Yellowstone Bison
Interagency Plan and Agencies' Management Need Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis Controversy Gao ID: GAO-08-291 March 7, 2008Federal and Montana state agencies have long been entangled in controversy over bison leaving Yellowstone National Park. Some of these bison, as well as elk and other wildlife, have a contagious disease called brucellosis, which can cause pregnant animals to abort. Montana livestock owners and government officials fear that if bison are allowed to leave the park, the disease could spread to cattle, potentially threatening the economic health of the state's livestock industry. To help manage this issue, three federal and two state agencies have been implementing a bison management plan that they agreed to in 2000. This report discusses (1) the progress made in implementing the bison management plan and (2) the plan's soundness and the effectiveness of the agencies' implementation of it for managing bison-related issues in and near Yellowstone National Park. GAO reviewed documentation and research on bison and brucellosis and interviewed federal and state officials and key stakeholders.
The federal and state agencies implementing the interagency bison management plan have made less progress than they originally anticipated. These agencies--the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Forest Service; the Department of the Interior's National Park Service; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and the Montana Department of Livestock--had expected to progress to step two of the three-step plan by winter 2002-2003. Each of the plan's three successive steps for managing bison is intended to incrementally increase tolerance of bison roaming outside the park. As of late 2007, however, the agencies remained in step one because they have yet to meet two important conditions for moving to step two--first, that no cattle graze on a ranch north of the park, and second, that a safe and effective remote brucellosis vaccine-delivery system be available for bison. Nevertheless, the agencies have completed a number of other tasks called for in the plan, including maintaining the separation of bison and cattle in space and time and conducting some scientific research. Combined, the agencies have spent more than $2 million annually implementing the plan, with the federal government and state agencies funding about 95 percent and 5 percent of these expenditures, respectively. The agencies have no estimate regarding how long it will take to meet the conditions for starting step two, nor have they revised their estimated dates for reaching step three, which was expected by winter 2005-2006. Key deficiencies in the plan, and the agencies' implementation of it, limit their effectiveness with regard to managing bison-related issues. The plan has two broadly stated goals: to "maintain a wild, free-ranging population of bison and address the risk of brucellosis transmission." The plan, however, contains no clearly defined, measurable objectives as to how these goals will be achieved, and the partner agencies have no common view of the objectives. As a result, the agencies have no way to determine the effectiveness of the plan or of their management efforts. Also, in developing the plan, the agencies adopted an adaptive management approach that promotes flexible decision making in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. But the agencies have not adequately implemented adaptive management, in that they (1) have not established critical linkages among clearly defined objectives (which are absent from the plan), information about the impacts of their management actions obtained through systematic monitoring, and decisions regarding adjustments they make to the plan and their management actions; (2) have continued to act more as individual entities, rather than as a cohesive interagency group; and (3) have not adequately communicated with or involved key stakeholders, such as conservation groups, livestock industry groups, and private landowners. Consequently, their decision making more often resembles trial and error than adaptive management and also lacks accountability and transparency.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-291, Yellowstone Bison: Interagency Plan and Agencies' Management Need Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis Controversy
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-291
entitled 'Yellowstone Bison: Interagency Plan and Agencies' Management
Need Improvements to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis
Controversy' which was released on April 3, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2008:
Yellowstone Bison:
Interagency Plan:
and Agencies' Management Need Improvement to Better Address Bison-
Cattle Brucellosis Controversy:
GAO-08-291:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-291, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Federal and Montana state agencies have long been entangled in
controversy over bison leaving Yellowstone National Park. Some of these
bison, as well as elk and other wildlife, have a contagious disease
called brucellosis, which can cause pregnant animals to abort. Montana
livestock owners and government officials fear that if bison are
allowed to leave the park, the disease could spread to cattle,
potentially threatening the economic health of the state‘s livestock
industry. To help manage this issue, three federal and two state
agencies have been implementing a bison management plan that they
agreed to in 2000.
This report discusses (1) the progress made in implementing the bison
management plan and (2) the plan‘s soundness and the effectiveness of
the agencies‘ implementation of it for managing bison-related issues in
and near Yellowstone National Park. GAO reviewed documentation and
research on bison and brucellosis and interviewed federal and state
officials and key stakeholders.
What GAO Found:
The federal and state agencies implementing the interagency bison
management plan have made less progress than they originally
anticipated. These agencies”the U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service and Forest Service; the Department
of the Interior‘s National Park Service; Montana Fish, Wildlife and
Parks; and the Montana Department of Livestock”had expected to progress
to step two of the three-step plan by winter 2002–2003. Each of the
plan‘s three successive steps for managing bison is intended to
incrementally increase tolerance of bison roaming outside the park. As
of late 2007, however, the agencies remained in step one because they
have yet to meet two important conditions for moving to step two”first,
that no cattle graze on a ranch north of the park, and second, that a
safe and effective remote brucellosis vaccine-delivery system be
available for bison. Nevertheless, the agencies have completed a number
of other tasks called for in the plan, including maintaining the
separation of bison and cattle in space and time and conducting some
scientific research. Combined, the agencies have spent more than $2
million annually implementing the plan, with the federal government and
state agencies funding about 95 percent and 5 percent of these
expenditures, respectively. The agencies have no estimate regarding how
long it will take to meet the conditions for starting step two, nor
have they revised their estimated dates for reaching step three, which
was expected by winter 2005–2006.
Key deficiencies in the plan, and the agencies‘ implementation of it,
limit their effectiveness with regard to managing bison-related issues.
The plan has two broadly stated goals: to ’maintain a wild, free-
ranging population of bison and address the risk of brucellosis
transmission.“ The plan, however, contains no clearly defined,
measurable objectives as to how these goals will be achieved, and the
partner agencies have no common view of the objectives. As a result,
the agencies have no way to determine the effectiveness of the plan or
of their management efforts. Also, in developing the plan, the agencies
adopted an adaptive management approach that promotes flexible decision
making in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions
and other events become better understood. But the agencies have not
adequately implemented adaptive management, in that they (1) have not
established critical linkages among clearly defined objectives (which
are absent from the plan), information about the impacts of their
management actions obtained through systematic monitoring, and
decisions regarding adjustments they make to the plan and their
management actions; (2) have continued to act more as individual
entities, rather than as a cohesive interagency group; and (3) have not
adequately communicated with or involved key stakeholders, such as
conservation groups, livestock industry groups, and private landowners.
Consequently, their decision making more often resembles trial and
error than adaptive management and also lacks accountability and
transparency.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that Agriculture and Interior”with the Montana
state agencies”improve their accountability, transparency, and
management of Yellowstone bison by developing measurable objectives and
reporting yearly on progress, among other actions. The agencies, except
for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks that provided no comments,
generally concurred with GAO‘s recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-291]. For more
information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
nazzaror@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Agencies Have Made Less Progress Than Anticipated in Implementing the
Interagency Bison Management Plan:
Key Deficiencies in the Plan, and the Agencies' Implementation of It,
Limit Their Effectiveness with Regard to Managing Bison-Related Issues:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Montana Department of Livestock:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Estimated Annual Bison Management Expenditures (Unadjusted for
Inflation), by Agency, Federal Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Greater Yellowstone Area:
Figure 2: Estimated Population of Yellowstone Bison since 1901:
Figure 3: Bison Management Zones Specified in the Interagency Bison
Management Plan and Related Bison Migration Patterns:
Figure 4: The Adaptive Management Process:
Figure 5: Estimated Annual Federal and State Bison Management
Expenditures (Unadjusted for Inflation), Federal Fiscal Years 2002-
2007:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 7, 2008:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Maurice D. Hinchey:
House of Representatives:
Long symbolic of the vastness of North America's plains, American
buffalo, or bison, today roam freely only in a few places, including
Yellowstone National Park. The park lies at the heart of the Greater
Yellowstone Area, which overlaps portions of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming and encompasses two national parks, six national forests, and
several national wildlife refuges and wilderness areas. Outside the two
national parks, privately owned lands are interspersed throughout these
federal lands, including the Royal Teton Ranch, which, as we previously
reported, has been a focus of federal land conservation efforts near
the park since the late 1990s.[Footnote 1] The park's herd--which has
grown from fewer than 25 bison in 1901 to nearly 5,000 animals as
estimated in late summer 2007--is the largest free-ranging bison herd
in the United States and one of the few U.S. herds that show no
evidence of genetic mixing with cattle. As their population has grown
and they have roamed beyond the park's boundaries onto surrounding
private and public lands in Montana, Yellowstone bison have been at the
center of a controversy that has raged for more than two decades.
Throughout the winter and early spring, tens, sometimes hundreds, of
bison move naturally between Yellowstone National Park and adjacent
public and private lands, some of which may also be used by livestock
owners to graze cattle. Some of the bison, as well as elk and other
wildlife in and around the park, harbor a contagious and untreatable
disease, brucellosis, which can cause pregnant animals to abort their
calves. Fears of this disease and differing wildlife management
philosophies have contributed to the long-running controversy.
Specifically, many ranchers and some of the federal and state officials
responsible for brucellosis management believe that if wildlife poses a
disease transmission risk to cattle, it is the diseased wildlife that
should be the focus of management efforts. Some conservationists, in
contrast, argue that ranchers and government agencies should strengthen
disease mitigation and management efforts within the livestock
industry, such as limiting livestock grazing on national forest lands
near the park, vaccinating cattle, or improving fencing of cattle
herds. Moreover, while brucellosis-infected bison and elk in Montana
both present a risk to the cattle industry, bison have historically
been subject to strict disease-control measures, including slaughter
when they attempt to leave the national park, whereas elk--which have a
lower incidence of brucellosis but are more numerous than bison--are
allowed to roam with relatively few restrictions. No known cases of
brucellosis transmitted from bison to cattle have been documented in
the wild and some conservationists point to this fact to suggest that
current bison management actions are unnecessary. In contrast,
Montana's State Veterinarian maintains that this absence of
documentation does not indicate a low risk of transmission, but rather
provides evidence that the various park boundary control programs to
manage Yellowstone bison have been effective. Furthermore, Montana
livestock owners and government officials fear that if such a
transmission did occur, the economic consequences to the state's
livestock industry could be devastating. A brucellosis infection
identified in a single cattle herd in Bridger, Montana, in May 2007
underscored rancher's fears. While the source of the infection has not
been determined, the Montana Department of Livestock indicated that the
infection was unlikely to have come from bison.
