratives appear over and over. You can change the dates, the people and cultures, but the narratives remain the same. The first theme is that of nomadic cultures, living in equilibrium with the land. This harmony continues until these people inevitably come into conflict with an encroaching exploitive and extractive culture. We all know how that narrative ends…. The second theme is that of civilizations suddenly disappearing because of a cataclysmic event - whether plague drought or geological event. The history of the human powered recreation community manifests its narrative in both of these historical paths. We’ll discuss how in a moment, but first, let’s return to 5,000 feet and the present tense. We’re in Golden, Colorado tonight and….. there’s no other way to put it… Golden is a place of incredible beauty and inspiration. The mountains and canyons that rise above us this evening forged who I am as a climber, skier and mountaineer. They may have done the same for you. From the bouldering at Morrison to backcountry skiing in the Indian Peaks, this place wasn’t simply about leading a route or working out the moves of a tricky crux. Rather, it was a total experience that permeated itself into every day of my life. Being in this place reminds me that pursuing our outdoor passions is more than a sport; it’s a way of life. I believe this way of life consists of 3 separate but equal elements. It starts with the activity of the sports we pursue, the athletic and physical demands, the

3


commitment and the adventure. There’s a simple joy to the sports we all practice. When life feels complicated, climbing, boating, Nordic skiing - finding a way when no easy way exists - helps simplify it. The second element of this life is the community and culture of our sports. In climbing it might be called the brotherhood of the rope. We commit to a partner for successes. We share epics, fear and the pure joy of being outside. We work together in collaboration not competition. These shared experiences link us together as a community. The third element of our outdoor lifestyle includes the sublime places where we ply our craft, lay down our sleeping bags and brew our morning coffee. You don’t need to believe in any religion to know something supreme has crafted these places, and they inspire us to fight for their access, preservation and stewardship. These spaces help us keep our lives in perspective and remind us of our humanity. These three integral elements are why outdoor pursuits have been such a compelling force in my life and probably a reason why they’ve had an impact on you as well. Boating, Backcountry skiing and Mountain biking combine the physical challenges I crave, the community I feel most at home with and the added benefit of immersing myself in stunning, soul searching scenery. These activities define me, they’re who I am as a person, and they have most likely done the same for many of you. But these sports, these passions for high places, for whitewater and climbin are extremely young. To use climbing as an example again, you only have to go back to 1957, when eighteen-year-old Yvon Chouinard started making pitons in his backyard to reach the beginning of modern American climbing. Yvon’s pitons had the benefit of repeated use, and soon climbers were exploring bigger walls with new confidence. The creation of Chouinard Equipment and the elevation in climbing standards that followed marks the beginning of the modern age of human powered recreation to me. A decade later, the first North Face store in Berkeley, California opened on a Friday night in 1968. Here was a store that catered specifically to the outdoor community – before that time, finding gear for your specific sport was difficult or nearly impossible. The band that played that evening included none other than Bob Weir and Jerry Garcia while the Oakland chapter of the Hells Angels provided security. At that time we were all counterculture. Living a life completely removed from everyday America.

4


Even as recently as 1975 when I climbed El Cap, we were all alone on the Nose. There weren’t lines at the base of crags, no bottlenecks to slow us down on popular routes. Camping in Camp 4 was simply a matter of laying out your sleeping bag, or if you wanted to stick around for a summer or two, a matter of pitching a tent. We lived in our own world, outside the mainstream. We were nomadic. We w ere the frin ge . Think of this – when I first visited the Gunks in the spring of 1970, I ran into the European, pre-war old guard of Hans Krauss and Fritze Wiesner as well as the current guard of Rich Goldstone, Dick Williams and Jim McCarthy – all on my first weekend there. I couldn’t believe it – here I was, not even 15, climbing next to my heroes. At that time, modern American climbing was so young that history was still tangible. Your heroes were the guys you were climbing next to during the day and illegally drinking beer with at night. It was alive. I’d been a kid raised in New York, vicariously living the adventures of Huck Finn and the Little Rascals out of books and TV. Suddenly, I had found my answer to Spanky and his gang. I realized climbing, the Gunks and The Tribe were it for me. My point with these stories is that our sports, whether we were kayaking, climbing or backcountry skiing, were counter culture, iconoclastic. We were a tiny group of users then, and we operated below the radar screen. Our small size allowed us to live in a perpetual stealth-like fashion as if our sport, our industry and our very way of life didn’t really exist. We stealthfully snuck around the country, climbing anything that caught our eyes. An d n o one ca re d. As climbers, skiers, boaters and backpackers in the 70’s and early 80’s, we essentially lived a nomadic existence. We camped, and I use that term in its broadest sense, wherever we needed in order to pursue our sport. We traveled with the tribe, according to the sun. And like Chief Joseph’s winter encampments, we found refuge in places like Kemmerer where we worked on the oilrigs or down the road in Boulder at Contemporary Comfort making furniture so we could get through the winter while squirreling away enough cash for the summer. We were living the James Dean existence – doing what we wanted, when we wanted. We were the embodiment of Eric Beck’s quote – “that at either end of the economic spectrum lay the leisure class” and there was no question as to what end we were living on. And it all worked fine, as long as our group mirrored reality. So let’s pause for a minute and return to our 30,000-foot view. Remember the narratives I mentioned earlier, the ones that appear repeatedly throughout western culture? Well this is the point in my story where those themes and the history of our human powered sports collide. In the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s, we

5


were the nomadic culture, living in equilibrium with the land. But a conflict was brewing – storm clouds we didn’t see at the time were forming on the horizon. Without realizing it, we were headed for our own cataclysmic event. By the late 1980’s there was nothing stealthy about climbing, boating, mountain biking or backcountry skiing. Our numbers had swollen - we weren’t simply a few tents scattered about Camp 4. To give you a sense of the growth during the 80’s, when I arrived at Chouinard Equipment in 1982 as it’s general manager, its annual sales were still under $1million having taken 25 years to get there. Between 1983 and 1989, I grew Chouinard Equipment 6-fold. Climbers, skiers and boaters were drawn to their sports in unheard of numbers. During this growth however, we all still held to the ideal that theirs was somehow a fringe activity. CLEARLY, our beliefs had become detached from reality. Then came 1989 and everything changed. This was the cataclysmic moment for human powered recreationalists. It was what I’ve labeled: T he Big Ban g . The Big Bang was the culmination of many factors, but three in particular stand out. To begin with, the revolution in Tort Law throughout the 1980’s completely upended our sheltered bubble. If modern outdoor sports had existed for 30 years as though it were inside the protection of an eggshell, Tort Law was the hammer. In legalese, the scope of tort liability expanded through the ‘80’s, which meant that tort law increasingly favored the plaintiffs. In other words, by 1989, if you happened to be a landowner – public or private – you suddenly realized you could be sued by any of the boaters or mountain bikers you’d allowed on your property. The threats to skiing, both in and out of bounds were profound as well. A fear of litigation swept through the country from private landowners to government land managers. To add to the worries of litigation, the late 80’s saw an unprecedented rise in the number of participants sport climbing, kayaking, mountain biking and backcountry skiing. Land managers had their hands full. The cumulative effects of tort reform and thousands of new active outdoor participants resulted in the closing, restricting or threatened shut down of many climbing, skiing, boating and riding areas in America. Also in1989, in the face of ½ a dozen impending lawsuits and now unsustainable insurance premiums, Chouinard Equipment declared bankruptcy. Here was an icon of American and global climbing, a company that started the modern big wall, free, and ice climbing revolutions, brought to its end by the popularity of the sport it had championed.

6


These were the 3 forces that created the Big Bang and changed the course of modern human powered sports forever. These three events collectively had the effect of not just a shot across the bow of our ship, but a full-on explosion. This was society’s way of forcing our sports to pass from adolescence to adulthood. The Big Bang represented our loss of innocence and our potential coming of age. The one thing that was clear in 1989 was that human powered recreationalists could no longer rely on their individualism and bohemian lifestyle to see them through. Either we made a transition from a band of guerillas to that of, if not statesmen, at least operatives who no longer worked outside the system. We needed to both accept and leverage the growth of our sport and the seemingly dynamic legal, cultural, social and attitudinal shift that had swept the country and to work together for our collective benefit. The Big Bang changed the sports I loved, and in some ways they would never be the same again. Some folks walked away from these events dispirited by the new circumstances. But others saw the situation as a challenge, a call to action. As a product of those early days when we were all a close-knit tribe, I felt that now, more than ever, we needed a champion to advocate on behalf of the community. And so in 1989 I led the creation of Black Diamond, the phoenix rising out of the bankrupt assets of Chouinard Equipment, for two primary purposes. The first was that of continuing the Diamond C’s tradition of making innovative, cuttingedge gear, but equally important was a commitment to make a difference on behalf of the outdoor community we all saw as an integral and defining part of ourselves. I believe Aldo Leopold summed up my feelings at that time when he wrote, "We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect" This is where our ethos as active outdoor participants is and must remain. As kayakers, mountaineers, backpackers and climbers, I believe we’re hard-wired to accept adversity and view it as a challenge, not an obstacle. We’re accustomed to dealing with bad weather, bad rock and avalanche danger and making the most of whatever situation confronts us. In a nutshell, we’re pragmatic dreamers who are resourceful, find opportunity in challenge and consider crisis an opportunity in drag. In other words, we don’t take “no” for an answer. We understand that the stars don’t always align; so we come back over and over until we’re successful. That’s the attitude and spirit that lifted today’s boaters, mountain bikers, paddlers and climbers from 1989’s brink. Collectively, we have gone from

7


outcasts to mainstream. Thirty years ago we purposely slipped through the cracks; today we’re actively working directly with land managers to craft our future. Today’s “Haydukes,” the radicals among us, now wear a sport jacket during the week and work the halls of state capitals, congress and federal agencies – working within the system to preserve the places of great importance to us all. When we lived as renegades, the extractive industries were the employers of the day. Now, in many places around the country, the outdoor industry and human powered sports are the primary source of jobs and economic prosperity. These are sustainable and clean entrepreneurial businesses that attract people from all over the world. They can’t be copied or made more cheaply overseas. They are unique to our sports and our American outdoors. With growing numbers of participants every day, the outdoor industry contributes over $730 billion to the American economy each year. These businesses are highly recession resistant and generate $88 billion in annual state and federal tax revenue. From Eureka, California to North Conway, New Hampshire, the active outdoor recreation economy supports 6.5 million Americans jobs that cover the gamut from crafting canoes to telemark lessons. However, the outdoor industry’s ability to create these economic benefits depends on the health of our public lands for its continued success. As human powered sports participants, access to well preserved landscapes including wilderness, wild lands and free-flowing waters is essential. And we need these places to remain in their natural undeveloped state. What seems obvious to us today – that the Outdoor Alliance is an absolute necessity – like so many great inventions that seem apparent after the fact was not obvious in the late 1980’s or even the 90’s. While the outdoor industry was making inroads in working with federal and state land mangers, we still struggled to achieve a junior seat at the table of other economic interests that develop land use policy nationally. Federal and state land managers, tasked with maintaining the legacy of lands, rivers, lakes and mountains of our amazing American outdoors, hadn’t made the connection that their best partner was those of us in the human powered recreation community An overlap between the goals of conservationists and recreationists existed, but it’s power hadn’t been realized. Fortunately, in 2003, with a small seed grant from REI, the six Outdoor Alliance member organizations coalesced around the concept that if they worked together to protect the places we all care about, they’d be more successful than if they all worked independently. By the fall of 2005, thanks to the hard work of

8


Mark Menlove, Adam Cramer and Mike Finley from the Turner Foundation, the Outdoor Alliance started the ball rolling to ensure the conservation and stewardship of our nation’s land and waters through the promotion of sustainable, human-powered recreation. Over the past six years, the six member groups of the Outdoor Alliance have worked successfully to achieve Federal and private partnerships in order to reconnect Americans with the American outdoors. The Outdoor Alliance’s members have turned the old adage to think globally and act locally on its head. These groups have thought on the local level and then turned those ideas into a national best-practices strategy that other groups can incorporate, like a tool kit for successful partnerships. There have been numerous success stories, but I’d like to highlight a few achievements that stand out to me. The American Hiking Society was instrumental in launching National Trails Day, a celebration in all 50 states that grew from the efforts of both public and private parties. These disparate entities joined with the American Hiking Society in their goal to ensure that hiking trails and natural places are cherished and reserved for us and for future generations. As one of the early practitioners of public and private efforts, the American Hiking Society worked with Congress, federal agencies and numerous recreation and conservation partners to ensure funding for trails, the preservation of natural areas and the protection of the hiking experience. The oldest member organization - by far - the American Canoe Association was founded in 1880 and has grown into the nation’s largest and most active nonprofit paddlesport organization. From inception, its stewardship and public policy program has been a critical component of the Association. Currently, the American Canoe Association plays a prominent role in supporting federal and local funding for access and recreation opportunities; they’ve worked toward the removal of the Embrey Dam with U.S. Senator John Warner and they joined 22 organizations and agencies calling for the creation of a Chesapeake Bay Treasured Landscape initiative. Successes for the Access Fund include their drive to provide advocacy for climbers in Washington D.C, where they were able to deal directly with the people who made the rules, not just stand by and react to the rules. The Access Fund also worked to strike agreements between climber’s access and the wishes of Native Americans at Devil’s Tower. Since then, the Access Fund has worked to protect cultural resources and still allow climbing at Indian Creek, Hueco Tanks, Red Rocks and Joshua Tree. The Access Fund also challenged the fixed anchor ban in wilderness areas and worked with rule makers to craft a framework that still guides federal land managers today.

9


The Winter Wildlands Alliance was created because backcountry and Nordic skiers in Idaho, Colorado and California realized they were all working on similar issues at the local level. They joined forces to create a national voice. The result of that merger is that the Winter Wildlands Alliance, in combination with local partners, have protected more than two million acres of national forest land for non-motorized winter activities and for their winter ecosystem values. Their work toward the implementation of the Wood River Recreation Plan is still considered the gold standard of federal/private/group partnership in regards to land management. Promoting responsible trail use and sustainable trail design for more than two decades, the International Mountain Bicycling Association formed in the face of widespread trail closures in California. They recently worked with the Bureau of Land Management and their field offices in Sandy, Oregon to create progressive trails that blend an outstanding mountain bike experience with meticulous attention to the protection of natural habitat. They also worked directly with the BLM to create a new mountain trail system in the King Range National Conservation Area. The new system is vastly superior to trails that had been closed due to wilderness designation and the collaboration proved to be a great opportunity to show how conservation and mountain biking go hand in hand. American Whitewater recently celebrated the removal of dams on the Elwha and White Salmon Rivers in Washington. These successes restore salmon habitat and increase the paddling enjoyment of two fine rivers. Founded in 1954 as a nationwide affiliation of conservation-oriented paddling clubs, American Whitewater has partnered with two local affiliate paddling clubs, the Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to improve water flow in the Cheoah River in North Carolina. This restoration mimics natural base and high flows to preserve vital ecological processes and significantly improve recreational enjoyment. In all, the Outdoor Alliance has worked – and here’s the key – collaboratively, toward the resolution of the most difficult issues surrounding our human powered recreation. They have established a long tradition of preserving public access to America’s Outdoors so we have trails to hike, waters to paddle, mountains to ski and crags to climb. Their work, as Robert Frost famously wrote, “…has made all the difference.” I think the best way to sum up the work of the Outdoor Alliance is with a favorite John Sawhill quote of mine. It goes like this:

10


“For in the end, our society will be defined not by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy.” Which brings us back to this evening and the many reasons we’ve come together here in Golden. The journey from renegade to THE advocacy group for the human powered recreation community has been – to go back to our climbing analogy - a long and at times trying lead. There have been multiple cruxes, loose rock, and unexpected storms along the way. But as we do when we’re in the middle of a lead at our limit, we must constantly fight. And we won’t always win. But we must continue to persevere to protect and restore public lands, provide stewardship of the places that inspire us and guarantee responsible access to public lands and water. John F. Kennedy said, “All this will not be finished in the first hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first thousand days, nor in the life of this administration, nor even perhaps in our personal lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.” Though we have celebrated the past and honored the organizations who have delivered us to this point, what needs to energize us now is not what’s behind us, but what is still to come. Let the leads of the future be our motivator. We have the Outdoor Alliance and those who worked for it’s creation and all of you who have been its supporters, to thank for a brighter future than we ever could have imagined. In closing let me share a final thought: The Outdoor Alliance was created in response to cataclysmic change and it has leveraged opportunity by recognizing that the only constant is change. As IBM’s great 1960’s CEO Thomas Watson Jr once said “You can and must change everything about a business to keep it relevant and effective, everything that is but it’s values, ethos, and purpose for being.” This explains the Outdoor Alliance’s history and illuminates the necessity and power of change and purpose in the Alliance’s future. I ask all of you here this evening to commit to playing an integral and supporting role in both that power of purpose and that power of change. I ask that you indentify yourselves as part of Margret Mead’s small group of citizens that can and will change the world. Our children will thank-you. And on behalf of myself, Thank you.

11


KEYNOTE ADDRESS NOTES

Adam
Cramer,
Policy
Architect,
Outdoor
Alliance
 Good morning and welcome to the outdoor alliance partnership summit. My name is Adam Cramer and I am the policy architect for outdoor alliance. Iʼm going to try to help with some orientation for all of you and give you a sense of what to expect over the next couple of days. Before that, however, I want to thank all of you for being here. We are, in a word, overwhelmed with the interest and enthusiasm in this summit and could not be happier to see you all here in golden. Some of you faced some pretty big obstacles in making it here today. Well, you made it and we are grateful for that. You all have so many different perspectives and experiences and everyone in this room has a story to tell. I'm excited to hear all of them. I have a story to tell too. Itʼs the backstory of how we all ended up right here about to go on this adventure together. About 5 years ago when OA was just getting started as a coalition we met with all the recreation leads at the different federal agencies. Seemed like a reasonable place to start - if anyone was going to take our coalition seriously, it would probably be those people. So we did the meetings and they were all pretty similar. At one point I asked "do you guys ever talk to each other?" and the answer I got was, "no, we don't." well, we need to change that. We changed that by having a little mini summit between the EDs and policy staff from all the OA groups meet with the recreation leads a blm, usfs, nps, USACE and fws. It was only a couple of hours, but we quadrupled our understanding of each other. We also realized that we were pretty much cut from the same cloth that we all had a passion and commitment to the outdoors, we had a great time. We also laid the groundwork for what has become one of OA's most important partnerships. Whenever we would talk about national issues, the conversation frequently

1


turned local where the OA people would talk about our local leaders and the Feds would talk about the field staff. We both agreed that those were the people that really knew up from down. KTG - gotta take this show on the road. A few years later Obama and AGO. Basic premise AGO is to reconnect Americans to the outdoors. How was all this going to happen? Partnerships. We realized almost instantly that this was or chance to get our local leaders together with federal agency Field staff because those are the people that really understand how partnerships work. Not the abstract MOU stuff were everyone agrees to agree and nothing happens, but the partnerships that change conditions on the ground for everyone始s benefit. Partnerships that accelerate timelines, that leverage local knowledge, that take a fraction of federal resources. Partnerships that reduce or effectively eliminate conflict and give all stakeholders equity in a good result. So what we decided to do was try to come up with our best partnership stories and host a summit that not only recognized and celebrated these successes, but also where attendees could work together to develop a deeper understanding of how successful partnerships work. And speaking of attendees, we thought that adding other thinkers into the mix would really enhance the outcome, so we are delighted to have people from the hunting and angling world, experts on youth engagement, friends from the environmental world and some our closest partners from the outdoor business world. We also have a decent sprinkling of beltway people. Our theory in all this is pretty simple. It is easier to copy and customize than to reinvent. We also think that successful partnerships probably have common elements or attributes, so of which are probably transferable to wholly different situations If we can catalogue a series of successful partnerships and get a better handle on what makes them tick, they will easier to replicate. Easier for all of us, and more importantly, easier for other local leaders and land managers across the country that are not here. It's not just about us and making our lives easier. This will help get more Americana reconnected to the outdoors, have better, more meaningful experiences, and ultimately, better stewards of our mountains, rivers and forests. Because if you really know a place you are more likely to take care of it.

2


So, here is how the next couple of days are going to work: •

Counselor Shafroth is going to take a deeper dive on ago.

Then we will have two rounds of plenary panel discussions and break out sessions.

Three stories per panel, then two stories per breakout. Breakouts sessions are a bit longer and be where all the stories are discussed and analyzed.

We hope that all of you bring your own stories and experiences to bear during the breakouts.

Break for lunch, listen to a panel of senior federal officials, then round two of the plenary panel and break out sessions

Head to the museum for a reception with some food and plenty of beer

A couple of things to note: Break out discussions will be moderated by OA and some OA partners. We hired a team of professional note-takers. Take notes, but also distill and synthesize overnight. You will have this synthesis first thing tomorrow morning. Ground truth the notes through an interactive exercise to make sure it all makes sense and to help flesh things out. We will then dive in and work in small groups to apply what we learn to what appears to be a huge partnership opportunity on the yampa river After that we talk about next steps and wrap things up by lunchtime. Some outcomes: •

We are all going to go home much smarter and better networked with peers from across the country

There will be written proceedings of what we heard and what we learned.

Whether we call them bmps or techniques that work, we will work to get these findings out far and wide so that they can be put to good use.

3


CHAPTER 1

The
Rebirth
of
the
Cheoah
River
 
 


Take
advantage
of
limited
regulatory
windows
of
opportunity
to
create
partnerships.


Assemble
a
broad
range
of
stakeholders
that
bring
a
variety
of
strengths
to
the
table
and
stay
open
to
 others’
interests.

 Establish
mutual
understanding
and
respect
for
natural
resource
protection
as
well
as
nature‐based
 outdoor
recreation.


Nine
miles
of
the
Cheoah
River
in
western
North
Carolina
had
been
“dewatered”
since
the
1928
 construction
of
the
Santeetlah
Dam.

The
relicensing
of
this
dam,
beginning
in
1998,
provided
the
 opportunity
to
explore
new
management
options.

The
Forest
Service
and
American
Whitewater
were
 stakeholders
in
the
Federal
relicensing
of
Santeetlah
and
other
related
dams.

This
seven‐year
process
 involved
well
over
100
meetings.


Interest
groups
entered
this
process
with
specific
goals
in
mind.
 American
Whitewater
sought
elevated
flows
to
provide
paddling
opportunities
and
habitat
restoration,
 the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
also
sought
consistent
base
flows
to
support
aquatic
life,
while
Tapoco,
 the
power
company
managing
the
dam,
sought
to
insure
a
consistent
source
of
power
generation.

A
 negotiation
process
yielded
an
innovative
flow
that
made
only
incremental
changes
but
went
a
long
ways
 towards
mimicking
a
natural
stream,
with
continuous
minimum
base
flows
and
15‐18
annual
high
water
 events
to
support
boating
and
river
habitat
restoration.
The
river
began
flowing
again
in
2005,
and
since
 that
time
over
13,000
boaters
have
descended
the
9
miles
of
class
IV
whitewater.

This
activity
provides
 high
quality
recreation
experiences
and
economic
support
to
Graham
County
and
the
City
of
Robbinsville,
 NC.

The
continued
ecological
recovery
of
the
river
has
also
allowed
for
the
reintroduction
of
rare
fish
and
 mussel
species.

 
 Marisue
Hilliard
‐
Forest
Supervisor,
National
Forests
in
North
Carolina

 Marisue
Hilliard,
Forest
Supervisor
for
the
1.2
million
acres
of
National
 Forests
in
North
Carolina,
is
a
32‐year
veteran
of
the
US
Forest
Service.

She
 is
a
graduate
of
the
University
of
Georgia
with
a
Bachelors
and
Master
 Degree
in
Forestry
and
Wildlife
Management.

She
has
held
a
number
of
 positions
in
the
South
including
District
Ranger
in
Alabama
and
Deputy
 Forest
Supervisor
in
Georgia.


 Kevin
Colburn
‐
National
Stewardship
 Director
of
American
Whitewater
 Kevin
has
been
an
avid
whitewater
boater
 for
over
15
years,
and
has
paddled
rivers
 and
creeks
in
almost
every
state
with
gradient.
Kevin
attended
the
 University
of
North
Carolina
at
Asheville
where
he
earned
an
 undergraduate
degree
in
environmental
studies
with
an
emphasis
on
field
 ecology.
Shortly
after
graduation
Kevin
headed
west
to
the
University
of
 Montana
to
get
a
masters
degree
in
environmental
studies
that
was
 focused
on
stream
restoration
and
ecology.
Kevin
became
AW’s
National
 Stewardship
Director
in
2005,
and
now
lives
in
Missoula,
MT.




1


Meridian
Notes

 Note‐taker
1


Cheoah
river
is
in
western
NC,
next
to
border
with
Tennessess.
Great
Smoky
Mountains
NP
–
this
area
of
 the
United
State
has
the
most
public
lands
east
of
the
Mississippi.

 Cheoah
river
–
focusing
on
9
miles
of
the
river.
That
is
where
the
river
leaves
the
reservoir
and
has
been
 dewatered
for
many
years.

 FERC
re‐licensing
–
reapply
for
licensing
every
50
years
–
4
reservoirs
in
NC
and
TN.
Cheoah
dewatered
in
 1928.

 Designed
a
suite
of
ecological
and
economic
studies
and
get
up
or
down
nod
from
FERC.

 Had
to
bring
back
ecological
and
recreational
value
with
minimal
amounts
of
water.
Moving
the
ball
 downfield
a
little
bit.
After
3‐4
years
of
negotiations
–
settled
on
a
new
flow
regime.
Developed
a
creative
 ecological
flow
regime
with
variable
base
flows
and
18
high
flows
that
mimic
rainstorms.

 With
minimal
water
–
recreated
natural
variability
of
the
flow
regime.
13,000
people
have
run
the
river
 since
2005.
9
miles
of
class
IV
whitewater.
Some
of
the
additional
elements
that
came
out
of
the
 agreement.
Some
was
money
–
money
was
used
to
leverage
additional
dollars
to
build
spectacular
 facilities.
Including
a
great
put‐in.


 Great
economic
development
for
the
rural
economy.

 Significantly
improve
habitat
for
2
endangered
species,
and
reintroduced
3
native
species
back
into
the
 ecosystem.
USFWS
and
USFS
has
been
instrumental
in
making
this
a
success.

 Land
exchange
for
~10,000
on
yellow
creek
–
between
NPS,
USFS,
NC,
and
TNC.
Huge
benefit
is
 conservation
of
10,000
acres
in
the
watershed.

 Integrated
river
restoration
–
bringing
these
ideas
into
play.
When
we
sat
down
to
restore
the
cheoah
 river
–
bring
back
natural
processes.
Natural
rivers
do
things
well.

 There
are
many
elements
when
there
are
100s
of
people
and
many
years
are
dedicated
to
negotiations.
 USFS
learned
that
they
had
to
dedicate
staff
to
this.
Could
not
be
handled
incidentally.

 Need
to
learn
how
to
compromise
in
order
to
be
successful.
USFS
learned
a
lot
being
at
the
table
with
 stakeholders.

 Hard
to
balance
recreation
with
other
values
if
recreation
has
no
weight.
It
needs
to
be
valued
by
the
 people
at
the
table.
USFS
said
that
recreation
was
a
part
of
the
mission,
and
they
supported
the
people
in
 the
room.

 Cannot
overestimate
value
of
local
paddlers.
They
knew
the
river
and
stuck
about
through
the
process.

 Peaking
flows
–
how
to
manage
the
peaking
flows
in
a
natural
and
beneficial
way.
USFS
and
FWS
were
 open
minded
and
interested
in
science
based
inquiry.

 If
there
is
not
a
legislative
foothold
for
recreation
–
nothing
goes
forward.

 Good
ideas
resonate
–
partnerships
and
collaborative
efforts
–
only
limited
by
intellect
 


2


Note‐taker
2
 
 Cheoah
River
Story
 ‐south
of
Great
Smoky
Mtns
NP;
Nantahalla
National
Forest
 ‐9
miles
of
river
below
dam
=
focus
 ‐Alcoa,
Tapoco
Project
–
FERC
relicensing;
began
in
1998

 ‐Santeetlah
Dam
Relicensing
 
 ‐stakeholder
input;
endangered
species
opps;
rafting
=

recreation
opp
 
 ‐framework
for
stakeholder
negotiation
and
collaboration;
intensive
process
 ‐Cheoah
River
–
dewatered
river;
dam
was
going
to
stay;
objective
was
to
do
as
much
as
possible
with
a
 very
limited
amount
of
water
 
 Positive
Outcomes

 ‐negotiation
led
to
a
new
flow
regime;
variable
base
flows
and
15
high
flows
(simulated
flooding)
per
year;
 created
whitewater
opportunities
;
creative
ecological
solution
 
 ‐simulated
natural
historical
flows
 
 ‐created
world
class
kayaking
and
rafting
opp;
more
than
13K
people
have
run
the
stretch

 ‐generated
$1.25
for
facilities
 
 ‐new
put
in
and
take
out
facilities;
partnership
with
Alcoa;
they
provide
$35K
per
year
for
 maintenance
 ‐economic
development
–
manage
permits
for
river
runners;
rafting
companies

 
 ‐major
benefit
for
the
local
economy;
Grand
Co.
‐
Robinsville,
NC
 ‐restoration
of
2
endangered
species;
mussels
and
vegetation
coming
back
 ‐re‐intro
of
native
species;
NC
DNR
and
USFWS
–
mussels
and
spotfin
chubb

 ‐land
conservation;
Yellow
Creek
land
exchange
being
negotiated;
tributary
to
Cheoah
 
 Summary
[SLIDES]
 ‐Integrated
river
restoration
–
bring
together
biological
and
recreation
 
 Elements
of
Success
 ‐opportunity
for
stakeholders
to
shape
long‐term
management
for
project
area
 ‐fed
agency
and
advocates
dedicated
staff
over
time
 ‐need
to
be
willing
to
compromise;
stakeholders
were
willing
to
reach
successful
agreement
 ‐find
ways
to
make
recreation
an
adequately
represented
value/interest;
federal
partners
can
be
an
ally
in
 these
negotiations

 ‐engagement
of
local
paddlers;
adding
energy
and
voice

 ‐willingness
of
fed
agencies
to
explore
scientific
assumptions;
USFS
and
USFWS
 ‐commitment
to
the
negotiation
process
–
critical
to
reaching
outcome
 ‐strong
legislation
that
gives
recreation
a
foothold
 ‐good
ideas
resonate
–
benefit
of
democracy;
only
limited
by
your
intellect

 
 **focus
on
multiple
benefits
in
collaborative
process;
integrated
solutions**
 


3


CHAPTER 2

Paths
to
Recreation
and
Economic
Success
in
Redding
 
 


Letting
people
in.



Letting
people
do.



Letting
go
means
trust.


One
fine
example
of
the
power
of
cooperation
and
contribution
is
the
expanding
network
of
recreational
 trails
in
and
near
Redding,
California.

The
U.S.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
Redding
Field
Office
has
a
 great
breadth
and
depth
of
volunteers
and
cooperators.
Those
volunteers
and
cooperators
have
made
 substantial
and
long
term
investments
to
improve
the
condition
of
natural
resources
on
public
lands
and
 the
opportunities
for
outdoor
recreation.
 The
foundation
for
eventual
success
was
based
on
a
shared
vision
and
a
spirit
of
cooperation.

The
BLM
 formalized
some
of
the
ideas
various
community
leaders
and
members
had
been
pursuing
within
their
 own
1993
Redding
Resource
Management
Plan.
Once
others
recognized
the
commitment
of
the
BLM,
 they
sought
ways
to
work
with
the
agency.
 Anytime
you
have
a
diverse
group
of
interested
participants,
you
have
an
inherent
risk
of
failure
due
to
 turf,
egos
and
differences
of
opinion.

In
this
case,
however,
the
culture
of
cooperation
and
the
agreeable
 disposition
of
the
participants
won
out,
and
the
BLM
and
its
partners
have
been
extraordinarily
 successful.
Over
the
last
5‐6
years,
they
have
developed
more
than
125
miles
of
excellent
non‐motorized
 trails
with
little
cost
to
the
taxpayer.
These
trails
were
built
with
the
cooperation
of
many
state
and
local
 agencies,
foundations,
and
volunteers.
They
provide
high
quality
recreation
experiences
for
the
locals
and
 boost
the
local
economy,
especially
for
bike
shops.
Thanks
to
this
trail
network,
people
and
businesses
are
 moving
to
Redding
to
enjoy
an
improved
quality
of
life.
 Francis
Berg
‐
Assistant
Field
Manager,
Redding
Field
Office
 Francis
Berg
has
served
as
the
Assistant
Field
Manager
for
the
Redding
Field
Office
of
the
U.S.
Bureau
of
 Land
Management
since
1991.

He
also
served
as
the
lead
in
the
development
of
the
Redding
Resource
 Management
Plan
which
has
been
the
foundation
for
the
expansion
of
BLM
involvement
in
recreation
 and
habitat
restoration
for
north‐central
California.

He
previously
served
as
an
archaeologist
for
the
BLM
 in
northwestern
California
and
on
the
California
Desert
Planning
staff.

He
is
a
Phi
Beta
Kappa
member
 and
honors
graduate
of
the
University
of
California
at
Riverside.

Francis
is
a
veteran
and
a
lifelong
 resident
of
California.

He
is
married
with
three
grown
daughters.

 Bill
Kuntz
‐
Outdoor
Recreation
Planner,
Redding
Field
Office
 Bill
Kuntz
has
served
as
Outdoor
Recreation
Planner
for
the
Redding
Field
Office
(RFO)
of
the
U.S.
Bureau
 of
Land
Management
since
1999.

He
has
been
involved
in
numerous
recreation
planning
and
 development
projects
within
the
5
northern
California
counties
in
which
RFO
manages
BLM
public
land.
 He
has
been
involved
in
recreation
development
and
habitat
restoration
for
the
Trinity
River,
National
 Wild
and
Scenic
River,
(northern
California).

