2011 Outdoor Alliance Partnership Summit Full Report by Outdoor Alliance

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS The Origins of the Summit

What Happened at the Summit

Best Partnership Practices

Recommendations

Summaries of the 19 Success Stories

Conclusion

Appendix

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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.

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;

•

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.

•

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.

•

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

•

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.

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

$100 billion in federal, state and local tax revenues

$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

•

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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:

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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**

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.

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

‐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

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.

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:

‐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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

‐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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

‐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

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

Long‐term commitment from community and agency.

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

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

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

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

o •

•

Avoid instant gratification to stick through the years of work.

Work with Universities  o

Look for interested graduate students

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

Educate on what the processes are, provide maps and websites

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

•

Especially in recovering mining communities

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?

•

Diminished experiences?

Carrying Capacity?

Dealing with Public Pushback of Tourists  o

Engage the community and leaders over multiple years, smooth evolution

Willingness to participate in public processes

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

Small meetings, get people engaged to accept concessions

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

• •

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

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.

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.

•

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

•

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

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.

•

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

• • • • •

•

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.    •

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Humboldt County (Redwoods, Logging, Deforestation, Mining), currently undergoing restoration,  preservation of salmon and Spotted Owl habitat

Trail or Trail System?

Used old, decommissioned roads

Had to hike to see if trails were possible

Hybrid Trail Construction  a.

Youth Volunteers, BLM

Conservation and Volunteer Efforts

Assured that the habitat of three salmon species would not be affected, also protected  the spotted owl

Developed relationships with biologists, large degree of trust with federal agencies

Different techniques in order to avoid building bridges (literally, not figuratively)   Passionate trail users, community ownership

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?

•

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.

Lack of fees decreases liability.

Distinction between inherent risk and unusual risk.

Needed Training  o

Restoration

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.

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.

•

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

•

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.

•

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

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?

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

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

• 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.

That model applied at Buffalo Creek although the areas are very different (no user  conflicts there at the time).

•

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.

Bike Patrol has 50 members in the Buffalo Creek patrol

Bike Patrol has a placard on the bike

Insurance covered by Bike Patrol and through volunteer agreement with Forest Service

Training day takes place every year, collaborative between Forest Service and IMBA

A similar program on the Potomac River was mentioned

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

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

• 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.

Grey areas in recreational use statutes need to be worked out.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

•

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

• • • •

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

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• •

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

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

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?

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

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 havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

-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

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

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.

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