Greater Yellowstone Area Interagency Bison Management Plan

1. Greater Yellowstone AreaInteragency Bison Management Plan Summary Findings and Recommendations November, 2008

2. “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.”

3. “…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

4. 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.

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

6. 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 representatives • Ranchers/stockgrowers • Environmental/wildlife advocates • Local community residents • Tribes • Agency leads • Other state and federal agencies • Presentation of findings, November 5 - 6 • Partner agencies will determine next steps – Institute’s ongoing role uncertain

7. Themes from the interviews (a) The GAO got it right Divergent agency mandates, constituencies and perspectives – a major source of the conflict Depending on your perspective – the plan is biased in the other direction Changed (-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 issues Tribal involvement critical, but lacks structure and consistency

8. 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 dialogue • Structure/format reinforces sense of frustration and polarization • Deep skepticism tempered by cautious optimism • People are entrenched/polarized, and have stopped listening - vs. sense of opportunity (optimism) and value of sitting down in a structured conversation • Unrealistic expectations – of process, outcomes

9. Questions and uncertainties • APHIS role, procedures, and policies • MT State sunshine laws – interpretations & implications • Concept and application of adaptive management • Science and uncertainty – vectors, wildlife management, and vaccines • Agencies’ mandates and commitment to participation • Polarization vs. opportunity

10. Basic questions for a Collaborative Process Absolutely Unclear Seems so Questionable Beginning to be Presumably Not exactly Yes • 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?

11. 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

12. Expectations The problem isn’t going to go away Consensus agreement is NOT a reasonable goal There are important opportunities for mutual learning and creative problem-solving Conflict will be a continued element of the dialogue – the goal is to better manage, not eliminate it Trade-offs are inevitable Not everyone will choose to participate It will take (lots of) time, commitment, and resources

13. Possible Process Options • Continued interagency public meetings and open houses • Localized working groups (north and west) • Independently convened roundtable/s • Broad-based (GYA) working group • Structured mediation • Negotiated 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

14. Tribal Role • Bison are part of tribes’ sacred history, creation stories, connection to land and culture • Strong interest in capture, quarantine, genetic diversity, and hunting issues • Recognized treaty rights; MT-recognized “treaty tribes” – Salish-Kootenai, Nez Perce • Inter-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/or • Separate consultation w/ a range of tribal representatives – preferably in October/November, when key decisions are being made

15. IBMP options for structuring public participation

16. What can the Institute offer? Independence, neutrality Stature as a federal convenor Process expertise – design and facilitation Linkages and lessons from a broad range of project contexts Support for collaboration, as well as strategies for broader public education and engagement