He
began
his
career
as
a
firefighter
with
the
U.S.
Forest
 Service
and
has
worked
for
the
National
Park
Service
in
the
same
capacity.

He
is
a
graduate
of
the
 University
of
Montana,
Missoula
(Go
Grizz).

Bill
is
a
veteran
and
who
originally
migrated
from
North
 Dakota
to
northern
California
over
30
years
ago.
 


1


Meridian
Notes
 Note‐taker
1


IMBA
and
BLM
partnership
in
Redding,
CA
–
Benefits
of
multi‐use
trails.

 Widely
scattered
public
lands
in
area
in
NorCal
around
Redding.
Scattered
lands
had
strong
public
lands.
 Multi‐jurisdictional
landscape
management
 Good
support
from
local
foundation
–
Redding
Foundation,
Brant
Owen
–
important
to
connect
urban
 populations
through
rural
and
wild
lands.

 Trail
Construction
–
Costs
–
volunteer
dollars
and
hours
–
best
combination
of
skills
from
all
partners
 (planning
in
gov’t,
implementation
from
private
sector)
 Many
of
the
lands
were
mined
and
have
seen
disruption.

 Technical
changes
–
bridges
were
built
through
contributions.
Went
after
ARRA
successfully
and
garnered
 money
to
pave
some
of
the
larger
trails.
Constructed
trail
on
lower
picture
and
farther
left.

 All
agencies
worked
together
to
provide
different
aspects
of
trail
system
(i.e.
facilities
from
city,
trail
from
 foundation).
Landscapes
were
managed
through
cooperation
with
all
agencies.

 Not
wildlands
–but
very
pleasant
and
nice
overall
–
urban
fringe.

 Increase
in
viability
of
Chinook
salmon.
Social
experiment
–
many
people
coming
to
see
the
salmon.


 Build
trust
for
success.

 125
miles
of
high
quality
trails
built
in
the
last
5‐6
years,
continues
to
benefit
local
economy
and
improve
 quality
of
life
for
everyone.

 Process
is
sometimes
important,
people
are
always
important.
“you
need
tolerable
personalities,
baked
 goods
help
 
 Note‐taker
2
 
 ‐story
starts
20
years
ago
with
Resource
Management
Plan;
northern
central
CA
 ‐Sundial
Bridge
to
Shasta
Dam
–
key
site
in
the
region
 ‐Brent
Owen
–
key
partner

 ‐key
to
link
urban
populations
to
rural
areas
through
wildlands
 ‐trail
construction
costs
>
up
to
20K
per
mile
for
a
high‐quality
trail;
volunteers
are
good
at
planning;
 private
sector
better
at
implementing;
combo
of
volunteers
and
paid
workers
 ‐built
connector
trails
from
city
of
Redding
all
the
way
to
Shasta
Dam;
bike
trail
only
 
‐the
Iconic
=
marketing/promotional
event;
big
event
to
show
people
the
new
trails;
some
paved
and
 some
not
 ‐Photo
Ex.
Dirt
trail
by
Redding
Foundation;
water
fountain
by
Shasta
Co.;
signs
put
up
by
city;
each
 partner
contributed
something

 ‐nice
outdoor
experiences
very
close
to
the
town
 ‐Clear
Creek
–
BLM
has
acquired
much
private
land
to
expand
the
management
area;
City
has
donated
 land
to
BLM
too
 ‐salmon
have
begun
spawning
more
actively
 ‐much
more
public
interest
 ‐trying
to
offer
a
range
of
user
opportunities


2


‐connecting
public
lands
and
communities
>
connectivity
is
crucial
for
success
and
effectiveness

 ‐influencing
economic
development
–
more
bike
sales;
bike
shops/repairs;
etc.

 ‐improved
quality
of
life
 
 Elements
of
Success
 ‐trust
among
stakeholders
 ‐process
and
PEOPLE

 ‐let
them
in
 ‐let
them
do
 ‐Build
trust

 ‐tolerable
personalities;
bakes
goods
help
 ‐get
beyond
turf
battles

 


3


CHAPTER 3

Winter­time
Youth
Engagement
with
SnowSchool
 
 


A
unifying
goal
that
empowers
people
and
organizations
to
take
action.


Be
creative,
relentless,
and
open‐minded
in
seeking
funding
and
partnership
opportunities.



 Start
out
small
as
a
“pilot”
to
help
define
partner
roles/responsibilities
and
guide
program
 
 Coordinated
by
Winter
Wildlands
Alliance
(WWA),
SnowSchool
is
a
network
of
48
sites
across
the
country.

 Bogus
Basin,
a
non‐profit
ski
area
on
the
Boise
National
Forest,
is
the
national
flagship
SnowSchool
site.
 Our
presentation
describes
how
this
amazing
youth
winter
outdoor
education
program
started
and
 continues
to
grow
as
a
local
grassroots
effort.
 A
decade
ago,
the
Boise
NF
had
no
winter
ecology
outreach
programs;
the
Forest
had
limited
public
 outreach
staff
and
budgets
were
shrinking.

In
2003,
Forest
staff
started
bimonthly
“ski
and
snowshoe
 with
a
ranger”
programs
at
Bogus;
attendance
ranged
from
0
to
50
people.

By
2004,
with
key
staff
from
 the
Boise
NF
and
Bogus,
WWA
helped
recruit
volunteers
to
launch
Bogus’
first
SnowSchool
program.

The
 pilot
season
was
attended
by
180
kids,
with
no
dedicated
program
coordinator.

In
2005,
funding
from
a
 Forest
Service
“More
Kids
in
the
Woods”
grant
partially
funded
hiring
an
onsite
SnowSchool
coordinator.

 Since
its
inception,
6,300
4‐6th
grade
students
have
participated
in
Bogus
Basin’s
SnowSchool.
Through
the
 snowshoe
and
winter
ecology
trips,
students
get
outside
during
a
difficult
season
and
become
more
 engaged
in
the
outdoors.

Nearly
half
the
participants
represent
underserved
communities
(i.e.,
low‐ income,
minority,
immigrants,
and
refugees).

Its
success
is
due
to
the
commitment
of
the
many
partners
 involved
and
numerous
grants
have
helped
sustain
and
expand
the
program
into
summer
and
fall
months.

 Although
budgets
continue
to
shrink,
we
are
dedicated
to
providing
outdoor
education
for
kids
who
might
 otherwise
never
get
to
visit
public
lands
or
participate
in
winter
recreation.
 
 Edna
Rey‐Vizgirdas
‐
Forest
Botanist,
Boise
National
Forest
 Edna
Rey‐Vizgirdas
currently
serves
as
the
Forest
Botanist
for
the
Boise
National
Forest.

 One
of
the
founders
of
Bogus
Basin’s
SnowSchool,
Edna
helped
develop
the
Forest
 Service’s
new
“Junior
Snow
Ranger”
program.

For
the
past
two
decades,
she
has
 instructed
numerous
outdoor
education/natural
history
programs
including
winter
 ecology,
wilderness
survival,
and
native
plant
identification.

Edna
is
passionate
about
 getting
underserved
youth
engaged
in
the
outdoors
and
healthy
lifestyles.
 Kerry
McClay
‐
Director
of
Outdoor
Education
at
Bogus
Basin
 Mountain
Recreation
 Kerry
McClay
is
Director
of
Outdoor
Education
at
Bogus
Basin
 Mountain
Recreation
near
Boise
ID.

He
runs
the
Bogus
Basin
 SnowSchool
program
and
is
currently
pursuing
a
doctorate
degree
 in
educational
leadership
at
Boise
State
University.

He
is
passionate
 about
backpacking,
paddling,
climbing,
powder
and
primitive
skills.
 


1


Meridian
Notes
 Note‐taker
1


Youth
engagement
–
WWA,
Bogus
Basin,
USFS,
BLM
 A
trailmap
for
successful
partnerships
for
outdoor
education.

 Goal
–
create
and
outdoor
nature
education
program
serving
students
and
youth
in
the
greater
Boise
 area.
Idaho
is
the
wilderness
state,
but
fewer
children
are
playing
outside
–
politics
marginalize
place‐ based
education.

 Desire
to
get
people
outside
and
engaged
in
the
outdoors
–
reach
a
lot
of
kids,
plug
into
what
they
were
 doing
in
their
current
studies.

 Reach
out
specifically
to
under‐served
students.
REI
gave
grant
to
reach
out
to
title
I
schools.

 Instill
a
sense
of
ownership
of
the
place
and
process
in
the
participants
(students,
teachers,
volunteers).

 Contribute
to
next
generation
of
folks
interested
in
attending
a
conference
such
as
this.
Increase
in
 participation
every
year.
–
serving
over
2000
students
per
year.


 Could
not
have
accomplished
this
without
partnerships.

 Bogus
basin
was
happy
to
help
–
if
USFS
would
be
the
ones
to
run
the
program.
Boise
NF
–
snowshoe
 nature
walk
programs
from
2003
to
present.

 Winter
Wildlands
stepped
in
and
talked
about
creating
a
snow
schools
site
at
Bogus.
Wrote
a
grant
for
 More
Kids
in
the
Woods
–
hired
first
and
only
SnowSchool
coordinator.

 World
Special
Olympics
Games
funding
–
got
a
yurt
on
the
Nordic
trails
–
involve
people
attending
the
 games
in
outdoor
education.

 2010—Educational
Materials
money
left
at
end
of
year
 Be
relentless
and
open‐minded
when
seeking
funding
and
partnerships.

 Q&A
for
Presenters
 Q:
It
seems
that
these
partnerships
hinge
on
finding
one
or
a
few
key
people
in
an
agency
–
for
how
to
 identify
and
engender
relationships
with
key
people.

 A:
Spending
time
with
people
is
key
–
going
to
them
and
finding
key
people

 Nice
to
spend
some
fun
play
time
outdoors
with
partners.
Skiing
with
Bogus
and
WWA
folks
–
cement
 relationships
that
we
do
enjoy
these
types
of
things
 
 Note‐taker
2
 
 ‐Winter
Wildlands
partnership
with
REI;
Keen
footwear;
Atlas
and
MSR
snowshoes;
Brook
Range
science
 tools;
program
support
and
financial
support
 
 KERRY
AND
EDNA
 ‐Bogus
Basin
is
a
501c3
non‐profit;
Natl
Recreation
Area
 ‐Goal:


2


‐create
an
outdoor
education
program
to
serve
youth
in
the
Boise
area
 ‐Idaho
is
known
as
the
wildnerness
state
but
kids
were
not
getting
outside
 ‐politics
of
majority
marginalize
place‐based
education
in
ID
 ‐Vision
–
winter
education
program;
get
kids
outside
and
excited
about
the
natural
world;
engage
their
 th senses;
promote
active
lifestyles;
compliment
classroom
science
curriculum
(4‐6 
grade);
reach
out
and
 involve
underpriviliged
students;
connect
students
with
good
role
models
and
pass
on
outdoor
recreation
 ethic;
instill
a
sense
of
place
and
community
among
students
and
local
volunteers;
help
establish
future
 generation
of
outdoor
enthusiasts
 ‐consistent
expansion
annually
since
2005
–
now
3
season
program
 
 EDNA
 ‐Boise
NF
is
one
of
largest
NF
in
the
nation;
200K
people
in
Boise
area;
about
10
years
there
were
no
 outreach
programs
 ‐NF
staff
started
snowshoe
walk
programs
in
2003
 ‐Edna
engaged
NF
staff
to
do
some
programs
and
engage
community
 ‐in
2005
Winter
Wildlands
proposed
a
snowschool
at
Bogus
Basin;
2005
hired
snowschool
coordinator
 using
grant
$
 ‐2008
–
World
Special
Olympics
games
funding
 ‐Bogus
Basin
is
only
ski
area
in
Boise
NF
 ‐funded
a
yurt
built
along
snow
trails;
front
country
yurt;
rentable
 ‐interactive
display
in
school
building

 ‐2010
–
educational
materials
for
snowschool

 ‐2012
–
junior
snow
ranger
scholarships
for
200
title
1
kids
 
 ELEMENTS
OF
SUCCESS
 ‐be
relentless
and
open‐minded
when
seeking
funding
and
partnerships;
be
opportunistic

 ‐diverse
partners
–
federal,
state
and
local
govt;
non‐profits;
corporations
like
REI
and
North
Face;
more
 than
200
community
volunteers
 
 Multiplier
Effect
 ‐
Americorps
postion/placement
at
Bogus
Basin
in
2009
 ‐City
of
Boise
 ‐Watershed
Education
Center
 ‐Foothills
Learning
Center

 ‐they
approached
Bogus
Basin
about
delivering
ed
programs
at
Snowschool;
big
draw
for
teachers
 ‐working
toward
a
National
Snowschool
Summit
 ‐partner
with
Boise
St.
–
envr
studies
internship;
geoscience
grant;
service
learning

 ‐create
a
unifying
goal
that
empowers
people
and
organizations
to
take
action
in
a
variety
of
ways
 
 QUESTIONS
 Q‐how
do
you
build
those
relationships
once
you
find
partners
in
agency

 ‐face
time
is
key;
go
beyond
email
and
meet
with
people
in
person

 ‐give
presentations;
get
out
into
community
and
local
clubs
>
creates
momentum

 ‐spend
fun
time/
play
time
–
builds
bonds
among
partners

 Q‐insights
from
other
stories
panelists
heard?
 ‐connecting
urban/towns
to
rural/natural
areas;
way
to
expand
local
communities
and
facilitate
 connections
to
public
lands
without
needing
to
drive
;
connectivity

 ‐let
go
of
personal
expectations
and
allow
processes
to
unfold
organically;
try
not
to
be
too
controlling
 


3


CHAPTER 4

Building
the
North
Country
National
Scenic
Trail
 
 


Shared
vision



Clearly
define
roles
and
responsibilities,
using
different
agreements
to
make
roles
clear.




 Empowering
volunteers
and
partners
 
 The
North
Country
Trail
is
America’s
longest
National
Scenic
Trail,
stretching
4,600
miles
from
New
York
to
 North
Dakota,
linking
7
states,
10
National
Forests
and
more
than
150
different
public
lands.
Currently,
a
 little
over
half
of
the
trail
is
completed.
It
may
be
one
trail,
but
there
are
thousands
of
owners.
Although
 officially
administered
by
the
National
Park
Service,
each
land
management
agency
has
direct
authority
 over
their
sections
and
most
of
the
sections
left
to
build
are
owned
by
private
landowners.

 The
North
Country
Trail
Association
has
30
chapters
and
a
handful
of
other
affiliate
partners
that
take
the
 charge
in
building
and
maintaining
the
trail
on
the
ground.
In
one
section
of
the
trail
in
Pennsylvania,
for
 example,
a
2.5
mile
stretch
of
trail
includes
12
landowners,
requiring
years
of
work
and
pooled
funding
 from
other
conservation
partners.
Using
the
Congressional
legislation
that
designated
the
trail
in
1980
 and
specified
that
the
NPS
was
to
promote
volunteer
efforts
and
partnerships
to
the
maximum
extent,
 we’ve
used
tools
like
cooperative
agreements
and
MOUs
to
build
a
shared
vision,
clearly
define
our
path
 to
get
there
and
empower
our
volunteers.
By
leveraging
the
volunteers,
NCTA
matches
every
Federal
 dollar
with
$4.28
of
their
own.
Using
cooperation
and
like
this,
the
NCTA
will
turn
the
vision
of
the
North
 Country
National
Scenic
Trail
into
a
reality.

 
 Andrea
Ketchmark
‐
Director
of
Trail
Development
 As
Director
of
Trail
Development,
Andrea
supports
the
North
Country
Trail
community
by
providing
 guidance
to
more
than
30
chapters
and
hundreds
of
volunteers.

This
position
hinges
on
building
 successful
partnerships
through
7
states
in
order
to
build
our
capacity
to
construct,
maintain
and
protect
 our
nation’s
longest
National
Scenic
Trail.

Andrea
has
a
degree
in
Natural
Resources
Recreation
and
 Tourism
from
Colorado
State
University,
has
served
as
Volunteer
Programs
Manager
for
the
American
 Hiking
Society
and
is
happy
to
translate
her
passion
for
trails
into
a
committed
stewardship
of
our
public
 lands.

 Jeff
McCuster
‐
Manager
of
the
 North
Country
National
Scenic
 Trail
 Over
my
career,
I’ve
worked
for
 the
NPS
twice,
beginning
in
 Michigan
on
the
North
Country
 Trail
last
July
and
earlier
in
 external
NPS
programs
in
 California,
Nevada,
Hawaii
and
 the
Pacific
Islands,

I’ve
also
 worked
twice
for
the
BLM,
in
both
 Nevada
and
for
the
Eastern
States
 office
in
Virginia,
the
Peace
Corps
 as
a
volunteer
in
Morocco
and
 Associate
Director
in
Mongolia,
 and
for
the
United
Nations
doing
 park
planning
in
Mongolia.


1


Meridian
Notes
 Note‐taker
1


4600
miles
long.
Congress
established
it.
Have
not
got
all
of
the
trail
down
yet,
but
still
working
on
it.

 NCT
established
in
1980.
Over
the
years
as
new
trail
proposals
came
forward,
congress
amended
the
act.
 Congress
gave
the
administering
agencies
(NPS,
BLM)
the
authority
and
then
the
mandate
to
work
with
 partners
to
get
the
trail
built.
Sec.
Salazar
was
told
to
cooperate
with
partners.

 One
trail
–
thousands
of
owners.
Challenge
in
working
with
all
of
the
owners
to
get
the
trail
done.
A
little
 over
half
of
the
trail
has
been
completed.
The
vast
majority
of
the
trail
that
is
left
is
owned
by
private
 landowners.

 NPS
has
authority
to
acquire
land
for
the
trail
since
2009
amendment
to
trail
system
act.

 Headquarters
for
trail
is
in
western
Michigan
(Lowell).
Park
service
and
trail
association
located
in
the
 same
location.

 Come
to
rely
heavily
on
North
Country
Trail
Association
to
help
manage
the
length
of
the
trail.

 The
trail
runs
through
more
than
150
different
land
management
units
and
jurisdictions.

 NCTA
–
small
staff,
so
get
work
done
through
chapters.
Work
through
fingerlakes
in
Western
NY,
etc.
Co‐ exists
with
different
organizations.

 Chapters
and
organizations
are
doing
partnerships
on
the
ground.
Identified
key
things
needed
to
do
this
 properly.

 1.

Shared
vision
–
need
to
know
what
we
want
the
NCT
to
look
like
and
how
we
want
this
to
move
 forward.



2.

Clearly
defining
roles
and
responsibilities
–
really
set
out
in
agreements
what
each
of
the
 organizations
is
going
to
do.
Assign
roles
and
take
responsibility.



NCTA
leverages
federal
dollars
that
NPS
brings
in
with
volunteer
hours
and
with
donations
and
small
 other
sources
of
revenues.

 Tools
for
success:
federal
legislation,
legal
rights
of
way,
cooperation,
planning
processes.

 Planning
process‐
get
the
NCTA
into
state,
regional,
and
local
plans
 There
is
still
more
than
half
of
the
trail
that
needs
to
be
built.

 Opportunities
to
overlay
our
work
with
other
organizations
with
similar
missions
on
the
same
land
to
get
 support
for
stretches
of
the
trail.

 Aging
volunteer
base
across
the
chapters.
Shift
in
work
from
building
trail
to
going
to
meetings,
and
doing
 real
estate
deals.

 What
uses
to
allow
on
the
trail
–
shifting
attitudes
toward
uses
on
the
trail.
 


2


Note‐taker
2
 
 ‐trail
is
4600
miles
long;
not
all
on
the
ground
yet;
created
by
Congress
as
part
of
National
Trail
System
 Act;
original
act
1968;
North
Country
Trail
1980
 ‐hard
technique
–
Congress
amended
the
Act
to
create
this
trail
 
 ‐Congress
gave
NPS
a
directive
and
eventually
a
mandate
to
partner
with
other
orgs;
told
to

 share
funding
and
facilities;
develop
volunteer
programs,
etc.
to
get
the
trail
on
the
ground
 ‐have
one
trail
with
1000s
of
owners
in
this
case
 ‐about
half
the
trail
is
built
so
far
 
 ‐most
of
the
trail
is
on
public
land
so
far;
that
is
the
easy
part
 
 ‐what’s
left
is
mostly
on
private
land;
we’ve
been
given
authority
to
buy
land
for
the

 trail,
but
the
funds
don’t
exist

 ‐NPS
manager
and
the;
NC
Trail
Association
executive
are
both
located
in
the
same
town;
Lowell,
 MI;
about
halfway
pt
of
the
trail
 
 ‐huge
challenge
to
build
this
trail;
so
many
jurisdictions
to
cover
 ‐NCTA
has
30
chapters;
many
affiliate
organizations
>
it
is
through
them
that
NCTA
gets
most
of
its
work
 done

 ‐how
to
manage
–
hard
techniques
>
elements
of
success
 1)
shared
vision
among
partners;
recognize
as
key
but
is
not
always
the
case
 2)clearly
defining
roles
and
responsibilities;
using
different
agreements
to
make
roles
clear;
NPS,
NCTA,
 chapters,
other
partners
>
only
way
to
convert
the
vision
into
reality;
get
into
details
 3)leverage
federal
funding;
volunteers,
cost
sharing;
NCTA
is
able
to
provide
much
benefit
for
federal
 dollars
 4)federal
legislation
>
mandate
 5)legal
rights
of
way;
easements
and
other
landowner
agreements
 6)cooperation;
MOUs
with
agencies
and
other
nonprofits
–
accountability
mechanism
 7)planning
processes:
insuring
the
NCTA
is
included
in
state,
regional
and
local
planning
processes
 
 ‐Butler,
PA
section
example
–
12
landowners
between
state
parks;
2.5
mile
segment;
compiling
funds
 through
working
with
other
conservation
partners
to
raise
funds
to
buy
up
the
corridor;
starting
to
work
 with
landowners
to
acquire
or
create
easements;
goal
is
to
turn
the
trail
over
management
of
state
parks

 ‐will
take
at
least
3
years
 
 ‐challenge
–
aging
volunteer
base;
need
more
than
trail
building;
need
people
to
go
to
meetings,
 negotiate
land
deals,
etc.

 ‐challenge
–
different
states
are
opening
the
trail
to
different
uses
even
though
it’s
supposed
to
be
 footpath
only;
there
may
be
opps
for
partnerships
there
 


3


CHAPTER 5

Effective
Personal
Partnership
on
Mt.
Rainier
 
 


With
any
management,
there
often
can
be
a
disconnect
between
the
users
and
the
managers.
It
is
 essential
to
have
people
in
land
management
positions
that
are
climbers,
bikers,
boaters,
etc.
because
 they
understand
what
it
is
like
to
walk
in
the
shoes
of
the
user
group.
 There
must
be
a
two
way
dialogue
between
land
managers
and
the
public.
 Seek
opportunities
to
build
relationships
and
trust.
Both
sides
must
ake
the
time
to
call
and
meet
each
 other.



 Mike
and
Allen
were
brought
together
after
a
highly
publicized
climbing
accident
on
Mount
Rainier
in
 1998.
Neither
was
directly
involved
in
the
incident,
however
an
exchange
they
shared
over
the
accident
 narrative
did
serve
as
an
introduction
and
catalyst
for
further
communication
and
cooperation.
Mike
 ended
the
first
call
saying,
“I
appreciate
the
call
and
the
information.
Please
feel
free
to
call
me
again
with
 any
issues.”
The
following
summer,
Allen
again
reached
out
to
Mike
after
a
climb
of
Mount
Rainier
to
 express
his
concerns
about
the
poor
conditions
of
the
historic
structures
at
Camp
Muir
and
inquired
how
 the
NPS
could
preserve
them
and
provide
a
better
visitor
experience.
The
ensuing
conversation
opened
 up
the
door
of
what
would
prove
to
be
a
successful
partnership
in
the
improvement
of
the
popular
high
 camp.
For
Allen,
he
learned
that
Mike
was
“one
of
us”
who
happened
to
work
for
a
land
management
 agency.
Mike
understood
where
climbers
were
coming
from
and
could
appreciate
their
concerns.
For
 Mike,
he
found
a
climber
that
cared
equally
as
much
about
mountain
environment
as
he
did
about
the
 route
conditions
and
permit
process.
Each
was
able
to
understand
the
complexities
that
the
other
faced
 in
their
jobs
and
while
recreating
on
public
lands.
It
also
did
not
hurt
that
both
Mike
and
Allen
enjoyed
 having
their
discussions
over
many
malted
beverages.
 Allen
Sanderson
‐
Research
Scientist
at
University
of
 Utah
 Allen
Sanderson
was
one
of
the
founding
Board
of
 Directors
of
the
Access
Fund
and
served
as
a
Regional
 Coordinator
for
much
of
the
1990s.
During
this
time
he
 co‐lead
the
second
Mountain
Management
Workshop
 and
worked
on
climbing
management
plans
for
the
City
 of
Rocks,
all
the
while
completing
his
Ph.D.
in
Computer
 Science.
Today,
he
is
a
Research
Scientist
at
the
 University
of
Utah
and
continues
his
activism
on
local,
 state,
and
national
levels.
 
 Mike
Gauthier
–
Chief
of
Staff,
Yosemite
National
Park
 Mike
Gauthier
has
worked
as
a
backcountry
ranger
at
Olympic
National
Park
and
 Lead
Climbing
Ranger
at
Mount
Rainier
where
he
summited
Mount
Rainier
over
190
 times
by
twenty‐nine
different
routes.
In
1998,
he
was
designated
a
Wilderness
 Rescue
Hero
by
the
American
Red
Cross.
In
recent
years
Mike
has
Legislative
 Specialist
for
the
U.S.
Senate,
Bevinetto
Fellow
at
National
Park
Service,
and
Liaison
 the
National
Park
Service
at
Department
of
the
Interior.
 


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
1
 Know
your
neighbors
–
get
to
know
them
early
in
the
process.

 
 Producing
a
lot
of
accident
reports
for
Mt.
Rainier.

 One
experience
where
some
people
were
trapped,
declined
support,
then
needed
it
later,
but
ended
up
 being
stuck
for
two
days
on
the
mountain.
Served
as
a
catalyst
for
partnership
between
two
individuals.

 Encourage
individuals
to
step
up,
speak
out,
and
do
not
be
afraid
to
push
buttons.
Some
people
will
not
 risk
a
relationship
and
may
not
speak
up
to
the
fullest
extent
that
they
might.

 Camp
Muir
–
looked
like
a
10,000
foot
high
junk
yard.
Asked
what
John
Muir
would
say
about
the
camp.
 There
are
two
ways
to
get
an
historic
structure
de‐listed.
Dialogue
started
around
cleaning
up
the
camp.
 Superintendent
was
really
listening
and
interested
in
moving
forward
on
the
issue.

 Mountain
climbers
are
interested
in
historical
preservation
in
the
park
–
good
way
to
start
moving
 forward.

 Find
Common
Ground Acknowledge
when
common
ground
is
not
possible. Do
not
be
afraid
to
push
and
be
pushed Be
passionate
but
do
not
take
things
personally Compromise
for
a
solution,
but
do
not
compromise
your
values
 Many
park
and
land
management
staff
share
values
with
users
–
but
not
all.

 Parks
are
working
on
bringing
in
younger,
more
diverse
people
to
work
in
the
park
and
find
ways
to
bring
 in
interns
and
others
to
broaden
the
people
who
are
experiencing
parks.

 There
are
great
groups
of
non‐traditional
groups
of
people
coming
into
parks.

 Dialogues
can
be
rough
at
first,
but
if
they
continue
they
can
be
productive.
Get
engaged
and
stay
 engaged
 
 Note‐taker
2
 ‐partnership
spawned
from
an
incident
on
the
mountain;
accident
report
that
needed
a
“correction”
 ‐Allen
called
Mike
to
set
the
record
straight
about
the
incident
;
they
stayed
in
touch
with
one
another
 about
other
issues
of
common
interest;
frank
dialogue
about
issues
over
time
>
opened
the
door
for
 future
communication

 ‐restoration
of
Camp
Muir
on
Mt.
Ranier;
preservation
of
historic
structures

 
 Elements
of
Success
 ‐open
and
honest
dialog
 ‐empathetic
listening

 ‐informal
communication
/
meetings

 ‐identify
common
ground
that
is
not
necessarily
about
land
management
issues

 ‐acknowledge
when
common
ground
it
not
possible

 ‐don’t
be
afraid
to
push
and
be
pushed

 ‐be
passionate,
but
don’t
take
things
personally
 ‐be
willing
to
compromise
for
a
solution,
but
don’t
compromise
your
values

 ‐reach
out
to
groups
that
are
unusual/atypical
partners
 ‐helps
for
advocates
to
push
for
park
improvements;
bring
attention


2


CHAPTER 6

Big
Ideas
Yield
Big
Rewards
at
Raystown
Lake
 
 


Invest
in
technical
assistance
for
public
and
private
stakeholders


Cultivate
broad
stakeholder
support
in
the
community
 Think
big
and
stay
flexible



 The
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
and
IMBA
signed
a
national
MOU
in
September
of
2002.

Raystown
Lake
was
 identified
as
one
of
the
initial
focus
projects
stemming
from
the
MOU.
 The
goal
at
Raystown
Lake
was
to
create
an
economic
driver
for
the
local
community
by
providing
a
 destination‐quality
trail
system
that
would
draw
mountain
bikers
from
across
the
mid‐Atlantic
region.

 Two
critical
needs
were
identified
relative
to
this
goal:

 
 
‐
Raystown
Lake
must
offer
30+
miles
of
trail,
enough
to
provide
a
weekend’s
worth
of
riding.
 
‐
The
trails
must
provide
an
exceptional
user
experience
for
mountain
bikers
of
all
skill
levels.
 The
challenges
of
raising
appropriate
funds
to
build
an
extensive
trail
network
and
creating
trails
that
 appeal
to
a
broad
scope
of
mountain
bikers
were
overcome
through
effective
public/private
partnerships,
 investment
in
technical
assistance,
and
a
collective
willingness
to
be
innovative.
In
particular,
the
Friends
 of
Raystown
Lake
organization
was
founded
to
help
raise
the
matching
funds
and
organize
volunteers.
 The
resulting
trail
system
opened
in
2009
to
broad
acclaim,
quickly
becoming
a
regional
destination
and
 providing
over
$2,000,000
of
local
economic
stimulus
in
year
one—with
only
$800,000
invested.
The
 project
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
long
term
commitment
of
a
large
number
of
partner
 organizations,
the
freedom
to
imagine
comprehensive
mountain
bike
trails,
and
the
open‐mindedness
of
 the
land
managers.
 Ryan
Schutz
‐
Rocky
Mountain
Field
director,
IMBA
 Ryan
Schutz
is
IMBA’s
Rocky
Mountain
Field
director.
He
hails
from
Deerfield
Beach,
Florida,
where
he
 helped
create
ClubMud,
an
IMBA‐affiliated
trail
maintenance,
advocacy
and
merrymaking
organization.
 Ryan
has
a
Masters
in
Urban
Planning,
has
a
passion
for
trail
advocacy,
and
is
fascinated
by
Elvis
 impersonators.
 Dwight
Beall
‐
Raystown
Lake
Operations
Manager,
ACOE
 


1


Meridian
Notes
 Note‐taker
1


Raystown
lake
identified
as
Army
Corps
project.
Become
premier
mountain
bike
destination
fpr
the
mid‐ atlantic.

 Army
Corps
is
no
longer
developing
recreation
areas
–
need
a
cost
share
agreement
of
at
least
50‐50
or
 more.
There
is
no
money
for
developing
recreation
lands.

 Friends
of
Raystown
Lake
–
could
be
a
functioning
body
to
help
access
other
funds
for
development
of
 public
lands.
Volunteer
organization
with
membership
and
paid
staff.

 FRL
went
out
and
brought
in
money
through
grants
for
many
projects,
fish,
deer,
chestnut,
navigation
 lights,
conservation
and
education
program,
management
of
campgrounds
and
development
and
 operations
of
Alligrippis
trail
system.

 RayCep
–
Conservation,
science,
natural
resource
education
system.

 Had
taken
over
management
of
330
campsites
on
Raystown
Lake
–
frees
up
dollars
for
other
places.

 Alligrippis
Partnership

 Started
talking
about
building
mountain
bike
trails
out
by
Raystown
Lake
–
started
GPSing
4
miles
of
trails.

 FRL
was
able
to
work
the
grants
system.

 Many
developmental
and
operational
partners.

 Planning
and
development
corporation
–
able
to
reach
out
talk
economics
around
the
plan.

 IMBA
brought
technical
advice
and
professionalism
to
the
project.

 Operated
by
Friends
of
Raystown
Lake,
Raystwon
Mountain
Biking
Association,
IMBA
 


Finding
funds
to
take
things
long
term
is
the
challenge.



Funding
came
from
different
organizations,
in‐kind
services
and
volunteer
organizations
also
supported
 the
process.

 Patience
and
Persistence
–
if
you
are
expecting
quick
turn‐around
–
understand
that
there
will
be
set
 backs
and
challenges
–
need
to
be
persistent.

 30
miles
of
trail
in
the
Alligrippis
system.
Huge
number
of
visitors
much
higher
than
was
anticipated.
 Parking
and
restroom
facilities
have
been
a
challenge.
Are
adding
on
with
new
standard
trails,
facilities,
 etc.

 Would
not
move
project
ahead
that
did
not
have
a
long‐term
sustainable
project.
Had
to
have
a
partner
 that
could
maintain
that
on
the
way
through.

 Many
management
pieces
that
were
specific
to
local
needs
and
consideration
(remoteness,
hunting
 season,
etc.).

 Community
establishing
goals
for
this.



