Staff Report

Matters from Staff Agenda Item #16

Board of County Commissioners - Staff Report

Meeting Date: 9/4/2018 Presenter: Alyssa Watkins Submitting Dept: Administration Subject: Consideration of action pertaining to the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative advisory committee recommendations

Statement / Purpose: The purpose of this item is for the Board of County Commissioners to consider how they will handle the recommendations received from the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) Advisory Committee.

Background / Description (Pros & Cons): The Wyoming Public Lands Initiative began in 2015 under the guidance of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association as a collaborative, county-led process intended to help drive final designation or release of 42 Bureau of Land Management and 2 U.S. Forest Service Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in Wyoming. Specifically, the WPLI initiative was intended to result in a state-wide legislative lands package, broadly supported by public lands stakeholders in Wyoming.

Counties who opted to participate in the WPLI were encouraged to appoint a WPLI Advisory Committee. The role of the Advisory Committee was to conduct a collaborative review process of the WSAs and other potential land use interests in their county and to develop and submit a WSA management recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. While WSA designations served as the launching pad and anchor for the WPLI, county advisory teams were also encouraged to look more broadly at long-standing land use challenges and build consensus-based agreements using whatever tools at their disposal to reach agreement.

In the process as originally envisioned, once a recommendation was approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, in cooperation with the office of the Governor and the offices of the federal delegation, would review the county or regional Advisory Committee recommendations and, to the maximum extent practicable, include them in a legislative draft to be introduced in Congress.

In 2016, Teton County elected to participate in the WPLI process and appointed a 21-person Advisory Committee to consider the Shoal Creek and Palisades WSAs. Committee meetings were facilitated by the Ruckelshaus Institute (a division of the University of Wyoming’s Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources). A Committee charter was developed which directs, in part, that the committee operate by consensus. As stated in the charter, “consensus prevents domination by the majority, allows building of trust and the sharing of information, especially under conditions of conflict. Consensus does not mean that everyone will be equally happy with the decision, but all do accept that the decision is the best that can be made at the time with the people involved.” Advisory committee members worked under these parameters toward the drafting of a consensus recommendation for presentation to the County Commissioners.

In considering their response to the proposal generated, the Teton County WPLI charter allowed for a member to vote to “block” a proposal, indicating that he or she would not support it; this vote was indicated by rating the proposal a “5”. Any proposal receiving a “5” vote then received a “no consensus” designation. Any Advisory Committee member that rated a proposal as a 5 was required to specify their dissention in a written statement for inclusion in the final report to the Board of County Commissioners.

Organizational Excellence * Environmental Stewardship * Vibrant Community * Economic Sustainability

Matters from Staff Agenda Item #16

Board of County Commissioners - Staff Report

In the end, the Advisory Committee was unable to agree on a single proposal and chose instead to advance three proposal to the Board. Each proposal was blocked by one or more members of the group, thus no single proposal receive a consensus designation. The proposals and corresponding dissent statements are included as attachments to this staff report.

The charter directs that the Board of County Commissioners shall review the WPLI Advisory Committee’s recommendations and take official action to establish a final WPLI recommendation for the county at a regularly scheduled commissioner meeting. It states further that, “should the BCC not approve the recommendation or have further instructions for the Advisory Committee, the BCC shall remand the recommendation back to the Advisory Committee for further work to reach consensus approval.”

The BCC heard a presentation of all three proposals at a workshop on August 20th. Public comment was also taken at that time.

Stakeholder Analysis & Involvement: The WPLI Advisory Committee is comprised of persons with diverse interests in the designation and management of WSAs in Teton County. Participant interest categories include, but are not limited to; local, state, and national conservation; summer motorized, winter motorized, and mountain biking recreation; commercial interests; industry (oil/gas) interests; agriculture/ranching; and the general public.

Fiscal Impact: In FY18, the County expended approximately $23,500 in facilitation fees for the WPLI initiative. There is an additional $5,000 allocated for FY19, some portion of which is encumbered at this time to cover costs incurred but not yet invoiced for the July 2018 and August 2018 WPLI Advisory Committee meetings.

Staff Impact: Minimal.