In an effort to begin defusing this controversy, five federal and state
agencies--the Forest Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), within the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the
National Park Service (Park Service), within the Department of the
Interior; and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks as well as the Montana
Department of Livestock--agreed in the early 1990s to develop a joint,
long-term bison management strategy. Under different mandates and
authorities, these agencies all have some jurisdiction over the bison
management effort. The Park Service is responsible for resources--both
habitat and wildlife--within the park's boundaries. Outside the park in
Montana, the Forest Service manages habitat on national forest lands,
while the state's Fish, Wildlife and Parks is responsible for managing
habitat on some state-owned lands and wildlife on all lands, including
national forest lands. In addition, because of concern over the risk
that brucellosis-infected bison may pose to the livestock industry, the
Montana state legislature in 1995 granted the Department of Livestock
the authority to take certain actions on public or private land with
respect to bison originating from the park, including removing or
destroying them. APHIS is responsible for controlling and preventing
the spread of communicable and contagious diseases of livestock,
including brucellosis. Since APHIS first instituted a national
brucellosis control program in 1934, billions in federal, state, and
industry funds have been spent trying to eradicate the disease from
cattle across the nation. As of February 2008, APHIS announced that for
the first time in the 74-year history of the brucellosis control
program, all 50 states have been declared brucellosis free.
Efforts to develop a long-term bison management strategy in the early
1990s were slow, largely because of the five agencies' differing
wildlife management philosophies. The Park Service opposed efforts to
manage bison in any way that would restrict the animals' ability to
roam freely and thereby go against the park's policy to manage wildlife
by natural regulation--a policy that allows factors such as climate,
food supply, and predation to regulate most wildlife populations in the
park. During that period, however, APHIS, which is committed to
eradicating brucellosis in the United States, argued that wildlife
should be tested for exposure to the disease and, if infected,
slaughtered to prevent its spread. In 1995, Montana sued the Park
Service and APHIS, fearing that the federal agencies' conflicting
wildlife management policies might cause APHIS to downgrade the
brucellosis classification of Montana's livestock, which has been
certified since 1985 to be free of brucellosis. Under APHIS's
brucellosis eradication program, a classification downgrade could
result in significant economic consequences to both individual herd
owners and the state. For example, a downgrade could restrict the
state's livestock producers' access to interstate and international
markets. To settle Montana's lawsuit, the federal and state governments
agreed to develop interim bison management procedures and an
environmental impact statement for managing bison long term.[Footnote
2] In 1996, the agencies began implementing an interim bison management
plan, which resulted from the settlement agreement. After four more
years of mediated negotiations--nearly a decade after joint planning
efforts began--an interagency bison management plan for the Yellowstone
bison was agreed upon by the five federal and state partner agencies in
December 2000.[Footnote 3]
The agreed-upon plan includes three successive steps for managing bison
on the northern and western boundaries of Yellowstone National Park in
areas to which some bison typically attempt to migrate in the winter
and early spring. The plan's two stated purposes, or goals, are to
"maintain a wild, free-ranging population of bison and address the risk
of brucellosis transmission to protect the economic interest and
viability of the livestock industry in Montana." Although managing the
risk of brucellosis transmission from bison to cattle runs throughout
the bison management plan and the plan's outlined management actions
demonstrate the agencies' long-term commitment toward eventually
eliminating brucellosis in Yellowstone bison, the plan itself does not
seek to eliminate brucellosis in bison. Instead, through its successive
management steps, it aims to create and maintain separation between
bison and cattle in space and time that is sufficient to minimize the
risk of brucellosis transmission. Ultimately, each step of the plan is
intended to incrementally increase tolerance for bison to roam outside
the park. For example, under step two, up to 100 bison testing negative
for exposure to brucellosis will be allowed to migrate to a bison
management zone outside the park's northern boundary, where they are
prohibited before step two is reached. When step three is fully
implemented, the same number of bison will be allowed to pass into this
same zone but will not have to be tested beforehand. Even under step
three, however, the plan calls for management actions, including
driving bison toward the park's interior (hazing),[Footnote 4] and
capturing those that do not remain inside to prevent more than 100
bison from exiting the park into this bison management zone. The
captured bison testing positive for brucellosis would be sent to
slaughter while the bison testing negative may be returned to the park,
sent to a bison quarantine facility, sent to slaughter, or removed for
approved research.
Given the uncertainties regarding brucellosis and bison behavior at the
time that the partner agencies were crafting their bison management
plan, the agencies adopted an adaptive management approach--one that
would allow them to modify the plan as better information became
available through scientific research and operational experience.
According to adaptive management experts, this approach enables
managers to operate in the face of uncertainty and to learn by doing,
thereby leading to improved understanding and more-effective management
over time.[Footnote 5] In principle, learning in an adaptive management
setting involves systematically testing--either operationally,
scientifically, or both--different management alternatives to gain
knowledge. The alternatives are developed on the basis of the best
information available at the time, and, as management proceeds,
techniques that do not work are modified or replaced by others.
Adaptive management shares a number of key features with best
management practices--such as those articulated in the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the Comptroller General's 2004
forum on high-performing organizations[Footnote 6]--including
identifying clearly defined, measurable, and results-oriented
management objectives; designing and implementing a monitoring plan;
making decisions based on management objectives; effectively managing
partnerships while maintaining accountability to Congress and the
public; and actively involving key stakeholders over time to engender
public support.
In this context, this report discusses (1) the progress made in
implementing the interagency bison management plan and (2) the
soundness of the plan and the effectiveness of the agencies'
implementation of it with regard to managing bison-related issues in
the Greater Yellowstone Area.
To address these objectives, we interviewed officials from the Park
Service; Forest Service; APHIS; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and
the Montana Department of Livestock to obtain information about the
progress the agencies have made in implementing the interagency bison
management plan. We collected and reviewed available documentation of
agency management practices, accomplishments, and expenditures related
to bison and brucellosis management and recent scientific research on
various topics related to brucellosis and wildlife, including the
safety and effectiveness of brucellosis vaccines and available tools
for diagnosing the disease. To obtain a wide range of perspectives on
the federal and state agencies' implementation of the plan, we also
interviewed numerous individuals from key stakeholder constituencies,
including conservationists, livestock industry representatives, local
ranchers, permittees of public livestock grazing allotments, Native
American tribes, hunting enthusiasts, lessees of private land, and
other private landowners. Appendix I presents a more detailed
description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. We conducted
this performance audit from January 2007 through March 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Since the interagency bison management plan took effect in 2000, the
partner federal and state agencies have made less progress than they
anticipated in implementing the plan. Each successive step of the three-
step plan details various management actions that are intended to
incrementally increase tolerance for bison roaming outside the park. As
of December 2007, the agencies remained in step one of the plan, even
though they had expected to move to step two of the plan by winter 2002-
2003. The agencies have yet to meet two important conditions for
advancing to step two. First, before step two may begin, the plan
requires that cattle no longer graze in the winter on lands north of
the park belonging to the Royal Teton Ranch; as of December 2007,
negotiations between Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and ranch owners
to end cattle grazing on these lands were still in progress. Second,
the plan requires development of a safe and effective remote
brucellosis vaccine-delivery mechanism for bison allowed in the West
Yellowstone area. The Park Service expects to release its evaluation of
remote delivery methods for use within the park for public comment in
summer 2008. Although the partner agencies remain in step one, they
have carried out a number of other tasks called for in the plan. For
example, the agencies have implemented management actions to keep bison
separate from cattle in space and time; conducted some scientific
research on brucellosis; verified the safety of a brucellosis vaccine
in bison, and vaccinated a limited number of bison calves and yearlings
on a limited basis; and taken steps to ensure the vaccination of all
cattle within certain areas close to the park's northern and western
boundaries. Since 2002, the federal and state partner agencies have
spent more than $2 million annually to implement the plan, with the
federal government and state agencies funding about 95 percent and 5
percent of these expenditures, respectively. Meanwhile, according to
partner agency officials, the agencies have no estimated time frame for
completing the remaining two conditions for moving into step two of the
plan or for reaching step three, which they had expected to reach by
winter 2005-2006, leaving the expected date for full implementation of
the plan unknown.
Key deficiencies in the plan, and the agencies' implementation of it,
limit the agencies' effectiveness in managing bison-related issues.
According to general best management practices and adaptive management
principles, clearly defined, measurable objectives are needed to
provide a sound basis for selecting and monitoring management actions,
triggering changes to those actions, and determining the effectiveness
of the plan. The plan, however, does not have clearly defined,
measurable objectives, and the partner agencies share no common view of
the objectives. In fact, several agency officials acknowledged that no
metrics or parameters have been identified for measuring how well the
agencies are meeting the plan's stated goals. In addition, 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), information about
the impacts of their management actions obtained through systematic
monitoring, and decisions regarding adjustments they make to the plan
and their management actions; (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.
We recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior
direct the federal partner agencies to work with their state agency
partners to improve the management of bison in and near Yellowstone
National Park by, for example, clearly defining measurable objectives,
and to enhance the agencies' collaboration and accountability to the
public on this issue, including annually reporting on the agencies'
progress.
We provided the federal departments of Agriculture and the Interior and
Montana's Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Department of Livestock a draft
of this report for review and comment. In written comments, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the
Department of Livestock generally agreed with our conclusions and
recommendations (see apps. II, III, and IV, respectively). Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks provided no comments on our report.
Background:
The greater Yellowstone region covers about 20 million acres
overlapping Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Commonly called the Greater
Yellowstone Area, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, or just Greater
Yellowstone, the region is home to numerous species of wildlife,
including bison. It encompasses two national parks--Yellowstone and
Grand Teton--as well as several other federally managed areas,
including the Gallatin, Custer, Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-
Targhee, and Beaverhead national forests; the National Elk Refuge; and
the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. Privately owned lands,
including the Royal Teton Ranch north of Yellowstone National Park and
west of the Yellowstone River, are interspersed throughout these
federal lands, and a number of towns dot the landscape (see fig. 1).
The Greater Yellowstone Area has also earned the distinction, according
to APHIS, of being the nation's last known reservoir of the brucellosis
bacterium, Brucella abortus, which is present in the region's bison and
elk populations.
Figure 1: The Greater Yellowstone Area:
This figure is a map of the greater Yellowstone area.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO image developed from National Park Services data.