2


Trails
provide
activities
for
shoulder
season
in
the
region.
One
thing
overlooked
in
the
process.
When
 Corps
did
environmental
assessment
–
they
assessed
the
entire
project
–
not
just
the
specific
corridor
–
 let
trail
builders
approach
it
in
a
comprehensive
way.

 Now
–
30%
of
campers
in
the
area
are
mountain
bikers
 
 Note‐taker
2
 
 ‐started
in
2002;
visionary
project
between
IBMA
and
USACE
 ‐$800K
invested
generated
$2M
in
revenues
in
year
1

 ‐premier
mtn
biking
destination
on
the
mid‐Atlantic;
middle
of
Allegheny
Mtns

 ‐USACE
is
required
to
have
cost
sharing
partners
to
develop
recreation
areas;
USACE
has
not
had
any
 money
allocated
for
development
in
decades;
has
to
be
private
money
 ‐Friends
of
Raystown
Lake
 
 ‐late
80s
the
project
had
an
adversarial
atmosphere
 
 ‐needed
mechanisms
for
input

 
 ‐based
on
Take
Pride
in
America
Volunteer
Group
 
 ‐mid
90s
–
incorporated
as
a
501
c3
 
 ‐now
many
volunteers
as
well
as
paid
staff
 
 ‐FRL
activities
–
started
as
social
activity
and
some
restoration
activities

 ‐early
vision
was
from
Dwight’s
son;
senior
high
school
project
>
GPS’s
4
miles
of
trail
at
the
lake

 
 ‐Alligrippis
Partnership
–
many
partners
 
 ‐Friends
of
Raystown
Lake
 
 ‐Southern
Alleghenies
Planning
and
Development
Corporation
 
 ‐Huntingdon
Co
Visitors
Bureau
 
 ‐Juniata
College
Center
for
Entrepreneurial
Leadership
 
 ‐Huntingdon
Co
Business
and
industry

 
 ‐IMBA
 
 *key
was
to
demonstrate
economic
development
value
to
developmental
partners
 
 Operational
partners:
 
 ‐Friends
of
Raystown
Lake
 
 ‐Raystown
Mtn
Biking
Association
–
spawned
after
development
 
 ‐IMBA

 
 *need
commitments
to
operate
and
maintain
over
time

 *Patience
and
persistence
 
 ‐the
partnership
didn’t
cut
the
ribbon
on
the
project
until
after
7
years
of
work
 More
Success
Elements
 ‐IMBA
brought
technical
expertise
>
illustrate
what
it
takes
to
have
a
successful
riding
destination

 ‐comprehensive
resource/property
assessment
 ‐community
engagement
and
buy‐in
 


3


CHAPTER 7

Clean­up
and
Cooperation
with
the
Yosemite
Facelift
 
 


Reach
out
to
other
potentially
interested
parties.
Build
relationships
with
individuals
based
on
 effective‐consistent
communication
and
mutual
respect.


Find
common
ground
with
them.
Work
from
a
platform
of
mutual
goals.


Work
together
for
achievable
goals.
Have
a
common
mission‐vision
and
delegate
work
to
effectively
 
 achieve
goals.


The
Yosemite
Facelift
started
out
as
a
small
grass
roots
trash
clean‐up
of
Yosemite
National
Park
by
the
 climbing
community.
It’s
growth,
success,
and
popularity
created
logistical
problems
(challenges)
and
 concerns
for
Park
management.
Through
communication,
partnerships,
hard
work,
and
compromise,
 many
of
these
problems
and
challenges
have
been
resolved.
After
8
years
the
Facelift
attracts
several
 thousand
volunteers
and
over
80
partners
during
the
annual
5‐day
event.
Thanks
free
camping,
prizes
and
 evening
programs,
Facelift
is
easy
to
get
involved
in,
and
fun.

 The
Facelift
now
takes
on
large
scale
restoration
projects,
trail
work
and
traditional
litter
clean‐up
work.
 The
success
of
this
project
would
not
have
been
possible
without
the
strong,
trusting
and
respectful
 relationship
between
Ken
Yager,
the
creator
of
the
event,
and
Jesse
McGahey
the
NPS
coordinator.
Not
 only
has
the
Park
benefited
from
the
volunteer’s
clean
up,
but
also
relationships
between
the
climbing
 community
and
the
NPS
have
improved.
 Ken
Yager

‐
Yosemite
Climbing
Association
 Ken
Yager
is
the
founder
of
the
Yosemite
Climbing
Association,
a
nonprofit
 organization
dedicated
to
preserving
and
protecting
Yosemite’s
rich
climbing
 heritage
and
making
it
available
for
public
viewing
and
interpretation.
Ken
has
 been
climbing
for
over
40
years
and
moved
to
Yosemite
35
years
ago.
In
2004
 he
organized
the
climbing
community
to
clean
up
some
of
the
problem
areas
 and
called
the
effort
Yosemite
Facelift.
The
Facelift
has
become
Yosemite
 National
Park’s
largest
volunteer
event
attracting
several
thousand
participants
 every
year.
 
 Jesse
McGahey


‐
Climbing
Ranger
Yosemite
National
Park,
CA
 McGahey,
originally
from
the
mountains
of
North
Carolina,
first
 came
to
Yosemite
as
a
“Dirtbag”
climber
in
2000.
After
working
 various
jobs
around
Yosemite
to
pay
for
ropes
and
gas,
his
 commitment
to
stewardship
of
“vertical
wilderness”
landed
him
a
 job
with
the
NPS
in
2004.
Since
2006
he
has
been
a
Park
Ranger
 and
the
Climbing
Program
Manager
for
Yosemite
National
Park.
 


1


Meridian
Notes
 Note‐taker
1
 Significant
problem
with
trash,
excrement,
other
debris
on
the
climb.

 Got
volunteers
–
got
swag,
signed
up
with
park
to
get
insurance.
Worked
with
NPS
to
get
free
camping
for
 those
that
came
up.

 Five
day
event
–
Get
kids
schools
–
Yosemite
School
–
involved
in
the
event.
Get
feedback
from
people
 who
hiked
/
climbed
/
rafted
/
etc.
Asked
local
businesses
for
raffle
prizes.
If
you
make
it
easy,
get
people
 to
stay
–
they
will
come.
Over
the
course
of
5
days
–
they
will
come.

 Daily
raffles
–
to
get
prizes.
Prizes
for
people
who
are
helping
out.

 Have
evening
programs
for
people
coming
out
to
participate.

 Weigh‐in
–
how
much
trash
are
you
bringing
in.
Track
to
find
which
year
the
weight
started
going
down.

 1,000
unique
volunteers.
We
have
so
many
people
–
we
cannot
just
pick
up
trash.
Started
taking
out
 abandoned
structures
/
infrastructure
that
park
service
could
not
take
out.

 Ask
locals
where
they
know
a
lot
of
trash
is
and
use
that
knowledge.

 Hard
to
get
compliance
with
NPS
staff.

 Have
check‐in
in
front
of
the
Visitors’
center
so
public
can
see
how
much
time
goes
into
cleaning
up
the
 area.

 80
sponsors
and
partners
that
help
out
with
the
park.

 Partnership
with
Kleen
Kanteen
–
instead
of
bottled
water
–
message
to
use
reusable
containersNew
 Belgium
sponsors
evening
programs
–
two
presenters
per
evening,
then
a
band.
Everyone
is
working
 together
better
–
LAO
and
climbers
working
together
better.

 People
flying
in
from
Europe
to
help
out
for
the
entire
time.

 120
miles
of
roadway
every
year,
special
projects
different
every
year,
trail‐building,
removing
invasive
 species.

 Archeology
is
a
big
issue
–
prevent
people
from
picking
up
historical
artifacts.
Struggle
with
the
Park
 Service.

 90‐95%
of
it
can
be
recycled
–
metal,
concrete,
asphalt.

 Jesse
McGahey
–
climbing
program
manager
for
Yosemite.

 Ken
Yaeger
–
he
said
that
this
would
be
a
big
part
of
the
face
lift.

 Ken
and
Jesse
have
a
strong
relationship
based
on
trust
and
mutual
respect
that
has
made
this
successful.
 There
are
people
in
this
conference
doing
the
same
thing
on
their
own
time.
Making
some
of
these
 success
stories
happen.

 Show
a
quick
video
–
real
rock
film
tours
give
Ken
a
film
tour
basically
for
free
every
year.
Put
together
a
 DVD
of
some
of
the
facelift
every
year.

 Clean
up
of
cables
from
half
dome
–
almost
2000
pounds.

 Clean
up
on
the
Nose.


 Has
changed
park
perspective
on
rock
climbers
significantly
–
shown
how
partnerships
and
connections
 can
best
be
managed.
 Every
division
in
NPS
has
to
have
a
say.

 NPS
wanted
every
volunteer
be
supervised
–
Facelift
is
still
a
spontaneous
event.

 Archeology
is
always
a
challenge.
Change
this
year
–
contacted
people
about
the
number
of
people
to
talk
 to
and
educate.
Still
some
trash
being
picked
up
–
but
is
a
great
educational
opportunity.

Recognized,
 official
NPS
event.
YCA
is
the
main
sponsor
and
organizer.

 Categorical
exclusion
for
compliance.

 2011
as
first
year
with
0
arrests
associated
with
Facelift
 Q:
Since
you
are
bigger,
what
kind
of
insurance
are
you
using
now.

 A:
We
use
NPS
volunteer
insurance.

 Q:
Do
you
go
to
all
areas
of
Yosemite
park?


2


A:
yes,
we
try
to
go
to
as
many
places
as
we
can.
Cover
as
much
roadway
as
we
can.

 Q:
How
did
you
affect
cultural
change
to
support
the
program?
 A:
Anytime
I
came
across
a
roadblock,
went
to
superintendents
office,
then
went
the
appropriate
way.
 Not
opposed
to
using
media,
peer
pressure,
didn’t
always
have
to
go
through
official
channels
the
way
 that
they
did.
There
is
a
new
challenge
every
year
–
some
of
it
is
new
people,
new
administrations,
etc.
 Different
way
of
looking
at
things.
Gets
better
every
year.

 95%
of
debris
is
recycled?
Asphalt
dump
sites.
Concrete,
etc.
Costs
NPS
money
every
year.
Put
money
in
 and
make
metal
every
year.

 Contributions
from
Conservancy?

Not
on
this
project,
but
on
other
projects
we
have.

 We
are
removing
a
lot
of
trash
 Lessons
learned
for
taking
50‐100
years
of
debris
and
changing
it
into
recycling
–
one
is
logistics.
It
takes
 time
and
energy.

 Every
year
you
can
build
on
it
and
learn
from
it.

 Compliance
issue
with
archeology
and
historic
stuff.
What
was
the
breakthrough
moment
when
the
NPS
 started
to
see
what
was
being
provided.
Booth
where
materials
were
passed
out
and
shared.
Let
public
 know
it
is
a
great
opportunity,
let
them
know
what
you
are
doing
for
the
park.
When
archeologists
are
out
 there
showing
what
is
important
to
leave.

 People
are
picking
things
up
every
day
(whether
as
part
of
facelift
or
not)
start
to
try
more
education
and
 more
cataloging
of
these
artifacts.

 Some
items
are
just
modern
artifacts
(and
are
just
trash)
and
need
to
be
cleaned
up.

 The
key
to
that
relationship
is
that
you
are
understanding
what
their
obligations
are
and
what
the
other
 side
needs
to
do
–
then
you
can
work
to
address
their
needs
and
concerns.

 Build
partnerships
to
include
all
of
the
state
and
federal
SHPOs,
agencies
that
have
oversight
of
cultural
 and
historical
artifacts.

 SHPO
is
what
have
worked
with
CA
archeology
office.
Gives
MOU
for
any
spontaneous
picking
up
of
 artifacts.

 These
agencies
and
staff
were
doing
more
than
they
were
supposed
to
do
–
but
were
moving
beyond
to
 what
they
can
do
and
how
they
can
do
those
things.
How
do
you
make
that
happen?
 For
Facelift
in
Yosemite
–
made
sense
for
NPS
staff
to
start
focusing
on
facelift.
Funding
from
SF
–
they
 think
that
all
parts
of
the
park
are
benefitted
by
the
way
SF
views
the
park
 Note‐taker
3
 Ken
Yeager
–
Climber
for
40
years.
Fell
in
love
with
Yose,
ended
up
living
there.
Was
a
guide
in
2004,
his
 job
as
a
guide
came
up
against
all
the
trash,
TP
etc,
and
couldn’t
clean
it
up
on
his
own.
Was
climbing
 highway
star
and
witnessed
all
the
trash,
so
decided
to
organize
climbers
to
clean
up
trash
and
 everything.
Eric
and
he
started
it,
and
got
shwag
as
gifts,
Facelift
was
born.
 
 First
one
was
organized
in
3
weeks,
figured
out
that
they
could
be
official
volunteers,
had
a
bunch
of
fun,
 was
so
successful
that
it
became
a
yearly
event.
Contacted
more
sponsors
and
vendors
to
get
gifts.
First
 was
3
day
event
second
was
5
day.
Got
some
free
camping
and
got
schools
involved.
Reached
out
to
other
 park
users
to
get
more
volunteers.
YI,
Ansel
Adams
Gal,
got
more
and
more
prizes.
 
 Make
it
fun
and
make
it
easy
and
they
will
come!
 
 Makes
it
fun
with
daily
raffles,
kids
and
adults,
everyday
you
participate
you
get
a
raffle
ticket.
Have
 evening
activities,
timmy
oneil
came
out.
DNC
is
a
partner
and

 
 Bring
trash
in
and
it
is
weighed,
to
see
what
year
it
starts
going
down.
 
 Has
been
a
little
of
a
struggle
with
NPS.
NPS
doesn’t
like
weighing
it
because
it
could
encourage
just
 getting
heavy
stuff.
NPS
compliance
was
difficult.
But
now
that
they
are
on
board
there
is
a
steering
 committee,
it
helps
get
through
bureaucracy,
Now
can
use
NPS
equipment
such
as
trucks,
even
heli.


3


So
many
people
that
they
expanded
from
side
of
the
road
to
other
areas
such
as
NPS
old
infrastructure
 piles.
Try
to
recycle
whenever
possible.
Are
up
to
90‐95%,
recycle
asphalt,
metal,
plastic,
etc.
But
that
 costs
NPS
lots
of
money.
 
 Ask
locals
for
the
hotspots,
what
do
they
know
about,
use
them
as
crew
leaders.
 Gen
pub
sees
truck
loads
of
trash,
gets
people
involved.
 Some
of
the
trash
is
from
NPS,
such
as
shooting
barrels.
 When
DNC
didn’t
participate,
brought
kids
in
to
clean
up
Boystown.
 Watch
who
you
are
working
with.
Bottled
water
company
gave
too
many
bottles
of
water,
and
wouldn’t
 just
do
a
water
station,
so
he
started
with
klean‐kanteen.


 New
Belgium
gave
beer.
So
got
the
Park
Service
to
get
rangers
to
give
rides
home
if
needed.

 
 Not
only
got
yose
cleaned
up,
but
is
fostering
better
relations
with
NPS
and
climbers
through
it.

 
 People
come
from
all
over
the
world
to
help.
 
 Got
a
grant
for
$5million,
will
help
to
get
a
bunch
of
campsites.
 Do
120
miles
of
roadway
cleanup
every
year.
They
are
branching
into
trailbuilding.
Some
people
do
5
 days,
some
do
just
a
little
bit.
 
 Have
a
lot
of
old
dump
sites,
but
anything
over
50
years
old
is
historic,
so
it
caused
friction
when
people
 picked
it

up.

NPS
threatened
to
pull
permit,
but
it
has
been
smoothed
over.
 
 Jesse
McGahey
–
Climbing
ranger.
Started
in
2006.
Ken
came
in
and
told
him
about
it.

 The
partnership
works
because
he
and
ken
have
such
as
strong
friendship,
and
lots
of
mutual
trust
 between
them.
Climbing
after
work,
etc.

 
 Really
appreciates
the
work
of
volunteers
and
non‐profits.

 Work
on
some
really
involved
projects,
such
as
HD
and
Nose
cleanups.
 It
has
fostered
other
relationships
even
Base
Jumpers
have
come
in.
 
 The
park’s
relationship
to
climbers
has
been
changed
in
the
last
few
years,
and
the
facelift
shows
how
 there
can
be
a
positive
working
partnership,
and
that
it
is
the
minority
of
climbers
that
cause
problems.

 
 It
isn’t
al
fun.
Lots
of
compliance
docs,
lots
of
divisions
that
have
to
sign
off.
One
division
wanted
every
 volunteer
supervised,
lots
of
work
to
make
sure
that
people
would
go
out
on
there
own.
This
is
because
of
 archeological
problems
because
of
old
things
from
over
50
years
ago.

 
 This
year
was
the
first
year
that
the
archeology
division
came
and
educated
people
about
the
issues.
They
 realized
that
education
was
in
there
interest
and
that
it
was
a
great
opportunity.
If
you
stick
with
it,
 attitudes
will
change
and
people
who
are
against
it
will
move
on.

Be
Tenacious.

 Things
are
improving
tremendously


Meridian
Notes
­
 Discussion
of
Yosemite
Facelift,
Middle
Fork
of
Snoqualmie,
and
others

4


CHAPTER 8

Long­term
Improvement
of
the
Middle
Fork
of
the
Snoqualmie
 
 The
Middle
Fork
of
the
Snoqualmie
River
is
one
of
the
most
significant
outdoor
recreation
areas
“close‐to‐ home”
for
residents
of
the
greater
Seattle
area.
Less
than
an
hour
drive
from
downtown,
the
valley
is
 easily
accessible
to
a
population
of
over
three
million
people
and
a
destination
for
visitors
from
afar.

Yet,
 formal
public
access
to
the
river
was
not
available
until
2005,
when
an
NPS‐RTCA
Program
helped
 American
Whitewater,
land
managers,
and
environmental
groups
develop
a
plan
to
create
a
blueway.
This
 boat
route,
on
a
20‐mile
stretch
of
one
of
the
region’s
most
popular
recreational
rivers,
enhanced
 opportunities
to
enjoy
this
unique
regional
resource
for
boaters,
fishermen,
families
and
others
looking
to
 recreate
on
the
river.

Since
the
plan
was
created
nearly
$400,000
has
been
leveraged
by
an
initial
 $20,000
investment
from
the
NPS
to
formalize
and
enhance
12
public
access
sites,
create
a
river
map,
and
 install
signs
along
the
blueway.
Work
parties
that
engaged
volunteers
and
youth
were
an
integral
 component
of
plan
implementation.
The
river
is
now
recognized
as
a
treasured
community
asset
and
the
 blueway
plan
was
utilized
by
the
local
community
in
a
rezone
process.
Through
this
rezone,
further
 opportunities
to
improve
access
to
the
river
have
been
identified
that
enhance
property
values
for
an
 adjacent
landowners
and
provide
economic
benefits
to
a
National
Forest
gateway
community.
This
 project
was
made
possible
by
the
Agency’s
willingness
to
foster
partnership
as
well
as
leverage
funds
and
 volunteer
hours.

 
 Tom
O’Keefe

‐
American
Whitewater
 Tom
first
got
his
start
paddling
and
playing
in
the
water
during
early
childhood
canoe
trips
to
the
 Adirondacks
in
upstate
New
York.
Tom
has
traveled
across
the
country
and
around
the
globe
in
search
of
 great
rivers
and
most
recently
completed
a
final
descent
of
the
Yangtze
River
through
the
Three
Gorges,
 before
the
gates
were
closed
on
the
world’s
largest
dam.
Tom
received
his
undergraduate
degree
at
 Cornell
University
before
completing
his
graduate
work
in
aquatic
ecology
at
the
University
of
Wisconsin
 where
he
received
his
PhD.
He
managed
a
research
program
in
river
ecology
and
taught
at
the
University
 of
Washington
before
joining
the
staff
of
American
Whitewater
as
the
Pacific
Northwest
Stewardship
 Director.
 Susan
Rosebrough
–
RTCA
Program
Planner
 Susan
is
a
planner
with
the
‐
Rivers,
Trails,
and
Conservation
Assistance
Program
‐
the
community
 assistance
arm
of
the
National
Park
Service.

She
has
ten
years
of
experience
working
with
partners
to
 develop
plans
for
trails,
walkable
neighborhoods,
river
access,
and
blueways
in
the
northwest.
She
is
also
 involved
in
river
work
through
hydropower
relicensing
and
wild
and
scenic
river
programs.

In
her
free
 time,
Susan
enjoys
getting
outdoors
with
her
family
running,
hiking,
rock
climbing,
and
skiing.


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
1
 
 Tom
O’Keefe
–
National
Stewardship
Director
AWS.

 Middle
Fork
of
Snoqualmie
is
30
minutes
from
downtown
Seattle
–
paddling
destination
from
community,
 fly‐fishing
spot.
There
have
been
a
lot
of
riff‐raff
in
the
valley,
chop‐shop
was
in
the
valley,
stolen
cars.
 Finding
appropriate
places
to
recreate,
etc.

 Susan

 NPS
parks
program
gives
NPS
staff
time
to
act
as
neutral
party,
facilitator.
AWS
applied
for
help
from
NPS.
 NPS
looked
at
all
of
the
jurisdiction,
look
to
access
sites,
and
think
about
where
it
makes
sense
to
 maintain
access,
where
to
stop
or
limit
access
to
maximize
ecological
and
recreational
opportunities.
 Looking
at
the
whole
blue
way,
for
access,
signage,
mapping,
etc.
Think
about
whole
stretch
of
the
river
–
 public
experiences
it
as
one
continuous
resource.
Result
was
a
planning
resource
that
resulted
in
a
shared
 plan
for
many
different
resources.
Through
volunteer
power
from
AWS
and
other
non‐profits,
put
 together
a
plan
that
is
a
plan
for
the
group
to
move
forward
on
implementation.
Thinking
about
overhead
 and
costs.
In
terms
of
context
of
multiplier
effect.
Invest
$20K
in
planning
effort,
relative
to
modest
 resources
in
place.

 Some
areas
on
DNR
lands,
areas
of
historic
dumping,
driving
into
the
river.
Conservation
community
had
 money
to
close
and
rehabilitate
sites.

 Worked
with
folks
in
conservation
community,
DNR,
get
funding
for
site
rehab,
and
bring
in
additional
 funding
and
support
to
improve
public
access
sites.

 Came
about
due
to
plan
that
was
recognized
by
all
agency
partners
in
the
valley.

 Site
that
was
a
mile
of
river
front
–
community
interested
in
finding
ways
to
embrace
everything
that
 occurs
in
that
area.
Community
had
acquired
a
mile
of
riverfront
for
public
access
–
acquire
it
as
public
 open
space.
There
were
some
additional
lands
between
site
and
highway
that
owner
was
interested
in
 developing.

 Landowner
wanted
to
redevelop
and
rezone
land
to
provide
more
economic
benefit.
Approved
a
re‐ zoning
that
enhanced
value
of
his
land
–
agreement
to
donate
a
portion
of
private
lands
to
the
public
 access
for
the
riverfront
site.

 $400,000
of
investments
was
leveraged
by
$20,000
initial
investment
from
NPS
 
 Note‐taker
3
 
 Tom
Okeefe
–
NW
Stewardship
director
for
AW.
 
 MFS
is
45
minutes
from
downtown
Seattle.
Few
places
that
are
so
accessible
from
a
city.

Has
been
a
 destination
for
years.
AS
such
it
has
faced
a
lot
of
historical
problems.
Lots
of
problems,
such
as
a
 chopshop
located
back
up
there.
Lots
of
community
interest
in
making
better
use
of
the
resources.
And
 making
it
a
better
recreation
resource.
 
 Susan
from
NPS,
NPS’s
rivers
and
trails
program
works
outside
the
boundaries
to
help
with
communities
 planning
to
do
that
work.
 
 Had
a
bunch
of
different
land
managers
at
the
site,
federal
state,
etc.

 
 Brought
everyone
together,
and
looks
at
where
it
made
sense
to
allow
public
accesss
and
what
areas
are
 too
sensitive.
Also
looked
at
signage.
Looks
like
one
continuous
site,
even
through
using
it
you
pass
 through
a
number
of
jurisdictions.

 
 Leveraged
volunteers
from
local
non‐profits
to
help
and
save
costs.
This
plan
has
been
a
stepping
stone
 for
the
group
to
move
forward
on
implementation.
With
a
relatively
small
amount
of
initial
investment,
 they
went
a
long
way.



2


Once
the
plan
was
in
place,
there
was
a
lot
more
that
they
could
do,
they
were
able
to
do
lots
more
work
 because
there
is
a
plan.
Could
coordinate
and
figure
out
what
was
and
was
not
acceptable
use.
Found
 funds
for
site
rehabilitation
to
restore
areas.
They
could
also
use
the
equipment
that
was
on
site
to
use
 for
making
the
area
more
accessible.

 
 Local
communities
got
excited
about
it,
as
they
saw
the
possibilities
for
recreation.
They
reclaimed
some
 housing
zone
area,
now
an
easement.
Because
they
had
a
plan
they
could
get
around
problems
such
as
a
 landowner
trying
to
ask
too
much
money
for
access.
Community
approved
a
re‐zone
for
the
landowner,
in
 exchange
for
a
land
grant
for
access.

Win‐Win.
 
 Having
the
plan
made
all
the
difference,
because
they
were
united
and
could
look
at
it
holistically.

 
 Having
recognized
put
ins
helps
as
it
makes
access
easier
and
also
keeps
people
from
crashing
through
the
 bushes.

 


3


Meridian
Notes
­
 Discussion
of
Middle
Fork
of
Snoqualmie,
Yosemite
Facelift,
and
others


Note‐taker
1
 
 ELEMENTS
OF
SUCCESS
 Developing
a
relationship
with
care
group
/
land
manager.

 People
that
are
doing
more
than
what
their
job
is
–
thinking
beyond
their
job
descriptions
and
thinking
 more
broadly.
 
 Fed
employees
are
judged
based
on
job
description
AND
performance
appraisal
 Helpful
to
know
that
there
is
an
impending
crisis
knocking
on
our
door
–
may
lose
the
people
that
we
can
 go
and
talk
to
because
of
how
much
government
is
cutting
back.

 Persistence
–
working
through
many
different
pathways
to
try
and
get
things
done.
Try
one
way,
if
it
does
 not
work,
try
another
way.

 Because
of
challenges
with
process,
governments,
activists
will
increasingly
have
to
bring
the
money
to
 the
challenges.

 Paddling
community
–
often
possible
to
get
resources
to
implement
a
project,
but
the
challenge
is
in
the
 NEPA
analysis
to
get
the
process
started.
Places
where
we
can
bring
resources
to
the
table,
but
need
 resources
for
the
planning
component.

 Bureaucrats
need
support
from
high
above.
A
lot
happens
in
government
based
on
a
view
of
what
his
 purview
of
overall
direction
for
a
certain
area
or
part
of
government.
Clear
direction
from
up
high
can
give
 people
at
the
field
level
a
lot
of
direction.

 WHAT
NOT
TO
DO?
 You
can
get
things
to
work
–
you
just
have
try
multiple
ways
of
getting
to
a
solution.
Also
–
be
careful
 about
you
ask
for
and
put
thought
into
what
you
are
asking
for.

 It
will
not
work
if
you
do
not
have
a
genuine
understanding
of
each
group’s
priorities.
That
has
to
be
the
 starting
point.

 
 Q:
What
are
three
most
important
elements
for
replicating
Face
Lift
design.

 A:
Mark
Butler
from
Joshua
Tree
has
contacted
us
about
trying
to
do
something
similar.
They
have
more
 climbers,
they
have
social
trails,
they
have
issues
that
are
different.

 1. What
are
your
issues
that
you
want
to
focus
on?
What
is
your
objective?
 2. Who
are
your
partners
that
can
help
you
on
this
and
really
help
you
start
thinking?
 3. Use
them
to
help
drive
and
do
a
lot
of
the
planning
for
the
event,
especially
around
what
the
NPS
 cannot
do
(i.e.,
sponsorships)
 
 Note‐taker
3
 For
ken,
as
the
event
grows,
what
kind
of
insurance?
There
is
insurance
for
the
evening
programs
and
if
 people
are
signed
up
as
volunteers.
 
 Do
you
go
all
over
yose?
Anywhere
we
can,
started
in
the
valley.

Stopping
at
every
turnout
and
off
the
 road.
 
 How
did
Jesse
affect
cultural
change
to
support
the
program.
 Ken
goes
as
high
as
possible
whenever
there
is
a
roadblock.
Isn’t
encumbered
by
working
for
them.
Uses
 media
when
necessary.
Causes
some
trouble.
 
 What
do
you
need
a
permit
for?
Everything.
Since
NPS
is
a
partner
as
of
this
year,
they
take
care
of
 daytime
activities,
Ken
gets
permits
for
nighttime
activities.
Sometimes
things
that
were
not
a
probem
in
 the
past
become
one.
 
 What
is
the
recycling
made
of?
Lots
of
asphault
as
they
found
a
dump
site.

 


4


How
is
it
funded?
A
challenge.
Costs
the
NPS
lots
of
money.
They
take
it
to
El
Portal
where
NPS
has
a
 recycling
prog.
Can
make
money
off
the
metal
but
not
much
else.
 
 Got
funds
from
Yose
Fund?
Yes.
 How
many
pounds?
Thousands.
Since
they
found
the
dumpsites,
it
has
been
a
quarter
million
pounds.
 
 Is
there
anything
written
up
on
climbing
impacts
elsewhere
in
the
planet
and
to
take
100
years
of
debris,
 clean
it
up,
and
turn
it
into
positive
relationship?
Has
Ken
been
exported?
 
 Everywhere
is
different,
unique
challenges.
Takes
time
and
lots
of
hard
work.
He
has
almost
given
it
up,
 but
loves
it
every
few
years.
Eats
into
family
and
free
time.
Has
had
a
lot
of
compliments
and
it
is
really
 rewarding.
–
Find
someone
who
really
loves
a
place,
and
do
it
annually
so
it
builds.
 
 Archeological
compliance
issues
were
complicated.
Was
it
more
than
just
persistence?
What
was
the
 breakthrough?
 
 Having
them
come
out
and
do
interpretation.
Giving
them
a
booth
were
they
can
be
involved
and
tell
 their
story.
Point
out
how
it
is
important.
All
volunteers
need
to
do
a
class
before.
Give
incentives
for
 people
to
document
the
sites
and
report
them,
and
keep
them
safe.
 
 Started
having
and
archeologist
whose
primary
duties
include
the
facelift.
Is
on
a
legal
team
so
they
are
 there
from
planning
to
implementation.

 
 Audience
says
that
modern
artifacts
have
no
significance,
The
NPS
is
very
protective
of
things
even
if
 there
is
no
real
problem,
ie
beer
cans.
NPS
should
be
less
protective
of
new
artifacts.
They
save
everything
 that
is
left
at
a
war
Monumnet.

 
 Jason
–
Key
is
to
understand
the
NPS’s
obligation
is
under
the
law
and
helping
them
to
address
their
 concerns.
 Ken
–
Absolutely,
working
on
a
middle
ground
in
the
relationship
to
help
make
it
more
successful
 Aud
–
Antiquities
act
needs
to
be
reexaminined
in
the
modern
age.
 Aud
2
–
Suspect
that
5
year
programmatic
agreement
can
be
used
to
help.
It
is
important
to
realize
that
 they
can
be
used
to
effect
these
rules,
as
they
need
to
go
through
historic
preservation
department.
The
 agencies
might
direct
it,
but
you
need
to
go
to
the
national
councils
to
get
real
change.
 
 Jesse
–
The
Shipas
are
what
got
them
the
MOU
that
allows
for
leeway
when
an
artifact
is
picked
up.
They
 have
made
it
much
easier.
The
scrutiny
that
the
facelift
got
is
uncalled
for
as
others
are
picking
up
trash
as
 well.

 
 Kevin
–
Federal
agency
partners
going
above
and
beyond
what
they
should
do
to
what
they
can
do
is
 essential.
What
is
the
process
that
gets
them
to
do
that?
 
 Jesse
–
No
Brainer
to
have
the
facelift.
He
has
made
it
a
fundamental
part
of
his
job.
Took
some
 convincing,
esp.
from
City
of
SF.
But
since
Facelift
works
in
toulumne
drainage,
looks
good.
Lucky
that
SF
is
 not
upset
about
the
diff
btwn
toul
and
merced
drainage.

Having
partners
and
supervisors
that
are
 supportive
of
the
relationship
is
super
important.
 Aud
‐
Helpful
to
know
that
there
is
an
impending
budgetary
crisis
at
the
door,
and
that
there
is
someone
 that
they
can
go
talk
to.
–
Fear
that
they
will
lose
what
they
have
now.
 
 Activist
–
Having
lots
of
problems
with
getting
things
done.
It
is
better
if
you
can
put
up
your
own
money.



5


Tom
–
It
is
often
possible
to
get
recources
to
do
a
project.
NEPA
analysis
is
a
problem.
Implemtation
is
not
 a
big
problem,
it
is
planning
assistance
that
is
needed.
 AF
Zack
–
need
to
have
understanding
of
everyone’s
priorities,
including
the
other
side.
Find
the
common
 interest
and
start
there.
 Jason
–
What
would
Jesse
do
if
asked
how
to
replicate?
 
 They
have
been
contacted.
Other
areas
have
started
similar
programs.

Not
everywhere
has
the
same
 amount
of
trash/historic
trash
as
Yosemite.
There
are,
though,
lots
of
cultural
resources
and
social
trails.

 
 Would
ask
another
park
–
what
are
your
specific
goals/challenges.
Are
there
local
groups
that
you
can
 leverage?
Is
there
someone
from
outside
NPS
that
will
spearhead
it.
Outside
people
can
do
all
sorts
of
 things
that
NPS
employees
can’t.
IE
prizes,
beer.
So
identify
goals
and
find
people
to
work
closely
with.
 
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?