Legal Review: This staff report has not been provided to the County Attorney’s Office for legal review.

Staff Input / Recommendation: The charter clearly contemplates a single recommendation to the BCC. The reality of having three recommendations presented instead does complicate the Board’s response. The Board could choose from a number of paths forward – advance no recommendation, choose one of the three proposals to advance, choose some combination of proposals to advance, advance a proposal of the Board’s design, or remand the recommendations back to the committee for further work towards consensus.

Given the advisory committee’s candor regarding their inability to reach consensus, staff does not believe that the final option (i.e., remanding the recommendations back to the Advisory Committee) is likely to result in a more viable outcome. Staff also cautions against combining proposals or creating a new proposal outside of the committee structure, both options may create a perception that the process was less collaborative, open, or transparent than required by the WPLI Principles and Guidelines (attached).

Similarly, advancing a single proposal that does not reflect common ground is problematic. The inability of the group to reach consensus on a single proposal is not entirely surprising, the potential incompatibility of

Organizational Excellence * Environmental Stewardship * Vibrant Community * Economic Sustainability

Matters from Staff Agenda Item #16

Board of County Commissioners - Staff Report stakeholder interests and substantive issues was flagged as possible barrier to consensus in the 2016 Situation Assessment (attached). For these reasons, staff recommends that the Board consider the first option – advance no recommendation. This recommendation should not in any way be construed to minimize the value of the work done by the Advisory Committee, it instead recognizes that the robust and collaborative process pursued by Teton County and supported by community interest and both County and State resources was able to openly and transparently vet a very complex issue that in the end does not have a single, simple answer that works in the best interests for each and every stakeholder.

Attachments: Wyoming Public Lands Initiative – Principles and Guidelines (2015) Teton County & Wyoming Public Lands Initiative – Situation Assessment and Process Recommendations (2016) Wyoming Public Lands Initiative – Teton Advisory Committee Charter (2017) Proposal – A Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan Proposal – Palisades and Shoal Creek Special Management Areas Proposal – Mountain Athlete Working Group (MAWG) Middle Ground Dissent Statements

Suggested Motion: I move to direct staff to work with the Ruckelshaus Institute to provide the following documents and information to the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, and to advise the Association that Teton County will advance no recommendation on the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative:

a. A copy of the minutes from all of the WPLI Advisory Committee meetings; b. All relevant background information gathered by the committee; c. Any information pertaining to the public field trip and impressions noted regarding the wilderness characteristics of the individual WSAs; d. A copy of the draft committee WPLI recommendations; and e. A copy of public comments received on the draft recommendations, and the WPLI committee recommendations as they were initially presented to the commissioners.

Organizational Excellence * Environmental Stewardship * Vibrant Community * Economic Sustainability

Principles and Guidelines

The Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) is a collaborative, county-led process intended to result in one, state-wide legislative lands package that is broadly supported by public lands stakeholders in Wyoming. The ultimate goal is final designation or release of Wyoming’s 42 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 2 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in Wyoming. While WSA designations will serve as the launching pad and anchor for the WPLI, county advisory teams are encouraged to look more broadly at long-standing land use challenges and build consensus based agreements using whatever tools at their disposal to reach agreement.

Boards of County Commissioners in all 23 counties are receiving a formal invitation from the Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) to participate in the WPLI. While each county that has WSAs within their county boundary is strongly encouraged to participate in the WPLI process, it is at the discretion of each individual county whether or not to participate. Counties that share WSAs with neighboring counties are expected to work together to develop a joint recommendation. Further, counties may choose to work together as a region even if they do not share a common WSA. Finally, counties that do not have a WSA within their border are encouraged to participate in the event other, non-WSA related land-use, land transfers, or land management designations could be included in the final legislative package.

Once a county has opted to participate in the WPLI, each Board of County Commissioners is encouraged to appoint a WPLI Advisory Committee to conduct a collaborative review process of the WSAs and other potential land use interests in their county and to develop and submit a WSA management recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Once approved, the WCCA, in cooperation with the office of the Governor and the offices of the federal delegation, will review the county or regional Advisory Committee recommendations and to the maximum extent practicable, include them in a legislative draft to be introduced in Congress.