[End of figure]
Bison, which are native to the Greater Yellowstone Area, were observed
by early travelers both before and after Yellowstone National Park was
created in 1872. Bison hunting and poaching in the late 1800s
substantially diminished the Yellowstone herd, and, by 1901, fewer than
25 animals remained (see fig. 2). To save this wild herd from
extinction, park managers in 1902 imported 21 bison from captive herds
in Texas and Montana. Although the wild and captive herds were
initially kept separate, they began to intermingle between 1915 and
1920, and after the 1920s, little or no effort was made to keep the two
populations separate. By the 1930s, the park's wintering bison had
increased to more than 1,000 head, and the park began managing the herd
by shipping animals to public parks, zoos, and privates estates around
the country. From the 1920s through the late 1960s, the bison herd was
managed through culling, supplemental feeding, and other activities
until the park instituted a policy of natural regulation of wildlife
populations, whereby a species' population size is left to respond to
environmental conditions like climate or food supply without human
interference. By the early 1980s, the bison herd had grown to more than
2,300 head, and bison were increasingly reported moving beyond the
park's boundaries into Montana. During the mid-1980s through 1999, a
total of 3,176 bison that crossed outside the park's northern or
western boundaries were killed, under a series of park boundary area
management approaches implemented by the Park Service and Montana.
Since 2000, boundary area management action by federal and state agency
officials have lethally removed more than 1,900 bison, but the herd has
continued to grow, with nearly 4,700 head counted in late summer 2007.
Figure 2: Estimated Population of Yellowstone Bison since 1901:
This figure is a combination line and bar graph placed over a
photograph of grazing bison. The line represents bison counted
(estimated population), and the bars represent bison removed. In the
graph, the X axis represents the year, and the Y axis represents the
number of bison.
Year: "1901";
Bison counted (estimated population): 44;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 47;
Bison removed: 1.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 51;
Bison removed: 7.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 74;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 79;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 84;
Bison removed: 2.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 95;
Bison removed: 1.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 118;
Bison removed: 5.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 149;
Bison removed: 3.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 168;
Bison removed: 2.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 192;
Bison removed: 28.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 215;
Bison removed: 8.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 243;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 270;
Bison removed: 4.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 348;
Bison removed: 18.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 397;
Bison removed: 11.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 451;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 504;
Bison removed: 46.
Year: 1901;
Bison counted (estimated population): 501;
Bison removed: 17.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 602;
Bison removed: 7.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 647;
Bison removed: 56.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 748;
Bison removed: 14.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 789;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 830;
Bison removed: 109.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 931;
Bison removed: 23.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1008;
Bison removed: 41.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1057;
Bison removed: 58.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1109;
Bison removed: 106.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1124;
Bison removed: 132.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1078;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1032;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 986;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 939;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 893;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 847;
Bison removed: 109.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 674;
Bison removed: 17.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 755;
Bison removed: 25.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 811;
Bison removed: 67.
Year: 1920;
Bison counted (estimated population): 868;
Bison removed: 3.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 809;
Bison removed: 213.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 869;
Bison removed: 202.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 964;
Bison removed: 11.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 747;
Bison removed: 407.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 932;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 791;
Bison removed: 238.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 876;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 960;
Bison removed: 237.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1126;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1094;
Bison removed: 228.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1035;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 976;
Bison removed: 250.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1227;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1477;
Bison removed: 139.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1350;
288.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1258;
373.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 843;
273.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 821.5;
12.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 800;
44.
Year: 1940;
Bison counted (estimated population): 800;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 869;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 975;
Bison removed: 148.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 819;
Bison removed: 370.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 821;
Bison removed: 6.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 388;
392.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 226;
Bison removed: 54.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 397;
Bison removed: 3.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 418;
Bison removed: 4.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 556;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 592;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 565;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 713;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 837;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 873;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1068;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1125;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1252;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1626;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1727;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1960;
Bison counted (estimated population): 1803;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2396;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2239;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2160;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2229;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2217;
Bison removed: 88.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2291;
Bison removed: 57.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2433;
Bison removed: 6.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2644;
Bison removed: 35.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3159;
Bison removed: 569.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2606;
Bison removed: 4.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3178;
Bison removed: 14.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3426;
Bison removed: 271.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3304;
Bison removed: 79.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3551;
Bison removed: 5.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3956;
Bison removed: 427.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3398;
Bison removed: 433.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3436;
Bison removed: 1084.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2105;
Bison removed: 11.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2239;
Bison removed: 94.
Year: 1980;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2444;
Bison removed: 0.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 2949;
Bison removed: 6.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3283;
Bison removed: 202.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 4045;
Bison removed: 244.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 4195;
Bison removed: 280.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 4215;
Bison removed: 115.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 5015;
Bison removed: 998.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 3889;
Bison removed: 66.
Year: 2000;
Bison counted (estimated population): 4694;
Bison removed: 0.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service data; photo GAO.
[End of figure]
Bison, as well as wildlife such as elk, may carry the bacterial disease
brucellosis, which is also contagious to humans and domestic animals.
Known in humans as undulant fever, brucellosis can be hard to diagnose
because early symptoms, such as intermittent fever and joint pain, are
shared with several other diseases; although rarely fatal, the disease
can be debilitating. However, thanks to widespread pasteurization of
dairy products since the early twentieth century, very few cases of
undulant fever have occurred in the United States, and the disease
today poses a risk mainly to hunters, large-animal veterinarians, and
ranchers. In some animals, including cattle, the disease can cause
abortions, infertility, reduced milk production, lameness, and swollen
joints. In the Yellowstone area, bison and elk are the disease's
principal wildlife hosts. Results of blood tests done by the Park
Service over the past several decades indicate that about half of the
Yellowstone bison have been exposed to brucellosis. Some bison may
develop immunity or have a natural resistance to the disease, while
other animals may develop recurrent infections and remain carriers and
a source of exposure and possible infection for other animals.
The first known case of brucellosis in Yellowstone bison was reported
in 1917 and is believed to have been transmitted from domestic cattle.
Transmission occurs primarily through ingestion of infected products of
birth or abortion. As a result, the risk of transmission is greatest if
cattle and bison are in each other's presence immediately after
birthing. Although vaccinating cattle provides some protection, it does
not eliminate the infection risk, as evidenced since 2004 by instances
of brucellosis transmission from infected wildlife to vaccinated cattle
in Idaho and Wyoming. Within the scientific community and among people
interested in bison management, opinions differ about whether it is
most appropriate to control or to eradicate the disease. Within the
regulatory community, however, APHIS officials remain committed to
establishing the means to suppress and eliminate contagious livestock
diseases, including brucellosis.
Although both bison and elk carry brucellosis, the two species are
managed differently by federal and state agencies. Yellowstone bison
are subject to strict disease-control measures, ranging from capture
and vaccination to slaughter, whereas elk herd movements are not
restricted. Agency officials indicate that this difference in
management approach stems largely from the lower prevalence of
brucellosis in elk than in bison, combined with the tendency of elk to
feed at higher elevations than bison and to calve in isolation, thereby
lessening the risk of transmission.[Footnote 7] This difference in
management remains even though there have been multiple suspected elk-
to-cattle transmissions in recent years in Idaho and Wyoming, some of
which have been detected through DNA testing; the National Research
Council reported in 1998 that the risk of transmission from bison to
cattle was low; and there have been no known cases of brucellosis
transmitted from bison to cattle in a wild, uncontrolled setting. APHIS
scientists note, however, that although transmission in the wild is
difficult to document--particularly given the decades-long effort to
maintain separation between bison and cattle--controlled tests have
proven that it is possible for bison to transmit the disease to cattle.
We reported in 1997 that the extent to which domestic cattle risk
infection through exposure to diseased bison and elk--either from
mingling directly with infected wild animals or from using rangeland
where infected wild animals had previously grazed--was the subject of
the bison management controversy between the federal and state agencies
because the risk of such transmission had not been quantified.[Footnote
8] Scientists and researchers disagreed on even the most basic factors
influencing the risk of transmission, such as whether studies on cattle
are applicable to bison. Ten years later, such debates continue.
To keep bison away from cattle and mitigate the risk of brucellosis
transmission, the interagency bison management plan describes agency
activities to restrict bison movement to or through bison management
zones within or just beyond the park's boundaries near Gardiner,
Montana, on the north, and near West Yellowstone, Montana, on the west
(see fig. 3).[Footnote 9] During step one of the three-step plan, bison
attempting to leave the park on the north side are to be hazed,
captured, or killed, and a limited number of bison on the west side of
the park--as many as 100 animals--that test negative for brucellosis
exposure are allowed to roam in bison management zones outside the
park. Once this limit on the west side is reached, additional bison
crossing beyond the western boundary are also to be hazed, captured, or
killed. The plan states that all captured bison are to be tested for
brucellosis exposure at capture facilities located on the park's
northern and western boundaries.[Footnote 10] Partner agency officials
may take a variety of actions with captured bison testing negative for
exposure to the disease, including vaccinating and temporarily holding
them in the northern capture facility for release back into the park or
removing them for research. Bison that test positive for brucellosis
exposure are generally to be sent to slaughter.
Figure 3: Bison Management Zones Specified in the Interagency Bison
Management Plan and Related Bison Migration Patterns:
This figure is a map showing the bison management zones specified in
the interagency bison management plan and related bison migration
patterns.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO image developed from National Park Service and Forest
Service data.
[End of figure]
Under both steps two and three of the plan, the majority of bison must
be prevented from leaving the park, and the few bison that are allowed
to leave are generally to be restricted and monitored within the bison
management zones and other management areas. Step two on the park's
north side will allow up to 100 bison testing negative for brucellosis
to be released into these bison management zones; pregnant females are
to be monitored using radio telemetry, and all bison are to be hazed
back into the park or otherwise removed by April 15 of each year. Under
step two, on the park's west side, up to 100 bison that have not been
tested will be allowed to exit the park, and officials are required to
vaccinate these bison remotely; May 15 is the deadline for all bison to
be back in the park. Similarly, in step three, an effective remote
vaccination program must be operating in the park before up to 100
untested bison will be allowed out of the park into the bison
management zones on both the north and west sides. However, except in a
few locations, if more than 100 bison attempt to migrate beyond the
park's northern and western boundaries, under step three they are to be
hazed, captured, or killed. Many of the management actions specified in
step one are to continue indefinitely, even when step three is fully
implemented.