 Make
it
fun
and
make
it
easy
and
they
will
come!
 Ask
locals
for
the
hotspots,
what
do
they
know
about,
use
them
as
crew
leaders.
 Watch
who
you
are
working
with
look
out
for
groups/ad
with
agendas
or
who
act
badly.
 Foster
working
relationships
 Partnerships
work
because
of
strong
friendships
and
lots
of
mutual
trust
between
parties
 Persistence:
if
you
stick
with
it,
attitudes
will
change
and
more
can
get
done.
 Having
a
plan
makes
all
the
difference.
 Leverage
volunteers
from
local
non‐profits
to
help
and
save
costs
 Leverage
funds
and
equipment
for
multiple
uses
 Go
as
high
in
the
bureaucracy
as
possible
whenever
there
is
a
roadblock
 Get
groups
involved
‐‐
everyone
wants
a
seat
at
the
table
and
to
show
their
importance.
 Understand
problems
from
opponent’s
POV,
address
them
from
that
angle.
 Find
federal
partners
that
are
willing
to
go
above
and
beyond
what
their
specific
job
is.
 Are
these
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 Develope
relationship
between
recreation
groups
and
land
managers.
 Fed
employees
that
go
above
and
beyond
their
job
description
really
helps.
 Persistence
is
key…
if
you
can’t
get
it
done
one
way,
find
another
way
to
do
it.
 Planning
assistance
is
key
from
fderal/state/local
partners.
Esp.
NEPA
help.
 If
there
are
top
down
directives
from
Washington,
it
helps
jump
a
number
of
hurdles.
–
Brings
some
 consistency
across
states/parks.
More
can
get
done.
 Getting
a
number
of
people
to
the
table
that
can
participate
helps.
Most
people
want
a
seat
at
the
table,
 not
necessarily
money
or
anything
else.
 Need
to
have
understanding
of
everyone’s
priorities,
including
the
other
side.
Find
the
common
interest
 and
start
there.
 Find
someone
who
really
loves
a
place,
and
do
it
annually
so
it
builds
to
replicate
 Helpful
to
know
that
there
is
an
impending
budgetary
crisis
at
the
door,
and
that
there
is
someone
that
 they
can
go
talk
to.
–
Fear
that
they
will
lose
what
they
have
now.
 Were
there
any
lessons
in
any
of
the
stories
about
what
NOT
to
do?
 There
are
always
things
that
don’t
work,
be
persistent,
change
tactics,
and
learn
from
hindrances.


6


CHAPTER 9

Jackson
Hole
Trails
Partnership
 
 


Must
have
relationships
between
people
committed
to
a
place
for
the
long
haul.



Land
Managers
must
be
open
to
working
with
the
community
–
and
the
community
must
be
open
to
 working
with
land
managers.
It
is
a
4‐Leg
Stool:
Land
manager,
NGOs,
Local
Government,
Public.
 Need
a

bias
for
action
and
a
willingness
to
take
risk.


The
Jackson
Hole
Trails
Partnership
is
an
evolving
collaboration
between
the
Bridger‐Teton
National
 Forest
and
the
Jackson
Hole
community
in
northwest
Wyoming.
From
early
steps
with
local
government
 on
Recreational
Trails
grants,
to
the
most
recent
major
success
of
the
JH
Trails
Project,
funded
by
a
unique
 Wyoming
Business
development
grant,
significant
progress
is
being
been
made
on
transforming
the
120
 mile
front
country
trail
system
into
a
world‐class
system.
 This
trails
partnership
has
developed
over
the
last
20
years,
recently
completing
the
JH
Trails
Project,
a
 28‐mile
$1
million
single‐track
and
economic
development
project
just
completed
at
three
of
Jackson’s
 main
trail
centers:
Snow
King,
Teton
Pass
and
Teton
Village.
The
overall
goals
of
the
partnership
that
have
 helped
include:
connecting
community
to
public
lands,
promoting
direct
relationship
with
stewardship
for
 public
lands,
and
creating
sustainable
trails
with
respect
for
land
and
for
people.
An
Economic
Impacts
 Study
completed
on
the
project
shows
the
economic
benefits
totaling
$18
million
as
a
result
of
this
trails
 partnerships.

 Linda
Merigliano
‐
Recreation
Wilderness
Trails
Program
 Manager
 Linda
is
the
Recreation/Wilderness/Trails
program
manager
for
the
 Jackson
Ranger
District
on
the
Bridger‐Teton
National
Forest.

She
 has
been
working
on
the
Bridger‐Teton
Forest
since
1991
and
has
 particular
interest
in
engaging
people
in
stewardship,
visitor
use
 planning
and
promoting
responsible,
respectful
public
land
use.

 
 
 Tim
Young
‐
Adventure
Design
(past
Executive
Director
Friends
of
Pathways)

 Tim
works
a
consultant
for
pathways,
trails
and
human
powered
 transportation
modes.
He
served
as
executive
director
of
Friends
of
Pathways
 in
Jackson,
Wyoming
for
five
years
where
he
helped
create
a
model
trails
 partnership
with
the
Forest
Service.
Tim
is
currently
vice
chair
of
the
Board
of
 the
League
of
American
Bicyclists,
and
served
on
the
Wyoming
State
Trails
 Council.
Tim
is
an
accomplished
bicycle
adventurer,
having
completed
a
 seven‐year
45,000‐mile
bicycle
tour
around
the
world.
 


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
2
 
 FRIENDS
OF
PATHWAYS
‐
Jackson
Hole
Trails
Partnership
/
Bridger
Teton
Natl
Forest
 ‐about
20
years
of
work
on
this
project
 ‐focused
on
front
country
trails;
not
just
great
trails,
also
on
managing
use
of
the
trails
;
promoting
 responsible
use
of
trails

 ‐active
signing
and
information
program
 ‐began
in
1991
 ‐county
and
town
were
working
on
transportation
initiatives;
examining
pathways;
alternative
 transportation
 ‐Jackson
/
Teton
County
is
97%
public
lands
 ‐rural
forest
in
an
urban
environment;
interface
area;
major
tourism
area;
4
mil
per
year
 ‐forest
service
was
looking
at
area
just
outside
of
Jackson;
conflicts
with
hikers/bikers
&
motor
vehicles

 ‐flooding
in
97
led
to
trail
repair
attention;
previously
user‐created
and
old
roads
 ‐WY
State
Trails
started
focusing
on
non‐motorized
system
as
well
 ‐formal
partnership
started
in
2000
 
‐big
fire
year;
opp
to
focus
more
attention
on
front
country
areas
 ‐talking
with
local
orgs
and
agencies;
focus
on
public
lands;
engage
people
more
in
fact
that
recreation
 has
impacts
and
needs
management;
get
people
involved
directly
 ‐start
in
Snow
King
area
near
town
–
front
country

 ‐money
from
fire
savings
>
cost
sharing
agreement
b/t
USFS
and
Friends
of
Pathways

 ‐better
trail
design
planning
was
focus
 ‐County
trail
design
charrette;
public
design
meeting
–
how
to
meet
all
needs
 ‐goals
outcome
>
sustainable
trails,
respect
for
people,
respect
for
land

 ‐hired
a
project
coordinator
 ‐started
working
with
local
partners;
got
things
going
 ‐immediate
changes
got
positive
public
reaction
 ‐2004
–
rogue
trail
building;
big
conflicts
b/t
horseback
riding,
hiking
and
bikers
in
Teton
pass
 ‐started
looking
at
management
issues;
another
design
charrette
 ‐abbreviated
NEPA
process;
public
involvement
>
moved
to
implementation
quickly;
planning
and
analysis
 did
not
drag
on
 ‐Friends
of
Pathways
worked
with
USFS
to
prioritize
projects;
sustainable
design,
purpose
built
and
 implementation
of
new
trail;
first
of
its
kind
in
the
area
 ‐created
user
groups
coming
right
out
of
Jackson

 ‐FS
provided
funds;
volunteers
helped
 ‐Friends
of
Pathways
–
focuses
on
trails
and
safer
streets;
sought
grants
for
trail
crew
support
 ‐more
than
just
trails
–
kiosks,
information
stops,
etc.

 ‐Winter
&
Summer
Ambassador
program
at
Teton
pass
–
geared
toward
sustainable
use
 ‐2009
‐
partnership
with
Boy
Scouts;
12
miles
of
trail
built
in
a
week
 ‐leverage
econ
dev
aspects
of
partnerships
–
engage
business
community;
partner
on
grant
applications;
 demonstrate
economic
development
benefits

 ‐Business
Council
approved
a
$500K
grant
for
single
track
mtn
biking;
plus;
$500K
match
from
state??

 ‐now
28
miles
of
purpose‐built
bike
trails;
Jackson
Hole
resort,
Snow
King,
etc
>
doing
an
economic
impact
 study
with
student
from
UWy
to
demonstrate
econ
value
of
the
project;
show
business
council

 ‐18
million
dollar
economic
impact
 and
job
creation
 
 Note‐taker
4
 Jackson
Hole
Trail
Partnership


2


20
year
effort,
focused
on
front
country
trails,
not
just
creating
great
trails
but
also
managing
use
of
trails.
 Better
information
on
how
to
navigation,
active
signing
and
information
program,
Use
Manager
program
 and
ambassadors.
 Began
in
1991,
two
independent
efforts
–
County
and
Town
(alternative
transportation/pathways)
at
the
 same
time
of
Forest
Service
(Greater
Snow
Team
Area),
transportation
conflicts
in
a
confined
valley.

 97%
public
lands
in
Teton
County,
rural
forest
in
an
urban
environment
 1997
High
flood
water
destroyed
roads
and
trails,
money
through
forest
service
to
make
repairs

 WY
State
trails
started
holding
“let’s
Talk
Trails”
meetings
 2000
formal
partnership,
big
fire
year,
lots
of
year‐end
money
to
spend,
focus
attention
on
front‐country
 areas,
talking
with
consveration
and
environmental
groups
 Wanted
to
foster
ties
with
community
and
public
lands,
get
people
engaged
in
recreation,
direct
 stewardship
with
the
public,
recognized
pressure
on
front‐country
areas
which
had
been
neglected.
 Approached
Friends
of
Pathways
to
set
up
agreement
to
provide
money
to
FoP
and
start
recruiting
 volunteers
 Needed
to
have
better
design
and
system
planning.
Initiated
community
design
project.
Nat.
Park
Services
 to
facilitate.
Planning
focus
on
sustainable
trails,
respect
for
people,
respect
for
land
(Goal
of
Design
 effort).
Hired
project
coordinator,
worked
with
community
and
youth,
brought
focus
to
the
effort.

 Immediate
visible
changes
in
Snow
King
area.
Teton
Area
–
Rouge
trail
building,
conflicts
between
horse
 and
bike
riders.
Engage
down‐hill
mountain
biking
 Upfront,
public
work,
initiated
through
cat.
Exclusion,
kept
momentum
moving,
didn’t
drag
out
planning
 and
analysis.
 Crews
paid
by
Forest
Service
and
FoP.
Worked
on
improving
existing
trails,
creating
sustainable
pathways,
 went
to
trailbuilding
schools,
built
on
old,
unusable
trails
over
the
course
of
two
years.
Significant
 volunteer
component
to
build
trails.

 More
than
just
trails,
kiosk
for
maps
and
education,
trails
the
most
visible
for
users,
however.
 Ambassadors
(Fop)
to
work
with
public
to
disseminate
information,
conflicts
decreased,
winter
and
 summer
program.
Crucial
to
safety
and
sustainability.
 
2008
working
with
Boy
Scouts,
700
Scouts
built
Arrowhead
trail,
12
miles
built
in
one
week.
Needed
more
 resources
to
take
projects
to
the
next
level.
Talk
to
local
and
state
governments,
trails
=
business,
 partnership
team
with
local
government.

WY
Business
Council
grant
for
$1
million
of
biking
and
hiking
 trails
into
one
economic
grant.
County
Commisioners
sponsored.
Completed
this
summer,
28
miles,
 exceeded
goal
by
1
miles.
New
bike
trail,
use
and
business
skyrocketing.

 Working
with
U.
of
WY
to
analyze
economic
effects
of
grant.

$18
million
economic
impact
total,
$700,000
 in
taxes,
$3.6
million
in
wages,
thousands
of
volunteer
hours.



 Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
Jackson
Hole
Trails
Partnership,
Upper
Colorado
River,
and
others


3


CHAPTER 10

Using
Partnerships
to
Protect
the
Upper
Colorado
River
 
 Represent
broad
interests
in
good
faith
 


Use
a
sub‐committee
and
workgroup
structure
 Hold
regular
meetings
with
facilitators
and
coordinators


The
Upper
Colorado
River
is
the
largest
source
of
supplemental
water
supplies
for
Denver
and
Colorado’s
 Front
Range
cities,
and
also
supports
world‐class
recreational
paddling
and
fishing.
With
the
 announcement
of
the
BLM’s
Management
Plan
revision
process
and
Wild
and
Scenic
Rivers
review
in
 2007,
a
group
of
interested
stakeholders
convened
in
an
effort
to
strike
a
balance
between
the
needs
of
 communities
and
the
flow‐dependent
characteristics
that
make
the
river
eligible
for
inclusion
into
the
 WSR
system.
These
needs
are
often
described
as
being
incompatible;
as
future
water
supplies
directly
 threaten
the
timing,
magnitude,
and
duration
of
instream
flows
that
sustain
the
Outstandingly
 Remarkable
Values
(ORVs)
of
the
Colorado
River.
The
Upper
Colorado
River
Wild
&
Scenic
Stakeholders
 Group
(SG)
is
a
diverse
group
of
agencies
and
organizations
with
an
interest
in
protecting
flow‐dependent
 ORVs
through
a
collaborative,
locally
driven
management
plan.
After
four
years
of
negotiations,
the
SG
 has
reached
agreement
on
a
management
plan
alternative
currently
listed
in
the
BLM’s
draft
RMP
and
EIS
 for
two
cooperative
field
offices.
The
plan
provides
flexibility
for
development
of
water
supplies,
while
 sustaining
the
needs
of
whitewater
recreation
and
fishing,
the
major
economic
drivers
in
the
region.
With
 the
luxury
of
time,
this
group
was
able
to
work
together,
educate
all
the
stakeholders,
and
agree
on
a
plan
 that
considers
multiple,
overlapping
economic
interests.

 Peter
Fleming

‐
Legal
Council,
Colorado
River
Water
Conservancy
District
 Peter
C.
Fleming
is
Legal
Counsel
for
the
Colorado
River
Water
Conservation
District,
a
position
he
has
 held
since
2002.

Peter
serves
on
the
Upper
Colorado
River
Commission’s
Legal
Committee
and
the
 Executive
Committee
of
the
Water
Law
Section
of
the
Colorado
Bar
Association.

Peter
frequently
speaks
 on
water,
interstate
compact,
and
governmental
issues.

Peter
previously
was
a
member
of
Carlson,
 Hammond
&
Paddock,
L.L.C.
in
Denver,
where
his
practice
focused
on
water
rights,
real
property,
 environmental,
real
estate,
and
governmental
matters.
 Rob
Buirgy
‐
Coordinator,
Upper
Colorado
River
Wild
&
Scenic
Stakeholders
Group
 Roy
Smith
‐
State
Coordinator,
Wild
and
Scenic
Rivers
Program,
US
BLM
 Nathan
Fey
‐
Director,
Colorado
River
Stewardship
Program,
American
Whitewater
 


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
2
 
 ‐BLM
and
USFS;
BLM
primary
driver;
resource
management
plan
>
Wild
&
Scenic
River
designation
 
 ‐starting
near
Kremmling
>
4
stretches
b/t
there
and
No
Name
canyon
 ‐early
eligibility
study
>
story
evolves
from
one
of
conflict
to
one
of
cooperation
 ‐alternative
management
plan
 
 ‐boating
and
fishing
related
outstanding
remarkable
values
(ORVs)
are
the
key
focus
 
 ‐this
is
about
better
living
through
locals;
locals
become
state
players
through
participation
 
 ‐working
toward
permanent
protection
of
ORVs,
certainty
and
???
 ‐catalysts
different
than
drivers;
drivers
are
similar
for
all;
but
catalysts
are
more
specific
to
different
 interests;
what
makes
it
easier
for
partners
to
work
together?
 ‐sampling
of
key
stakeholders
 
 ‐CO
Water
Conservation
Board
 
 ‐CO
Parks
&
Wildlife

 
 ‐State
Engineer’s
Office

 
 ‐water
providers,
recreation
and
environmental
communities

 
 PETER
FLEMMING,
CO
River
District
 ‐mainly
a
water
development
organization;
from
Western
Slope;
transmountain
water
diversions
are
a
 major
issue
 ‐Denver
Water,
Northern
Water,
CO
Springs,
City
of
Aurora
>
historical
adversaries
of
River
 District

 ‐District
historically
not
very
aligned
with
recreation
community;
but
over
the
years
Western
 slope
economy
has
evolved
toward
recreation‐based
economy

 ‐District
got
involved
in
WSR
process
 
 
 ‐WSR
requires
Congressional
action;
water
utilities
were
against;
so
was
District
really
 
 ‐level
below
is
WSR
suitability
>
left
more
room
for
cooperation
and
multiple
benefits
across
 stakeholders
 
 
 ‐Denver
Water
is
providing
funds
for
WSR
resources
through
the
management
plan
 
 Nathan,
American
Whitewater
 ‐there
is
a
growing
economy
based
on
flows;
we
are
at
the
table
to
protect
recreational
values
based
on
 flows
 ‐commercial
outfitters
are
important
part
of
the
economy;
also
a
lot
of
non‐commercial
use;
need
to
 protect
the
resource
 ‐also
economic
development
dependent
upon
flows;
human
powered
recreation
>
our
driver/catalyst

 ‐CO
River
is
also
a
icon
of
the
West
 
 BLM
Rep
 ‐interested
in
avoiding
conflict,
but
also
trying
to
support
local
community
economic
development;
 communities
were
indicating
the
importance
of
recreation

 ‐BLM
came
into
the
process
b/c
of
breadth
of
stakeholder
engagement
 ‐BLM
also
didn’t
have
the
resources
to
do
the
best
possible
job
to
manage
the
river
for
future
generations
 ‐BLM
had
to
be
careful
in
how
it
engaged
b/c
of
FACA;
not
voting
participants;
had
to
create
space
for
the
 organization
to
form
and
do
its
work
 ‐elements
of
success:
 
 ‐Time;
BLM
had
to
slow
down
process
for
other
reasons;
group
had
3
years
but
that’s
not
 normal;
need
to
be
ready
to
engage
in
resource
planning
–
normally
1
year
 
 ‐educating
stakeholders
re:
federal
regulations,
rules
and
authority
 
 ‐communication
conduit
with
federal
agencies;
know
which
agency
to
speak
to
about
different

 questions
>
make
sure
stakeholder
group
produces
something
acceptable
to
federal
govt


2


‐sometimes
feds
need
to
stay
away;
allow
frank
discussion
among
stakeholders
 ‐group
successfully
developed
alternative
resource
management
plan;
out
for
public
comment;
good
 chance
that
BLM
will
be
able
to
adopt
this
plan
eventually
 
 Note‐taker
4
 
 1.

About
the
stakeholder
perspectives,
evolution
from
wanting
to
fight
to
working
together.


2.

Alternative
Management
Plan,
“Cats
with
a
Purpose”
–
to
protect
water
related
values
(boating
and
 fishing)


3.

4.

a.

Better
Living
Through
Locals,
Regional
and
State
effort,
Identified
clear
drivers
–
protection
 of
ORVs,
water
yield
and
flexibility,
catalyst
as
opposed
to
drivers.
Driver
is
the
same
for
 everyone,
catalysts
are
what
makes
individual
stakeholders
act,
each
are
different.

30
to
40
 active
meeting
members.



b.

Stakeholders:
Fed.
And
State
Agencies,
BLM,
Parks
and
Wildlife
(Data,
management),
state
 engineers,
water
providers
and
recreational
community.


Economic
Drivers
 a.

Trans‐mountain
diversions,
Denver
water,
Northern
Water,
CO
Springs,
Aurora,
Historical
 adversaries
of
River
District


b.

Western
Slope
economy
is
now
recreationally
based.
River
District
became
aligned
with
 recreational
interests.
Wanted
Wild
and
Scenic
Suitability
distinction,
knew
this
would
create
 contention.
Work
with
adversaries
to
create
a
better
deal
than
each
would
achieve
 individually.



Growing
economy
based
on
flows,
will
decrease
without
protective
plans,
driving
force
is
protecting
 the
environment
even
for
white
water
recreation
organizations.

 a.

5.

60,000
commercial
users
a
year,
$36
million
to
local
economy
each
year
dependent
of
flow


Fed.
and
State
gov.
knew
of
historical
conflicts
and
competing
economic
pulls.
Hesitant
to
be
involved
 with
stakeholders
for
fear
of
interest
petering
out.
Forest
Services
and
BLM
did
not
have
the
 resources
alone
to
complete
project
and
successfully
manage
a
river,
needed
to
bring
in
other
 partners.

 a.

Fed.
Advisory
Committee
Act,
Group
had
to
form
on
its
own
and
have
its
own
resources,
 Gov.
couldn’t
be
a
voting
participant.



b.

Outside
groups
have
more
time,
focus
on
a
specific
issue,
Education
is
also
a
huge
 component
to
understand
federal
laws
and
processes,
educated
stakeholders
in
this.



c.

Communication
with
Federal
Agency
vital,
who
to
talk
to
to
get
question
answered.



d.

Knowing
when
to
stay
away,
stakeholders
needed
to
have
frank
discussions
without
Federal
 presence
to
further
complicate
issues.

 Balanced
approach
that
considers
multiple
economic
interests.
 
 


3


Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
Jackson
Hole
Trails
Partnership,
Upper
Colorado
River,
and
others


Note‐taker
2
 
 Elements
of
Success?
 ‐breaking
down
silos;
between
federal
agencies,
non‐profits;
involving
business
groups,
etc
 ‐in
particular
breaking
down
federal
agencies
silos
b/t
the
agencies
themselves

 ‐need
to
do
a
better
job
of
creating
a
vision
in
which
those
silos
don’t
exist;
when
planning
processes,
etc.

 
 ‐breaking
down
paradigms
 ‐have
to
pay
attention
to
laws,
regs,
rules,
etc
>
but
newer
managers
are
starting
to
challenge
existing
 paradigm;
need
to
be
persistent
in
challenges
 
 ‐building
trust
among
partners
 ‐true
on
Appalachian
Trail

 ‐perceptions
can
become
reality
if
you
don’t
work
through
barriers;
humanizing
interests;
focus
on
people
 not
the
orgs
they
represent;
build
key
people
to
build
trust
and
leverage
their
networks

 
 ‐having
good
science;
trusting
science
 ‐relying
on
the
objectivity
of
science
can
help
move
aside
opinions
 
 ‐demonstrating
the
economic
value
of
recreation;
helps
bring
federal
agencies
around;
quantify
econ
 benefits;
helps
break
down
silos
 ‐need
to
find
ways
to
do
go
studies
of
economic
development
impacts;
work
with
university
partners
to
 be
smart
about

evaluations
of
econ
impacts
 ‐university
research
brings
credibility
b/c
people
perceive
it
as
unbiased

 
 ‐are
there
are
any
templates
for
doing
economic
impact
evaluations?
Examples/models?
 ‐Moab
 ‐Raystown
 ‐Jackson
Hole

 ‐???
‐Rails
to
Trails
does
a
good
job
of
this
too
 ‐IMBA
has
a
lot
of
local
bike
clubs;
they
have
been
doing
a
better
job
using
surveys
and
showing
economic
 impact
of
weekend
bike
races

 
 ‐working
with
Congressman
DeFazio
to
quantify

 
 ‐work
with
local
economic
development
districts
(county
of
city)
–
easy
way
to
access
that
information;
 esp
in
communities
that
are
moving
away
from
extraction
toward
recreation
 
 ‐IMBA
project
at
Raystown

 ‐engaged
economic
development
orgs
in
the
area
early;
job
creation
projections
helped
sell
the
project
 
 ‐at
Oregon
Trails
–
we
focus
on
primitive
paths
which
is
more
of
a
challenge
to
quantify
the
benefits
of
 our
trails
compared
to
those
that
are
paved

 ‐focus
on
success;
tangible
results
 ‐transfer
the
energy
seen
in
this
success
stories
back
to
our
home
projects
 
 ‐USACE
–
starting
to
look
more
closely
at
how
to
leverage
resources;
try
not
to
focus
on
lack
of
funds
etc;
 look
at
different
pieces
and
these
stories
are
showing
how
the
pieces
can
come
together

 
 ‐need
to
have
two‐way
relationships
b/t
advocacy
organizations
and
federal
agencies
 ‐cannot
be
a
demand
and
response
relationship
–
needs
to
involve
each
player
bringing
something
to
the
 table
 


4


‐communication
is
critical;
need
to
communicate
objectives
and
what
you
can
bring
to
the
table

 ‐federal
govt
is
less
of
a
provider;
partners
need
to
contribute
 
 ‐great
opportunities
today
for
public‐private
partnerships

 ‐leveraging
resources
from
3
or
4
or
more
partners
is
basically
the
best
option
these
days

 
 ‐open‐mindedness
of
land
managers
is
key
–
need
someone
who
is
willing
to
think
creatively
and
push
 boundaries;
can‐do
spirit
 
 ‐collaboration
from
ground
up
is
key;
but
what
about
the
policy
level?
 ‐how
do
we
shift/stabilize
federal
funding
situation?

 ‐keep
momentum
at
ground
level
AND
leverage
that
to
a
higher
level
agenda
that
can
have
impact
at
the
 Federal/Congressional
level?
 ‐AGO
is
one
example/mechanism
 ‐when
USACE
money
is
not
used
it
goes
back
to
the
Treasury;
we
are
working
on
partnerships
to
help
 bring
benefit
to
public
lands
 ‐active
listening,
communication
skills
and
mutual
respect
are
key
personality
traits
that
are
needed
for
 building
relationships
and
trust
 
 Note‐taker
4
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?
 •

Friends
of
Pathways
Success
 o

Projects
happen
because
of
relationships,
need
people
willing
to
develop
relationships,
 Non‐profit
world
–
people
who
live
in
community
and
are
committed,
more
difficult
to
 find
committed
federal
agents
–position
isn’t
as
important
as
individual
commitment
is


o

Willingness
to
take
risk,
especially
from
federal
agency,
many
roadblocks
in
federal
 agencies
to
not
participate,
willingness
to
trust
gut


o

Long‐term
commitment
from
community
and
agency.



o

Stand
in
the
others’
shoes,
move
past
hesitation
to
work
with
land
manager,
non‐ profits,
local
government
and
federal
partnerships


o

Pick
compelling
projects
important
for
the
community
that
will
unite
people,



o

Quality
work,
sent
workers
to
school



Colorado
River
 o

Commitment
to
place
and
taking
risks,
ties
to
the
community,
know
the
players,
work
 past
federal
risk
aversion


o

Give
and
take
in
negotiations,
creating
more
value
than
would
exist
individually,
 recognize
when
value
has
reached
its
limits.
Don’t
push
to
hard
at
the
initial
level
to
 avoid
value
grabbing.



Perseverance


5


o •

Avoid
instant
gratification
to
stick
through
the
years
of
work.


Work
with
Universities
 o

Look
for
interested
graduate
students


o

Can
show
economic
benefits
that
are
not
so
apparent



Education
 o

Stakeholders
can
feel
disenfranchised,
locals
do
not
feel
involved.
Bring
them
in
at
the
 beginning
of
the
process


o

Educate
on
what
the
processes
are,
provide
maps
and
websites


o

Non‐profits
can
translate
“federal
speak”
in
a
local
language


Public
doesn’t
have
the
time
and
resources
to
fully
investigate
policy
and
procedure
on
 their
own
 Are
these
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 o

o

Especially
in
recovering
mining
communities



o

How
much
do
you
need
to
attract
tourists?
Leap
of
faith,
can
lose
momentum


Outdoor
culture
not
as
shared
in
other
areas,
i.e.
the
Upper
Mid‐West


Issue
of
getting
people
to
pay
attention
and
recognize
economic
potential



Broad
increase
in
snow
sports,
i.e.
snowshoeing



Capacity
Issues


Question
of
Quality
vs.
Quantity?



 •

o

Diminished
experiences?


o

Carrying
Capacity?


Dealing
with
Public
Pushback
of
Tourists
 o

Engage
the
community
and
leaders
over
multiple
years,
smooth
evolution



o

Willingness
to
participate
in
public
processes



o

Use
community
links
to
have
one‐on‐one
conversations
with
locals
with
potential
 concerns,
once
you
have
willingness
to
share
the
space,
then
hold
public
meetings


o

Small
meetings,
get
people
engaged
to
accept
concessions


Were
there
any
lessons
in
any
of
the
stories
about
what
NOT
to
do?


6


• •

Could,
and
if
yes,
how,
would
you
frame
any
of
these
success
element
or
lessons
as
“best
 practices”?
 How
would
you
prioritize
suggested
best
practices?

Which,
if
any,
are
truly
key
versus
being
 good
but
not
essential?


Committed
participants


Look
beyond
economic
visitor
contribution,
capture
residential
effects,
those
who
chose
to
live
in
 the
area
for
specific
recreational
incentives,
quality
of
life.
What
type
of
small
businesses
does
it
 attract?


Leap
of
faith,
trust
those
you
work
with.
Relationship
building.


Data
and
research
to
support
argument.
Part
of
annual
work
plan,
continue
to
study
data,
health
 benefits
(European
studies
on
health
and
transportation
for
cycling)


Communication,
not
just
one
way
of
communicating,
utilize
social
media,
reach
all
those
who
 want
to
be
included.



Open,
honest,
early,
build
relationships,
start
small,
build
on
success.
Don’t
start
with
positions.
 Need
common
interests,
most
are
not
opposed
to
restoration,
just
need
to
identify
common
 ground.



Create
a
“History
Book”
for
frequently
changing
federal
agents.

 o

Take
information
and
give
it
to
the
next
people


o

Create
history
on
land
use
and
conservation,
create
movies
and
books,
share
personal
 insight
while
sharing
social
networks
and
how
to
interact
with
other
stakeholders
and
 agencies.


o

Create
a
transition
plan.


Join
federal
agencies
for
more
cohesion
(inter‐agency),
create
consistent
processes,
training.



o Professional
competency,
work
across
agencies
 Is
there
anything
else
of
importance
in
these
stories
that
we
should
make
sure
to
capture
in
the
 report?


Snow
sports
are
the
fastest
growing
in
the
winter
economy


Needs
to
be
further
studied,
some
studies
in
Vermont
but
huge
need
for
better
research
(would
 help
those
in
the
Mid
West
to
prove
economic
benefits)


• •

Other
note‐taker
comments
or
insights:
 Adam
was
extremely
enthusiastic
on
inter‐agency
competency
and
cohesion
as
well
as
the
 “History
Book”
idea.

Wanted
to
emphasis
the
passing
of
knowledge
from
one
employee
to
 another,
not
just
legal
knowledge
but
also
personal
insight
and
social
links
to
make
the
transition
 stage
more
cohesive
and
effective.

 Another
interesting
point
made
was
that
attempts
should
be
made
to
represent
the
people
you
 don’t
hear
from
–
5
year
olds,
grandparents,
housewives,
all
of
whom
use
the
trails
as
well,
those
 are
the
people
you
want
to
leave
the
couch
and
get
active.



• 


7


CHAPTER 11

Youth
Corps
and
the
Sandy
Ridge
Trail
System
 
 


Assistance
agreements
to
allow
dynamic
design‐build
project
implementation
with
multiple
partners.
 Professional
trailbuilders
providing
oversight
to
youth
corps
crews.

 Knowledgeable
and
involved
agency
project
manager.



 The
Sandy
Ridge
Trail
system
near
Mt.
Hood,
Oregon
is
an
innovative
and
internationally
known
mountain
 bicycle
trail
network
developed
by
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management.
The
successful
implementation
of
 this
unique
system
rests
in
the
partnership
established
by
the
BLM,
the
International
Mountain
Bicycling
 Association,
and
youth
corps
crews.
 Youth
corps
crews
were
a
cost‐effective
mechanism
for
building
trails
and
the
Sandy
Ridge
Trail
system.
 The
project
has
utilized
over
60
youth
from
a
half‐dozen
local
and
regional
groups,
including
the
Columbia
 River
Youth
Corps,
the
Northwest
Youth
Crops,
and
AntFarm.
Youth
corps
crews
have
accounted
for
 approximately
25,000
hours
of
labor
on
the
project.
The
specific
integration
of
the
AntFarm
youth
corps
 program,
which
focuses
on
under‐employed,
at‐risk,
and
adjudicated
youth
from
nearby
Sandy,
OR,
has
 been
successful
in
providing
needed
employment
to
youth,
giving
them
valuable
job
skills,
exposing
them
 to
outdoor
recreation,
and
helping
to
integrate
the
local
communities
into
the
new
trail
system.

 When
developing
destination‐quality,
flow‐based
mountain
bicycle
trails
with
youth
corps
crews
it
is
 critical
to
engage
an
experienced
contractor
to
ensure
quality
control
and
risk
management.
Having
an
 agency
project
manager
who
is
engaged
and
promotes
dynamic
solutions
is
also
important
to
successfully
 integrating
multiple
partners.
Thanks
to
these
partnerships,
Sandy
Ridge
no
helps
meet
the
high
demand
 for
mountain
biking
in
the
Portland
area.

 
 Zach
Jarrett
‐
Lead
Outdoor
Recreation
Planner,
Bureau
of
Land
 Management
(Salem
District)
 Zach
Jarrett
leads
a
program
that
is
responsible
for
managing
 recreation
opportunities
ranging
from
Wilderness
and
Wild
and
 Scenic
Rivers
to
OHV
emphasis
areas.
Zach
has
nearly
10
years
of
 experience
in
NEPA
planning,
wilderness
management,
 partnership
development
and
trail
planning,
design
and
 construction.
Zach
has
been
working
with
IMBA
and
various
 partners
for
the
last
4
years
to
address
the
lack
of
mountain
bike
 specific
trail
opportunities
in
Western
Oregon.
 
