1). Bison, as well as wildlife such as elk, may carry the bacterial disease  brucellosis, which is also contagious to humans and domestic animals. 3). 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. 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. 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. 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. 5). National Park Service and APHIS expenditures make up most of the  federal spending. 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. 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. 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. 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. The agencies have conducted research on some critical uncertainties  related to bison and brucellosis. 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. Key contributors are listed in appendix V.

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. We also interviewed officials from the Park Service; the Forest Service;  APHIS; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; and the Montana Department of  Livestock. 2.
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.