Greater Yellowstone AreaInteragency Bison Management

Plan

Summary Findings and RecommendationsNovember, 2008

“Bison management in Yellowstone National Park is the foundational wildlife management issue of our time, and we just have to figure this out. It defines our sense of responsibility to wildlife species, our concept of open space, the relationship between protected areas and private lands, and our ability to work effectively across jurisdictions and with the public.”

“If we can’t resolve this problem, ranchers will go out of business, and the last crop they’ll plant will be subdivisions.”

“…the partner agencies have not fully implemented an adaptive management approach because they: 1) have not established critical linkages among clearly defined objectives (which are absent from the plan)…., 2) have continued to operate more as individual entities than a cohesive interagency group, and 3) have not adequately communicated with or involved key stakeholders.”

From the GAO report on the IBMP, June, 2008

The U. S. Institute: A Basic Introduction

Created by the 1998 Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act (P.L. 105-156) to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public lands conflicts that involve federal agencies or interests.

Serves as an impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional expertise, services, and resources to all parties involved in environmental disputes, regardless of who initiates or pays for assistance.

Part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, an independent agency of the Executive Branch, with a Board of Trustees appointed by the President of the United States.

Receives direct congressional funding, as well as fees paid by public- and private-sector users.

Located in Tucson, AZ.

       

Convening, mediation, and facilitation:U. S. Institute’s range of case and project work

Plans Proposals/Recommenda

-tionsProcedures Settlement

s

Collaborative Decisions to

Work Together

Everglades Collaborative Water

Management Planning

(FL)

Barry M. Goldwater Range Task Force (AZ)

Tri-State Shooting

Range Intervention (AZ, CA,

NV)

BLM Scattered

Apples Timber

Sale Mediation

(OR)

Nogales Internationa

l Wastewater Treatment Plant (AZ)

U. S. Institute role in IBMP - Assessment

Request to US Institute following release of GAO report

Identify “options to consider for resource problem solving, adaptive management, and public discourse”

Conducted interviews with 30+ stakeholder representativesRanchers/stockgrowersEnvironmental/wildlife advocatesLocal community residentsTribes Agency leadsOther state and federal agencies

Presentation of findings, November 5 - 6

Partner agencies will determine next steps – Institute’s ongoing role uncertain

Themes from the interviews (a)

The GAO got it rightDivergent agency mandates, constituencies and perspectives – a major source of the conflictDepending on your perspective – the plan is biased in the other directionChanged (-ing) circumstances (land use, demographics, Brucellosis status, science, new agency leads) offer a new opportunity for creative solutions - vs. “nothing’s changed, and there’s no way out”IBMP may not be able to address broader Brucellosis and landscape-scale ecosystem management issuesTribal involvement critical, but lacks structure and consistency

Themes from the interviews (b)

Open meeting laws – benefits and concerns; problems with a “minimalist” interpretation

Public frustration with constrained format – want more of a dialogueStructure/format reinforces sense of frustration and polarization

Deep skepticism tempered by cautious optimismPeople are entrenched/polarized, and have stopped listening - vs. sense of opportunity (optimism) and value of sitting down in a structured conversationUnrealistic expectations – of process, outcomes

Questions and uncertainties

APHIS role, procedures, and policiesMT State sunshine laws – interpretations & implicationsConcept and application of adaptive management Science and uncertainty – vectors, wildlife management, and vaccinesAgencies’ mandates and commitment to participationPolarization vs. opportunity

Basic questions for a Collaborative Process

• Is the issue “ripe” or significant enough to warrant the effort?

• Are key parties committed to the process? (and are they willing to suspend other/outside forms of pressure and influence?)

• Is there adequate leadership (all stakeholders)?

• Is there reasonable “negotiation space”?

• Is there a process for gathering, validating, and interpreting information?

• Are sufficient resources (time, staff, funding) available?

• Do participants have reasonable expectations, and clear/common views of goals and indicators of success?