 Chris
Bernhardt
‐
Director
of
Consulting
Services,
International
Mountain
 Bicycling
Association
 Chris
Bernhardt
has
managed
trail
projects
in
35
states
and
Canada,
Singapore,
 Hong
Kong,
China,
Italy,
and
Tasmania.

Chris
presents
and
has
been
published
 on
the
topic
of
sustainable,
risk‐managed
technical
mountain
bicycle
trails,
and
 has
worked
with
the
Forest
Service,
National
Park
Service,
U.S.
Army
Corps
of
 Engineers,
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
and
over
one
hundred
state
and
local
 jurisdictions.

Chris
holds
a
Masters
of
Urban
and
Regional
Planning
from
 Portland
State
University.
 


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
5
 
 Summary:

 Chris
Burnhardt
and
Zach
Jarrett
briefed
Sandy
Ridge,
OR
trail
project.

BLM
received
land
and
water
 conservation
funding
for
areas
around
Portland
metro
area.

They
have
gradually
blocked
off
increasing
 amount
of
land
around
Portland
for
use
as
outdoor
recreation.

Identified
the
need
for
mountain
biking
 trails
around
the
Portland
area
with
the
help
of
a
specialist
from
IMBA.

Face
some
funding
limitations
and
 thus
identified
the
need
to
bring
in
and
establish
partnerships
to
develop
this
project.

The
Sandy
Ridge
 trail
project
is
designed
with
the
latest
techniques
of
development,
“flow
trail
system.”
There
is
a
huge
 demand
for
mountain
biking
in
Portland
but
no
good
areas
to
do
it.

Partnership
structure
allowed
for
this
 need
to
be
filled.

BLM,
IMBA
and
youth
corps
crews
provided
the
money,
the
expertise,
and
the
labor
 necessary
for
the
project.

OR‐WA
BLM
created
a
blanket
assistance
agreement
that
would
allow
any
and
 all
funds
(public
and
private)
to
be
marshaled
for
this
single
project
and
enabled
the
planners
to
 aggressively
fundraise
for
the
project.


 
 Lessons
learned
over
the
years:

 ‐kids
and
young
adults
provide
a
lot
of
muscle,
but
if
not
properly
supervised
they
may
not
completely
 execute
the
required
task.


 ‐Partnered
with
at‐risk
youth
through
organization
“ant
farm”
and
interfaced
with
social
workers
to
get
 positive
effort
from
the
youths
while
making
sure
that
the
social
workers
fulfilled
their
individual
needs.
 ‐Keeping
kids
together
was
very
important;
economy
of
force
was
important
for
efficiency
and
allowing
 them
to
work
in
a
peer
group
got
a
better
result.
 ‐Keeping
partnerships
going
over
the
years
ensures
consistency
 ‐Puts
a
lot
of
money
into
the
local
economy
 ‐Kids
learn
leadership
skills
 ‐Kids
are
introduced
to
the
outdoor
lifestyle
and
often
times
adopt
new
recreational
habits
they
had
not
 been
previously
exposed
to

 ‐most
youth
work
done
under
contract
 
 Sustainability:
 ‐able
to
get
increased
funding
from
AGO
and
to
keep
engaging
youth
for
preservation
of
project
 
 Note‐taker
6
 
 The
BLM
8
years
ago
received
Land
and
Water
Conservation
Funds.

At
that
point,
there
were
about
5,000
 adjacent
acres
(now
about
15,000).

Via
planning
with
multiple
groups,
we
were
able
to
roll
out
an
 environmental
assessment
process.

There
was
a
need
for
mountain
bike
specific
trails
close
to
the
 Portland
metro
area.

We
used
specialists
from
IMBA
to
implement
the
project
with
a
blank
canvas
in
 place.

 
 Limitations
in
funding
existed.

We
knew
we
had
to
roll
in
as
many
partners
as
possible.

Before
 construction
started,
we
created
agreements
with
trail
advocacy
groups,
IMBA,
and
blanket
agreements
 with
other
organizations.

Tremendous
buy
in
from
local
communities.
 
 Project
Implementation
–
it
is
a
single
track
trail
system,
primarily
for
mountain
bikes.

Planned,
designed
 and
built
with
latest
and
greatest
in
construction.

Flow
based
trail
system,
lots
of
legacy
roads
that
are
 heavily
impacted.

Fixed
drainage
on
roadbeds
and
made
them
good
facilities
for
mountain
bikes.

 
 There
was
huge
demand
from
Portland
area
(very
little
other
opportunities).


 
 Partners
were
important
–
like
a
3‐legged
stool.




2


BLM
partnership
is
essential.

BLM
had
the
vision
and
the
ability
to
make
it
happen.


 We
had
technical
expertise.


 Youth
Corps
crew
had
the
muscle.


 Although
we
have
a
small
recreation
staff
(our
district
boundaries
include
8%
of
population
of
 Oregon),
we
were
able
to
achieve
a
lot
due
to
partnerships.
 o 
Blanket
assistance
agreement
with
IMBA
to
engage
youth
programs.
 o Specialists
working
for
IMBA


 o Allowed
us
to
go
after
as
many
resources
as
we
could
find.
 o I
could
go
after
as
many
resources
as
I
could
find
 The
vision
existed
to
create
a
state‐wide
assistance
project.


 
 Lessons
from
work
with
youth
(worked
with
several
hundred
teens
and
young
adults).

Lessons:
 • They
provide
muscle
power,
but
it
can
hurt
you
or
harm
you
(like
any
technology).

If
you
leave
 them
alone
for
more
than
½
day,
you
will
come
back
and
see
something
different
than
you
 expect.
Need
to
manage
them
closely.


 • Rely
on
expertise
of
local
organizations
when
working
with
youth
–
One
organization
for
at
risk
 and
adjudicated
youth
called
Antfarm
had
a
social
worker
who
was
helpful.

They
had
issues
we
 could
not
deal
with,
but
through
their
organization
they
got
the
help
they
needed.


 • Clear
discipline
–
get
tough
love.

Be
prepared
for
that.


 • Keep
kids
together
–
that
is
very
important.
Don’t
spread
them
around
the
landscape.

They
work
 better
within
their
peer
group
than
responding
to
our
leadership.
 • Longer
installments
are
better.

Kids
transition
through,
but
some
of
leaders
stay
the
same.

You
 get
consistency
that
way.

 
 Economic
value
–
 • Hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
 • Employment
and
job
skills
to
teens
and
young
adults
(some
becoming
leaders
in
 subsequent
years)
 • Integrating
kids
into
outdoor
activities
 • Grants
used
to
hire
mountain
bike
guide
to
take
kids
on
the
trails
they
built.

Lots
of
these
 kids
wouldn’t
have
the
opportunity
otherwise.

Gives
them
a
better
appreciation
of
the
 work,
and
a
higher
quality
project.
 • Served
diverse
population
with
Youth
Corps.

 
 How
to
sustain
operations
and
maintenance
–
 • AGO
has
helped
to
address
issue
of
continuing
to
sustain
the
youth
 • Fortunate
to
have
management
in
place
in
Oregon
that
values
the
youth
component.

 
 Lots
of
day‐to‐day
work
was
done
via
contracted
youth
groups.

There
was
also
a
community
component
 with
underserved
youth.


 
 • • • •

Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
Sandy
Ridge,
North
Cascades,
and
others
 


3


CHAPTER 12

Moving
from
Conflict
to
Cooperation
in
the
North
Cascades
 
 


Have
patience
and
perseverance:
the
wheels
of
government
often
move
slower
than
glacial
speed
due
 to
limited
staff,
competing
priorities.
Don’t
let
bureaucratic
inertia
derail
your
long‐term
goal.




Get
down
and
dirty:
log
out
of
e‐mail
and
step
away
from
the
cubicle.
Whenever
possible,
meet
face
 to
face,
in
the
field,
to
discuss
sensitive
issues.

Listen
carefully.
Be
inclusive.
 Put
things
in
writing:
develop
written
agreements
to
memorialize
partnerships.

This
helps
avoid
 future
misunderstandings
that
routinely
arise
due
to
personnel
turnover
and
loss
of
administrative
 memory.





 Once
upon
a
time
a
motley
crew
of
skilled
climbers
discovered
that
North
Cascades
offers
more
than
 superlative
mixed
mountaineering.

Armed
with
drills,
tools,
abundant
elbow
grease
and
gumption,
they
 set
about
developing
outstanding
sport
climbing
on
several
crags
(adjacent
to
a
highway
and
not
in
 wilderness).


They
developed
a
really
cool
website
to
spread
the
word,
built
trails,
cut
vegetation,
cleared
 moss‐laden
routes,
and
constructed
terraces
to
enable
good
belays
and
safe
landings.

All
too
predictably,
 they
ran
into
THE
MAN,
who
happened
to
be
a
seasoned
law
enforcement
ranger
with
little
tolerance
(as
 per
36CFR
part
b)
for
resource
damage,
tool
caching,
and
other
unauthorized
activities.

Then
something
 unusual
happened:
conflict
gave
way
to
cooperation,
first
by
reaching
out
to
the
Access
Fund.
Rather
than
 being
punitive,
the
NPS
land
manager
decided
to
partner
with
the
climbing
community
and
compromise.
 Both
sides
gave
a
little
and
got
a
lot.
The
land
managers
went
in
looking
to
compromise,
and
the
climbers
 held
off
on
route
development
while
the
NPS
drafted
a
management
plan.

 
 Several
years
later,
an
agreement
was
reached
that
led
to
official
recognition
of
sport
climbing
as
an
 appropriate
activity;
a
successful
partnership
was
borne.

On
a
sunny
Saturday
shortly
thereafter,
some
 promising
young
climbers—many
of
whom
could
crank
5.11
but
had
never
climbed
on
“real
rock”— returned
to
the
crag,
built
trails,
pulled
weeds,
picked
up
trash
and
then
went
climbing.

With
special
 thanks
to
all
the
partners,
the
Access
Fund,
the
Washington
Climber’s
Coalition,
the
Washington
Trails
 Association,
the
Wilderness
Society
and
the
Vertical
World
Youth
Climbing
Team,
this
success
story
shows
 how
conflict
can
be
reshaped
into
cooperation,
and
in
this
case,
ultimately
led
to
kids
doing
what
they
 often
do
best:
climbing
around
in
the
great
outdoors.

 Roy
Zipp
‐
Environmental
Protection
Specialist,
North
 Cascades
National
Park
 A
“mediocre
mountaineer”
turned
land
manager,
Roy
 Zipp
holds
a
Bachelor
degree
in
Biology
from
McDaniel
 College
and
a
Masters
degree
in
Water
and
Air
 Resources
Management
from
Duke
University.
His
 career
with
the
NPS

includes
work
at
Mount
Rainier
 NP
(1992‐1995),
Big
Thicket
National
Preserve
(1997‐ 2002),
and
North
Cascades
NP
(2002‐present),
where
 he
currently
manages
a
planning,
compliance
and
lands
 program.
When
unchained
from
his
cubicle
he
enjoys
a
 wide
variety
of
non‐motorized
outdoor
pursuits
that
 end
with
the
letters
“ing.”


1


Note‐taker
5
 
 Roy
Zipp
from
North
Cascade
NP;
one
of
the
challenges
faced
is
that
many
people
who
live
in
close
 proximity
to
national
parks
and
other
recreational
areas
are
often
not
exposed
to
the
opportunities
 available
to
them,
especially
children.

In
an
increasingly
urban
society,
principles
of
conservation
are
 being
lost,
and
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
reintroduce
them
to
the
general
public,
particularly
children.
 At
NC,
local
climbers
began
to
start
developing
their
own
climbing
routes;
a
lot
of
development
had
 previously
taken
place
that
threatened
species
and
historical
artifacts
(too
much
route
clearing
and
 deforestation)
they
were
being
developed
independent
of
the
forest
and
park
service
jurisdiction.

Instead
 of
being
confrontational
and
punitive,
Roy
decided
to
interface
with
the
local
climbing
community
in
 order
to
try
to
partner
and
compromise
to
find
a
way
forward.

A
local
website
warned
climbers
to
be
 careful
in
climbing
unapproved
routes
and
that
the
park
service
was
interested
in
partnering
to
resolve
 the
issues.

The
climbers
stopped
developing
new
routes
for
several
years
until
an
interim
agreement
was
 signed
to
define
the
climbing
area,
define
nature
of
development
that
was
permitted,
and
codify
the
 management
plan
for
such
activities.

Working
with
Washington
Climbers
Coalition,
they
interested
 parties
were
able
to
codify
the
climbing
activity
that
worked
for
both
climbers
and
the
park
itself.

Other
 groups
began
to
take
interest
in
the
effort:
Wilderness
Society,
Washington
Trails
Assoc;
decided
to
 partner
for
an
“adopt
a
crag”
event.

Published
in
the
media,
didn’t
have
professional
developers
to
help
 so
the
WA
Trails
Assoc
provided
technical
expertise,
and
many
local
interested
kids
came
to
participate
 who
had
climbed
in
gyms
but
never
on
rock.

Event:
the
kids
came
out
to
help
clear
approved
trails
 (weeding
etc)
while
being
educated
about
the
local
species
and
conservation
concerns
(leave
no
trace
 ethics,
etc)
and
then
spent
the
next
day
climbing.

This
event
was
repeated
the
next
year.

Adopt
a
crag
is
 still
developing
as
an
ongoing
event.

What
began
as
a
confrontation
with
local
climbers
became
an
event
 to
expose
youth
who
might
not
be
exposed
to
sport
climbing
are
engaged
and
take
an
interest
in
 ownership
of
their
community.

Additionally,
resources
such
as
WA
Trail
Assoc
became
involved
with
their
 expert
knowledge
for
the
first
time.

Partnerships
are
now
expanding
in
ways
that
were
not
previously
 foreseen.

Engaging
youth
is
now
a
major
initiative
for
the
Cascade
NP.
 Major
challenge
is
the
healthy
challenge
between
wanting
to
increase
land
use
and
preserving
flora,
 fauna,
and
historical
artifacts.

Mostly
cultural
and
agency
shifts
that
will
enable
this
to
be
overcome.
 
 Note‐taker
6
 
 Working
with
kids
not
my
day
job.


Being
exposed
to
kids
has
opened
doors
and
expanded
my
own
sense
 of
reward
from
my
job.
 
 Kids
have
the
potential
to
get
hooked
in
and
excited
about
parks.

The
challenge
of
engaging
kids
is
 exciting.

When
I
look
at
a
kid
now
I
wonder
if
20
years
from
now
he
will
know
who
Aldo
Leopold
or
 Rachel
Carson
is?
Will
he
know
the
difference
between
NPS
and
NFS?

If
he
can’t
answer
those
questions
 in
20
years,
than
we
will
have
missed
something.

In
our
increasingly
urban
society,
fundamental
 conservation
info
is
being
lost.

Even
if
it
is
not
our
“day
job,”
we
need
to
make
that
happen.
 
 Work
at
North
Cascades
since
2002.

Case
study
started
shortly
thereafter.


 
 Local
climbers
were
developing
cool
climbs
inside
the
park,
adjacent
to
highway,
not
in
wilderness.


 Noticed
that
lots
of
concerning
development
had
taken
place
there
(peregrine
falcons,
lichens,
unique
 archaeological
resources).

Trail
building,
route
making,
vegetation
removal
were
concerning.



 Investigation
began
to
determine
who
was
doing
the
development.

The
****
was
about
to
hit
the
fan
 from
a
law
enforcement
standpoint.

My
sense
was
that
this
was
the
wrong
approach.
 
 I
called
the
Access
Fund
to
engage
the
private
community.


This
forced
a
partnership
so
we
could
begin
to
 talk
about
developing
a
management
plan,
etc.


 


2


Through
Access
fund,
concerns
were
communicated
to
climbing
community.

NPS
wanted
to
help,
but
 needed
time
to
work
on
other
issues.

Development
stopped
for
several
years,
but
NPS
still
made
no
 progress
on
creating
a
management
plan.
 
 After
several
years,
a
new
Superintendent
came
on
board
(Chip
Jenkins).

Chip
amazed
that
climbers
had
 backed
off
for
four
years
(hadn’t
built
additional
routes).

Chip
created
an
interim
agreement
with
 climbing
community
to
authorize
continued
climbing
within
certain
perameters,
and
to
define
nature
of
 development.

Eventual
goal
was
to
update
general
management
plan
and
codify
priorities
within
that
 document.
 
 Worked
with
Washington
Climbers
Association
(who
is
an
attorney
–
very
helpful).

Photographed
and
 codified
what
was
meant
by
interim
agreement,
and
then
climbing
continued.
 
 th Went
from
that
to
40 
anniversary
of
park.

Other
partners
started
showing
up.
Wilderness
Society,
 Vertical
Club
in
Seattle
with
Youth
Climbing
Team,
Washington
Trails
Association.

 
 Did
an
Adopt
a
Crag
event.

Wilderness
Society
facilitated
this
process,
did
press
releases,
etc.
Washington
 Trails
Association
worked
on
safety
issues.


 
 Ultimately
we
held
an
event
one
Saturday
in
that
fall.
Kids
aged
8‐16.

Lots
had
never
been
out
on
real
 rock
before.

Kids
at
forefront
of
gym
climbing,
but
now
out
on
the
rock.

Half‐day
was
stewardship
 (pulling
weeds,
ranger
led
Leave
No
Trace
talk,
talk
about
peregrine
falcons,
etc.),
then
went
climbing.

 This
happened
in
2008,
2009
and
2010.

 
 Emerging
climbing
area.

Readily
accessible.

New
opportunity
to
engage
youth
who
would
otherwise
not
 get
out
on
the
rocks.

Story
will
be
most
interesting
in
10‐15
years.

What
started
out
as
major
conflict
 ended
up
with
all
sorts
of
benefits.
 
 Multiplier
effect:


 • Wilderness
Society’s
work
on
North
Cascades
issues.
 • Washington
Trails
Association
now
known
to
be
an
amazing
resource

 • Kids
–
they
will
get
out
of
gym,
bring
their
friends.

Once
they
learn
about
sport
climbing,
they
 will
look
at
surrounding
peaks
and
learn
about
mountaineering.
 
 Work
with
kids:
 • very
energizing
 • They
give
back
in
intangible
but
significant
ways
 • They
are
the
future
 • We
need
to
think
about
new
ways
to
engage
youth
 • Getting
staff
out
with
kids
has
a
leveling
effect
with
staff
 
 Lessons
learned:
 • Engaging
kids
requires
a
generational
shift.

 • Big
change
for
us
happened
when
there
was
a
shift
in
the
superintendent.



 


3


Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
Sandy
Ridge,
North
Cascades,
and
others


Note‐taker
5
 
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?
 •

Open
mindedness
of
land
managers;
being
able
to
establish
a
dialogue



Creative
problem
solving
by
interested
parties


Sustainability:
how
to
balance
demand
and
limitations
of
natural
resources;
how
to
give
up
 complete
control
of
some
of
the
projects
to
share
with
other
partners


Organizations
have
to
understand
the
federal
planning
process
and
the
time
it
takes;
 understanding
what
is
involved
in
negotiating
the
federal
process
in
important.


Organization
have
to
be
proactive
in
reaching
out,
and
not
wait
for
the
fed
agencies
to
come
to
 them;
don’t
let
the
problem
get
bad
b/f
it
is
addressed


Walk
the
walk;
non‐profits
have
started
to
engage
and
often
now
initiate
the
partnership
 projects,
so
they
are
a
good
resource
now
to
start
with
as
opposed
to
govt
agencies.


Personalities
are
important:
someone
who
is
passionate
is
a
good
place
to
start;
focus
and
 concentrating
resources
is
the
next
important
step


Continuity
with
non‐profit
world
is
important;
aim
to
have
the
project
achieve
a
continuous
 impact;
not
isolated
event


Comparison
of
methods
of
NC
and
SR
projects:
found
a
special
use
permit
holder
who
was
willing
 to
help
coordinate
some
of
the
youth
activities
in
terms
of
taking
them
out
to
the
site
and
 providing
supervision.


One
experience
does
not
make
someone
passionate
about
the
outdoors;
it
needs
to
be
an
 ongoing
connection
and
a
partnership/program
that
is
repetitive.


Example:
Mountain
Bike
Little
League
focuses
on
letting
kids
be
kids;
allowing
them
to
compete;
 making
outdoor
activities
into
competitive
endeavors
that
will
make
them
advocates
for
the
 sport/activity.


Events
piece:
using
certain
areas
as
multi‐sport
areas
and
holding
multi‐sport
events
is
an
 efficient
way
to
use
the
land
as
well
as
to
expose
people
to
many
different
activities
at
one
time.




Veterans
groups
are
very
proactive
in
finding
ways
to
get
vets
outdoors.


Better
to
seek
out
a
partnership
then
to
try
to
unilaterally
establish
a
program.

Some
nonprofit
 orgs
do
not
effectively
market
themselves
so
know
your
area
and
the
orgs
that
are
active
in
the
 community.

Make
and
preserve
connections.


Do
not
wait
for
a
process
to
get
started,
just
start
coordinating
with
the
necessary
orgs
in
order
 to
keep
the
process
moving
and
keep
collaboration
alive.


4


Another
technique
to
draw
youth
in
is
to
partner
with
other
youth
programs
like
bands
or
church
 groups
and
to
see
if
there
is
interest
in
getting
involved
outdoors
in
a
group
that
is
already
 established.


NICA
is
an
organization
that
gets
high
school
mountain
bike
leagues
established.

25%
had
never
 ridden
before
the
program;
99%
said
they
wanted
to
continue
riding
after
the
program.


AmeriCorps
is
also
a
good
organization
to
seek
out
as
a
gatekeeper
to
some
communities
that
 are
hard
to
reach.

Partner
w
AmeriCorps
groups
that
have
employment
grants,
etc.

Can
open
 doors
to
underserved
populations.



Can
offer
incentives
like
college
scholarships
or
jobs.


University
population
and
outdoor
programs
should
also
be
engaged
to
create
a
sustainable
 group
and
also
to
target
individuals
who
are
about
to
graduate
and
go
into
the
private
sector
 who
can
continue
to
support
these
endeavors.


Integrated
media
depart
in
community
colleges
and
high
schools
are
a
terrific
way
to
publicize
 efforts
and
draw
attention,
tell
the
story,
stir
interest
in
an
activity;
many
young
people
have
 incredible
technological
abilities
and
those
talents
should
be
used
to
sustain
these
programs.




 Are
these
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 •

Transportation
is
an
issue:
individual
communities
have
to
find
ways
to
partner
with
sources
that
 can
provide
transportation
in
lieu
of
school
systems
that
had
transpo
budgets
cut,
etc.;
finding
 money
to
support
the
logistics
of
getting
youth
out
to
the
parks
is
important


Trips
for
Kids
is
a
national
organization
that
picks
up
kids
and
brings
them
to
these
locations
 (good
resource
for
this
problem);
there
is
an
active
branch
in
Denver


Prescription
Outdoors
is
trying
to
find
ways
to
reach
inner
city
youth
who
do
not
know
about
 outdoor
opportunities.


In
places
like
Summit
County,
it
is
difficult
to
get
disadvantaged
kids
into
programs
that
are
 already
utilized
by
more
well
to
do
families.

Finding
ways
to
bridge
the
gap
is
a
problem


Partnership
models
are
effective
in
other
areas.

It
is
advantageous
to
have
a
standardized
 process
to
undertake
these
projects
so
that
there
is
ease
in
standing
up
and
sustaining
these
 partnerships
so
that
people
know
who
to
contact
and
how
to
set
up
the
most
efficient
use
of
 land
(federal
govt
is
out
of
money)


How
do
you
get
people
as
excited
about
the
conservation
process
as
they
are
about
individual
 activities?
Like
the
NC
example,
have
programs
like
survival
or
climbing,
etc
that
embed
a
portion
 devoted
to
conservation;
teach
courses
like
geology
than
then
play
on
the
rocks
afterward
 (partnering
w
schools
systems
to
get
into
the
curriculum;
“hide
the
vegetables”)


This
idea
could
also
work
in
reverse:
get
a
group
out
for
a
conservation
effort
and
introduce
them
 to
an
outdoor
activity;
going
to
an
urban
public
park
to
hold
such
an
event
is
an
effective
way
to
 start
this,
but
often
it
is
a
one‐time
impact.

Schedule
repeat
event
and
slowly
start
to
draw
the
 repeat
attendees
out
into
wilderness
areas.

Time
has
to
be
spent
upfront
developing
a
 relationship
w
the
community
and
trusted
organization
like
the
YMCA


5


How
would
you
prioritize
the
elements
of
success
you
have
identified?

Which,
if
any,
are
truly
key
versus
 being
good
but
not
essential?
 •

Opportunity


Catalysts
between
agencies,
land
managers,
and
partners


Vision
of
the
end
state
of
the
partnership
with
considerations
of
sustainability
(Recovery
Act
 created
a
lot
of
opportunities
that
suddenly
were
left
w/o
funding)
Is
the
value
being
sought
 point
A
to
point
B,
or
a
long‐terms
vision?
What
is
required
to
fund
it?
Sustain
it?
What
is
the
 plan
with
a
clear
end
state?
What
is
the
longevity?
One
year
projects
can
also
be
beneficial.


Relevancy:
reaching
out
to
families,
etc,
you
have
to
understand
the
cultural
peculiarities
of
the
 community
you
are
reaching
out
to
and
take
them
into
consideration


Focus:
start
with
one
reliable
partner
and
then
build
from
there,
do
not
become
oversaturated
or
 become
disorganized.



 Note‐taker
6
 
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?
 •

Leadership
that
is
supportive
of
initiative,
ex.
a
superintendent
that
is
gung‐ho
about
it.


Openness
to
new
ideas


Desire
to
connect
with
youth
that
is
not
always
present


Access
to
partners
and
advocates


Proximity
to
a
metropolitan
area
with
a
large
pool
of
potential
volunteers
and
people
to
 participate
(bike
clubs,
local
schools,
etc.)


State
wide
agreements


Need
to
build
an
affinity
for
conservation
among
people
who
live
in
cities


Institutionalization
and
continuity
are
important
–
“one
off”
events
don’t
create
longevity
or
kids
 talking
to
other
kids
about
how
cool
it
is.



Fun
–
the
last
priority
is
getting
the
work
done.
If
the
kids
are
having
fun,
it
is
amazing
how
much
 work
they
get
done


Background
in
climbing
(or
whatever
the
pertinent
issue
is)
by
staff
working
on
the
project.


Need
to
be
open‐minded
about
the
outcomes.

Create
general
goals,
but
don’t
worry
about
 specific
goals
as
it
will
take
years
to
achieve
them.




Management:

activities
need
to
be
managed
and
not
just
done
on
the
fly.



Teaching
environmental
stewardship.

It
is
not
just
getting
the
kids
out,
but
also
teaching
them
to
 be
responsible.

Want
to
engage
them
in
education
and
development
of
an
outdoor
ethic.



6


Risk
Management
program
is
essential.

Needs
to
be
safe.

Safety
concerns
need
to
be
taken
 seriously.



Land
managers
must
have
a
substantial
and
credible
organization



Myth:
outdoor
recreation
is
cross‐grain
to
recreation
goals.

 o

Need
an
openness
to
partnership,
to
thinking
about
things
differently.



o

Recreation
can
be
a
means
to
conservation.




Agency
shift
needed
for
institutional
understanding
about
how
recreation
can
be
a
tool
 for
conservation.
(In
NPS,
lots
of
people
skeptical
of
new
activities
–
especially
 recreational
activities.

That
is
an
engrained
organizational
culture
that
has
developed
 for
valid
reasons.

An
agency
shift
is
necessary
 Question:

how
do
you
scale
up?

(How
do
you
take
a
small
project
and
create
a
cultural
change
in
the
 management
of
BLM
or
NFS
or
NPS?)
 o

Note
that
standardization
piece
is
not
happening
yet.


Despite
broader
interest,
different
 approaches
are
still
being
used.



Build
momentum.

We
are
at
ground
level
of
a
change
in
how
public
lands
are
being
managed.

 More
open‐minded
and
visionary
managers
are
willing
to
create
the
example.


Document
successes
and
share
them.




Recognize
that
there
is
an
embedded
culture
in
each
of
our
federal
agencies.



Demonstrate
how
to
leverage
public
private
partnerships
with
comparatively
little
resources.

 (EX:
Bend,
OR
started
with
small
trail
projects,
and
NFS
District
Office
is
now
creating
 management
principles
for
mountain
biking
with
the
hope
that
it
will
spread
regionally,
 statewide,
nationally.)




Be
creative.




Advocacy
community
has
the
responsibility
of
sharing
successes
(it
won’t
happen
through
federal
 bureaucracy).



Trust.


Get
fingers
into
the
broader
community.
Use
coalitions
to
create
understanding
and
get
the
word
 out
in
the
broader
community.



AGO
–
they
are
listening.

Need
to
articulate
best
practices
and
successes.

Topic
of
youth
is
 critical.
Note
that
it
is
subtle
–
not
a
top‐down
mandate.


Advocacy
group
essential.


 o

Advocacy
groups
can
be
responsible
for
developing
models
and
helping
to
spread
info
 on
those
models.



o

Advocacy
groups
can
bring
forward
resources
and
build
community
support
to
help
 avoid
time
consuming
regulatory
processes.




7


What
do
you
do
if
leadership
is
not
supportive?


 •

Find
other
advocates
within
the
organization.



Appreciate
the
importance
of
diversity
(parks,
for
example,
all
managed
separately
and
what
 happens
in
one
is
not
necessarily
applicable
in
another.

While
this
is
a
challenge,
it
is
 important
because
of
the
“cold
hand
of
consistency”
that
we
ultimately
want
to
avoid.

It
is
 important
that
parks
have
the
ability
to
address
their
own
unique
needs.)





Develop
grassroots
momentum
–
leadership
will
want
to
jump
on
board
with
something
that
 generates
credibility
with
the
public


Make
effective
leaders
look
good.

If
the
people
who
are
doing
the
right
things
look
good,
 others
will
want
to
be
part
of
that.



Innovation
is
key.

Look
at
it
like
business.
For
business
to
succeed,
you
have
to
innovate.
 Willingness
to
step
outside
the
standard
bureaucratic
path.


Find
someone
within
the
 organization
who
is
willing
to
innovate.



Key
person
important.
Although
leadership
will
transition,
if
there
is
a
staff
person
working
 effectively
on
an
issue,
new
leadership
will
want
to
be
a
part
of
that.



 Examples
of
successes:
 •

White
River
National
Forest
–
Future
Forest
Roundtable
comprised
of
a
couple
dozen
 nonprofits
‐‐
talking
about
a
large
scale
collaborative
landscape
restoration
project.

Need
to
 tackle
massive
sites
and
bigger
issues
of
reintroducing
fire
into
acreage.

Local
community
 leaders
(nonprofits,
local
government)
gathered
around
the
table
and
understand
the
issues
 together.

Creates
understanding
and
gives
NFS
a
mandate.

Also
helps
to
disseminate
the
 info
to
the
separate
organizations
and
to
the
community.




• Leave
No
Trace
 Partnership
with
conservation
groups:


 •

Need
to
be
in
partnership
with
conservation
groups.




OA
interfaces
with
conservation
community
routinely
to
achieve
its
goals


Summit
between
mountain
bikers
and
wilderness
advocates
–
in
agreement
on
90%
of
issues.

 Working
on
how
to
proceed
together
on
common
goals.


Wilderness
Society
historically
involved
in
situations
that
were
confrontational.

Not
wanting
to
 do
that
at
this
point.

Most
of
advocacy
work
is
built
around
recreation.

Wilderness
designation
 is
what
we
want,
but
more
of
what
we
want
is
a
healthy
and
sustainable
and
productive
 recreation
landscape.

Will
hold
to
historical
values,
but
know
that
active
engagement
on
 recreation
issues
is
the
only
place
where
we
will
have
success.




Need
to
educate
other
organizations,
especially
environmental
organizations
who
may
not
view
 us
as
partners.



Youth:
 o

Connection
with
youth
–
by
winning
over
hearts
and
minds
of
younger
generation,
we
 are
building
toward
sustainability


8


o

Children
a
powerful
voice.



70
and
80
year
olds
want
mountain
bikes
off,
but
kids
go
to
 mic
and
talk
about
how
fun
it
is
to
ride
bikes
with
parents.



Partnership
so
needed.

Recreational
asset
of
the
trail
is
hanging
out
there
unprotected.



Dispell
the
myth
that
there
is
a
dichotomy
between
recreation
and
conservation.



Include
the
conservation
community.


Conservation
movement
born
out
of
100
years
of
a
movement
born
of
when
our
country
was
 decimated.

New
shift
is
toward
recreation.

Common
ground
exists.

It
is
all
about
sustainability,
 active
recreation
sustaining
the
environment.






 Are
there
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 Not
addressed
except
as
seen
above.


 Were
there
any
lessons
in
any
of
the
stories
about
what
NOT
to
do?
 Not
discussed.

 How
would
you
prioritize
the
elements
of
success
you
have
identified?

Which,
if
any,
are
truly
key
versus
 being
good
but
not
essential?
 Not
discussed.

 Is
there
anything
else
of
importance
in
these
stories
that
we
should
make
sure
to
capture
in
the
report?
 
 N/A
 Other
note‐taker
comments
or
insights:
 
 Big
themes
that
emerged:
 • Necessary
synergy
and
cooperation
between
pure
conservation
groups
and
recreation
groups.

It
 was
pointed
out
repeatedly
that
many
of
the
goals
are
the
same.

It
was
mentioned
that
 conservation
efforts
came
out
of
a
cultural
need
to
conserve
areas,
but
that
now
the
societal
 need
is
to
recreate.
Recreation
enthusiasts
have
conservation
as
a
core
value.