A brucellosis outbreak among domestic cattle in Montana would likely
have the following direct effects: (1) abortion of calves, (2)
decreased weight gain by calves, (3) delays in calf production, (4)
increased rates of culling and replacement, and (5) increased testing
and vaccination costs. Furthermore, the presence of the disease could
also restrict access by the state's livestock producers to interstate
and international markets, resulting in potentially severe economic
impacts, particularly for producers of breeding stock. Under APHIS's
brucellosis eradication program, if a single herd of livestock becomes
infected, the infected animals are to be slaughtered, the herd
quarantined or slaughtered, and the herds in the surrounding area
tested to ensure that the disease does not spread. If no additional
infections are found within 24 months, the state may retain its
brucellosis-free status. If, however, an additional herd were found to
be infected with brucellosis, the state's classification would be
lowered, and additional interstate testing requirements would be
imposed statewide. Because of the increased movement of potentially
exposed or infected bison out of Yellowstone National Park, some states
have threatened to require additional testing of any cattle entering
their states from Montana and Wyoming. Such actions could have
significant economic consequences to Montana's livestock industry if
downgrading occurred, similar to those experienced by Idaho and Wyoming
when their brucellosis certifications were downgraded after outbreaks
in 2004 and 2005, respectively. By one calculation, Montana officials
estimated that a downgraded status would have an annual economic impact
on the state of at least $4 million. However, these officials noted
that this estimate was likely to be low because they considered only
the cost of additional testing required for cattle--not other factors,
such as increased operating costs, impacts on agricultural markets, or
direct effects on producers. A more complex economic analysis conducted
for the partner agencies showed potential annual economic impacts of
the increased testing as high as $16.3 million and, with a potential
decrease in out-of-state demand, an estimated $9.8 million to $38.8
million decrease in the price of cattle.
Faced with complex issues like the bison-cattle brucellosis
controversy, wildlife and natural resource managers have been
increasingly encouraged to use an adaptive management approach as a way
to work within a dynamic natural environment that has become
complicated by people moving into and development within or near these
areas. In addition, a move toward accountability and transparency in
natural resource management, demanded by the general public, has led to
a growing need for collaborative, structured approaches to decision
making. Adaptive management emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s as one
such approach, rooted in parallel concepts found in business and
science best-management practices. In 2004, the National Research
Council defined adaptive management as a process that promotes flexible
decision making in the face of uncertainties, as outcomes from
management actions and other events become better understood. This
approach (1) emphasizes collaboration among resource managers,
researchers, and stakeholders and stakeholder involvement and (2)
encompasses several closely linked steps, including assessing the
problem, designing a plan that includes measurable management
objectives and exploring alternative ways to meet them, predicting the
outcomes of alternatives and implementing one or more of them,
monitoring the impacts of the selected management actions, and
evaluating and using the results to adjust management actions (see fig.
4).
Figure 4: The Adaptive Management Process:
This figure is a flowchart showing adaptive management process.
From the top, going in a clockwise motion, the text reads:
Assess problem;
Design plan to include specific objectives;
Implement management alternative(s);
Monitor impacts;
Evaluate effects of management actions;
Adjust management actions.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Department of the Interior information.
[End of figure]
Although adaptive management has been widely discussed in academic
literature for decades and has been called for in many resource-
planning documents and cited by resource managers, it has rarely been
implemented effectively in practice, according to some experts. In the
early 1990s, for example, in a plan intended to defuse a bitter
controversy over the need for habitat for the threatened spotted owl
and the desire to log old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, the
Forest Service attempted to shift its forest management practices
toward an adaptive management paradigm, with mixed results. Still,
adaptive management continues to be viewed as a potentially useful
decision-making approach for engaging partners collaboratively in
managing shared natural resources. As recently as 2007, for example,
the Department of the Interior produced guidelines for adaptive
management and developed a training program to acquaint its staff with
its practice and implications.[Footnote 11]
Agencies Have Made Less Progress Than Anticipated in Implementing the
Interagency Bison Management Plan:
The partner federal and state agencies have made less progress in
implementing the interagency bison management plan than they originally
anticipated. When the agencies agreed to the plan in December 2000,
they expected to progress to step two by winter 2002-2003; as of
December 2007, however, they remain in step one. Specifically, the
agencies have not yet met two significant conditions for moving into
step two: first, that no cattle graze on the Royal Teton Ranch north of
Yellowstone National Park and, second, that a safe and effective remote
vaccine-delivery mechanism be available. The agencies have, however,
completed a number of other tasks called for in the plan, including
management actions to keep bison and cattle separate in space and time;
some scientific research, such as investigating the persistence of the
Brucella abortus bacterium in the environment; and additional measures
to prevent the spread of the disease to livestock. The agencies have
spent in excess of $2 million annually on plan implementation since
2002, with the federal government funding at least 95 percent of these
costs and the state agencies funding the remainder. As of December
2007, the agencies had no estimate for how long it will take to
complete the conditions for moving to step two, nor do they have plans
to revise their estimated dates for reaching step three.
Agencies Remain in Step One of a Three-Step Plan:
Although the federal and state partner agencies had anticipated
progressing to step two on the north and west sides of the park by
winter 2002-2003, they have not yet met the following two significant
conditions necessary for doing so:
* On the park's north side, the remaining condition for moving to step
two is that cattle no longer graze on the Royal Teton Ranch north of
the park. A lease agreement to graze cattle on the ranch was set to
expire in 2002, and when the plan was written, the partner agencies
expected that no cattle would remain on the ranch after that date. In
1999, the federal government sought to acquire the ranch's grazing
rights in perpetuity to keep the land cattle-free, but negotiations
between the government and ranch owners failed in early 2000 because of
irreconcilable differences of opinion over the monetary value of those
rights. Nevertheless, when the plan was finalized later in 2000, the
requirement that no cattle graze on the ranch remained in the plan as a
condition for moving to step two. Meanwhile, the ranch owners continued
to graze cattle on the ranch, and negotiations over removal of these
cattle did not resume until 2005, when the ranch owners agreed to
discuss with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks a possible deal for the
grazing rights. According to a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
official, the parties have tentatively reached agreement on a 30-year
grazing lease that would remove cattle from the property and provide a
corridor for a limited number of bison to travel across the ranch in
winter to access national forest system land north of the ranch. As of
December 2007, issues needing to be resolved in order for the agreement
to be finalized included obtaining funding commitments from various
sources for the tentatively negotiated lease price and determining
which entity would be responsible for the installation and maintenance
of the infrastructure, such as fencing and cattle guards, to delineate
the bison corridor.
* On the park's west side, progressing to step two is contingent on
meeting another key condition, the development of a safe and effective
remote vaccine-delivery mechanism. The Park Service moved toward this
goal in January 2004, when it established that RB51, a brucellosis
vaccine originally developed for cattle, was also safe for bison calves
and yearlings. Once a safe vaccine was identified, the Park Service
began developing a draft environmental impact statement evaluating
remote delivery alternatives for a parkwide vaccination program. For
example, Park Service worked with Colorado State University researchers
to develop an improved way to encapsulate the brucellosis vaccine in a
special biobullet that could be remotely administered to bison using
air rifles. Park Service officials expect to release their draft
environmental impact statement for public comment in summer 2008.
Agencies Have Completed a Number of Plan Tasks:
As of December 2007, the agency partners had completed a number of
other tasks called for in step one of the plan. For example:
* In 2002, the agencies established interagency operating procedures
outlining their respective roles and responsibilities for restricting
bison to areas generally within or just beyond the park's boundaries.
Outside the park, the Montana Department of Livestock has the lead
responsibility for all bison management actions and may request
assistance from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; the Forest Service;
APHIS; and the National Park Service. Inside the park, Park Service has
the lead responsibility for all bison management actions. In November
2007, the agencies updated these procedures, providing greater details
regarding responsibilities related to law enforcement, private property
protection, and media relations, among others.
* The agencies have also conducted scientific research, such as
investigating the persistence of the brucellosis-causing bacteria in
the environment, to better understand transmission risks. Agency
officials have determined that their findings on the amount of time the
bacteria remained viable in the environment validated the amount of
time required by the plan to separate bison and cattle grazing on the
same lands. Other agency research has included extensive testing to
identify a safe vaccine for bison and to evaluate the vaccine's risk to
wildlife other than bison. The results of this research enabled the
agencies to verify the safety of RB51 for delivery by injection to
bison calves, and the agencies vaccinated a limited number of calves
and yearlings (about 120) in 2004 and 2005. According to a park
official, a team of Park Service researchers also annually collect a
variety of bison data, including data on survival (especially the
survival of females and calves), movement patterns on the landscape,
and estimated population.
* Two of the partner agencies--APHIS and the Montana Department of
Livestock--have implemented additional risk mitigation measures
identified in the plan to prevent the spread of the disease to
livestock. These measures include ensuring that all vaccination-
eligible cattle (calves and yearlings) within specific bison management
zones on the north and west sides of the park have been vaccinated and
annually testing cattle that graze seasonally in these management zones
to help monitor and prevent the spread of the disease. According to
APHIS officials, all ranchers with cattle in the bison management zones
are in compliance with the vaccination risk mitigation measure, and
Montana Department of Livestock officials ensure that annual testing is
completed on cattle that graze seasonally in these zones.
Partner Agencies Have Spent More Than $2 Million Annually to Implement
the Plan:
Since 2002, the partner agencies have spent more than $2 million
annually implementing plan activities, including bison management
actions and research (see table 1). Federal funding has exceeded 95
percent of these annual expenditures and state funding has composed the
remainder (see fig. 5). National Park Service and APHIS expenditures
make up most of the federal spending. APHIS provides nearly $1 million
annually to the Montana Department of Livestock for bison operations
and research activities, in addition to what APHIS spends on its own
operating costs.
Table 1: Estimated Annual Bison Management Expenditures (Unadjusted for
Inflation), by Agency, Federal Fiscal Years 2002-2007:
National Park Service;
2002: $1,200,000;
2003: $1,148,075;
2004: $1,207,175;
2005: $1,204,300;
2006: $1,316,000;
2007: $1,182,463;
Total: $7,258,013.
Forest Service;
2002: 100,215;
2003: 150,000;
2004: 103,172;
2005: 95,763;
2006: 100,278;
2007: 90,000;
Total: 639,428.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service[A];
2002: 916,610;
2003: 925,284;
2004: 1,151,667;
2005: 1,156,540;
2006: 1,806,067;
2007: 1,570,408;
Total: 7,526,576.
Montana Department of Livestock;
2002: 6,053;
2003: 47,628;
2004: 19,504;
2005: 18,533;
2006: 20,353;
2007: 16,906;
Total: 128,977.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks[B];
2002: 59,329;
2003: 62,983;
2004: 58,363;
2005: 68,778;
2006: 62,119;
2007: 67,723;
Total: 379,295.
Total;
2002: $2,282,207;
2003: $2,333,970;
2004: $2,539,881;
2005: $2,543,915;
2006: $3,304,817;
2007: $2,927,500;
Total: $15,932,288.
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service; Forest Service; Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service; Montana Department of Livestock;
and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks data.
Note: Data provided by the agencies were, in most cases, estimates of
expenditures for bison management activities. Expenditures for bison
management activities include personnel and equipment costs for bison
hazing operations, capture facility operations and maintenance,
security, public relations, interagency coordination, disease testing,
vaccination, the vaccination environmental impact statement, and
training. We assessed the reliability of these estimates and found them
to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our work.