In order to ensure the successful enactment of federal legislation addressing Wyoming WSAs, a consistent statewide approach that maximizes stakeholder involvement, through an open and transparent process, is necessary. County WPLI Advisory Committees will be expected to encompass a broad cross-section of public lands stakeholders. With passage of a public lands bill the ultimate goal, the WCCA reserves the right to not include an individual county recommendation into the final Congressional recommendation if the process followed by the county was not collaborative or open and transparent.

Page 1 of 9

County WPLI Guidelines:

In order to maintain statewide consistency, the following procedural structure for developing a county recommendation should be followed:

I. The Board of County Commissioners should appoint members to a WPLI Advisory Committee. The specific make-up of the committee will be left to the discretion of the Commissioners, however, it is expected that the committee include participation by all major stakeholders interested in the subject of public lands designations, including but not limited to: agricultural/ranching, hunting/fishing, energy, motorized and non- motorized recreation, environmental/conservation, local conservation district, and the general public. A county commissioner should also sit on the WPLI Advisory Committee.

Diverse representation on the County Advisory Committee is imperative for the ultimate success of the WPLI. While every officially organized group need not be represented given the scope of the potential work, individuals who legitimately represent diverse interests is critical.

II. The WPLI Advisory Committees shall: a. Select a committee chairman or co-chairmen. b. Conduct all meetings in public, in an open and transparent manner. c. Seek, to the maximum extent practicable, to make consensus based decisions. d. Allow for public comment opportunities at all of the committee’s meetings. e. Take minutes from the committee’s meetings and make those minutes available to the public by providing a copy to the county clerk and to the WCCA for posting on the WCCA’s WPLI hub to be located at www.wyo-wcca.org. f. The committee should gather background information and current data1 on the WSAs within the county, and if warranted, consider additional resource uses, inventories, and management for the given landscape and consider and evaluate this information in the development of the committee’s recommendations. This information should also be made available to the public by providing a copy to the county clerk and the WCCA’s WPLI hub. At a minimum the committee should consider the following information when developing a WSA recommendation: i. The initial recommendation made by the BLM during their FLPMA WSA review; ii. Any changes in the wilderness characteristics since the initial BLM recommendation (including boundary changes); iii. Current uses of the WSA including but not limited to: 1. Livestock grazing and stock trails

1 The local and state offices of the BLM should be able to help provide much of this information.

Page 2 of 9

2. Recreational use (including hunting, fishing, developed recreational trails, camp sites, etc.) 3. Mineral prospecting 4. Pipeline corridors 5. Wildlife use; iv. The presence of any and all valid existing rights; v. Any historical or unique cultural considerations; vi. Presence or absence of potentially developable minerals; vii. Any unique, supplemental or other features including: ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. g. Conduct a public field trip to each individual WSA in order to personally observe the WSA and its wilderness characteristics or lack thereof. During and after the field trip, the committee should focus on and discuss the present use and anticipated future use of the given landscape by itself, but also relative to other lands in the county, region or state. h. While not mandatory, the committee, with the official consent of the Board of County Commissioners, may consider conducting an independent inventory of the WSA/s, as well as any other areas for consideration within an identified landscape. i. Develop a proposed management recommendation for the WSAs within the county, as well as any other areas for consideration. Each recommendation should be accompanied with sufficient rational for the recommendation made. Refer to the section below regarding “Guidelines on Wilderness Designations or Release.” j. As previously noted, the committee may also consider other areas of interest within the county for potential inclusion in its recommendation, including other land use designations, transfers, or other management actions not necessarily related to BLM WSA designation or release. k. The committee should consult with the planning and land use board if such a board exists in the county. l. A draft of the committees proposed management recommendations should be distributed for public comment and the public comment should be adequately considered by the committee. m. After consultation with the land use planning board, if a board exists, and consideration of the public comments, the committee shall present the WSA recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners at a regularly scheduled commissioner meeting.

Page 3 of 9

III. The Board of County Commissioners shall review the WPLI Advisory Committee’s recommendations and take official action to establish a final WPLI recommendation for the county at a regularly scheduled commissioner meeting. Should the BOCC not-approve the recommendation or have further instructions for the Advisory Committee, the BOCC shall remand the recommendation back to the Advisory Committee for further work to reach consensus approval.