 • Cultural
shift
needed
in
federal
agencies
to
better
work
with
kids
and
engage
them
as
the
 recreationists
and
conservationists
of
the
future.
 


9


CHAPTER 13

Effective
Participation
in
Public
Review
on
the
White
River
National
 Forest
 
 


Be
informed


Provide
credible
information
to
decision‐makers




 


Offer
reasonable
and
sustainable
solutions


The
USFS
White
River
National
Forest
(WRNF)
recently
revised
its
Travel
Management
Plan
(TMP).

This
 TMP
revision
required
over
10
years
to
complete
and
involved
the
entire
road
and
trail
system,
winter
 motorized
areas
and
routes,
and
provided
direction
for
decommissioning
of
routes
for
the
entire
Forest.

 This
TMP
includes
specific
prescriptions
for
winter
human‐powered
and
motorized
recreation
and
has
 been
received
favorably
by
many
stakeholders,
including
10th
Mountain
Division
Hut
Association.

10th
 Mountain
is
a
501(c)3
non‐profit
privately‐funded
organization
that
operates
a
system
of
31
backcountry
 huts
authorized
under
a
USFS
term
Special
Use
Permit.

Approximately
¾
of
its
typical
annual
51,000
user
 nights
occur
during
the
winter
and
the
vast
majority
of
these
people
travel
to
the
huts
using
skis
or
 snowshoes.

10th
Mountain
successfully
participated
in
the
public
review
process
and
is
grateful
that
the
 final
record
of
decision
provides
an
experience
that,
in
many
locations,
is
more
consistent
with
the
 expectations
of
winter
non‐motorized
forest
visitors.
The
USFS
was
not
required
to
address
non‐ motorized
winter
travel
in
this
way,
but
their
willingness
to,
combined
with
the
willingness
of
10th
 Mountain
to
diligently
partner
with
them,
lead
to
better
outcomes
for
all
forest
users.

 Ben
Dodge
‐
Executive
Director,
10th
Mountain
Division
Hut
Association


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
1
 
 White
River
Travel
Management
Plan
really
did
engage
stakeholders
across
a
whole
spectrum
of
use.
 Forests
do
not
need
to
address
winter
use
through
travel
plans
–
but
WRNF
really
took
it
on
and
really
 made
it
a
core
part
of
their
process.

 A
lot
of
hard
work
for
the
groups
–
then
it
leads
to
more
success.

 Talk
about
past,
present,
and
future.
In
2002
WRNF
revised
forest
plan.
DEIS
came
out
in
2007.
This
year
 published
record
of
decision
on
travel
management
this
year.
There
are
interesting
things
about
that
over
 the
last
ten
years.

 There
have
been
a
lot
of
ups
and
downs
in
the
process
–
but
we
have
built
some
strong
relationships
and
 are
moving
forward
in
a
positive
direction.

 Orderly
implementation
of
travel
management
–
starting
with
winter
travel
management
and
then
 moving
into
summer
travel
management.

 Started
with
5,000
miles
of
roads
and
trails
in
the
late
90s.
1400
miles
of
motorized
roads.
Huge
number
 of
trails
and
roads.

 In
the
future,
we
are
focusing
on
education
and
information.
We
have
a
lot
of
engineering
still
to
do
about
 how
to
manage
things
and
work
together.

 How
do
we
participate
in
public
process
effectively
to
represent
our
vies.

 The
public
process
allowed
all
stakeholders
to
participate
effectively.
There
were
updates
at
regular
 intervals
in
the
process.

 th 10 
mtn.
division
hut
association
–
proposed
a
single
hut
early
on.
When
we
were
given
authority
–
it
was
 based
on
commitment
to
remove
it
if
it
was
not
successful
–
now
have
53000
user
nights
and
32
huts.
We
 can
only
do
this
based
on
a
very
strong
bond
with
the
US
Forest
Service.

 Decisions
were
going
to
made
in
travel
management
that
could
directly
impact
the
experiences
of
people
 using
the
huts.
Catalyst
for
getting
involved
was
to
have
a
say
in
what
experience
of
users
was.

 th 10 
mtn
division
was
able,
along
with
other
stakeholders,
to
provide
direct
feedback
into
development
of
 travel
management.

 It
is
about
building
strong
relationships
with
people
on
the
forests.
WRNF
has
great
people
who
are
 committed
to
forests.

 Great
if
other
forests
could
replicate
what
happened
on
the
WRNF.

 WRNF
and
PSINF
are
on
opposite
sides
of
divide
–
very
different
experiences
for
the
two
forests
going
 through
these
plans.

 Choose
to
participate
early
in
the
process
and
show
that
you
are
committed
to
the
process.

 Navigating
these
experiences
can
be
like
a
minefield.
Makes
a
huge
difference
to
get
experience
and
 knowledge
for
how
to
navigate
resource
and
land
management
plans.

 Gather
good
information
–
back
up
opinions
with
credible,
valid,
defensible
information.

 Get
Good
advice.
 US
forest
Service
will
make
good
decisions
based
on
good
information.

 Offer
solutions
to
some
of
the
challenging
issues.

 Be
patient
and
persistent.

 Acknowledge
and
support
good
decisions
agency
makes
–
collaborative
partnership
that
you
do
not
want
 to
hammer
on.

 For
travel
management
–
there
was
risk
involved
in
signing
that
decision
–
and
acknowledge
and
support
 whenever
you
have.
 
 Note‐taker
3
 
 White
River
NF:
Really
engaged
stakeholders
from
across
the
spectrum,
incl
winter
users,
even
though
 they
don’t
have
to.

 Buck:
Really
flattered
that
it
is
considered
a
success.
They
still
consider
it
a
work
in
progress.
 


2


In
the
late
90s
it
was
conceived,
2002
revissed
forest
plan,
enacted
in
2004.
2011
published
a
decision.
 Difference
on
the
white
river
is
that
while
over
the
10
years
there
were
ups
and
down,
there
have
been
a
 lot
of
collaboration….
New
set
of
rangers
over
the
last
few
years
that
are
excited
about
it.

 
 People
can
tell
when
you
mean
it
with
collaboration.
People
are
already
working
on
changes
to
the
drafts.
 Started
with
5000
miles
of
roads
and
trails
in
the
late
90s.
now
there
are
3000+
miles
approved.
Doing
all
 this
with
a
2.3
million
acre
forest.
 
 Focusing
on
education
and
information
in
the
first
section.

 Ben:
Want
to
get
a
sense
of
how
we
participate
in
the
development
of
a
travel
management
plan.
 The
plan
is
very
effective
because
it
utilized
public
review
process
very
effectively.
There
are
promised
 deliveries
every
two
years,
but
they
came
and
went.
Delayed
due
to
feedback.
The
plan
is
now
released,
 which
is
great.
Great
to
share
that
it
is
out.
 
 th The
10 
mtn
div
huts
started
with
two
huts
on
usfs
huts.
Started
in
1980.
They
were
initially
declined,
but
 because
they
promised
to
remove
it
completely
if
it
was
not
successful,
they
got
in.
Very
important
for
 them
to
have
a
good
partnership,
as
all
of
their
huts
are
on
their
lands.
 
 Decisions
are
being
made
at
the
forest
level
that
would
effect
the
experience
that
the
hut
users
 (50000/year)
had.
Wanted
to
have
a
say
in
what
the
user
experience
would
be
like.
They
could
provide
 good
information
to
the
forest
service
because
of
their
long
knowledge.
 Understand
the
FS’s
POV
due
to
collaborations
with
other
groups
that
represent
different
interests.
 
 Would
be
great
if
other
travel
management
plans
could
recreate
the
experience
of
working
with
White
 River
NF.
Want
to
replicate
it
on
Pike’s
NF
when
it
goes
through
its
planning.
 
 • Hop
in
with
both
feet
and
early,
prove
you
have
knowledge
to
contribute
and
that
you
are
not
 going
away.
 
 • Get
good
advice.
These
experiences
can
be
mine
fields,
make
sure
you
are
going
the
right
way.
 Knowledge
in
how
to
navigate
travel
management
plans.
 
 • Gather
good
information,
it
is
money
well
spent.
If
you
can
back
up
your
opinions
with
facts
and
 th figures
you
are
in
such
a
better
positions.
10 
huts
hired
a
firm
to
do
a
scientific
survey,
which
 they
gave
to
the
FS
and
BLM.
Surveys
done
well
are
really
useful.
 
 • Offer
good,
reasonable
solutions.
Makes
a
much
bigger
difference
than
to
just
complain
about
 what
you
don’t
like.
Settle
your
differences
with
possibly
opposing
groups
beforehand,
then
go
 th to
the
FS
as
a
united
front.
10 
and
motorized
came
together
and
agreed
on
some
things
that
 they
could
then
present
to
the
FS.
 
 • Be
patient
and
persistent.
 
 • Acknowledge
and
support
good
decisions
that
the
agency
makes,
don’t
just
harp
on
them,
 support
them.
They
had
to
make
some
hard
decisions
with
the
White
River
NF,
so
when
they
 stuck
their
neck
out
with
a
bold
decision,
support
it.
 
 If
you
do
these
things,
you
will
be
good,
b/c
the
FS
wants
to
make
good
decisions.
 


Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
White
River
National
Forest,
Denali,
and
others


3


CHAPTER 14

Stakeholder
Engagement
on
Denali
 
 Despite
some
experience
working
together,
a
proposed
increase
to
the
Special
Use
Fee
that
supports
 management
of
climbing
activities
on
Mt.
McKinley
and
Mt.
Foraker
put
NPS
and
the
climbers
at
odds.
 Through
a
multi‐year
public
engagement
process,
a
lengthy
examination
of
current
program
costs,
 analysis
of
public
comment,
and
collaboration
with
national
climbing
organizations,
Denali
National
Park
 increased
its
Mountaineering
Use
Fee
from
$200
to
$350.
Sitting
on
opposite
sides
of
the
table,
both
the
 land
managers
and
the
non‐government
partners
were
ultimately
able
to
cooperate
and
keep
each
other
 on
track.
The
successful,
acceptable
fee
increase
was
made
possible
by
the
recognition
that
both
the
 agency
and
the
climbers
have
the
same
interests
in
mind—the
protection,
enjoyment
and
engagement
in
 public
lands.
Partnerships
like
this
one
may
be
contentious
along
the
way,
but
they
ultimately
lead
to
 better
outcomes.

 
 John
Leonard
‐
South
District
Ranger,
Denali
National
Park
and
Preserve
 John
currently
serves
as
the
South
District
 Ranger
for
Denali
National
Park
and
 Preserve.

In
his
role
with
the
National
Park
 Service
John
oversees
the
Denali
 Mountaineering
Program
as
well
as
manages
 a
recreation
and
resource
protection
 program
for
an
approximately
2.5
million‐ acre
district.

John
started
in
the
outdoor
 industry
at
a
young
age
fixing
bikes
and
 mounting
skis
at
his
parent’s
small
bike
and
 ski
shop
on
the
outskirts
of
Seattle.

Just
 prior
to
joining
the
NPS
John
worked
as
a
 mountain
guide
for
an
international
 mountain
guiding
company.

 


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
1
 
 Public
process
to
develop
user
fees
on
the
south
part
of
Denali
National
Park.

 Take
groups
that
are
closely
aligned
and
that
have
a
long
history
of
working
together
and
you
go
through
 a
tough
process
to
bring
topics
together.

 Right
now,
we
are
budgeting
4%
increase
in
fees
next
year
and
10%
following
years
as
we
look
for
new
 ways
to
generate
revenues
in
light
of
budget
cuts.

 Through
process,
NPS
forgot
that
we
have
common
goals.
They
are
the
protection,
enjoyment,
and
 engagement
in
public
lands.
We
are
each
others’
stakeholders
and
common
stakeholders.

 Goals
are
parallel
to
each
other.
Oftentimes
they
intersect.

 
 Prodding
from
partners
helps
us
move
across
the
finish
line.
NPS
in
this
case
was
prodded
quite
a
bit.

 DNP
relay
on
partnerships
–
relationships
go
back
a
long
time.
That
role
was
dictated
by
our
perspective
 when
we
started
this
process.
 The
groups
were
trying
to
lead
NPS
toward
a
consensus
that
the
public
could
accept.


 There
have
been
many
important
projects
we
have
done
with
these
groups
–
that
helped
build
 relationships
with
some
of
these
groups.

 Fee
originally
enacted
at
Denali
in
1995.
Climbing
designated
a
special
use
and
fell
under
cost
recovery
 provisions
of
cost
recovery.

 Fee
increase
in
2005.
Brought
in
groups
–
opened
up
the
park
service’s
books
and
let
groups
help
 understand
the
fiscal
needs
of
the
Park.

 Bring
groups
in
Anchorage
together
–
look
for
ways
to
avoid
massive
fee
increase.

 Thought
about
trying
to
find
other
money
through
congressional
community
–
but
were
not
able
to
get
 more
money.

 After
2009
meetings
were
not
talking
too
much
about
the
fee
–
so
it
seemed
like
Denali
suddenly
was
 coming
out
with
fee
increase.

 Access
fund
submitted
FOIA
for
financial
information.

 Groups
have
developed
relationships
in
DC.

 Groups
asked
for
NEPA
process
and
requirements
–
fee
increase
does
not
fall
under
NEPA
–
help
us
 realize
that
public
process
would
be
important.

 Got
a
lot
of
public
comment
on
NEPA
–
got
the
principals
back
together
and
tried
to
build
a
reasonable
 solution
that
built
on
what
we
heard
from
the
public.

 Ended
up
with
fee
increase,
also
ended
up
with
youth
fee.
Fee
caps
tied
to
CPI
and
moved
to
small
fee
 increases
over
time.

 Groups
brought
us
back
to
place
where
we
were
back
in
line.
 
 Note‐taker
3
 
 John
Leonard
–
District
Ranger
in
Denali
 
 Take
groups
that
have
long
histories
of
working
together
and
creating
great
partnerships,
and
the
fee
 process
can
make
them
adversaries
and
put
them
on
the
other
side
of
the
table.
 
 Looking
at
big
hits,
so
there
will
be
a
need
to
look
for
other
sources
of
revenue.
It
is
quite
a
process.

 
 Starting
at
a
place
of
consensus,
went
through
the
process,
and
then
came
back
to
a
consensus.

 Through
the
process
it
was
sometimes
forgot
that
the
users
and
NPS
have
common
goals,
conservation,
 enjoyment,
recreation,
etc.
usually
running
closely
aligned.
One
of
the
things
that
they
learned
in
the
 process
is
that
even
though
they
have
so
many
common
goals
it
is
sometimes
useful
for
them
to
be
on
the
 other
side
of
the
table.
They
get
a
prodding
from
their
partners
who
keeps
them
on
track
and
regain
their


2


focus
on
a
process
that
went
off
the
tracks
a
bit.
Really
rely
on
partnerships
in
Denali.
The
perspectives
of
 NPS
at
the
beginning
defined
the
roles.
 
 The
non‐profits
were
really
successful
in
getting
the
cleanup
program
up
and
going.
 
 They
had
a
fee
enacted
in
Denali
in
1995,
after
some
disasterous
rescue
seasons.
Cause
climbing
to
fall
 under
special
use
designation.
Original
fee
was
established
as
$150,
without
side
fee
projects.
Fee
was
 raised
in
2005.
Was
not
an
adversarial
process.
In
2008,
they
tried
to
raise
the
fee.
AAC
came
to
them
to
 see
if
there
could
be
any
way
around
it.
Talk
was
taking
the
fee
to
$500.
 
 One
of
the
solutions
was
to
talk
to
congressional
delegations
to
try
to
find
other
sources
of
funding.
Didn’t
 work.
 
 In
the
state
of
Alaska,
climbers
and
park
rangers
are
not
looked
at
too
fondly,
so
they
were
not
successful.
 
 Phil:
Tried
to
get
a
research
station
fully
funded.
But
Alaska
got
its
full
request
for
parks,
but
none
of
the
 funds
were
targeted
to
the
climbers.
 
 Exactly,
hard
thing
is
that
funds
are
not
targeted.

 
 After
the
long
working
relationship,
there
was
still
a
fee
implemented.
Looked
like
$1200/
climber.
Groups
 became
upset.
Access
Fund
did
a
FOIA.

 
 Looking
back,
train
went
off
the
track,
should
not
have
come
to
that.
After
the
FOIA,
it
was
the
park’s
 intension
to
go
ahead
with
the
fee
increase,
they
felt
that
18mo
was
enough
notice.
This
strained
the
 relationships
with
the
groups.
Since
the
groups
have
good
access
to
DC
delegations,
they
got
a
NEPA
 public
process
going.
Even
though
it
doesn’t
fall
under
NEPA,
they
did
a
public
process.
Got
lots
of
 comments.
Brought
everyone
back
together.
Ended
up
with
an
increased
fee,
and
a
youth
fee
to
 encourage
young
people
going
out.
Agreement
allowed
for
fee
increases
overtime.
 
 He
is
taking
the
beer‐summit
tactic
in
his
negotiations.
Sit
down
with
everyone
and
just
talk.

 
 This
was
a
case
where
the
prodding
of
the
partners
and
the
groups
brought
them
back
to
something
that
 was
reasonable.
 
 Sometimes
it
is
painful,
but
it
is
really
important
to
prod
NPS
to
stay
inline
and
do
what
is
right
for
the
 American
people.
 


3


Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
White
River
National
Forest,
Denali,
and
others
 Note‐taker
1
 


Facilitator
–
Leigh
Goldberg,
American
Mountain
Guides
Association
 Have
you
used
FOIA
requests
in
some
of
your
partnerships?


Presentation
from
Denali
could
have
been
 FOIA
to
friends
–
came
back
to
being
friends.
Have
not
had
a
real
official
process
in
place.

 We
had
to
negotiate
a
shared
vision
–
something
that
was
not
there
in
the
first
palce.
We
really
want
to
 reach
consensus.

 KEY
ELEMENTS
OF
SUCCESS
 Using
FOIA
–
When
you
do
not
have
relationships
that
are
favorable.
FOIA
is
a
tool
if
you
do
not
have
the
 rapport
with
a
ranger
or
supervisor
to
build
on.
FOIA
is
there
if
you
need
it,
but
is
not
needed
if
you
have
 good
relationships.

 If
you
have
a
relationship,
you
can
often
ask
to
look
at
the
files.
Agencies
are
often
willing
to
share
 information
with
groups.

 People
want
to
have
meaningful
conversations.
If
you
are
not
respected,
use
the
tools
that
are
there.

 It
is
not
about
doing
more
with
less,
it
is
about
doing
more
with
more
partners.
Stronger
when
we
are
in
 partnership.

 Groups
that
speak
together
and
have
a
common
vision
are
very
helpful
for
the
land
management
 agencies.

Helps
think
about
what
is
possible.

 We
have
had
successes
–
it
has
always
taken
leadership
from
FS
to
bring
people
to
table
and
have
 collaborative
efforts.
For
having
successful
partnerships
does
FS
need
to
play
leadership
role?
 Where
did
understanding
for
Vail
Pass
agreement
come
from.
Everyone
was
unhappy
and
finally
all
got
 together
and
set
up
task
force
with
the
goal
of
developing
policy
and
advising
on
policy.

 Vail
Pass
Task
Force
is
not
consensus
–
it
is
majority.
It
is
not
an
easy
process
and
it
is
not
always
 successful.
But
–
current
recreational
experience
is
much
better
than
it
was
in
1999.

 Vail
Pass
area
that
is
unique
–
it
is
situated
between
two
resorts
and
along
an
interstate
with
easy
access
 for
everyone.
Geographically
large
area
but
with
a
lot
of
users.
Vail
Pass
works
because
it
is
better
than
 before.

 With
this
particular
scenario
–
how
did
you
set
out
outfitter
guide
permitting.
All
the
special
use
permits
 were
already
in
place,
etc.
The
capacity
analysis
had
not
been
completed.
USFS
was
not
able
to
authorize
 additional
permitting.

 There
are
a
lot
of
impacts
in
the
area
–
there
is
not
a
cut
and
dry
set
of
issues.

 Were
able
to
sit
down
with
land
managers,
get
advice
for
how
to
provide
key
information
to
USFS,
and
 then
provide
specific,
detailed
comments
for
USFS.

 All
comments
were
answered
in
detailed
–
including
ones
which
were
disagreed
with.
Building
 relationships
with
staff
on
the
forest
–
good
chance
to
be
able
to
do
that.
Has
been
a
positive
experience
 overall.
Takes
detailed
work
–
but
is
possible
even
at
last
minute.

 Travel
Management
–
40
people
tried
to
appeal,
14
were
actually
able
to.
Willing
to
talk
to
anyone
about
 ideas,
concerns,
issues,
but
not
interested
in
talking
positionally.
Helped
us
address
appeals
directly
and
 clearly.

 Theme
is
one
of
mutual
respect
–
moving
beyond
us
v.
them.
Partnerships
are
an
equal
entity
at
the
table.
 Seems
like
agency
is
hierarchical
–
it
really
is
an
even
playing
field.

 Dealing
with
complex
issues
–
but
there
are
really
common
themes
–
working
on
relationship
building
and
 moving
forward.

 Appreciate
when
people
come
knocking
and
really
appreciate
that
it
is
out
of
some
issue
–
then
someone
 shows
up
and
offers
help
in
some
way.
People
who
are
willing
to
come
and
work
on
something
larger
 than
me.
Respond
to
people
willing
to
work
towards
common
good.

 10‐11
year
process
on
travel
management
–
is
that
ho
much
time
it
actually
took?

Or
could
it
be
done
 more
efficiently?
Standard
is
3‐5
years
for
an
EIS.
Magnitude
of
plan
that
is
as

large
as
WRNF
travel
 management
–
with
so
much
socio‐political
diversity.
Could
have
split
it
up
into
other
parts.

 Use
has
changed
a
lot
in
that
time.
A
lot
of
change
on
the
ground.



4


Smart
to
do
it
differently
than
resource
management
planning.

 Most
of
WRNF
travel
management
planning
was
done
in
house.
We
have
a
great
group
of
people
with
a
 core
knowledge
that
helped
make
this
process
move
forward.

 WRNF
–
there
is
not
a
forest
with
more
trail
–
went
over
every
single
trail
on
this
forest.

 Voluntarily
did
planning
for
mountain
biking
as
well.

 How
do
you
work
with
other
forests
to
encourage
them
to
go
this
deep?
What
was
behind
the
decision
to
 invest
that
time
and
money?
How
could
you
translate
that
to
other
communities.

 Theory
–
Looking
at
other
places
where
we
have
gotten
to
loggerheads.
In
this
area,
things
are
changing
 and
adapting
rapidly.
Different
culture
on
WRNF
–
new
people,
people
coming
in
from
somewhere
else
–
 it
creates
a
place
where
there
are
conflicts
but
people
can
see
the
greater
good.
The
culture
of
the
user
 community.
It
is
about
attitude
–
and
it
is
about
moving
it
forward.

 Federal
Agency
panel
–
non‐profit
and
community
groups
can
be
the
communications
links
among
user
 groups.
Think
about
how
the
different
user
groups,
and
the
internal
processes
that
helped
make
the
 process
move
forward.

 Do
you
use
success
models
on
other
lands?
Is
that
a
common
technique?

Yes.
 Formation
of
partnerships
–
the
celebration
of
partnerships
–
spotlighting
and
raising
the
profile
of
the
 organizations
in
those
partnerships.
How
to
celebrate
wins
or
success
from
partnering.
One
of
the
ways
to
 celebrate
–
unsure
if
this
was
a
good
idea
–
great
way
to
celebrate
through
meeting
with
governor.
4
 dinners
and
parties
–
take
time
to
celebrate
partnerships.

 At
FS
we
struggle
with
issue
of
capacity
–
if
you
are
entering
looking
at
something
–
the
idea
of
doing
 something
once
and
doing
it
well.
Quality,
time,
and
money/resources
need
to
be
balanced
in
any
 planning
process.
Need
all
three
of
these
to
do
a
planning
process
well.

 Failed
planning
‐
Community
is
left
with
worse
feeling
that
if
we
had
started
at
the
beginning.

 How
can
forests
invest
in
things
that
are
good
for
the
public,
when
they
have
other
projects
they
have
to
 do.

 Collaborative
project
–
we
look
at
partners
involved
and
all
resources
and
need
to
see
if
that
project
can
 be
completed.

 Non‐profits
can
provide
support
or
take
on
parts
of
the
planning
process.

 
 Note‐taker
3
 
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?
 People
can
tell
when
you
mean
it
with
collaboration.
 Very
important
for
them
to
have
a
good
partnership
 Wanted
to
have
a
say
in
what
the
user
experience
would
be
like
 Understand
the
other
side’s
POV
due
to
collaborations
with
other
groups
that
represent
different
 interests.
 Starting
at
a
place
of
consensus
 Don’t
break
down
to
personal
agendas
when
it
is
collaboration
you
want.
 Are
these
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 • Hop
in
with
both
feet
and
early,
prove
you
have
knowledge
to
contribute
and
that
you
are
not
 going
away.
 • Get
good
advice.

 • Gather
good
information,
it
is
money
well
spent.

 • Offer
good,
reasonable
solutions.



5


• • • • •

Be
patient
and
persistent.
 Acknowledge
and
support
good
decisions
that
the
agency
makes
 Use
facilitators
 Talk
to
each
other.
Don’t
do
a
FOIA
without
calling,
and
agencies
let
stakeholders
know
first,
 even
if
you
don’t
have
to.
 Package
up
something
with
other
groups,
even
adversarial
groups,
and
bring
people
together,
 then
hand
a
joint
document
to
the
agency
with
ideas
they
now
know
have
broad
support.
 Much
better
to
get
stakeholders
to
come
and
say
not
only
what
their
ideal
scenario
is,
but
what
 make
it
so
great,
and
how
they
see
it
working.


Always
interesting
when
you
are
sitting
across
the
table
from
their
adversaries.
If
you
can
set
up
 common
understanding
at
the
beginning
it
is
useful.
 Were
there
any
lessons
in
any
of
the
stories
about
what
NOT
to
do?
 If
you
are
a
super
don’t
release
the
fee
until
you
call
the
stakeholders.

 If
you
are
the
stakeholders
do
not
just
do
a
FOIA
request,
just
call
them
and
discuss
it
first.

 
 […]
 
 Discussion:
 
 Ben
did
a
good
job
of
articulating
5
elements
of
success,
rather
than
revisit
those,
anyone
want
to
add
 anything
to
them?
 
 ‐ want
to
expand
on
one
thing:
Package
up
something
and
you
bring
people
together
and
hand
it
 to
the
agency.
He
had
been
working
on
the
plan
for
7‐8
yrs
and
it
was
through
a
massive
 outreach
effort
that
made
it
successful,
the
strength
in
numbers,
working
things
out
ahead
of
 time,
it
made
it
easy
for
the
agency
because
they
knew
that
they
would
already
have
support.
 
 Curious
about
the
plan
bc
it
took
so
long.
Hard
on
Denali
bc
they
didn’t
know
how
much
time
they
had,
 and
that
the
clock
was
already
ticking.
Hard
to
know
where
to
comment.
Even
if
you
make
comments
for
 a
long
time
your
energy
might
not
go
away,
but
agency
energy
might
 
 ‐ John
had
very
little
time.
BC
it
was
budget,
so
different.
Who
gave
them
a
hand
considering
that
 they
don’t
need
a
public
process.
 Ranger
john
thought
that
fee
increases
were
the
only
way.
Chief
ranger/super
indenent
saw
a
revenue
 stream.
Hard
to
stop
it
once
it
is
set
in
motion.
 
 The
fee
was
originally
set
up
in
the
90s,
there
was
a
thought
it
was
a
supplemental
funding
system,
not
a
 complete
one
as
it
has
become.
Easy
for
it
becomes
climbers
paying
for
everythings.
 
 Good
time
to
put
yourself
in
other
peoples
shoes,
first
AAC
was
for
original
fees
bc
they
were
warented,
 but
then
13
years
later
they
were
on
other
side
as
they
felt
that
the
increases
were
unwarranted.
First
 time
AAC
got
in
rangers
shoes,
second
time
they
asked
ranges
to
be
in
their
shoes.
 
 In
the
late
90s
they
came
up
with
5
differnet
proposals,
which
they
susessed
out
what
they
could
do
with
 different
fee
amounts,
then
sent
that
to
stakeholders.
Their
desired
outcome
was
in
the
middle.
After
 they
got
the
comments
they
held
a
number
of
meetings
to
explain
their
POV.
 
 Vital
to
work
from
alternatives,
if
you
give
only
one
option,
you
set
yourself
up
to
have
everyone
upset.
 
 •

6


Classic
NEPA.
Need
to
give
people
options
and
get
comments.
Hard
to
get
a
new
rule
slapped
on
you
that
 you
are
not
ready
for.
Key
to
keep
everyone
involved.
The
FS
at
White
River
always
gave
lots
of
options,
 settling
on
one
that
was
way
down
the
line.
 
 Mike
said
that
he
really
valued
to
opinions
in
the
processes.
Phil
feels
his
job
is
to
come
to
the
table
with
 something
reasonable.
His
reasonable
has
come
from
a
wide
spectrum
of
opinions,
which
he
would
like
to
 but
doesn’t
share.
How
do
feds
feel
about
that?
 
 Much
better
to
get
people
to
come
and
say
not
only
what
their
ideal
scenario
is,
but
what
make
it
so
 great,
and
how
they
see
it
working.
 
 When
people
go
to
see
NT
Man
personally,
a
red
flag
comes
up
wondering
why
they
are
there.
He
would
 much
rather
that
it
all
comes
through
the
official
process.
Good
manager
maybe
wouldn’t
work
this
way.
 Phil:
Maybe
one
does.
Ranger:
there
are
two
sides
to
it.
 
 Some
people
could
have
an
impure
motive,
but
others
don’t
have
one.
Meeting
with
managers
can
help
 flush
out
main
points
of
comments
that
may
get
lost
in
dense
letters.

 
 Makes
sense,
but
still
makes
him
nervous.
Sometimes
federal
stuff
can
make
him
nervous.
Rangers
are
 public
servants,
need
to
be
there
for
public.
 

 Sometimes
putting
a
bunch
of
people
with
one
POV
in
a
room
together
can
come
up
with
poor
policy
 ideas.
Need
other,
outside
views
to
come
in.
 
 Since
Yose
has
only
2
people
working
as
climbing
rangers,
they
rely
on
outside
groups
such
as
facelift/aac
 for
help,
ideas,
implementation.
The
relationship
can
go
both
ways,
sometimes
he
needs
help,
sometimes
 the
other
side
needs
help.
He
loves
when
people
come
to
see
him
to
offer
to
work
together.
Wants
to
use
 the
personal
relationships
towards
the
best
outcome.

 
 Phil:
Sometimes
you
invest
a
huge
amount
of
energy,
and
then
someone
moves
and
they
work
needs
to
 begin
anew.
What
not
to
do:
make
it
personal.
Not
even
individually
personal,
but
that
there
were
people
 in
the
NPS
would
had
identified
climbers
as
a
revenue
stream,
rather
than
people
enjoying
the
park
like
 any
other.
Then
they
got
off
track
and
looked
for
bad
guys.
Don’t
break
down
into
individual
or
personal
 agendas
when
it
is
a
collaboration
you
want.
 
 Do
you
need
to
do
a
business
case
for
fees
in
Denali?
 
 At
the
resource
advisory
council
for
BLM,
they
examine
fees
before
they
come
out.
 
 Really
depends,
as
some
climbers
cost
them
a
bunch
and
other
cost
them
nothing.
It
is
hard
to
make
a
 business
case,
sometimes
it
is
hard
to
stand
behind
the
numbers.
 
 Quite
a
challenge
to
put
a
dollar
value
on
the
gov
providing
access
to
this
resource.
 
 Phil:
Need
to
see
what
program
they
can
supply
for
what
amount
of
money.
It
was
a
framework
for
 decision
making.
Ie
for
$200/
climber
we
can
deliver
this.
For
$500/
climber
this…
etc.
While
this
is
hard
to
 do,
it
is
even
harder
for
citizens
to
do
as
they
don’t
have
the
info.
 
 WHAT
NOT:
If
you
are
a
super
don’t
release
the
fee
until
you
call
the
stakeholders.
If
you
are
the
 stakeholders
do
not
just
do
a
FOIA
request,
just
call
them
and
discuss
it
first.

 


7


Sometimes
agencies
want
you
to
do
a
FOIA,
as
they
want
you
to
work
within
the
system.
But
it
is
good
to
 give
them
a
call
and
tell
them
that
they
are
doing
it,
so
that
they
can
be
ready.
 
 Current
guidance
is
that
if
someone
can
get
the
info
through
FOIA,
just
give
it
to
them.
 
 Phil:
we
didn’t
benefit
from
FOIA
because
it
was
unreadable.
 
 Looks
like
with
budget
cuts
there
will
be
more
fees,
but
there
will
not
be
more
for
fees,
sometimes
they
 can
offer
more
with
more
fees,
but
with
budget
problems
you
might
gets
less.
 
 Scary
that
there
is
privatization
of
things
such
as
reservation
systems,
that
cost
a
ton.
Very
expensive
to
 the
end
user.
It
is
not
a
good
system.
There
is
a
service
fee,
even
for
“Free”
permits.
Might
be
$10‐12
to
 go
up
HD
if
you
reserve
in
advance,
and
it
will
fill
up
so
you
can’t
not
pay.
 
 One
of
the
most
important
elements
that
they
have
had
in
their
NEPA
processes
is
a
neutral
facilitation
 agency.
It
is
so
important
to
help.
 
 Where
does
it
show
up
in
the
process?
 
 Had
a
task
force
that
went
for
3.5
years.
Went
through
3
facilitators,
because
it
was
contentious.
Can
 smooth
over
many
different
problems.
 
 Sometimes
it
is
hard
because
different
groups
want
to
start
at
different
points.

 
 Through
facilitation
they
could
come
up
with
different
alternatives.