[A] APHIS annual expenditure totals include the agency's expenditures
for operating costs as well as the funds it provides to the Montana
Department of Livestock for bison operations and research activities.
The Montana Department of Livestock uses these funds to pay personnel
and purchase equipment used for bison management activities outside the
park and to contract with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to conduct
research on elk, pregnant bison, and the quarantine feasibility study.
[B] Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks' expenditures were provided on a
state fiscal year basis, but since most of the bison management
expenditures occur within the corresponding federal fiscal year, no
conversion was performed.
[End of table]
Figure 5: Estimated Annual Federal and State Bison Management
Expenditures (Unadjusted for Inflation), Federal Fiscal Years 2002-
2007:
This figure is a combination vertical bar graph showing estimated
annual federal and state bison management expenditures (unadjusted for
inflation), federal fiscal years 2002-2007. The X axis represents the
year, and the Y axis represents the percentage. The following values
are approximate.
2002;
State: 100;
Federal: 97.
2003;
State: 100;
Federal: 95.
2004;
State: 100;
Federal: 97.
2005;
State: 100;
Federal: 96.5.
2006;
State: 100;
Federal: 97.5.
2007;
State: 100;
Federal: 97.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Service; Forest Service; Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service; Montana Department of Livestock;
and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks data.
[End of figure]
In addition to these annual costs, the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior also spent nearly $13 million in the late
1990s to purchase land and a conservation easement just north of the
park.[Footnote 12] The land was acquired to protect geothermal
resources; improve recreational access; and provide habitat for a
variety of wildlife species, including bison. The conservation easement
was purchased to prohibit development on the private land, such as the
construction of commercial facilities and roads.
Agencies Have Not Revised Plan Timeline Estimates:
The agencies have no estimate for how long it will take to complete the
remaining two conditions for moving to step two, nor do they have plans
to revise their estimated dates for moving to step three, which they
had expected to reach by winter 2005-2006. According to agency
officials with whom we spoke, they have not completed the requirements
in step one as quickly as they had expected, in part, they said,
because the original estimates in the plan were overly optimistic.
Neither have they revised their estimated timelines for reaching steps
two and three because, according to a Forest Service official, such
efforts would not be the best use of their time, given the number of
variables beyond the agencies' control. For example, the agencies have
limited control over when, or even if, cattle will no longer graze on
the Royal Teton Ranch. Consequently, partner agency officials have
discussed, but have no plans for, revising the estimated completion
dates as stated in the plan, leaving the expected date for reaching
step three uncertain.
Key Deficiencies in the Plan, and the Agencies' Implementation of It,
Limit Their Effectiveness with Regard to Managing Bison-Related Issues:
Key deficiencies in the bison management plan, and the agencies'
implementation of it, limit their effectiveness with regard to managing
bison-related issues. The plan lacks clearly defined, measurable
objectives against which actual outcomes can be compared to guide the
agencies' decision making and to measure the effectiveness of their
actions. Without such objectives, the agencies lack a sound basis for
selecting and monitoring their management actions, triggering
adjustments to those actions, and determining the plan's effectiveness.
In addition, the agencies' failure to adequately implement an adaptive
management approach has limited the effectiveness of their bison
management efforts. The agencies adopted an adaptive management
approach in the plan so that they could continue to address
uncertainties related to bison and brucellosis, while still taking
actions to manage bison. But their efforts to implement an adaptive
management approach have been undermined because all components of
adaptive management--from collecting information about their management
actions through a systematic monitoring program to adjusting their
management actions--should flow from clearly defined objectives, which
are absent from the plan. In addition, while adaptive management
principles emphasize effectively managed partnerships and active
involvement of stakeholders, the agencies have acted more as individual
entities than as a cohesive interagency group, and they have not
adequately communicated with or involved stakeholders. Consequently,
the agencies' decision making lacks accountability and transparency,
more often resembling trial and error or crisis management, rather than
adaptive management.
The Plan Lacks Clearly Defined, Measurable Objectives:
The interagency bison management plan lacks clearly defined, measurable
objectives against which actual outcomes can be compared to guide the
agencies' decision making and to measure the effectiveness of their
actions. Objectives in adaptive management plans should specify desired
measurable outcomes, be achievable given the capacities of the natural
resource system being measured and the political or social system
within which management occurs, and indicate the time frame for
achievement. Explicit articulation of measurable objectives helps to
distinguish adaptive management from trial and error, because the
objectives direct and justify the exploration of specific management
options over time.
The interagency bison management plan does not have clearly defined,
measurable objectives, and the partner agencies share no common view of
the objectives. Consequently, the agencies have no sound basis for
making decisions or measuring the success of their efforts. Although
the plan includes a section titled "Objectives," this section does
little more than state the plan's overall goals to maintain a free-
ranging bison herd and to address the risk of brucellosis transmission
to protect the livestock industry. When we asked officials of the five
partner agencies to refer us to the specific objectives by which they
are managing, their responses varied. Some agency officials referred to
the overall goals, others directed us to 14 tasks the agencies
identified in a 2005 status review,[Footnote 13] still another cited 9
objectives from the final environmental impact statement that preceded
the adopted plan, and one official could not recall any objectives.
Although the items they referred to were not completely distinct from
one another, they were not included in the plan as objectives and
lacked the specificity and metrics needed to provide a sound basis for
making decisions about management actions and measuring the
effectiveness of those actions. The plan specifically states that it
does not identify how the agencies will measure success or failure. In
fact, several agency officials acknowledged that they had not
identified metrics or parameters for measuring how well they are
meeting the plan's stated goals.
Absent explicitly stated, clearly defined, measurable objectives, the
agencies share no common view regarding how they are assessing the
effectiveness of the bison management plan. For example:
* Most of the agency officials referred to the overarching dual-purpose
statement--"to maintain a wild, free-ranging population of bison and
address the risk of brucellosis transmission to protect the economic
interests and viability of the livestock industry in Montana"--as their
guide for measuring the plan's effectiveness. Yet this statement leaves
much to interpretation. For example, to describe how the partner
agencies intend to "address" the risk of brucellosis transmission, the
plan interchangeably uses the terms "minimize" and "reduce," despite
the different meanings of these words, and the plan does not define
either of these terms. The terms also imply that there is a recognized
baseline risk from which to measure, but despite a general agreement
among resource managers and scientists that the risk brucellosis-
infected bison pose to domestic cattle is low, but greater than zero,
the agencies have not conducted a risk assessment to better quantify
the risk of brucellosis transmission and establish a baseline.
* Some agency officials noted that any risk of brucellosis transmission
to cattle greater than zero is unacceptable, and that a better measure
for assessing the plan's effectiveness is the extent to which the
disease is becoming less prevalent. Disagreement remains, however,
among professionals in wildlife science, disease, and management and in
livestock disease and management on some central issues relating to
brucellosis in Yellowstone bison, including brucellosis prevalence. The
disagreement persists because, as agency officials noted, the method
currently used to determine prevalence--a blood test indicating
exposure to the bacterium, rather than the presence of the bacterium
itself, which is the best diagnostic tool available at present--is a
poor indicator of the actual percentage of infectious animals in the
population. Long-term averages of opportunistically, rather than
systematically, collected data from Yellowstone bison indicate that the
fraction of bison that have been exposed to the bacterium falls between
40 and 50 percent, and limited testing of bison captured during
management actions from 2001 to 2006 showed an exposure rate generally
between 35 and 55 percent. Within a herd, however, the number of
animals capable of transmitting the bacterium is generally fewer than
the number of animals with positive blood tests. Data suggest that the
percentage of infected animals--those capable of transmitting the
bacterium--may be as low as 2 percent or as high as 46 percent of
animals testing positive for exposure. Further complicating the
agencies' ability to determine the actual prevalence of the disease
within the population is that, according to brucellosis experts, some
animals can test negative for exposure and still be infected, while the
age and sex of the animal can also influence test results. Researchers
have developed a new method that specifically tests for the presence of
the brucellosis bacterium rather than the antibodies to the bacterium,
offering a potential new management tool.[Footnote 14] This test,
however, has not yet been validated for field use with bison.
* Still other agency officials believe the plan has been effective
because under the plan, they have prevented commingling of bison and
cattle, no proven transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle has
occurred, and agency cooperation has improved.
Agencies Have Not Adequately Implemented an Adaptive Management
Approach:
The partner agencies have not adequately implemented an adaptive
management approach, which is the management strategy the agencies
specified in the plan. In principle, adaptive management distinguishes
itself from simple trial and error by its structured decision-making
approach, which emphasizes accountability and transparency. Adaptive
management is defined in the bison management plan as testing and
validating the proposed risk management and other management actions
with generally accepted scientific and management principles.
Nevertheless, several agency officials told us that the agencies
interpret the definition differently with respect to its operational
implications under the plan. Yet while different philosophies exist
about how adaptive management can be implemented, certain essential
characteristics transcend them. These characteristics include (1)
linkages among key steps, such as identifying clearly defined,
measurable management objectives; designing and implementing a
monitoring program to systematically obtain information--either
operationally, scientifically, or both--about the impacts of management
actions and to reduce uncertainties; and making decisions about
adjustments to management actions based on what is learned; (2)
collaborating with agency partners; and (3) communicating with and
engaging key stakeholders.
Agencies' Plan Implementation Lacks Linkages among Critical Steps
within Adaptive Management:
The first essential component of adaptive management--linkages among
management objectives, information obtained through a systematic
monitoring program, and decisions regarding adjustments to the plan and
their management actions--is impaired, in part, because the plan itself
lacks clearly defined, measurable objectives. Additionally, the
agencies have not designed a monitoring program to systematically
collect data from their management actions, nor have they set forth a
coordinated research agenda to resolve remaining critical uncertainties
related to bison and brucellosis-related issues. A Park Service
official acknowledged that the agencies have not designed or
implemented an evaluation approach to validate or modify the bison
management plan, as needed, but said that each agency has its own
monitoring efforts, and these results are brought to the interagency
partner meetings. He said, for example, that the Park Service conducts
surveillance for all wildlife species and has developed a long-term
bison monitoring program. The data collected on bison include
population size, survival rates, and movement patterns. Another Park
Service official said that officials conducting bison management
operations use this information, but the agencies need a better focus
on what factors to monitor and what their decision thresholds should be
for management actions under the bison management plan. In contrast,
according to a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks official, this state
agency is not monitoring any specific variables related to the bison
management plan. Park Service, APHIS, and Montana Department of
Livestock officials also told us that they are not testing any
hypotheses or the assumptions on which the plan is based. Furthermore,
the agencies have no process to collectively review new scientific
information related to brucellosis, much less to assess how the plan
may need to be changed to reflect the latest information. A Park
Service official acknowledged that within the intent of the plan, the
agency partners probably need to revisit new science as part of
adaptive management.