• If participants reach agreement, is implementation likely?

Absolutely

UNCLEAR

Seems so

QUESTIONABLE

Beginning to be

Presumably

NOT EXACTLY

Yes

Basic design principles (from the interviews)

Formal structure w/ balanced, inclusive representation

Long-term duration, recognition of seasonal cycles

Strong facilitation w/ clear ground rules and protocols

Goal should focus on education/learning, identifying points of agreement and remaining points of controversy, and adaptive management – NOT consensus agreement

Acknowledgement of the unique role and consultation process for Tribes

Clarity on goals and decision rules:

Review, comment on, and seek some level of clarity and accountability for annual work plans

Discuss and explore the broader context for IBMP decision making

Agencies retain decision authority

Expectations

The problem isn’t going to go awayConsensus agreement is NOT a reasonable goalThere are important opportunities for mutual learning and creative problem-solvingConflict will be a continued element of the dialogue – the goal is to better manage, not eliminate itTrade-offs are inevitable Not everyone will choose to participateIt will take (lots of) time, commitment, and resources

Possible Process Options

Continued interagency public meetings and open housesLocalized working groups (north and west)Independently convened roundtable/sBroad-based (GYA) working group

Structured mediationNegotiated rule-making Federally chartered advisory committee (FACA)Hybrid state/federal sponsored working group

For all options, separate/distinct and regular consultation with Tribes is essential

Tribal Role

Bison are part of tribes’ sacred history, creation stories, connection to land and cultureStrong interest in capture, quarantine, genetic diversity, and hunting issuesRecognized treaty rights; MT-recognized “treaty tribes” – Salish-Kootenai, Nez PerceInter-tribal Bison Management Cooperative – represents 57 tribes in 8 states.Potential structural options

Seat at table (represented by ITBC, BIA, or one of the two MT-recognized “treaty tribes”), and/orSeparate consultation w/ a range of tribal representatives – preferably in October/November, when key decisions are being made

IBMP options for structuring public participation

Pros Cons

Continued occasional public meetings and open houses

• Opportunity for all public interests to attend/be represented• Limited structural challenges• Comparatively low demands on agencies (time, staff, funding)• Reasonable level of agency experience and competence to convene• Many creative ways to enhance the utility of these events

• May not allow for sustained engagement, discussion, and exchange• Lacks continuity and balance of participation• Concern for the public’s general fatigue with these formats

Localized working groups (north/west)

• Allows for local and immediate engagement and responses to on-the-ground conditions/concerns• Encourages participation of people most knowledgeable about local conditions, and those directly affected by decision actions

• May tend to fragment the discussions, missing the broader landscape concerns• May be perceived as disenfranchising broader regional or national interests

Independently convened roundtable discussions

• Allows for parties to engage, educate one another, and seek consensus without agencies’ oversight• Limited time demands on agencies• Puts the onus on the public to reach some new level of understanding and agreement• General support from agency leads for any agreements achieved

• Would not have the official support of agencies, and therefore may lack legitimacy • May proceed without adequate understanding of agency sideboards (legal, scientific)• May reinforce existing divisions and lead to impasse• Would require strong, independent facilitation

Broad-based GYA bison/brucellosis/eco-regional management working group (fed or state sponsored, hybrid, or independently convened)

• Encourages ongoing discussion, exchange, and education among all affected parties• Offers highest, most sustained level of public input and consultation for agency decisions• Provides greatest legitimacy for public participation• Can identify areas of common ground; identify points of controversy and uncertainty, support adaptive management mandate

• May be perceived as bureaucratic, cumbersome, and costly• Very demanding in terms of time and effort• Requires highest level of agency commitment (in terms of the decision process)

What can the Institute offer?

Independence, neutralityStature as a federal convenorProcess expertise – design and facilitationLinkages and lessons from a broad range of project contextsSupport for collaboration, as well as strategies for broader public education and engagement