 
 Always
interesting
when
you
are
sitting
across
the
table
from
their
adversaries.
If
you
can
set
up
common
 understanding
at
the
beginning
it
is
useful.


8


CHAPTER 15

Cooperation
in
Indian
Creek
 
 Indian
Creek
Canyon
is
located
in
central
Utah
on
the
border
of
Canyonlands
National
Park.
With
its
 sensitive
natural
and
cultural
resources,
world‐renowned
rock
climbing,
and
private
property
interests,
 Indian
Creek
presents
a
number
of
stewardship
challenges
typical
of
many
popular
recreation
sites.
The
 Rocky
Mountain
Field
Institute
has
spent
20
years
working
with
the
BLM
to
address
recreational
impacts
 and
the
continuing
challenges
of
developing
and
maintaining
a
sustainable
stewardship
strategy
for
the
 area.

This
long
term
partnership
has
successfully
protected
climbing
access
(even
on
public
land),
 enhanced
public
education,
increased
data
collection
on
recreation
impacts
and
improved
the
overall
 infrastructure
for
recreation.

 Mark
Hesse

‐
Rocky
Mountain
Field
Institute
 Mark
Hesse
is
the
founder
of
the
Rocky
Mountain
Field
Institute,
a
nonprofit
based
 in
Colorado
Springs,
CO
dedicated
to
the
“exemplary
restoration
of
key
natural
 areas
through
volunteer
stewardship,
environmental
education,
and
restoration
 research.”

 
 
 
 Bob
Leaver

‐
Outdoor
Recreation
Planner
 Bureau
of
Land
Management
‐
Monticello
Field
Office,
UT
 Bob
began
government
service
in
1984
as
a
backcountry
ranger
with
the
National
 Park
Service
at
Golden
Gate
National
Recreation
Area.
Since
2003
Bob
has
worked
 with
the
BLM,
mainly
in
the
Indian
Creek
Special
Recreation
Management
Area
 since
2008.



1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
2
 
 Indian
Creek,
UT
/
Canyonlands

 ‐shared
vision
is
a
key
element
of
success
 ‐summary
of
management
challenges
–
increasing
use
/
exposure;
public/private
property
conflicts
 (Dugout
Ranch);
viewshed
issues;
fragile
ecosystem;
archeological
resources;
erosion
for
unplanned
 access
routes
to
buttes,
etc…

 
 ‐projects:

 ‐building
climbing
access
routes
to
popular
cliffs;
difficult
trail
building;
have
to
build
steps
etc;
 requires
a
lot
of
rock
work
 ‐also
restoring
campsites,
abandoned
trails
and
roadbeds;
native
grass
plugs

 ‐successes:
 
 ‐maintained
public
access
that
are
on
private
land;
including
famed
super
crack
buttress
 
 ‐enhanced
public
education
and
understanding
of
natural
and
cultural
history
of
the
area
 
 ‐collecting
data
on
recreational
impacts
and
developing
mitigation
strategies
 
 ‐improved
overall
infrastructure
for
recreationalists

 
 ‐Heidi
Redd;
manages
Dugout
Ranch
 ‐BLM
also
a
partner
 
 ‐built
a
relationship
with
Heidi
over
the
years
 ‐had
to
build
understanding
about
utility
of
trails
and
the
value
of
restoration
 ‐started
in
1989;
partnership
going
on
for
20
years
now

 
 ‐BLM
rep
 ‐federal
agencies
can
go
out
and
find
funds
to
build
projects;
don’t
be
constrained
by
what
field
managers
 say
in
initial
reactions
to
ideas

 
 ‐can
find
and
leverage
funds
from
other
agencies,
nonprofits,
businesses
etc.

 ‐don’t
be
afraid
to
make
radical
proposals

 
 ‐long‐term
plan
for
access;
Dugout
Ranch
was
sold
to
TNC;
Heidi
still
lives
there;
will
be
transferred
to
TNC
 entirely
when
Heidi
Redd
passes
 ‐offer
value‐added
to
partners;
things
your
partners
can’t
do
on
own;
ex.
Heidi
couldn’t
do
restoration
on
 her
own
 
 Note‐taker
4
 nd

RM
Field
Institute:
Restore
natural
lands,
legacy
project,
2 
project
ever
 Mix
of
private
property
and
public
lands.
 Sensitive
archeological
sites,
fragile
ecosystem
(critical
environmental
concern)
 Constructed
access
trails
to
seven
of
the
most
popular
cliffs.

 Work
primarily
with
students
(high
school
and
college),
opportunities
for
education,
educate
on
 conservation
issues
 Work
with
BLM
on
environmental
impacts


2


Work
with
the
BLM
 Improving
infrastructure
(parking
areas,
toilet
facilities)
 Working
with
cattle
ranchers
and
local
issues,
found
common
concerns
(future
of
Indian
Creek,
 protection
and
preservation)
 Youth
volunteers

 You
can
always
find
money
even
when
advisors
say
there
is
none.

 Worked
with
Utah
State
University,
public
land
stake
projects,
parks
service
(kiosk
and
signs),
 Four
Corners
school
(Discovery
Center),
land
exchange
?
 


Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
Indian
Creek,
Paradise
Royal
and
others


3


CHAPTER 16

Finding
Paradise
Royal
 
 


Early
involvement
and
planning
with
potential
partners.


Sustainable
trail
design
married
with
resource
protection.


Continue
momentum
through
events
and
trail
development.


Improve
the
trail
system
with
community
involvement,
partners
and
sponsors.


In
Northern
California,
the
North
Coast
Wilderness
bill
closed
several
miles
of
trails
to
cyclists.
So
the
BLM
 and
IMBA
led
the
charge
to
create
a
new
mountain
bike
trail
system
in
the
adjacent
King
Range
National
 Conservation
Area.
The
quality
of
the
new
trail
system
would
be
vastly
superior
to
the
trails
lost
through
 the
Wilderness
bill,
and
given
the
NCA
status
of
the
King
Range
Area,
this
was
an
opportunity
to
show
 how
conservation
and
mountain
biking
go
hand
in
hand.
As
a
result
of
trusting
relationships
between
the
 BLM
and
IMBA,
as
well
as
the
work
of
a
network
of
supporters
and
funders,
the
Paradise
Royal
Trail
was
 built
in
a
way
that
protected
habitats,
increased
opportunities
for
youth
outdoor
activity
and
provided
 high‐quality
mountain
biking
experiences.

 Gary
Pritchard‐Peterson
‐
Director
of
the
King
Range
NCA,
BLM
 Gary
has
been
living,
working,
and
playing
in
the
temperate
coastal
 rainforest
of
the
Lost
Coast
region
since
1992,
when
he
became
manager
 of
the
BLM’s
King
Range
National
Conservation
Area.

Since
then,
Gary
has
 been
immersed
in
watershed
restoration,
endangered
species
habitat
 management,
wilderness
and
trail
management,
engaging
youth
in
 conservation,
and
building
mountain
bike
trails.
 
 Tom
Ward
‐
International
Mountain
Bicycling
Association
 Tom
Ward
has
worked
for
over
38
years
in
various
levels
and
functions
 for
the
State
of
California.
He
has
vast
experience
in
program
planning
 and
implementation
in
the
fields
of
health
services,
developmental
 disabilities,
mental
health
and
most
recently16
years
in
parks
and
 recreation
management.
Tom
is
currently
with
IMBA,
functioning
as
 their
Policy
Director
for
California.

In
addition,
Tom
is
an
adjunct
 faculty
member
for
the
University
of
San
Francisco.
 
 Joey
Klein
‐
Trail
Specialist
for
the
International
Mountain
Bicycling
Association
 Joey
has
been
traveling
the
globe
for
IMBA
since
1999
working
in
45
US
states
 and
13
countries.
He
has
worked
with
mountain
bikers,
hikers,
climbers,
trail
 runners,
equestrians,
snowmobilers,
birders,
skiers,
fisherman,
trail
runners,
 motorized
users,
the
visually
impaired
and
the
physically
challenged
to
create
 exceptional
trail
experiences.
Formerly
a
ski
patroller,
Joey
designed
the
original
 trails
at
neighboring
Keystone
Resort.


1


Note‐taker
2
 King
Range,
CA
–
Paradise
Royale
Mtn
Bike
Trail

 ‐innovative
purpose
built
trail
system

 ‐CA’s
1st
mtn
bike‐specific
trail
on
BLM
land
 ‐Lost
Coast
of
CA;
US
1
goes
around
it
b/c
of
geology;
70s,
designated
as
first
national
conservation
area
 ‐combination
of
hard
and
soft
techniques
 
 ‐some
legislation

 
 ‐also
luck

 ‐local
volunteers
 ‐local
Conservation
Corps
 ‐work
with
BLM
 
 ‐projects
with
multiple
benefits
>
get
more
buy‐in:
 
 ‐conservation
of
land
and
species
habitat

 
 ‐salmon
run
restoration
 
 ‐re‐purposing
decommissioned
roads
 
 ‐youth
outdoor
activity

 ‐SUCCESS:
 
 ‐passionate
trail
users
 
 ‐dedicated
land
managers
 
 ‐community
ownership
 
 ‐partnerships
 Note‐taker
4
 Began
with
hard
techniques,
need
to
negotiate
land
use
details,
how
to
provide
for
mountain
bikers.

 1.

Most
trail
users
come
from
2‐2
½
hours
away.



2.

Humboldt
County
(Redwoods,
Logging,
Deforestation,
Mining),
currently
undergoing
restoration,
 preservation
of
salmon
and
Spotted
Owl
habitat



3.

Trail
or
Trail
System?


4.

a.

Used
old,
decommissioned
roads


b.

Had
to
hike
to
see
if
trails
were
possible


Hybrid
Trail
Construction
 a.

Youth
Volunteers,
BLM


b.

Conservation
and
Volunteer
Efforts


c.

Assured
that
the
habitat
of
three
salmon
species
would
not
be
affected,
also
protected
 the
spotted
owl



d.

Developed
relationships
with
biologists,
large
degree
of
trust
with
federal
agencies


e.

Different
techniques
in
order
to
avoid
building
bridges
(literally,
not
figuratively)

 Passionate
trail
users,
community
ownership


2


Meridian
Notes
–
 Discussion
of
Indian
Creek,
Paradise
Royal
and
others


Note‐taker
2
 
 Elements
of
Success?
 
 ‐personal
relationships;
being
on
the
ground;
meeting
with
land
managers;
being
present
–
on
both
sides;
 can’t
do
it
remotely

 ‐power
of
the
relationships
>
returns
continue
to
happen

 ‐vision,
creativity
and
motivation
to
get
it
done

 
 ‐bringing
technical
expertise
 ‐patience
and
perseverance
to
see
project
through;
to
meet
the
vision

 
 ‐be
explicit
about
the
commitment
necessary
 
 ‐political
power
of
partners
 
 ‐lobbying
for
legislation
and
funding
 
 ‐gaining
buy
in
from
communities

 
 ‐technical
assistance
and
process
support
from
key
organizations
(ex.
IMBA)
 ‐need
to
find
appropriate
role
for
the
partners
involved;
assemble
pieces
and
leverage
strengths

 
 Potential
replicable
model
‐1
main
land
management
agency;
1
main
NGO
partner
and
then
many
satellite
 partners;
need
to
have
the
satellite
partners;
also
need
a
core
coordinating
partner

 
 ‐dedicated
staff
person,
advocacy
group
often
plays
the
coordinating
role
>
key
partners
need
to

 look
for
these
people
 ‐not
necessarily
the
agency’s
job
to
be
the
coordinator;
those
that
are
invested
can
do
a
good
job
 at
it
too
 
 ‐how
can
you
replicate
these
successes
if
they
are
so
dependent
upon
specific
individuals?

 ‐EX.
IMBA
seeks/scans
for
people
with
the
right
skill
set
to
be
a
catalyst;
they
don’t
necessarily
 know
they
will
be
the
catalyst,
but
the
key
partners
need
to
seek
these
types
of
people
to
make
 things
happen

 
 ‐is
there
a
systematic
way
to
find
these
people?
Is
there
something
in
particular
that
nonprofits
can
do
to
 facilitate
that?

 ‐establishing
a
sustainable
working
structure
within
the
partnership;
ensure
it
will
last;
not
burn
 out
volunteers

 ‐continue
to
build
on
successes;
disseminate
models
of
success;
case
studies

 
 ‐need
local
champions
in
place
before
outside
partner
or
federal
agency
gets
involved
 
 Partnership
design
/
structure

 
 ‐field
visits
–
show
land
managers
a
well‐built
trail;
understand
how
things
are
done
now;
bring
decision
 makers
out
into
field

 
 ‐first‐hand
experience
can
help
change
entrenched
thinking/approaches
 
 Note‐taker
4
 
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?



3


Motivating
Factors:
activity
advocates
vs.
conservationists,
climbing
led
to
conservation
interests
 and
values,
grows
over
time

 o

Combined
have
the
most
potential
to
influence


Visionary
Leaders
willing
to
see
the
bigger
picture


Multiple
benefits
and
goals
(bike
trails
and
restoration),
creates
a
bigger
picture


Community
Involvement,
taking
ownership
of
the
project


Large
fears
of
changing,
ecological
processes
take
time,
willingness
to
accept
earth
movement
 but
it
will
eventually
appear
natural


Agencies
and
partners
must
be
familiar
with
land
planning,
exchanges,
and
real
estate
 procedures.
Have
an
idea
of
where
you
want
to
go
and
be
informed
about
land
use
and
disposal
 process.



Make
government
documents
accessible
and
readable
to
the
general
public.
Have
no
idea
how
 to
comment
on
reports.
Translate
documents
and
take
them
to
the
public
to
better
 understanding.


• “Draw
more
flies
with
honey”
 Are
these
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 
 Were
there
any
lessons
in
any
of
the
stories
about
what
NOT
to
do?
  Don’t
listen
to
constituents,
important
to
listen
and
respond
to
individual
parties
 Could,
and
if
yes,
how,
would
you
frame
any
of
these
success
element
or
lessons
as
“best
practices”?
 
 How
would
you
prioritize
suggested
best
practices?

Which,
if
any,
are
truly
key
versus
being
good
but
not
 essential?
 Have
a
passionate
group
of
advocates,
have
to
experience
the
land
doing
what
they
love
(biking,
 climbing,
etc)
 Is
there
anything
else
of
importance
in
these
stories
that
we
should
make
sure
to
capture
in
the
report?
 
 Other
note‐taker
comments
or
insights:
 

Surprised
by
agency
willingness
to
allow
bike
trail
features
that
could
be
a
dangerous
liability.

 o

Make
sure
the
risks
are
clearly
marked.
The
majority
of
users
accept
risks.



o

Lack
of
fees
decreases
liability.



o

Distinction
between
inherent
risk
and
unusual
risk.



Needed
Training
 o

Restoration



4


CHAPTER 17

Creative
Solutions:
The
Snake
River
Fund
 
 


The
best
partnerships
exist
between
what
the
government
“should”
and
what
it
“isn’t”
doing.

Accept
 the
system
failure
without
malice,
and
work
towards
achievable
local
solutions.


Replace
the
“just
say
NO!”
attitude
with
“there
has
got
to
be
a
way
I
haven’t
found
yet”
state‐of‐ mind.

If
no
one
“can”
add
partners
who
will.



 


Sit
at
the
table
as
a
peer,
share
your
assets
and
tell
the
truth
while
leaving
the
adversarial
issues
and
 personalities
behind.


In
1998,
the
Bridger‐Teton
National
Forest
in
Wyoming
was
authorized
the
collection
of
mandatory
fees
 for
Snake
River
use
on‐forest.

Appropriated
dollars
were
not
available
to
adequately
manage
facilities,
 mitigate
impacts,
supervise
user
behavior
(~200,000
trips
per
season)
or
pay
for
needed
infrastructure.

 River
users
strongly
protested
against
the
proposed
fee
system,
and
donors
stepped
forward
to
offer
 money
to
complete
projects,
manage
facilities
and
stave
off
mandatory
fees
until
“they
could
come
up
 with
a
better
alternative
than
fees.”

With
the
support
of
the
Chief
of
the
Forest
Service,
the
Snake
River
 Fund
(SRF)
was
created
as
a
partner
in
forest
river
management.

It
is
a
citizens’
group
representing
all
 river
users
working
directly
with
the
agency
to
find
solutions
to
current
problems
and
finance
ongoing
 maintenance,
staffing
and
needed
improvements.
Management
is
by
a
board
consisting
of
 representatives
of
most
river
user
demographics
such
as:

anglers,
whitewater
&
scenic
boaters
both
 private
and
commercial,
kayakers,
other
county,
state
and
water
organizations
facilitated
by
an
executive
 director.

This
partnership
has
provided
over
$1
million
in
direct
benefit
to
forest
rivers
in
the
past
14
 years.

Revenues
come
from
donations,
fundraisers,
outfitter
tithing
per
customer
and
grants.

The
 community
works
with
the
Forest
Service
and
board
members
to
identify
solutions
to
ongoing
resource
 and
use
dilemmas,
and
funds
those
approved
by
the
board.


 David
Cernicek
‐
Wild
&
Scenic
River
 Manager,
Bridger‐Teton
National
Forest
 David
grew
up
on
the
rivers
of
the
west.
His
 passion
for
rivers
has
led
him
into
a
career
of
 river‐related
work.
He
has
been
rafting
and
 kayaking
rivers
noncommercially
since
1982,
 and
has
lived
and
boated
in
most
areas
of
the
 country.
He
has
volunteered
countless
hours
 for
many
river
conservation
related
causes.
 David
is
presently
the
River
Manager
for
the
 Bridger‐Teton
National
Forest
in
Jackson
 Hole,
Wyoming.
Part
of
his
job
is
coordinating
 the
Snake
River
Fund.


1


Meridian
Notes


Note‐taker
5
 
 David
Cernacheck
discussed
Snake
River
Fund.

In
the
1990s,
the
snake
river
recreational
area
was
 becoming
too
crowded
with
tourists,
the
area
had
reached
its
capacity
in
terms
of
ability
to
support
 tourist
infrastructure,
lots
of
trash
was
piling
up,
confrontations
were
occurring
between
tourists.

There
 were
also
issues
with
funding.

Attempted
parking
fees
and
selling
passes,
both
were
too
contentious
to
 be
sustainable
solutions.

A
local
resident
offered
$50,000
to
the
park
service
to
come
up
with
an
 alternate
idea
to
instituting
fees.

A
meeting
was
convened
of
kayakers,
rafters,
govt
agencies,
forest
 service,
all
stakeholders
etc
to
encourage
similar
giving
and
raised
$17K.

A
foundation
(Community
 Foundation)
acted
as
a
centralized
holding
entity
for
the
money,
known
as
Snake
River
Fund.

Today
it
is
a
 voluntary
fund,
tax
deductible,
private
sector
driven
and
shows
direct
resource
impacts.

All
contributors
 sit
on
the
board
to
decide
how
the
money
should
be
spent.

They
encourage
lots
of
volunteer
projects,
 purchase
medical
equipment
for
responders,
hired
adequate
staff,
set
regs
to
control
group
sizes.

Lots
of
 fundraising
activities
(film
festival);
the
partnership
is
an
easy
construct
by
which
to
raise
money
for
 necessary
projects
and
construction.

Still
issues
with
federal
and
state
regulations,
grants
and
 agreements
regulations,
etc.

Has
not
completely
fixed
everything.

Other
lessons
learned:
don’t
over
 commit,
evaluate
and
make
sure
that
a
project
is
sustainable;
be
a
good
partner;
positive
communication.


 
 Note‐taker
6
 
 In
1999,
started
job
and
learned
about
Snake
River
Fund.

Snake
is
a
deep,
high
volume
river
in
the
 headwaters
in
far
northwestern
Wyoming.

At
that
time,
there
was
too
much
capacity
than
could
be
dealt
 with,
creating
a
lot
of
conflicts
on
the
river
and
off.

Law
enforcement
was
involved,
and
there
were
a
lot
 of
rescues
taking
place.

Facilities
were
in
disrepair.

A
fee
demo
project
ensued,
with
discontent
from
the
 public.


 A
man
made
an
offer
to
give
$50,000
if
they
came
up
with
something
different
to
do
for
a
year.

Got
all
 the
interest
groups
together
and
decided
that
everyone
else
had
to
put
in
money
too.

Forest
Service
 worked
from
the
Chief’s
office
down
to
make
this
happen.


 Partners:
 •

Forest
Service


• Community
Foundation
 Program
is:
 •

Voluntary


Tax
deductible


Non‐government
driven


Money
outside
the
federal
coffers


• Direct
resource
impacts
 Accomplishments:
 •

AED
program


Lots
of
volunteer
projects


Money
set
aside
for
future
projects,
medical
equipment,
etc.


2


Permit
program
that
controls
groups
sizes


• Lots
of
kids
have
access
(work
with
schools,
etc.)
 Power
of
Partnerships:
 •

Partners
can
provide
things
like
new
bathrooms


Matching
on
grants


Forest
Service
collaboration
can
be
difficult
(time,
workload,
agency
policy,
budget
rules,
 contracting,
grants
and
agreement)
 Lessons
learned:
 •

Don’t
get
overcommitted



Don’t
make
promises
your
agency
can’t
keep


Communication
is
everything


Don’t
jeopardized
yourself
or
the
agency
trying
to
be
a
good
partner


• Think
outside
the
box
 
 Discussion
Notes:
Note‐taker
5
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?
 •

Greatest
success
of
the
Snake
River
Fund
was
that
the
fund
ultimately
became
its
own
 nonprofit.

It
achieved
a
huge
rate
of
growth.


It
worked
because
someone
stepped
forward
to
volunteer.

The
personnel
were
able
to
 capitalize
on
a
unique
opportunity.




Finding
goals
in
the
community
that
are
similar
to
the
govt
service
is
another
way
to
discover
 the
opportunities.



Don’t
get
hung
up
on
what
you
perceive
that
the
gov’t
should
be
doing,
accept
reality
and
be
 proactive
about
coming
up
with
a
local
solution.


Relationships
cannot
be
adversarial.


Genesis
of
many
of
these
partnerships
is
luck;
a
degree
of
flexibility
in
the
management
of
 the
forest
or
park
is
what
opens
the
door
to
partnership.


Community‐driven;
common
interests


There
is
an
iconic
nature
to
the
asset
being
partnered
around;
there
is
power
in
building
the
 narrative
and
marketing
the
natural
resource
in
order
to
make
the
community
feel
vested
in
 it
and
concerned
enough
to
help
out
in
a
crises
situation.


A
lesson
learned
is
that
once
a
productive
partnership
is
developed,
the
donors
are
very
 generous
and
want
to
continue
to
support
the
endeavor;
don’t
mind
giving
more
money


3


Do
not
over
promise;
prioritized,
be
honest
about
what
projects
will
not
be
funded


There
is
a
lot
of
good
collaboration
provided
by
the
Snake
River
institute


Many
donors
are
also
willing
to
do
the
work
and
spend
money
up‐front
and
worry
about
 being
compensated
later.


Building
social
relationships
are
crucial;
many
agreements
made
over
a
beer;
personal
 relationship
that
are
respectful
of
the
capacity
of
the
management
staff
and
the
abilities
and
 resources
of
the
public


Set
an
example:
sometimes
if
the
agency
staff
puts
in
extra
hours
and
works
hours
conducive
 to
the
volunteers
will
energize
the
volunteer
base;
meet
them
on
their
schedule.


Mission
statements
are
important


Understand
and
evaluate
the
highest
resource
and
ability
that
each
partner
brings
to
the
 table;
sometimes
it
is
possible
to
take
on
too
many
partners
or
partners
who
do
not
bring
a
 new
value
to
the
table
but
instead
only
repeat
the
capabilities
that
someone
else
is
already
 providing;
ie
know
if
someone
is
potentially
offering
money,
or
labor,
or
some
other
service
 and
target
what
it
is
that
they
can
offer
to
the
effort


Invite
people
in
before
you
need
them
in
order
to
begin
building
a
relationship
that
may
 potentially
need
to
be
cultivated;
don’t
immediately
hit
up
a
potential
partner
for
funds
or
 other
resources;
prioritize
collaboration;
this
also
provide
insurance
against
problems
or
 unpredictable
situations
in
the
future.


There
are
many
places
to
find
support
if
you
need
it
so
keep
cultivating
relationships
with
 other
organizations
not
directly
involved
in
the
partnership;



Think
unconventionally,
something
as
simple
as
having
a
vendor
who
will
provide
coffee
for
 a
meeting
can
help
to
continue
building
a
partnership
during
meetings.


Keeping
in
contact
with
different
niche
groups
offers
the
ability
to
find
multiple
ideas
for
 solving
a
problem.


Add
good
credit
to
the
agencies
that
are
able
to
effect
positive
change;
publicize
successes,
 add
to
the
narrative
and
show
the
benefits
that
come
from
the
agencies
that
can
make
 problem
solving
happen;
this
creates
an
economic
success
and
benefit
from
proper
 management
of
public
land


A
tangible
success
usually
will
lead
to
respect
and
acknowledgement
of
a
recreational
area
 as
a
good
manager
of
public
resources


How
to
build
trust
within
an
agency?
To
make
good
partnerships
you
cannot
give
up
on
trust
 because
of
being
burned
once.

Keep
trying.
 Are
these
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 •

Wasach
Watershed
Legacy
Project;
has
discussed
decision
making
process;
whether
it
would
 be
democratic
or
majority
vote,
etc.


Has
seen
many
parallels
to
managing
the
attraction
of
 donors/volunteers
who
have
a
personal
interest
or
agenda.


4


Groups
need
to
think
ahead
about
possible
conflicts
and
how
they
will
be
addressed
if
they
 were
to
occur


Mt.
Hood
land
swaps
and
rezoning

have
been
a
creative
way
to
continue
to
manage
 development
of
an
area
against
preserving
the
natural
space


Appalachian
Mtn
Club
(White
Mtns)
partnership:
key
to
working
well
with
the
forest
service
 is
a
combo
of
informal
and
formal
communication
and
agenda‐driven
meetings
to
discuss
 and
resolve
concerns
before
they
become
conflicts


• 
 Were
there
any
lessons
in
any
of
the
stories
about
what
NOT
to
do?
 •

Some
history
is
lost
with
board
turnover;
new
people
not
familiar
with
the
history
of
an
issue
 and
levels
of
trust
already
built
among
other
members


Beware
of
people
getting
involved
who
have
personal
agendas
or
interests;
people
trying
to
 add
their
own
designs
to
the
area;
Relationship
management;
big
resorts
often
have
a
lot
of
 clout
to
pursue
their
own
agenda;
don’t
make
anyone
involved
in
the
decision
making
more
 special
than
anyone
else


Partnerships
are
not
watch‐dog
groups,
they
need
to
work
together
and
creatively
discuss
 problems,
not
try
to
point
out
the
govt
agencies
mistakes
or
try
to
do
the
job
of
the
park
 service;
but,
do
not
hesitate
to
point
out
if
the
organization
thinks
that
the
park
 service/forest
service
is
misusing
resources
or
not
making
the
most
of
a
resource.


After
you
get
a
license
for
use
of
an
area,
you
still
need
to
be
able
to
adapt
and
continue
to
 support
the
partner
organizations
needs
in
utilizing
the
resource
area


Don’t
dwell
on
what
can’t
be
done;
keep
ideas
that
are
difficult
to
project
on
the
list
until
 they
can
be
addressed.


Do
not
follow
agency
regs
to
the
letter;
don’t
say
no
to
something
that
is
possible
just
 because
it
hasn’t
been
ordered
to
be
done



 How
would
you
prioritize
the
elements
of
success
you
have
identified?

Which,
if
any,
are
truly
key
versus
 being
good
but
not
essential?
 
 Is
there
anything
else
of
importance
in
these
stories
that
we
should
make
sure
to
capture
in
the
report?
 •

Big
ideas
are
not
coming
from
the
top;
most
of
the
best
solutions
are
community‐based;
 how
do
you
establish
models
that
can
be
transferrable
to
other
areas
and
other
scales?


5


CHAPTER 18

Out
of
the
Ashes
at
Buffalo
Creek
 
 In
the
summer
of
1996,
12,000
acres
of
the
Buffalo
Creek
Recreation
Area
of
the
Pike
and
San
Isabel
 National
Forest
were
consumed
by
forest
fire.
The
fire
and
subsequent
floods
had
a
devastating
impact
on
 the
town
of
Buffalo
Creek
as
well
as
the
surrounding
National
Forest.
During
the
summer
of
2000,
the
 High
Meadow
fire
only
added
to
the
devastation
of
this
heavily
used
recreation
area.
In
response,
a
group
 of
concerned
mountain
bikers
formed
the
Front
Range
Mountain
Bike
Patrol
(FRMBP)
to
assist
the
South
 Platte
Ranger
District
of
the
US
Forest
Service
in
patrolling
and
protecting
the
area.
 Fifteen
years
later,
the
partnership
between
the
USFS
and
the
FRMBP
has
resulted
in
more
than
the
6,900
 hours
of
volunteer
labor
contributed
by
the
patrol.
Already
home
to
popular
segments
of
the
Colorado
 Trail
and
situated
an
hour
from
2.5
million
residents
in
the
Denver,
CO
metro
area,
Buffalo
Creek
has
the
 potential
to
become
a
world‐class
destination
for
human‐powered
recreationists.
Together
with
 Recreation
Planner’s
from
the
USFS,
the
FRMBP
helped
create
the
relationship
and
vision
for
the
larger
 community
of
mountain
bikers
to
participate
in
Buffalo
Creek
reaching
its
potential.
 Starting
from
a
plan
for
expanding
the
existing
trail
system,
the
USFS,
FRMBP
and
the
Colorado
Mountain
 Bike
Association
(COMBA)
joined
together
to
build
the
first
segments
of
new
trail.
The
unique
nature
of
 the
project
and
the
attention
it
generated
in
social
and
traditional
media
energized
the
mountain
bike
 community,
leading
to
new
public‐private
partnerships
including
the
Bailey
HUNDO
100
mile
mountain
 bike
race.
A
product
of
former
Colorado
State
Senator
Chris
Romer
and
non‐profit
Advance
Colorado,
the
 charity
race
highlights
the
breath
and
quality
of
trails
in
the
Buffalo
Creek
system,
raises
awareness
and
 funds
for
youth
cycling
and
the
Buffalo
Creek
trail
system
and
is
a
driver
for
the
recreational
economy
of
 Bailey,
CO.
 Engaged
users
and
volunteers,
expanded
recreational
opportunities,
funding
through
grants
and
 donations,
regional
economic
development
and
backing
of
state
congressional
leadership
are
all
products
 of
the
sustained
partnership
between
the
USFS
and
the
Front
Range
Mountain
Bike
Patrol.
 Keith
Clarke
‐
Vice
President,
Colorado
Mountain
Bike
Association
 Jason
Bertolacci
‐
Marketing/Database
Manger,
IMBA
 Scott
Dollus
‐
Recreation
Planner,
South
Platte
Ranger
District
 


6


Note‐taker
5
 
 Jason
Bertallacci,
Scott
Wallis,
Keith
Clark
discussed
Buffalo
Creek,
CO
project.

Very
popular
recreational
 area
for
Denver
residents
and
mountain
bikers
in
particular.

In
the
early
1990s
forest
personnel
decided
 that
the
area
would
be
a
good
trail
area
and
began
to
develop
it
and
incorporate
two
track
roads.

Several
 fires
occurred
in
the
mid
1990s
which
closed
many
of
the
trails
as
unsafe
for
use
b/c
they
couldn’t
be
 managed.

At
this
time,
volunteers
for
Jefferson
County
open
space
(mountain
bike
patrol)
offered
to
help
 patrol
the
area.

There
was
a
lot
of
value
to
having
50‐70
people
patrol
the
area
and
it
began
to
come
 back
into
usage.

Then
IMBA
volunteered
to
get
involved
and
they
whole
group
began
maintenance
on
 many
of
the
trails.

Built
a
double
black
diamond
trail
and
27
miles
of
new
trails,
was
able
to
gain
access
to
 additional
funding
and
be
able
to
rebuild
much
of
the
area.

This
activity
drew
a
lot
of
media
attention
and
 political
and
other
groups
who
began
taking
interest
in
the
project,
eventually
received
a
grant
from
 IMBA.

Started
the
Bailey‐Hundo
race,
all
funds
from
which
are
reinvested
in
the
area.

The
race
attracts
a
 lot
of
different
age
groups
and
gets
entire
families
energized
and
interested
in
the
activity
and
in
the
area.

 These
activities
have
led
to
many
diversified
opportunities
for
volunteerism
to
keep
lots
of
different
 people
interested
in
donating
time.


 
 Note‐taker
6
 
 Jason_____,
…..
Scott
Dallis,
Keith
Clark
 Buffalo
Creek
is
in
Pike
National
Forest,
and
is
very
popular
for
all
recreationists,
including
mountain
 bikers.
It
is
very
close
to
the
metro
area.

 Around
1990‐1991,
putting
in
lines
for
prescribed
burns,
realized
that
this
would
be
a
good
trail.

NEPA
 was
already
done.
After
that,
they
began
to
incorporate
2‐track
roads
into
the
system.

1996
was
the
 beginning
of
a
lot
of
big
fires
through
the
area
resulting
in
closures
of
a
number
of
the
trails.
There
were
 no
plans
on
reopening
the
trails.

 Front
Range
Mountain
Bike
Patrol
became
involved.

They
were
volunteering
in
other
areas
to
head
off
 trail
closures
and
reduce
user
conflicts.

Mountain
Bike
Patrol
talked
to
Buffalo
Creek
and
began
to
patrol
 there.

In
2003,
IMBA
joined
the
partnership.

The
three
groups
began
to
do
some
maintenance
(3
years).

 In
2006
started
talking
about
new
trail
development.

They
were
asked
to
put
together
a
master
plan,
and
 were
asked
to
include
an
extreme
or
Double
Black
Diamond
trail.