In the absence of a systematic monitoring program, the agencies have
lost opportunities to collect data that could help resolve important
uncertainties. The plan states that all captured bison are to be tested
for exposure to brucellosis, but fewer than half of those captured
since 2001 have been tested. For example, in early winter 2006, the
agencies lost an opportunity to collect scientific data on about 900
bison. Park Service officials captured these bison as they attempted to
leave through the park's northern boundary. The bison were consigned to
slaughter without being tested at the capture facility because the Park
Service determined that they would not be used for research and could
not be held in the capture pens until the spring for release back into
the park. The Park Service and APHIS had instead made arrangements to
collect and test samples from the bison upon slaughter. According to
APHIS officials, however, Montana's governor prohibited Montana
Department of Livestock officials, who are responsible for hauling
captured bison to slaughter under a federally funded cooperative
agreement, from transporting the bison in this case, primarily to avoid
negative press for the state. As a result, APHIS was left to arrange
for hauling the bison to slaughter, and the officials who were to
collect and test samples from the bison were instead reassigned to
assist with the transportation efforts.
The agencies cite the following actions as examples of how they have
used adaptive management, but because their decision making lacks
linkages to clearly defined, measurable objectives and information
gained through a systematic monitoring program or research, the actions
more closely resemble trial and error than adaptive management:
* The agencies made three formal management changes in November 2006.
In a memorandum to the administrative record, the agencies formally
documented three changes to their 2006-2007 operating procedures. These
changes included modifying hazing operations to allow bison to remain
in certain areas outside the park, increasing tolerance for bull bison
under certain conditions, and clarifying that a reference in the bison
management plan to a population size of 3,000 is not a target for
population adjustment, but rather a population indicator to guide
implementation of risk management activities. It is not clear, however,
what objectives these changes were intended to serve or how the
agencies planned to assess whether the effects of these changes aligned
with a desired outcome. For example, with regard to hazing, rather than
push bison outside the park back into it, where they were unlikely to
remain, the agencies agreed to haze the bison from areas of high
transmission risk--where cattle would graze in the spring--to areas of
lower transmission risk--such as public lands surrounding the park
where cattle do not graze. In making this change, however, the agencies
did not articulate the basis for it or what they hoped the outcome
would be. In addition, the memorandum stated that the reference in the
plan to a population size of 3,000 bison was a management threshold,
not a population target. Yet this statement is incongruous with several
statements throughout the plan and record of decision specifying that
the agencies will control the population size as a brucellosis risk
mitigation measure.
* The agencies have observed effects of their management actions. Most
agency officials with whom we spoke noted that they are not testing
specific hypotheses or assumptions on which the plan is based, but are
instead observing the effects of their management actions and then
making changes they believe are necessary. Yet, without desired
outcomes expressed in clearly defined, measurable objectives, it is
unclear how the agencies assess whether and how to change their
management. For example, when revising their operating procedures for
2007-2008 in November 2007, agency officials reconsidered the hazing
approach they applied in spring 2007 that was outlined in the November
2006 memorandum to the record because of the unusual number of bison--
several hundred--that remained outside the park beyond the May 15
deadline. Agency officials indicated that if the extent of bison
migration from the park is similar to or more severe than last year,
they are prepared to haze more aggressively, hazing earlier and pushing
bison deeper into the park, despite no identified transmissions of
brucellosis from bison to cattle. The agencies have not issued a
subsequent memorandum to the administrative record to document this
change, nor do the 2007-2008 operating procedures specify the
conditions that would trigger such aggressive hazing. With no
connection to a clear management objective, the agencies' decision to
modify their management approach on the basis of an unprecedented
situation--as the events of spring 2007 were characterized by one Park
Service official--seems little more than a reaction to avert recurrence
of a politically charged situation. In fact, some agency officials
admitted that they generally operate in a reactive, crisis-management
mode when dealing with spring bison migrations from the park.
* The agencies have conducted research on some critical uncertainties
related to bison and brucellosis. When the agencies developed the bison
management plan, several questions lacked answers, such as how long
brucellosis-causing bacteria could survive in the environment, the
likelihood that a pregnant female testing negative for exposure to the
bacteria could shed the bacteria, and how to best diagnose the disease.
Beyond identifying and conducting the following research projects in
the plan, the agencies have no coordinated research agenda to address
other uncertainties. APHIS and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks staff
conducted studies during 2001 to 2003 to learn more about how long the
bacteria would survive under certain environmental conditions. In 3 of
the past 7 years, the agencies have also monitored 39 pregnant females
that initially tested negative for exposure to brucellosis to determine
if they shed the bacteria into the environment during abortion or
birth. Regarding bacterial survival in the environment, the agencies
used the study results to validate specifications in the plan related
to the required separation in time between bison and cattle--a process
that aligned with adaptive management principles. In the absence of a
systematic program to collect information through monitoring and
research for use in decision making, however, it is not clear how the
agencies have used the results of monitoring pregnant females or
weighed relevant science conducted by other researchers when
considering changes to the plan.
Partner Agencies Operate More as Individual Agencies Than as a Cohesive
Interagency Group:
The agencies recognized in the plan that a coordinated, cooperative
management effort--a second essential component of adaptive management-
-was necessary for plan implementation. Nevertheless, they operate more
as independent entities within their respective jurisdictions and
authorities. Although all of the agency officials with whom we spoke
said that coordination and cooperation among the partners has improved
since the plan began, and some said that they seek interagency support
when making decisions within their respective jurisdictions, others
said that finger-pointing has been an issue when it comes to taking
responsibility; still others admitted that the agencies could be doing
more to portray a shared message. For example, Montana Department of
Livestock officials said that the agencies need a strategy that better
communicates to the public that decisions are made and supported by all
five agencies. In addition, the operating procedures specify that the
Park Service is the lead decision-making agency within park boundaries,
while the Montana Department of Livestock takes the lead on most issues
outside the park. But the plan and the operating procedures are silent
on where the responsibility lies for administrative duties of the
interagency group. To date, the agencies have shared responsibility for
scheduling and leading meetings. A Park Service official said, however,
that it has been difficult to coordinate both technical staff and
decision makers from all agencies for meetings and pointed out that
bison management is an added duty for most of the staff involved. APHIS
officials said the lack of a lead agency for administrative functions,
such as scheduling and documenting interagency meetings, has been a
challenge to more coordinated efforts and that having a single agency
responsible for administrative functions would help keep the group
moving forward.
The Agencies Have Not Adequately Communicated with or Engaged
Stakeholders:
A third component essential to adaptive management is communication
with and involvement of key stakeholders. The agency partners generally
believe that they have engaged stakeholders and provided sufficient
opportunities for their involvement, but several of the stakeholders we
spoke with continue to have concerns about the agencies' transparency
with the public.
Agency officials said that since the plan began, they have held
multiple public meetings related to bison management. Still, these
meetings have generally taken place during business hours, and the
discussion topics and decisions from these meetings have not been
documented or kept in a central location convenient for public access.
As a more comprehensive outreach effort, the partner agencies hosted
two large-scale evening open houses--one in January 2007 and another in
December 2007--to inform the public on a variety of bison management
related topics. At the January 2007 meeting, the agencies solicited
stakeholder views on several bison management related topics, but until
early December 2007, they had not shared with the public a summary of
the ideas expressed at the January meeting or an explanation of how
they intended to use the information they gathered. At the second open
house in early December 2007, the agencies publicly reviewed the 2006-
2007 operations; provided an overview of plans for the upcoming 2007-
2008 season; discussed the feedback they received during the January
2007 open house; and conducted discussion sessions about bison
operations, brucellosis in Montana, and progress made to date on the
plan. These efforts notwithstanding, the agencies also lack a
mechanism, such as a coordinated interagency annual report, by which to
document for the public their collective progress related to the plan.
As a result, the agencies lack accountability among themselves and to
the public, and it is difficult for the public to obtain information
without attending the meetings or contacting each individual agency.
Several of the conservation groups, livestock industry groups,
ranchers, and private landowners with whom we spoke expressed a common
concern about the agencies' lack of transparency with the public. Some
of the stakeholders with whom we spoke attended the January 2007
interagency open house and thought it provided a good forum for
discussing ideas, but questioned how the stakeholders' views expressed
at the meeting would be used. Similarly, one stakeholder shared his
frustration over the agencies' failure to consider information he had
provided relevant to potential areas for expanded bison habitat. Others
cited a need for the agencies to obtain and present to the public more
factual, scientific research information to eliminate uncertainties and
reduce the amount of factual distortion that continues to perpetuate
the controversy related to bison management. A common concern expressed
among stakeholders--that the agencies were not adhering to certain plan
provisions--may also indicate that agencies' communication efforts have
not been clear. Specifically, several stakeholders believe that the
plan specifies a population target of 3,000 bison that the agencies are
failing to maintain. In fact, the record of decision states that "as an
additional risk management measure, the agencies would maintain a
population target for the whole herd of 3,000 bison," and that specific
measures may be undertaken to reduce the herd's size when the estimated
population exceeds 3,000 animals. Park Service officials believe the
November 2006 memorandum to the record clarified that this reference is
not a target for population adjustment, but rather a population
indicator to guide implementation of risk management activities;
nonetheless, the difference in understanding persists.
Conclusions:
While the interagency bison management plan put an end to litigation
among the federal and state agencies and established a forum for
continued negotiations and more cooperative action, the decades-long,
bison-related controversies continue: bison are still hazed and
slaughtered every year, and livestock owners are still concerned about
the significant economic consequences if Montana's cattle industry
loses its brucellosis-free status. Even if the agencies improve their
management and fully implement the current plan through step three, we
believe the controversies will continue, in part because critical
underlying differences among agency mandates, management philosophies,
and political interests have not been resolved. In addition, the plan
lacks clearly defined, measurable objectives to guide the agencies'
bison management actions, and the agencies are not adequately applying
an adaptive management approach in implementing the plan. Moreover, the
agencies' implementation of the plan has remained fragmented, because
no single entity is accountable for coordinating and steering the
management, research, and resolution of these bison-related issues. In
addition, the agencies' management lacks the accountability and
transparency expected by the public and Congress. Meanwhile, the
federal government continues to spend millions of dollars on
uncoordinated management and research efforts, with no means to ensure
that these efforts are focused on a common outcome that could help
resolve the controversies. Because the plan is not a brucellosis
eradication plan, concerns about brucellosis transmission will still
require the agencies to actively manage bison moving from the park into
Montana, even if they fully implement all steps of the plan. Given
these realities, improvements in the partner agencies' implementation
of the plan, including more systematic application of an adaptive
management approach, could contribute greatly to helping address the
larger brucellosis issue in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Multiple
recent suspected transmissions of brucellosis from elk to cattle in the
area have highlighted the importance of addressing this disease in its
broader wildlife and ecological context, and doing so could have
significant implications for the future management of Yellowstone
bison.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior
direct the federal agencies to work with their state agency partners to
take the following five actions:
To improve the management of Yellowstone bison in the national park and
the state of Montana:
* Clearly define measurable objectives to express desired outcomes and
refine, revise, or replace the plan and agency operating procedures as
needed to reflect these objectives.
