- 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?