Over
the
next
15
months,
a
plan
was
 developed
and
approved
with
about
27
new
miles
of
trails.
Currently
about
12
miles
of
those
trails
has
 been
built,
and
more
is
planned
to
start
in
the
spring.


 The
project:

 •

Brought
out
new
groups
of
volunteers


Served
as
a
media
piece
(local
newspapers,
mountain
biking
magazines,
etc.)


Has
an
expert
level
trail
–
Black
Jack


Attention
from
political
groups


State
Senator
Chris
Romer
engaged
in
economic
development
ideas
for
Bailey,
CO


Bailey
Hundo
race
developed
(a
race,
but
also
a
501c3
organization).

All
funds
go
back
into
being
 a
long
term
funding
source
for
improving
the
area.



• Allows
for
diversified
opportunities
for
the
growth
of
this
partnership
 Keys
to
success:
 •

Longevity
of
the
partnership
and
the
relationships


7


• Trust
 Next
steps:
 •

With
IMBA
grant,
long
range
planning


• Capitalize
energy
from
diverse
groups
of
users

 
 Discussion
Notes:
Note‐taker
6
 
 What
were
the
elements
of
success
that
you
heard
in
each
of
the
stories
–
e.g.,
why
did
they
work
so
 well?
 Why
did
this
project
generate
so
much
energy?
 •

The
power
of
social
media


Denver
Post
article


Lots
of
user
videos
on
line


Resource
was
new
–
didn’t
exist
before


This
was
done
start
to
finish
in
the
right
way
(relationships,
coming
together
with
ideas,
ideas
 executed
under
the
partnership),
giving
people
hope
that
the
process
can
work
 Bias
against
high
skill
areas:

 •

When
specialists
were
clearing
the
area,
they
had
some
concerns


Forest
Service
valued
the
judgment
of
the
user
groups


Have
not
had
accidents



Less
accidents
on
a
trail
like
this
because
the
risks
are
so
evident


• All
the
features
are
marked,
graded
and
have
names
 Elements
of
success:
 •

Filter
features
–
easier
routes
exist,
so
people
have
a
choice.
Up
to
the
individual
how
tough
a
 line
they
want
to
take.




Compliance
hurdles
were
not
insurmountable
–
lots
of
trail
work
possible
under
a
CE


Road
to
trail
conversion
was
considered
“the
easy
thing
to
do.”

As
this
has
evolved,
addressing
 the
experience
became
more
of
a
priority


Bike
Patrol
successes
–

 o

First
began
in
Jefferson
County
where
bike
patrol
stepped
up
to
defer
trail
closures.

 Their
involvement
there
immediately
had
an
impact,
with
user
conflicts
being
ranked
as
 st th 1 
priority
initially,
and
then
5 
priority
later.




o

That
model
applied
at
Buffalo
Creek
although
the
areas
are
very
different
(no
user
 conflicts
there
at
the
time).




8


o

Bike
Patrol
identifies
trail
damage
for
maintenance
purposes,
creating
new
trails,
serves
 as
eyes
and
ears
for
the
area,
reports
downed
trees
and
illegal
activities,
assists
with
 medical
evacuation,
etc.
They
carry
NFS
radios.


o

Bike
Patrol
has
50
members
in
the
Buffalo
Creek
patrol


o

Bike
Patrol
has
a
placard
on
the
bike


o

Insurance
covered
by
Bike
Patrol
and
through
volunteer
agreement
with
Forest
Service


o

Training
day
takes
place
every
year,
collaborative
between
Forest
Service
and
IMBA


o

A
similar
program
on
the
Potomac
River
was
mentioned


o

Note
that
often
Bike
Patrols
evolve
into
social
groups,
working
to
do
maintenance,
etc.



Recreation
event
as
fundraiser
 o

Racers
pay
$25
but
then
can
raise
additional
funds
through
their
friends


We
have
clout
behind
what
we
say.

We
can
build
on
our
success,
and
we
have
credibility
with
 user
groups
because
of
this.




First
big
events
were
all
maintenance
(especially
given
history
of
fires).



Use
of
GOCO
money
to
fund
people
who
can
work
with
the
Bike
Patrol.



Fire
crew
very
interested
in
mountain
biking


Good
sense
of
goals
and
interests
of
different
user
groups


Trust:
 o

Initial
trust
earned
through
hundreds
of
volunteers
correcting
our
worst
problems


o

Trust
came
from
partnering
with
IMBA
on
maintenance
work
done
that
started
in
2003.




Use
of
latest
and
greatest
techniques


Favorable
articles
in
Denver
Post


Satisfaction
from
doing
a
good
thing


Leadership
from
IMBA


Economic
impacts


o Local
community
impacts
(restaurants,
gas
stations,
etc.)
–
getting
lots
more
business
 Have
relationships
been
codified
in
any
way?

 •

Nothing
more
than
a
volunteer
agreement


In
the
future,
may
look
for
a
more
formal
agreement


9


• Noted
by
a
participant
that
without
codification,
agreements
could
fail
 Challenges
/
continued
needs:
 •

Liability:
 o

Lots
of
private
land
that
could
be
made
accessible
to
the
public.

Insurance
is
a
barrier
to
 this;
need
to
extend
protection
in
place
for
mountain
bike
industry.

Affordable
 insurance
would
allow
activities
to
expand,
thus
allowing
expansion
of
activities.
This
 would
be
part
of
a
master
plan.




o

Grey
areas
in
recreational
use
statutes
need
to
be
worked
out.




o

In
boating,
if
you
are
on
a
river
you
are
not
on
someone’s
land,
so
it
is
only
put‐in
and
 take‐out
that
is
a
concern.




Beetle
issues
and
others
have
overshadowed
this
success.

It
has
“slid
under
the
radar”
(perhaps
 that
is
a
good
thing?)


• It
is
not
part
of
performance
measures
of
NFS
to
do
this
type
of
project
 Why
the
success
in
this
Forest?
What
makes
this
Forest
more
able
to
achieve
success
than
others?
 •

Proximity
to
a
big
metro
area?



Risk
tolerance
varies
from
staff
to
staff


History
of
successes….success
builds
on
success


Clearly
not
a
motorized
community,
so
that
is
not
an
issue


Lack
of
ski
industry
(that
creates
more
diverse
interest
groups)


Could
be
making
good
decisions


• When
you
do
your
homework,
all
goes
well
 Are
there
elements
that
could
easily
be
generally
applied
in
other
settings?

Or
are
there
unique
 situational
characteristics
that
might
limit
applicability?


 Were
there
any
lessons
in
any
of
the
stories
about
what
NOT
to
do?
 •

Initially,
got
ahead
of
ourselves
with
the
first
event
(had
more
than
100
volunteers).

Worked
 through
the
communication
gaps,
though.




Users
can
be
hard
to
work
with.
Lots
of
competing
interests
and
competing
demands.

Managing
 that
can
be
a
challenge.





 How
would
you
prioritize
the
elements
of
success
you
have
identified?

Which,
if
any,
are
truly
key
versus
 being
good
but
not
essential?
 Is
there
anything
else
of
importance
in
these
stories
that
we
should
make
sure
to
capture
in
the
report?
 
 Other
note‐taker
comments
or
insights:
 Facilitator
set
the
discussion
up
so
that
it
was
focused
on
only
one
of
the
stories.
Conversation
remained
 much
more
narrow
than
other
discussions,
in
that
it
stayed
focused
on
that
story
versus
having
broader
 implications
with
other
projects.




10


CASE STUDY

Enhancing
Public
Access
and
Recreation
in
the
Yampa
River
Basin
 • • •

Broad
community
support

 
Funding
mechanisms
(GOCO)
 
Common
goals
for
balancing
local
economies
and
landscape
health



 The
Yampa
River
basin
is
an
icon
of
the
west,
and
sustains
a
broad
range
of
human
uses,
 including
ranching
and
mining,
recreation,
wildlife
and
riparian
habitat,
and
growing
 development.

In
the
past,
local
community
leaders
have
developed
successful
partnerships
to
 help
protect
river‐based
landscapes,
enhance
opportunities
to
improve
public
access
and
 enjoyment,
and
ensure
the
regions
historical
character
and
economy
continues
into
the
future.
 The
America’s
Great
Outdoors
Initiative
(AGO)
has
recently
identified
the
Yampa
River
basin
as
 one
of
the
major
focal
points
for
public‐private
partnerships.

Building
upon
the
successes
of
the
 Yampa
River
Legacy
Project,
the
Obama
Administration
and
DOI
are
teaming
up
with
the
YRLP
to
 strengthen
partnerships
that
increase
public
access
and
enjoyment
of
the
Yampa
River.

 
 Ken
Brenner
will
present
the
history
of
the
Yampa
River
Legacy
Project,
and
describe
the
catalyst
 for
local
partnerships.
 
 Alan
Gilbert
will
identify
areas
of
overlap
between
the
YRLP
and
AGO.

He
will
address
how
the
 AGO
program
will
work
with
and
through
the
Yampa
River
Legacy
Project
organization
to
 promote
and
support
conservation
projects
in
the
Yampa
River
Basin.
 
 Alan
Gilbert
is
the
Senior
Advisor
to
the
Secretary
of
the
Interior
for
the
Southwest
and
Rocky
 Mountain
Regions.
He
is
Secretary
Ken
Salazar’s
representative
in
Colorado,
Utah,
Arizona
and
 New
Mexico.
In
this
role,
and
on
behalf
of
the
Secretary,
Alan
works
with
governments,
 agencies,
organizations
and
citizens
to
address
issues
that
span
the
very
broad
jurisdiction
of
the
 Department
of
the
Interior.
Alan
is
based
in
Lakewood,
Colorado.
 
 Ken
Brenner
is
from
a
third
generation
ranch
family
in
Routt
County.

Ken's
early
years
were
 spent
out
of
doors,
working
on
the
ranch
and
enjoying
the
Yampa
Valley.
Ken
served
eight
years
 on
the
Steamboat
Springs
City
Council
starting
in
1998
(Council
President
2005‐2007)
and
served
 on
the
Routt
County
Planing
Commission
for
almost
two
years.

He
represented
Steamboat
 Springs
on
the
Colorado
Municipal
League,
Colorado
Association
of
Ski
Towns,
Associated
 Governments
of
Northwest
Colorado
as
well
as
the
Yampa
River
Legacy
Project.
Ken
currently
 serves
as
President
of
Friends
of
the
Yampa,
Board
member
of
the
Upper
Yampa
Water
 Conservancy
District,
Trustee
for
the
Colorado
Mountain
College
school
system
and
hopes
to
be
 appointed
to
the
newly
reformed
Yampa
River
Legacy
Project
Board
representing
recreation.


1


Attendee
Recommendations
 
 • Conduct
an
economic
impact
study
of
the
Yampa
Legacy
Project
 • Create
more
land‐based
river
trails
by
expanding
the
partnership
to
include
IMBA,
 CDOT,
and
Transportation
Enhancement
funds.
 • Look
to
the
Agencies
for
youth
education
connection
to
existing
programs.
 • Use
the
clout
of
AGO
to
leverage
additional
visibility
to
the
Yampa,
and
seek
big
 business
interest
for
the
partnership.
 • Connect
with
local
outdoor
businesses,
like
Smartwool
and
Moots.
 • Tie
in
with
local
youth
groups
and
school.
 • Engage
with
Rivers,
Trails
and
Conservation
Assistance
program.

 • Expand
funding
beyond
GOCO.
 • Partner
with
Agriculture
groups
on
water
quality
issues.
 • Engage
ski
areas
and
airlines
for
funding
and
press.
 • Work
with
the
CO
Tourism
Office.
 • Work
on
cross
boarder
partnerships
and
acknowledge
downstream
benefits.
 • Market
success
and
communicate
the
results
of
the
project
by
recognizing
key
partners
 and
tying
back
with
GOCO
and
AGO.
 • Focus
on
the
locals
to
engage
those
who
wouldn’t
otherwise
get
outside.
 • Put
on
a
river
festival
that
includes
a
community
float,
engages
the
outfitters,
and
offers
 reduced
rates
for
locals.
 • Organize
a
river
trip
for
all
the
stakeholders
in
the
project.

 • Broaden
the
partnership
to
include
more
industries
and
the
chamber
of
commerce.

 • Engage
the
department
of
health
for
a
community
health
initiative.
 • Tie
in
with
existing
communities,
like
the
Boy
Scouts
and
the
YMCA.
 • Produce
more
events,
like
multi‐sport
adventure
races,
that
bring
outsiders
to
the
area.
 • Is
the
Northwest
Colorado
Watershed
Partnership
an
opportunity
for
collaboration?


2


Note‐taker
1
 Presentation
 Yampa
River
System
Legacy
Partnership
and
America’s
Great
Outdoors
 We
should
be
thankful
that
we
have
a
president
and
senior
leadership
that
are
interested
in
a
 balanced
approach
to
land
and
resource
management.

 Yampa
River
flows
from
Flat
Tops
and
other
Wilderness
areas
through
Dinosaur
National
 Monument
and
the
confluence
with
the
Green
River.

 Yampa
River
is
relatively
undammed.
Opportunity
to
study
other
species,
more
natural
riparian
 habitat.

 Broad
range
of
recreational
opportunities
in
the
Yampa
valley.

 1995
–
2011
–
Grant
funding
from
GOCO
for
a
number
of
projects.

 Routt
and
Moffat
County
are
the
core
of
the
Yampa
partnership.

 Voluntary,
collaborative,
incentive‐based
project
to
protect
and
enhance
the
Yampa
river.

 Partners
–
Cities,
Counties,
Towns,
DoW,
State
Parks,
TNC,
Land
Trust,
BLM,
business,
 recreation,
and
Ag.

 Conservative,
ranching,
oil
and
gas,
ski
resort,
progressives
in
Steamboat
–
very
diverse
groups
 of
communities.
Had
to
bring
adversaries
to
the
table
–
had
to
find
common
ground.

 Leveraged
$72m
of
resources
for
legacy
project
on
the
Yampa.
Beyond
just
the
legacy
project
–
 many
more
projects
happened
concurrently
(with
synergy)
in
the
Yampa
River
Basin.

 Many
funding
sources
–
looked
to
the
ones
that
worked
best
for
the
partnership
so
far.

 America’s
Great
Outdoors
and
Yampa
Organization
 Folks
in
the
Outdoor
Alliance
–
real
community
of
interest
–
looking
to
do
what
DOI
wants
to
do.
 Form
long‐term
sustainable
partnerships
–
main
driving
goal
for
the
secretary.

 Show
that
jobs,
economic
development,
and
outdoor
recreation
are
part
of
conservation
 approaches
across
the
country.

 Wil
Shafroth
is
the
lead
for
AGO
from
Sec’y
Salazar.


 AGO
is
President
Obama’s
initiative
to
reconnect
citizens
in
America
to
the
outdoors.
There
are
 a
lot
of
details,
but
that
is
the
core
of
the
partnership.

 All
50
states,
beyond
just
CO
and
the
West
–
represent
everyone
in
the
country
–
and
many
 important
AGO
projects
are
happening
all
over
the
East
Coast.

 Conservation
programs
under
AGO
–
focused
on
protecting
very
large
landscapes,
protecting
 rivers,
and
build
great
urban
parks.

 Urban
dwellers
are
the
people
that
are
important
to
connect
to
the
outdoors.
Main
goal
for
the
 program
is
to
try
and
accomplish
that
goal.

 Salazar,
Vilsack,
Jackson,
…,
are
the
folks
running
this
program
at
the
top.

 AGO
is
a
partnership
between
federal
government
and
all
of
the
federal
agencies
and
people
inc
 ommunities
to
create
conservation
projects
all
across
the
country.
It
is
a
real
partnership
that
 works
both
ways.
AGO
is
21st
century
conservation
initiative.

 AGO
projects
are
built
from
the
ground
up
–
from
the
community
consensus
–
accepted,
 desired,
and
proposed
by
the
communities
involved
–
broad
and
should
be
everyone
involved.

 AGO
demands
broad
consensus
that
a
particular
project
is
a
good
idea
for
our
communities.

 New
approach
to
conservation
–
moves
beyond
protecting
lands
–
it
is
about
projects
that
are
 broadly
supported
by
the
community
and
are
pushing
the
envelope.

 It
is
not
a
grant
program.
There
are
funding
opportunities
–
but
they
are
not
grants.
They
come
 from
partnerships
such
as
the
one
in
BLM
–
if
community
wants
a
conservation
project.
Hope
to


3


see
conservation
projects
part
of
BLM
area.
Because
it
is
a
good
idea,
because
it
is
supported
by
 everyone
involved.

 Through
AGO
–
you
get
planning
and
technical
expertise
from
federal
agencies
and
from
the
 state.

 Hickenlooper
and
CDOT
are
putting
up
signs
to
direct
people
to
Arsenal
National
Wildlife
 Refuge.

 There
is
a
focus
in
AGO
on
jobs,
education,
recreation,
and
the
exposure
of
young
people
to
the
 outdoors.

 On
Yampa
–
exposing
kids
and
youth
to
natural
resources,
and
educating
kids
about
the
lands
 that
they
live
in.

 Economics,
job
development,
proper
development
to
cities,
should
conform
and
be
a
part
of
 conservation
projects.
Ought
to
be
integrated
with
transportation
developments.
Integrate
all
of
 the
ideas.
Bring
back
to
partnerships
–
it
is
a
very
broad
program
–
there
are
many
people
not
 traditionally
conservationists,
who
are
now
part
of
the
process.

 Yampa
River
Group
–
powerful
group,
strong
organization
that
represents
the
entire
 community.
There
are
vast
differences
among
the
people
who
are
in
the
program
–
yet
they
are
 all
coming
together
to
promote
outdoors
projects
in
their
communities.

 It
is
a
key
relationship
between
Legacy,
state,
and
federal
agencies.
Long
term
sustainable
 human
relationships.

 
 Legacy
will
advocate
for
projects
–
will
not
advocate
for
policy.

 Original
mission:
land
conservation,
land
acquisition,
management
of
recreation,
public
access
 and
conservation
 Expanded
legacy
mission
for
AGO
to
address
 •

Invasive
Weed
Eradication


Youth
and
Outdoor
environmental
/
recreation
jobs


• Youth
and
Outdoor
environmental
/
recreation
education
 Added
new
partners
to
Legacy
partnership
–
youth
and
education,
youth
and
jobs,
public
lands,
 yampa
river
 Already
initiated
a
series
of
projects,

 GOCO
–
up
to
$18m
for
outdoor
recreation.

 Identified
additional
projects
for
the
Yampa
river
–
documented
in
plans
and
documents
for
 legacy
partnerships.

 Plans
are
basis
for
grant
applications
–
helping
us
move
forward
on
a
number
of
issues.

 $1/person/day
across
the
Yampa
and
use
that
to
provide
rafting
experiences
for
youth.

 Just
getting
started
–
have
some
good
momentum
–
there
are
many
new
identified
projects.



Top Ideas from Discussions • •

Expanding the list of partners to include members of oil and gas community, park service, and downstream communities Reconcile missions of “protect and enhance” and “projects not policy” – how can you protect the river if not advocating for policy; what are sideboards for discussing water

4


• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • •

How do you bring the community and people outside of Steamboat into the conversation. o Scale up tamarisk river float trips o Bring in more people to Yampa river festival o More adventure racing in Yampa River Festival Demonstration projects with oil and gas community More partners – what about IMBA/Access Fund – OA could be a partner organization – trigger OA members to look and see the role that uses could have in project OA could help broker deal with outdoor industry company and extractive o Alternative industry corridors –something in little snake Outdoor gear and clothing companies Mountain bike trail system – kudos on emerald mountain Opportunities peripheral to initiative – tying in with youth group, making sure that as jobs emerge, young people have a pathway to a 4 year degree. Tap into grad students and college students to work and leverage some of the programs Getting kids into entry level jobs is one thing – but getting them an education and bringing them back in. Funding beyond GOCO – look to Foundation partners. Getting outside of the outdoor recreation – tapping into ski area, networks with tourism (NSAA, CSCUSA, Colorado Tourism Alliance). Oil and Gas partnership – many communities that are related. Success breeds success – get prominence for project. Teton ten example – think about opportunity with education and the arts. Reach out directly with arts communities Hunters and Anglers should be included Reach out to Department of Labor Take a hard look at land-based recreation opportunities in the area – look at trails, climbing opportunities, etc. for bringing people together. It may be worthwhile to ring ranching landowners to the table. Think about new partnerships in addition to what is happening on public land Promote as a year-long recreation destination A lot of the partners were broader partners – not as many local, grassroots partners, throwing fun events, many sections to run, get people who would not get out on the river (community float) Bringing in outfitters to offer discounted rates – and then offer the opportunities for locals. Building support for that type of recreation Economic impact along the corridor What is being delivered to youth – turnkey programs available from the agencies as an option Long-term plan – there is one

5


• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• •

• •

Develop a non-profit fund (such as Friends of the Yampa River) that supports management of the watershed instead of working through government recreation fee programs Provide incentives for private landowners to allow public access for recreation on their lands Recreation easements (not just conservation easements) Tie into existing community projects Youth fee – helps get buy-in justification for a project before implementation Identify challenges to long term and short term goals Build cross-border partnerships with communities further downstream (on the Green) Lots of partners that could be brought to the table Go back to AGO with this as a pilot – how can partnership with AGO be leveraged – ho could industries like health be used to support this? Additional business incentives – hotels, lodging, restaurants that will benefit from tourism – a voice. Chamber of Commerce Reach out to local health departments and groups Incentivize business development that provide opportunities for families on the river (flatwater sections) Northwest Colorado Watershed Partnership has ecological plan – where is the overlap and is it competition – or can you collaborate? What makes Yampa River unique? Free-flowing river – circle efforts back to that unique factor. Brand area and educate as a really unique special place in Colorado. Build in feedback loops within program that feed into overall goal. It is about sharing successes and telling stories –developing communications plan for the story – use story both internally and externally to share successes with new partners, funders, agencies For new agency people – need to be able to share information and share knowledge within the agencies and within the commissioners. Nice to start with a float trip for all stakeholders and partners – talk about creating friends for Yampa River organization – identify short term and longterm plans for management. Identify broader use beyond the whitewater season Identify projects to do with funding

6


FEDERAL PANEL DISCUSSION Mary Coulombe, Chief, Natural Resources Management, USACE Jim Bedwell, Director of Recreation, Heritage and Volunteer Resources, USFS Carl Rountree, Director, National Landscape Conservation System, BLM Bob Ratcliffe, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning, BLM Garry Oye, Chief of Wilderness Stewardship, NPS Karen Taylor‐Goodrich, Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, NPS Kevin Kilcullen, Chief of Visitor Services, National Wildlife Refuge System, FWS Moderated by Jason Keith, Access Fund Policy Director Note-taker 1 Trying to get a senior level perspective on AGO, FICOR, other opportunities for partnership. What are the key elements of partnerships and how do you raise that to a high level. FICOR – Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation. 1963 there was an outdoor recreation act that mandates agencies work together and plan together to support outdoor recreation. In the 1970s to 1980s there was a bureau of outdoor recreation. Now we are bringing together leaders in outdoor recreational activities from each of the different agencies. Tried to elevate a national forum for debate and discussion. Agency directors rarely get together for any reason, hopefully FICOR will accelerate work on outdoor recreation. Lay the institutional foundation for a structure for groups to come with ideas, solutions, recommendations that can make such a change in agencies. Government – change is through budget, policy, legislation. We can focus on budget and policy at a minimum. All outdoor recreation is a local issue. All have had experience in the field. Corps of engineers just did a strategic plan. As we look at fewer human and financial resources – how do we deliver quality recreation to millions of people who hunt, hike, paddle, etc. The answer is partnerships. The recognition is that they are not free – they take time, money. They are about building relationships at the ground level. Importance of partnerships and volunteers. Woven throughout the strategy are partnerships. There is not a lot of money and it does not go a long way. The only way it goes is through partnerships. There is a portion in the overview that talks about partnerships – just as importantly, for those that are not in the conversations, key things: • Communication and Awareness – make people aware of what we do in terms of conservation mandates. We need others to help us share our achievements. • Education and Interpretation- Try to take advantage partners in helping people understand our lands, interpret the landscapes. USFS: FICOR is a partnership at the highest level. Challenge is for how to keep people engaged and how to make it real. USFS has been working on partnerships

1


for many years. Key component of national recreation strategy was partnerships. There was a lot of positive energy going into partnerships for USFS lands. Released framework for sustainable recreation. Takes principles and focus areas and asks questions for managers to consider. Looking to work across boundaries with other agencies and other landowners to see how we can work with neighboring lands. How can you create partnerships at the local level? How do you make being a partner easier? NPS: Under this administration we have started looking at lands deserving of wilderness protection. Partners need to play an advocacy role in permanent protection of these lands. In Washington – do model good behavior for working together. There is a lot going on for groups working together. Partners should understand that they are working together in DC and that they are trusting those relationships. NPS – moving from national policy, senior executive level policy making – see things at a field level. Sequoia Kings – able to compete with grant opportunities. Partnerships are essential to making things happen. Concentrated efforts at public engagement and youth engagement. Additionally native youth and ancestral lands project There are many opportunities for creating partnerships and engaging on federal lands. Essential at the local level to be involved with all partners. Challenge people to feel comfortable talking to local land managers. Have to be fearless to work outside the bureaucracy. Mutual respect is essential to a good partnership – respect each others’ mission for being there and for their obligations. Agencies have strategic and long term plans – and that is a chance to engage in planning and start to forge partnerships. FWS works outside of just the wildlife refuges and across landscapes. AGO is not a new basket of money – it is a way to do more through partnerships with new people. There is a lot of money in outdoor recreation (just not in federal government) there needs to be models to harness other resources and partnerships. Building a constituency for recreation – there are so many groups interested in recreation – AGO has done one good thing in bringing together all of the groups interested in recreation under one heading and one umbrella to talk about the importance of getting people outside and recreating. Talk about recreation and how people can get involved. How do we harness all of the huge amount of activity and put it forward in terms of persuasive arguments to change public policy. Bringing everyone we know into this is so important. Needs to harness change in public policy if we are going to continue to provide these opportunities. Do you think human powered recreation is adequately supported by current FACA committees, or should there be a human powered rec FACA committee?

2


Do probably need an outdoor recreation FACA. Would need to align with others, such as guides, fisherman, others that will help you and share your interests. Beware setting up a FACA committee takes a lot of time, administration, and work in general. Need to avoid vulcanization of the recreation community. Community has been plagued by fighting among recreation interests for finite resources. AGO is a new way to engage the broad set of interests around outdoor recreation. Q: Appreciate conversation about local level and relationships. My question is around compliance. A key issue for me is access and permitting. How do you help recreational business people get access to areas for recreational purposes? A: small business – if you are looking at programming as a profit-making venture – look to special park use permits. There is a lot of demand and a lot of change going on. Outdoor recreation is how people learn about forest service. Forest Service is trying to be more flexible for permitting and allow uses. There are still some parts of the process that are cumbersome and that are trying to be changed. Advocacy, respect- the groups are already talking into ingredients of good partnerships. One is strong expertise. There are many roles that can complement the agencies’ strengths. How do we facilitate the barriers. It is important to have BOTH EARLY AND CONTINUING dialogue. Be dogged in determination to get agency to respond. It is very valuable for building relationships. Q: How can we pull snowmobilers back into travel management discussions? We are providing criteria for local line officers to determine whether there is a need for winter travel management – we are providing more feedback for criteria on that. Note-taker 2 -senior level perspective on outdoor recreation; from federal level BOB -chair/director of FICOR – direct outcome of AGO initiative -we want to mine the key elements of your success stories; apply them across federal agencies to inform the new paradigm of public-private partnerships -Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation (FICOR) -1963 – Federal Outdoor Recreation Act -70s and 80s there was a Bureau of Outdoor Recreation -FICOR is the latest effort to coordinate at federal level; chiefs/heads of major federal agencies that deal with outdoor recreation; they collaborate – this is rare for any topic -supported by FICOR working group; several reps here on this panel -Secretaries are committed to FICOR too; working to institutionalize the body beyond current Administration -change happens through legislation, policy and budget – we can have effect through policy and budget -our challenge now is to engage public and organizations like OA

3


Thoughts on critical elements of successful partnerships; also how to make partnerships working in crunched budgets going forward MARY -USACE just did a new strategic plan; we can see less financial and human resources -so how do we continue to deliver quality recreation opps for millions of people? The answer is through partnerships -must recognize they are not free; take time, energy, and money; they require a lot of dedication; must build relationships at ground level and working on them over time CARL R -importance of partnerships (in Geography of Hope); BLM funding per acre is minimal; the only way BLM can have success is through partnerships -need to reach active partners as well as others that haven’t been part of the discussion -need to raise awareness; explain what BLM does as far as conservation mandates; how we manage public lands and resources; need help -need help building partnership opportunities -education component is key too; must reach youth JIM, USFS -FICOR is a partnership essentially -recreation is featured as much as it is in AGO is b/c of commitment/involvement of the OR community -Dale Robertson anecdote > converted reliance on federal action/leadership into a two-way partnership -USFS report > Framework for Sustainable ?Partnerships? -specifics focus areas and poses questions to agencies aimed at strengthening partnerships -questions to prompt thinking within agencies/among staff -will feed into FICOR and other national efforts; but bottom line is what happens at local level -understanding, flexibility and relationships; identify mutual needs GARRY -Obama Admin is taking a look at addressing unfinished business re: public lands designations -have run into roadblocks -recreation community also needs to play the advocacy role to get permanent protection for wildlands, etc. ; wilderness designations are critical

4


-energy development and scenic flyovers – both problems that need advocates paying attention -federal agencies do actually talk to each other -50th anniversary of Wilderness Act – set some new goals for wilderness designations KAREN, NATL PARK SERVICE -formerly at DC federal level; now at local level in Sequoia > different view -partnerships are positive business practice Initiatives and partnerships -AGO projects don’t touch every state/place, but they are a great start -need to find ways to capitalize on the initial projects -America’s Best Idea; Ken Burns National Park series – visibility -Healthy Parks, Health People -Crews to Change (??) – youth engagement -Native youth Ancestral Lands projects -Rangers in the Classroom ; science-based learning in classroom with follow up field trips -any projects that fit with the AGO -100 year NPS anniversary coming up; opportunities -partnerships are an essential business practice at the local level -need to be fearless about communication; to be able to work outside bureaucracy -mutual respect USFWS -outdoor recreation is inextricably linked to our mission; we want to host recreationalists, but we also want to build committed stewards -biggest challenge is 700 field offices and hard to get moving in same direction, but many local managers are able to work closely with local stakeholders -we work outside our boundaries; landscape scale initiatives etc. BOB -AGO is somewhat of a shield; not just do more with less, but more together -a lot more economy around outdoor recreation than ever before; creates many opportunities for partnerships -previous paradigm was that feds designed, built and maintained trails; now tons of organizations doing this > the opportunities are greater than ever

5


MARY -need to build the constituency for outdoor recreation -AGO has brought all interests/stakeholders together; outdoor recreation is essential to personal and societal health -FICOR is trying to figure out how to harness all of the energy and work going on > critical to changing public policy Q-one of most important ways to recognize outdoor recreation at fed level is through FACA; do you think human-powered rec is adequately represented within existing Advisory Committees BOB -FACAs advise Secretaries re: what to do within the agency -now one for youth (not necessarily about recreation); 21st Century Service Corps -narrowing one just to human-powered may not be broad enough; would probably have to align with others that share your interests; outfitters, companies, those that promote healthy living, etc. USFWS -applying for and establishing a FACA is a lot of work; there are other ways to have influence -one way – focus more on case studies and highlighting successes – can also be effective JIM -need to avoid balkanization of rec community; avoid infighting -consider broader approach than just human-powered; strength in numbers and diversity GARRY -FACA is a lot of work -AGO listening sessions etc – lots of good ideas; I’m more inclined to focus on implementation; work on influencing Congress rather than another committee to talk about policy QUESTIONS AMERICAN WHITEWATER – thoughts on future of helping recreational professionals to access resources? NPS – permits; commercial access permits > may be a way for small biz to gain access; as long as you stay below a certain level of revenue; perhaps you can provide a unique service

6


USFS – a lot of change going on; recently revamped outfitter guide policy – tried to create more flexibility; make resource available to more outfitters, etc. > some pieces -still require needs assessments, etc.. – still a cumbersome process Q-what other elements bring value to partnerships? BOB – bringing expertise; depth of experience -partner as facilitator; bring resources to bear within agency processes CARL -early, often two-way communication and dialogue -partners get involved with the agency; some staff will be for it right away; others may be reluctant -persistence / perseverance in trying to get attention of agency Q-how can human-powered community get snowmobilers back to the table?; USFS Travel Management Rule exemption? JIM – local forest ranger can get involved; we are developing guidelines for engagement.

7


CONTACT INFORMATION 
 Outdoor
Alliance
is
a
coalition
of
Access
Fund,
American
Canoe
Association,
American
 Hiking
Society,
American
Whitewater,
International
Mountain
Bicycling
Association
and
 Winter
Wildlands
Alliance,
six
national,
member‐based
organizations
representing
 millions
of
Americans
who
paddle,
climb,
mountain
bike,
hike,
ski
and
snowshoe
on
our
 nation’s
public
lands,
waters
and
snowscapes.
 
 The
2011
Partnership
Summit
and
this
report
are
products
of
Outdoor
Alliance.
Outdoor
 Alliance’s
design
and
production
of
the
Summit
was
led
by
Adam
Cramer,
Tom
Flynn,
 Tom
O’keefe
and
Jason
Keith.
 
 For
further
information,
please
contact:
 
 Adam
Cramer
 Policy
Architect
 Outdoor
Alliance
 adam@outdooralliance.net
 
 Tom
Flynn
 Grass‐tops
Advocacy
Fellow
 Outdoor
Alliance
 tom@outdooralliance.net


1

2011 Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit Full Report  

2011 Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit Full Report

Advertisement