IV. The Board of County Commissioners shall forward its approval of the final recommendation and rationale for the recommendation to the Wyoming County Commissioners Association. In addition to the final recommendation, the Commissioners shall also provide to the WCCA during development of the recommendation the following documents for posting on WCCA’s WPLI hub: a. A copy of the minutes from all of the WPLI Advisory Committee meetings; b. All relevant background information gathered by the committee; c. Any information pertaining to the public field trip and impressions noted regarding the wilderness characteristics of the individual WSA/s; d. A copy of the draft committee WPLI recommendation; and e. A copy of public comments received on the draft recommendation, and the WPLI committee recommendation as it was initially presented to the commissioners.

V. Following receipt of county recommendations, the WCCA in conjunction with the office of the Governor and the federal congressional delegation, will review the recommendations for consistency and develop one legislative bill for introduction in the U.S. House and Senate.

Timeline and Oversight:

Counties participating in the WPLI should strive to put in place the Advisory Committee during the winter/spring of 2015/2016. Field trips to WSAs and other lands of interest should commence in the spring/summer/fall of 2016. Further work on recommendations and specific agreements should be developed, with additional field trips established in 2017. Final recommendations should be advanced to the WCCA in early 2018.

Counties and the appointed WPLI Advisory Committees will have wide latitude to determine meeting times, topics, and deadlines. The WCCA staff, the office of the Governor, the offices of the federal delegation, and any third-party consultant hired by the WCCA may attend meetings and field trips, and work with the committee and county to ensure timely consideration of the issues in the county, and to assist in coordination with other counties in a regional effort. While the goal is to advance one legislative package, the WCCA must be cognizant of legislative calendars so as to maximize opportunities for success.

Page 4 of 9

Guidelines on Designations, Release, or other management decisions:

The designation or release of the WSAs in a county or region serves as the anchor to the WPLI. However, counties should not limit discussions solely to full designation or release. Many management and designation tools are available and can be employed.. The remainder of these guidelines is intended to define the ends of the spectrum (full wilderness designations or full release) as well as potential middle of the road approaches.

I. Wilderness Designation for WSAs or areas with wilderness character

There are two options that exist within the category of a wilderness designation: 1) designate a WSA as a wilderness area in strict conformity with the Wilderness Act (all prohibitions and special provisions contained in the Wilderness Act would apply); or 2) in designating the WSA as something short of a wilderness area, allow for additional uses that are not otherwise allowed under the Wilderness Act.

Option 1: Designation of a wilderness area in conformity with the Wilderness Act.

FLPMA states that “[o]nce an area has been designated for preservation as wilderness, the provisions of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.] which apply to national forest wilderness areas shall apply with respect to the administration and use of such designated area, including mineral surveys required by section 4(d)(2) of the Wilderness Act, [16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(2)] and mineral development, access, exchange of lands and ingress and egress for mining claimants and occupants.”2

If Congress designates a WSA as a wilderness area without including additional language in the enacting statute, management of the wilderness area will be controlled by the Wilderness Act per the language in FLPMA.

Option 2: Provide for additional uses in the recommended management area that are not provided for under the Wilderness Act.

The language establishing each management area may include management provisions and uses not typically afforded under the Wilderness Act. For example, in some cases special provisions have been incorporated into the legislation providing specific direction to manage for multiple uses, which may also include wilderness character, on an identified landscape. Such provisions could be a tool of compromise for WPLI Advisory Committees to explore.

2 43 U.S.C. 1782(c).

Page 5 of 9

In determining whether to make a recommendation to designate a wilderness area, it is important to consider Congress’ definition of a wilderness area, as defined in the Wilderness Act, as well as consideration of the prohibitions and special provisions contained in the Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Characteristics: The Wilderness Act defines wilderness character with the following four mandatory qualities and a fifth optional quality3: 1) Untrammeled. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” 2) Natural. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” 3) Undeveloped. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is an area “of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation,” “where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,” and “with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” 4) Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” 5) (Optional) Unique, Supplemental, or Other Features. The Wilderness Act states that wilderness areas “may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

Prohibitions: The Wilderness Act includes the following prohibitions4:  No commercial enterprises;  No permanent roads except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the Wilderness Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area);  No temporary roads;  No use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats;  No landing of aircraft;  No mechanical transport (including bicycles and game carts);  No structures;  No installations.