* Systematically apply adaptive management principles, including
defining specific scientific and management questions to be answered,
identifying the activities to be conducted to answer them, developing a
monitoring program to assess the impacts of those activities, and
incorporating the results into the bison management plan.
To enhance interagency collaboration, promote transparency, and
strengthen the agencies' accountability to the American public:
* Establish a single publicly available repository, on a Web site or at
a location easily accessible to the public that includes all documents
reflecting decisions made and actions taken with respect to plan
implementation.
* Report annually to Congress on the progress and expenditures related
to the plan's measurable objectives once these have been clearly
defined.
* Appoint a group comprised of a representative from each of the
partner agencies or designate one of the five interagency partners
(perhaps on an annual rotating basis) as a lead entity for plan
oversight, coordination, and administration.
Agency Comments:
We provided the federal departments of Agriculture and the Interior;
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and the Montana Department of
Livestock a draft of this report for review and comment. The Department
of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and the Montana
Department of Livestock generally agreed with our conclusions and
recommendations; their written comments and our response to the
Department of the Interior's comments appear in appendixes II, III, and
IV, respectively. The federal departments and the state agency also
provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report as
appropriate. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks provided no comments on
the report.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested
congressional committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; the Montana Department of
Livestock; and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors are listed in
appendix V.
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to determine (1) the progress made in implementing
the interagency bison management plan and (2) the soundness of the plan
and the effectiveness of the agencies' implementation of it with regard
to managing bison-related issues in the Greater Yellowstone Area.
To address both of the objectives, we obtained and reviewed relevant
documentation, including the bison management final environmental
impact statement, record of decision, and interagency bison management
plan; interagency operating procedures; and the interagency status
review. We also interviewed officials from the Park Service; the Forest
Service; APHIS; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and the Montana
Department of Livestock. In addition, in January and February 2007, we
conducted a field visit to Yellowstone National Park and surrounding
areas to gain a greater understanding of bison management issues and
activities performed by the agencies under the interagency bison
management plan. While we were there, we visited the bison management
zones identified in the plan, bison capture facilities, and various
private lands on the north and west sides of the park. We also attended
an interagency open house to hear public concerns related to the
agencies' implementation of the bison management plan and met with
representatives of the Royal Teton Ranch to understand their interests
related to bison and bison management activities on and around their
private lands.
To enhance our understanding about the progress the agencies have made
in implementing the interagency bison management plan, we also obtained
and reviewed scientific research and reports on various topics related
to brucellosis and wildlife, including the safety and effectiveness of
brucellosis vaccines, vaccine delivery systems, and diagnostic tests
for brucellosis. In conjunction with this effort, we also interviewed
researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey Northern Rocky Mountain
Science Center, the APHIS National Wildlife Research Center, and the
Agricultural Research Service National Animal Disease Center. In
addition, we requested from the federal and state partner agencies
expenditure data related to bison management activities for federal
fiscal years 2000 through 2007. The agencies were able to provide
complete data only for federal fiscal years 2002 through 2007, and most
of these data were estimated, rather than actual, expenditures. We
assessed the reliability of these estimates and found them to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our work. We used these data
to estimate the amount of money spent annually on bison management
activities and how the expenditures were shared among the federal and
state agencies.
In addition to the interviews, relevant documentation, and field visits
that we have previously discussed, we performed a number of other steps
to determine the soundness of the interagency bison management plan and
the effectiveness of the agencies' implementation of it with regard to
managing bison-related issues in the Greater Yellowstone Area. We
assessed the plan and the agencies' implementation of it against
generally recognized best management practices, including those
contained in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the
Comptroller General's 2004 forum on high-performing organizations, the
Department of the Interior Technical Guidance on Adaptive Management,
and select peer-reviewed adaptive management articles. Such practices
include clearly defining measurable, results-oriented management
objectives; designing and implementing a plan to monitor management
actions; making decisions based on management objectives; effectively
managing partnerships while maintaining accountability to Congress and
the public; and actively involving key stakeholders over time to
engender public support. We also conducted semistructured interviews of
partner agency officials regarding their implementation and management
of the interagency bison management plan, focusing specifically on
their application of adaptive management principles, changes made to
the plan, views on the effectiveness of the plan, interagency
cooperation and coordination, and communication with and engagement of
stakeholders. In addition, we conducted semistructured interviews of a
judgmental sample of 30 local individuals and groups representing
varied interests in bison management activities, including
conservationists, livestock industry representatives, local ranchers,
permittees of public livestock grazing allotments, Native American
tribes, hunting enthusiasts, lessees of private land, and other private
landowners. Our questions of these individuals and groups focused on
the partner agencies' bison management activities and communication
with and involvement of the public. We selected these individuals and
groups from listings of those who provided written comments on the
draft environmental impact statement, attended the interagency public
meeting on January 31, 2007, or were identified to us as interested
parties.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2007 through March
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Caring for the Land and Serving People:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250
File Code: 1420:
Date:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro
Director, Natural Resources and the Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) with the opportunity to review and comment on the draft U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled
"Interagency Plan and Agencies' Management Need Improvement to Better
Address Bison- Cattle Brucellosis Controversy." This is an extremely
complex management issue and we commend you and your colleagues, Diane
Lund, Jamie Meuwissen, and David Bixler, for conducting the broadest
possible inquiry and working so closely with all the involved agencies
and stakeholders. I am responding to the audit with the concurrence of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
We believe that the GAO Report's Recommendations for Executive Action
will improve the management of bison in the greater Yellowstone area.
Specifically, the refining of the Interagency Bison Management Plan, to
better define measurable objectives, will improve ongoing and future
operating procedures; and that improvements can be made to enhance
interagency and stakeholder collaboration and communication. The
agencies have already begun to create a central repository for
documentation related to the Interagency Bison Management Plan, and
designate on a rotating basis a lead administrative agency among the
five partner agencies. We are proposing a number of factual
clarifications found in the enclosure that you should consider.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the GAO report.
We are committed to using the recommendations of the GAO, and working
with partner agencies and the public to continue moving bison
management forward.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Abigail R. Kimbell.
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
The Associate Deputy Secretary Of The Interior:
Washington:
February 26, 2008:
Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the Government Accountability Office Draft
Report entitled, "Yellowstone Bison Interagency Plan and Agencies'
Management Need Improvement to Better Address Bison-Cattle Brucellosis
Controversy," (GAO-08-291).
The National Park Service and the United States Geological Survey under
the Department have reviewed the draft report and appreciate the
report's methodical and comprehensive summary of the Interagency Bison
Management Plan and progress to date by the partner agencies. This is
an extremely complex issue, and we commend the auditors for their
efforts to give the issue the broadest possible inquiry and work so
closely with all the agencies and stakeholders involved. We support the
report's overarching conclusion that refining the plan is appropriate
and feasible to informing ongoing and future management.
The National Park Service believes that, in addition to the interagency
coordination and management efforts to date, there is value in refining
and improving the metrics of management objectives and actions as well
as improving communication with stakeholders and collaboration among
the partners. We are committed to incorporating these recommendations
and making these improvements with the partner agencies and the public.
General Comments:
Brucellosis Prevalence Rates:
The USGS suggests that the report would benefit from additional detail
in this area. The report is correct in stating that the method
currently employed reflects only exposure to Brucella ahortus, the
bacterium which causes brucellosis, and not whether the animal is
capable of transmitting the disease. However the test results can be
further complicated by the age and gender of the animals being sampled.
Thus, any comparison between populations, or of the same population
over time, should consider age and sex structure. Additionally, a
published study by researchers at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory has shown that it is possible to detect
Brucella DNA in blood samples rather than antibodies to Brucella and
thereby determine actual infection. This technique has the potential to
be an important management tool by reducing the uncertainty described
in the previous paragraph.
The draft report discusses areas of significant disagreement, including
disagreement on brucellosis prevalence. It includes the statement,
"This disagreement persists because, as agency officials' notes, the
method currently used to determine prevalence ”a blood test indicating
exposure to the bacterium rather than presence of the bacterium itself,
which is the best diagnostic tool available at present”is a poor
indicator of the actual percentage of infectious animals in the
population." The USGS agrees with this assessment of the current test
and suggests that the recognition of a potential new and highly
valuable management tool is an important consideration.
Elk to Cattle Transmission:
The draft report references "multiple recent" transmissions of
brucellosis between elk and cattle. We feel that "multiple" may suggest
to readers that elk-to-cattle transmission is a frequent occurrence,
while to the best of our knowledge there have been only two documented
cases in the previous 5 years. The distinction in this clarification
has important management implications. If indeed elk-to-cattle
transmission is becoming a common occurrence, there may also be a need
to begin managing elk through hazing, culling, etc., similar to current
bison management. The USGS is familiar with”at most”two cases of likely
elk-to-cattle transmission of Brucella, one in Idaho approximately 5
years ago and one in Montana during the summer of 2007. This differs
from the report's reference to events in Idaho and Wyoming.
Recommendations For Executive Action:
All five recommendations are directed to both the DOI and the USDA.
Recommendation 1: The recommendation is to work with the State agency
partners to improve the management of Yellowstone bison in the national
park and the state of Montana. Define measurable objectives to express
desired outcomes and refine, revise, or replace the plan and agency
operating procedures as needed to reflect these goals and objectives.
Response: We agree that clearly defined and measurable objectives, to
express desired outcomes, be developed in order to refine or revise the
agency operating procedures. The original operating procedures jointly
developed and signed by both the Federal and State agencies in 2002,
were updated and re-signed by all partner agencies in 2007 to
incorporate several adaptive management adjustments to the plan. NPS
does not agree with the portion of this recommendation that suggests
the plan be replaced.
