- Wading in Deep –

Lesson Learned from Partnering with the Forest Service

Scott HarrisWatershed Program ManagerSitka Conservation Society

Community-Based Watershed Management ForumJuneau, Mar 9. 2012

Context• Sitka Conservation

Society– Formed 1967– West Chichagof

Yakobi Wilderness Area

– Tongass Pulp Politics

– Transition– Mission– Approx 800

members

Context• Community of

Sitka– Formed ??– Native and

Russian history– 8,800– Economy:

Govt/Health CareSeafoodTourism

Starrigavan Forest Restoration

• Multiple resource and community objectives

• Completed 5 acres of restoration thinning in 2011

• Provided 2 local jobs• Provided 68 cords of

firewood• Established student-

based monitoring program

Sitkoh River Restoration

• Objectivesrestore hydrologic function, aquatic habitat, and floodplain complexity

• AKSSF Grant Fall 2010• Design Spring 2011• Work to be completed

Summer 2012 • Phase 1: restore stream

to natural channel• Phase 2: add woody

debris

Pt 7

Case StudiesScale Contract Partners Contracting Agreements Funding

Local preference?

Starrigavan Forest Restoration

5.5 acres $8,000 SCS, USFS SCS previous MOU

National Forest

Foundation, SCS

yes

Sitkoh River Restoration

1 stream mile $320,000SCS, Trout

Unlimited, USFS, ADFG

USFS

Cost-share, Cooperative, Collection,

Statement of Work

USFS, ADFG Sustainable

Salmon Fund, TU, SCS

no

Estimate of “unplanned” overhead(for SCS only, prior to starting work)

Starrigavan

Community-Based Watershed Management ForumJuneau, Mar 9. 2012

Sitkoh

Time to secure agreements

N/A 9 months$ 7,600 and counting$ 0

Lessons Learned (1 of 4): Contract held by non-profit entity (Starrigavan example)

Advantages• More flexible• Potential for local

preference• Coordination is with local FS

District• More efficient

Disadvantages• Increased liability for non-

profit• Need for up-front funds if

cost-reimburseable• Smaller scale• Possible need for additional

technical expertise

Lessons Learned (2 of 4): Contract held by USFS (Sitkoh example)

Advantages• Reduced liability for private

organization• Increased oversight by

responsible agency• Greater technical expertise• Ability to leverage federal

funds

Disadvantages• Complicated coordination

with multiple departments• Increased staff costs• Decreased flexibility with

contracting

Lessons Learned (3 of 4): For non-profits

• Determine capacity and patience for either type of contracting. Develop capacity if desired

• Determine maximum scale for either type of contracting• Understand federal oversight and empathize with your federal

partners• Respect different mandates• Understand and organize different fiscal years• Learn from case studies in other regions• Minimize staff turnover• Challenge norms and paradigms – educate your constituency• Find your hero/heroine – relationships are everything!

Lessons Learned (4 of 4): For agencies

• Create a inter-disciplinary project team, and meet regularly, that includes Grants & Agreements and Contracting departments

• Consistently communicate with partners, even consult them regarding seemingly routine activities

• Communicate administrative obstacles to partners• Get key players out in the field• Learn from case studies in other regions• Challenge norms and paradigms – educate your

constituency

What’s Next

• Partnership Capacity Building Task Force• Purpose: Develop Tongass NF and partner

capacities to make partnerships more effective– Scott Harris, SCS– Greg Killinger, USFS Tongass NF– Jason Anderson, USFS Petersburg District– Karen Hardigg, The Nature Conservancy– Bob Christensen, SEAWEAD– Norm Cohen, The Nature Conservancy– USFS Grants & Agreements and Contracting

Questions?