3 16 U.S.C. 1131(c). 4 Id. at 1133(c)

Page 6 of 9

Special Provisions: The Wilderness Act also includes the following special provisions:  Valid existing rights – any of the ten prohibited uses may be allowed where a valid right exists. Valid existing rights must have been: in existence on the date of the wilderness designation and have been either: created by a legally binding conveyance, lease, deed, contract or other document; or otherwise provided for by Federal law.5  The use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established, may be permitted to continue subject to such restrictions as the Secretary deems desirable. 6  Such measure may be taken as may be necessary in control of fire, insects, and disease, subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.7  Activities including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if carried out in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment is permitted.8  The wilderness area will be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the USGS and the US Bureau of Mines to determine if valuable minerals are present, the results of the surveys shall be made available to the public and submitted to the President and Congress.9  The President may authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest including road construction and maintenance essential to the development and use thereof, upon his termination that such uses will better serve the interest of the United States.10  Livestock grazing, where established prior to 1964, shall be permitted to continue to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary.11  Commercial services may be permitted within the wilderness area to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the area.12

5 Id. 6 Id. at 1133(d)(1) 7 Id. 8 Id. at 1133(d)(2) 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 1133(d)(4). 12 Id. at 1133 (d)(5).

Page 7 of 9

II. WSA Release Recommendation

In determining whether a WSA should be released to multiple use, WPLI Advisory Committees should consider multiple options for releasing WSA’s including:

a. Hard release: full and permanent release for multiple use management without further restrictions or evaluation of the areas wilderness characteristics. i. For an example of “hard release” language, see the language below that was included in Senator Barrasso’s Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 which was introduced and forwarded to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2011: “(c) Management. Public lands released by subsection (a) shall be managed by the Bureau of Land Management in accordance with the land use plan applicable to the lands developed pursuant to section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712). (d) Prohibition. The Secretary of the Interior may not promulgate or issue any system-wide regulation, directive, or order that would direct management of the public lands released by subsection (a) in a manner contrary to the applicable land use plan.”13

b. Soft release: the area would be released from management as a WSA, it would be managed for multiple use, but consideration of the areas wilderness or other resource characteristics would be allowed in the future. The agency would be allowed to consider protection of special values of the area in future land use planning processes. i. For an example of “soft release” language, see the language below that was included in Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2011 which was introduced and forwarded to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2011: “c) Release. Any study area described in subsection (b) that is not designated as a wilderness area by section 203 (1) is no longer subject to section 603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); and (2) shall be managed in accordance with the applicable land management plans adopted under section 202 of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1712).”14

III. Directed Management:

13 S. 1087, 112th Cong. § 1 (2011). 14 S. 268, 112th Cong. § 1 (2011).

Page 8 of 9

Direction can also be provided to the BLM and Forest Service on how to specially manage the released WSAs, as well as any other areas for consideration within an identified landscape in the future. There are several options available including national conservation areas and special management areas that can protect conservation values while allowing specified land uses to continue. Additionally, directed management could include targeted transfers, exchanges, or conveyances and/or other options that improve off-highway vehicle, mountain bike, or other activities.

Page 9 of 9

TETON COUNTY & WYOMING PUBLIC LANDS INITIATIVE SITUATION ASSESSMENT AND PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS

June 15, 2016

Prepared for

Teton County Board of County Commissioners Jackson, WY

Prepared by

The Ruckelshaus Institute Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources The University of Wyoming

By Selena Gerace Steve Smutko

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ii Introduction and Overview ...... ii Description of the Assessment Process and Methodology ...... ii Findings: Summary of Key Points ...... ii Conclusions and Recommendations ...... iii

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1 The Ruckelshaus Institute and the Purpose of This Assessment ...... 1 Background ...... 1

DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ...... 3

FINDINGS: STAKEHOLDER INTEREST AND CAPACITY FOR A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS ...... 4 Stakeholders’ Connections to the Palisades and Shoal Creek Wilderness Study Areas ...... 4 Prior Experience with and Perceptions of Collaborative Stakeholder Processes ...... 6 Barriers to a Collaborative Process ...... 8 Ingredients of a Successful Outcome ...... 9 Process and Logistical Considerations ...... 10

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS...... 11

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 15

APPENDIX A – LIST OF COMPLETED INTERVIEWS ...... 17

APPENDIX B – EMAIL SENT TO STAKEHOLDERS ...... 18

APPENDIX C – INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...... 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction and Overview The Wyoming County Commissioners Association has organized the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI), a process to bring stakeholders together to determine the future of the 45 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) throughout the state. The Teton County Board of Commissioners requested assistance from the Ruckelshaus Institute of the Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming to conduct an assessment of the potential for establishing a WPLI Advisory Committee -- a collaborative, stakeholder driven process to develop consensus-based recommendations regarding the final designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs.

The purpose of this stakeholder assessment is to assist the Teton County Commissioners in evaluating whether the issues surrounding developing recommendations on final designation of the WSAs are amenable to collaborative problem solving. This assessment is based on information gathered from interviews with 25 stakeholders regarding their experience with the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs and their perceptions on collaborative processes.

Description of the Assessment Process and Methodology This assessment is based on confidential, voluntary interviews with 25 stakeholders who represent a range of interests and connections to the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs. These stakeholder groups consist of the motorized/mechanized and non-motorized/mechanized recreation, environmental conservation groups, Forest Service representatives, outfitters, business owners, and community members.

Each interview consisted of questions regarding participants’ experience with collaborative processes, as well as participants’ perceptions on the potential for a collaborative process to be successful in building consensus on the recommendations for final designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs.

Findings: Summary of Key Points Interview Results Results from the interviews showed that, while some stakeholders doubt that a collaborative process will actually result in final designation of the WSAs, most believe that discussion of this issue is important and overdue. Furthermore, many expressed their belief that discussion of the issue is inevitable since the Forest Service will have to address it during their forest planning, and it would be beneficial for the county commissioners to organize the process and begin sooner rather than later.

Most stakeholders are optimistic that organizations and individuals will work collaboratively and discuss the issues in good faith. Though some are skeptical about the potential for an Advisory

Committee to produce meaningful outcomes, many still believe it could be beneficial for the community to discuss the issue and give individuals and groups and opportunity to voice their opinions and be heard.

Most stakeholders believe that if a process is either not undertaken or is unsuccessful, the outcome would be maintaining status quo. Some believe the status quo is acceptable while others do not.

Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results gathered from the stakeholder interviews, the Ruckelshaus Institute concludes that the potential exists for stakeholders to work together in a collaborative process and make substantial progress toward consensus-based recommendations regarding the final designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs in Teton County. In our analysis, there was no single factor that would negate the ability for a collaborative process to be potentially successful. Most respondents we interviewed were amenable to engaging in such a process and believe that collaboration holds promise for meeting their interests. Though there is some level of skepticism among many respondents about the potential for success in a collaborative process, most also believe a collaborative process is their best opportunity to have their interests heard, considered, and met.

Two potential “red flags” need to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners if they choose to convene a Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee. First is the validity of Teton County’s involvement in the development of recommendations on future WSA management through the WCCA’s Wyoming Public Lands Initiative. On this issue, many stakeholders do not agree. We identified two separate frames regarding the issues to be resolved: the first frame being the validity of the WPLI, the second being the potential incompatibility of the substantive issues. When deciding whether and how to convene a WPLI Advisory Committee, the Teton Board of County Commissioners must segregate these arguments or frames. A decision to convene a local advisory committee implies that the Commission has some confidence that a set of recommendations on future use and management of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs can be developed through stakeholder deliberation and these recommendations can be carried forward in whole to a debate in Congress.