(See comment 1.):
Recommendation 2: The recommendation is to work with the State agency
partners to improve the management of Yellowstone bison in the national
park and the state of Montana. Systematically apply adaptive management
principles, including defining specific scientific and management
decisions to be answered, identifying the activities to be conducted to
answer them, developing a monitoring program to assess the impacts of
those activities, and incorporating the results into the bison
management plan.
Response: We agree with the recommendation to incorporate adaptive
management principles (and associated specific questions, activities,
and monitoring) into the plan, through adjustments to the Operating
Procedures. This will be accomplished through NPS participation in the
IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group.
(See comment 2.):
Recommendation 3: The recommendation is to enhance interagency
collaboration, promote transparency, and strengthen the agencies'
accountability to the American public. Establish a single, publicly
available repository on a Web site or at a location easily accessible
to the public that includes all documents reflecting decisions made and
actions taken with respect to plan implementation.
Response: We agree with the recommendation to establish an internet Web
site for open access to public documents generated through
implementation of the plan. This will be accomplished through NPS
participation in the IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group.
(See comment 3.):
Recommendation 4: The recommendation is to enhance interagency
collaboration, promote transparency, and strengthen the agencies'
accountability to the American public. Report annually to Congress on
the progress and expenditures related to the plan's measurable
objectives once these have been clearly defined.
Response: We agree with the recommendation to report annually to
Congress on progress and expenditures related to the plan's measurable
objectives once these have been clearly defined through the Operating
Procedures. This will be accomplished through NPS participation in the
IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group.
(See comment 4.):
Recommendation 5: The recommendation is to enhance interagency
collaboration, promote transparency, and strengthen the agencies'
accountability to the American public. Appoint a group comprising a
representative from each of the partner agencies or designate one of
the five interagency partners (perhaps on an annual rotating basis) as
a lead entity for plan oversight, coordination, and administration.
Response: We disagree with that portion of the recommendation to
designate one of the agency partners as the lead entity for plan
oversight, coordination, and administration. The respective Federal and
Montana RODs direct each partner agency to adhere to their respective
agency mandates and policies. We agree with a recommendation to
continue the prevailing IBMP interagency working group (established in
2002) with a designated lead agency to chair meetings comprised of
representatives from the partner agencies for plan oversight,
coordination, and administration.
(See comment 5.):
Technical corrections are addressed separately and enclosed.
If you have any questions, please contact Rebecca Bageant, USGS Audit
Liaison Officer, at (703) 648-4328, or Ernestine Armstrong of NPS at
(202) 354-1958.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James E. Cason:
GAO's Response to the Department of the Interior's Comments:
Our responses to the Department of the Interior's comments are numbered
below to correspond with specific passages in the department's comments
(reproduced on pp. 39-42).
1. We emphasize that clearly defined, measurable objectives need to be
reflected in the bison management plan. We expect that the agencies
would subsequently make commensurate changes to the operating
procedures to ensure that their management actions are aligned with
these objectives. To the extent that the National Park Service, in
cooperation with the other partner agencies, can adequately accomplish
this alignment by refining or revising the existing bison management
plan and agency operating procedures, replacing the plan may not be
necessary.
2. We believe it is essential that the partners incorporate adaptive
management principles into the bison management plan and subsequently
modify the operating procedures to ensure systematic application of
these principles to their management actions. In addition, we believe
that this recommendation should be implemented by the entity we
recommend, rather than by the IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group
referenced in the department's response, as further explained in
comment 5.
3. We believe that this recommendation should be implemented by the
entity we recommend, rather than by the IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group
referenced in the department's response, as further explained in
comment 5.
4. As we noted in comment 1, we expect that the measurable objectives
be clearly defined in the bison management plan and be used as
benchmarks for reporting the agencies' progress to Congress. We believe
that this recommendation should be implemented by the entity we
recommend, rather than by the IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group
referenced in the department's response, as further explained in
comment 5.
5. The department states that it agrees with a recommendation to
continue the prevailing IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group and notes that
the department would accomplish a number of our recommendations through
participation in this group. We did not recommend that the partner
agencies continue the prevailing IBMP Inter-Agency Working Group to
implement this or any other of our recommendations. As evident in our
findings, we believe the agency partners' efforts to operate as a
cohesive interagency group to oversee, coordinate, and administer the
bison management plan have been inadequate to date, which led to our
recommendation that a more structured lead entity be appointed for such
functions. Furthermore, none of the partner agencies, including the
Park Service, had identified this group by name or referenced it as
having responsibilities for these functions during the course of our
review, and only the Park Service referenced it in commenting on our
draft report. We envision that the responsibilities of the lead entity
we have recommended would include, but would not be limited to,
activities such as scheduling and documenting interagency meetings,
creating and maintaining a central repository of information related to
the bison management plan, and coordinating the agency partner's annual
report to Congress. We do not believe that this entity will interfere
with the partner agencies' ability to adhere to their respective
mandates and policies.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Montana Department of Livestock:
Department Of Livestock:
State Of Montana:
Board Of Livestock - (406) 444-7323:
Helena, Montana 59620-2001:
Brands Enforcement Division - (406) 444-2045:
Animal Health Division - (406) 444-2043:
Centralized Services Division - (406) 444-9040:
Meat & Poultry Inspection Division - (406) 444-5202:
Milk & Egg Bureau - (406) 444-9761:
February 8, 2008:
Dear Mr. David Bixler, Assistant Director,
The Montana Department of Livestock appreciates the time and effort the
Government Accountability Office has taken to study the Interagency
Bison Management Plan. In the 1930s, the USDA began focusing on
eradicating brucellosis from livestock, and with the State of Texas
gaining Brucellosis Class-Free Status in early February 2008, this goal
was finally achieved. With this monumental event, the issue of
brucellosis in the GYA is likely to gain even greater attention, and we
welcome the opportunity to improve the Interagency Bison Management
Plan based on the GAO review.
The Montana Department of Livestock has reviewed the draft report
(Government Accountability Office Report GAO-08-291) on Yellowstone
bison management and we concur with the overall conclusions that the
Interagency Bison Management Plan would be improved with:
* More clearly defined management objectives linked to the adaptive
management framework;
* Increased interagency coordination to improve interagency
cohesiveness;
* Improved communication with the public and affected interest groups.
The Montana Department of Livestock is committed to working with the
partner agencies to incorporate these improvements into the Interagency
Bison Management Plan. We have prepared specific comments to the report
(attached). We appreciate the diligent work of the staff assigned to
this project.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Marty Zaluski, DVM:
State Veterinarian:
Montana Department of Livestock:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant
Director; Ellen W. Chu; Richard Johnson; Diane Lund; and Jamie
Meuwissen made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to
the report were Elizabeth Curda, Sandy Davis, Bernice Dawson, Timothy
Guinane, Carol Henn, Lynn Musser, Omari Norman, Kim Raheb, Jeremy
Sebest, and Jena Sinkfield.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Yellowstone National Park: Preliminary Observations on the
Implementation of the Interagency Bison Management Plan. GAO-07-638T.
Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2007.
Wildlife Management: Negotiations on a Long-Term Plan for Managing
Yellowstone Bison Still Ongoing. GAO/RCED-00-7. Washington, D.C.:
November 30, 1999.
Wildlife Management: Issues Concerning the Management of Bison and Elk
Herds in Yellowstone National Park. GAO/T-RCED-97-200. Washington,
D.C.: July 10, 1997.
Wildlife Management: Many Issues Unresolved in Yellowstone Bison-Cattle
Brucellosis Conflict. GAO/RCED-93-2. Washington, D.C.: October 21,
1992.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Yellowstone National Park: Preliminary Observations on the
Implementation of the Interagency Bison Management Plan, GAO-07-638T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2007).
[2] Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, agencies
evaluate the likely environmental effects of projects they are
proposing using an environmental assessment or, if the projects are
likely to have a significant effect on the environment, a more detailed
document known as an environmental impact statement.
[3] The interagency bison management plan is included as part of the
federal Record of Decision for Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Bison Management Plan for the State of Montana and Yellowstone National
Park. For purposes of this report, we refer to this combined document
as "the plan," unless otherwise specified.
[4] To haze bison is to drive them away from a facility or location by
means of horseback, all-terrain vehicle, helicopter, or other methods.
[5] C. S. Holling, ed., Adaptive Environmental Assessment and
Management (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978); K. N. Lee, Compass
and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment
(Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1993); Kimberly J. Reever Morghan et
al., "Successful Adaptive Management--The Integration of Research and
Management," Rangeland Ecology and Management, vol. 59, no. 2 (2006);
and C. Walters, Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources (New York:
Macmillan, 1986).
[6] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62,
107 Stat. 285 (1993), as amended, and GAO, Comptroller General's Forum:
High-Performing Organizations, GAO-04-343SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13,
2004).
[7] According to the Montana Department of Livestock, management of the
risk of brucellosis transmission from elk to cattle is being addressed
through the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, in
which all of the partner agencies are represented.
[8] GAO, Wildlife Management: Issues Concerning the Management of Bison
and Elk Herds in Yellowstone National Park, GAO/T-RCED-97-200
(Washington, D.C.: July 10, 1997).
[9] The plan mentions certain Gallatin National Forest and private
lands north and west of the park, such as the Eagle Creek/Bear Creek
region and portions of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness as other management
areas outside of the plan's designated bison management zones. Bison
are allowed to graze in these other areas year-round without agency
interference because cattle generally do not graze on these lands. If
bison migrate out of the park and into one of these areas, agency
officials are required to monitor them; if bison attempt to move beyond
these areas, the plan requires agency officials to either keep them
within those areas or slaughter them.
[10] Current brucellosis tests involve determining whether a blood
sample taken from an animal contains antibodies to the brucellosis
bacterium. The presence of these antibodies indicates that the animal
has been exposed to the bacterium in quantities sufficient to trigger
antibody production but does not necessarily mean the animal is
infected with, or ill from, the disease itself.
[11] Department of the Interior, Adaptive Management: The U.S.
Department of the Interior Technical Guide (Washington, D.C.: 2007).
[12] GAO-07-638T.
[13] National Park Service; USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; USDA Forest Service; Montana Department of Livestock; and
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, A Status Review of Adaptive
Management Elements, 2000 to 2005 (September 2005). The intent of the
review was to provide an assessment of how successful the bison
management plan has been in achieving the goals set forth in the final
environmental impact statement and records of decision issued by the
state and federal agencies.
[14] According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a published study by
researchers at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (now known as the Idaho National Laboratory) has shown that
it is possible to detect Brucella abortus DNA in blood samples rather
than antibodies to Brucella abortus and thereby determine actual
infection.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