The second red flag is the potential incompatibility of stakeholder interests. The Teton County case is not unique in this respect. All WPLI advisory committees will need to overcome this potential barrier. Generally speaking, this conflict can be overcome if the parties are able to expand the range of potential options to enable all key interests to be satisfied. The ability for stakeholders to entertain ideas that expand the range of possibility, including consideration of lands outside the current WSA boundaries, or designing management options that allow multiple uses while protecting wilderness characteristics, will expand the zone of possible agreement.

iii

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Ruckelshaus Institute and the Purpose of This Assessment The Wyoming County Commissioners Association has organized the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI), a process to bring stakeholders together to determine the future of the 45 Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) throughout the state. The Teton County Board of Commissioners requested assistance from the Ruckelshaus Institute of the Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming to conduct an assessment of the potential for establishing a WPLI Advisory Committee -- a collaborative, stakeholder driven process to develop consensus-based recommendations regarding the final designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs.

The Ruckelshaus Institute, a division of the Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming, advances the understanding and resolution of complex environmental and natural resources challenges and supports stakeholder-driven solutions to environmental challenges by communicating relevant research and promoting collaborative decision making. The Ruckelshaus Institute has experience and expertise in conducting stakeholder assessments, as well as convening and facilitating collaborative problem-solving processes.

Participants represented motorized/mechanized and non-motorized/mechanized recreation, environmental conservation groups, Forest Service representatives, outfitters, business owners, and community members. Each 90-minute interview employed traditional interview questions to obtain qualitative data that was used by the Ruckelshaus Institute to determine if a collaborative problem solving process is an appropriate method for the Teton County Commissioners develop recommendations regarding the final designation of Wilderness Study Areas in Teton County.

Background The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a system of managing federally owned lands designated as Wilderness Areas so they would be preserved and protected for their wilderness qualities and so they would be available for the use and enjoyment of the American people. The Wilderness Act also stipulated that additional lands could only be granted the designation of Wilderness Area through an act of Congress.

Wilderness Areas are protected and managed by federal agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS). These lands are managed to be available for recreational, scenic, 1 scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use. Commercial enterprises and permanent roads are prohibited within their boundaries. Furthermore, motorized vehicles, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport are also prohibited; exceptions being allowed only in emergency situations in which the health or safety of people are threatened.

The Wilderness Act also required that primitive lands within national forests be studied and evaluated by the Secretary of Agriculture to determine if they met the qualifications to be Wilderness Areas. The Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) states that these Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) must be managed so they retain their wilderness qualities until Congress decides their final designation or releases them.

The 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act created many of Wyoming Wilderness Areas and some of its WSAs. Today, Wyoming contains a total of 15 Wilderness Areas (over 4 million acres) and 45 Wilderness Study Areas. The BLM manages 42 of these WSAs (577,000 acres) and the USFS manages the other three WSAs (130,000 acres). Two of these WSAs are (at least partially) within Teton County—the Palisades WSA and the Shoal Creek WSA.

Of the 134,500 acres of the Palisades WSA, 81,500 are managed by the Bridger-Teton National Forest and 53,000 are managed by the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. A specific and concrete management plan for Wyoming’s 45 WSAs has remained elusive and uses not consistent with the 1964 Wilderness Act have been occurring. Notably, the 1984 Wyoming Wilderness Act grandfathered in two forms of motorized recreation within the Palisades WSA-- snowmobiling and heli-skiing. Though use was supposed to be prevented from expanding past 1984 use-level, records of 1984 use-level are limited and disputed, causing uncertainty about what is acceptable. The USFS has struggled to curtail expanded use, particularly of snowmobiling, due to the lack of data and limited staff available for enforcement. Additionally, mountain biking and motorized ORV use have increased, some of which is allowable by the current travel management plans.

In November of 2015, the Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) launched the Wyoming Public Land Initiative (WPLI) with the goal of developing a legislative lands package to addresses the final designation or release of the 45 Wilderness Study Areas in Wyoming. The WCCA wants the lands package to have the support of public lands stakeholders throughout Wyoming. Though the WPLI primarily is focused on the WSAs, other long-standing land use challenges in the state will also be considered.

The WCCA is inviting all 23 counties to participate in the WPLI. Participation is voluntary and will be made by each county, but the WCCA strongly recommends counties containing WSA within their boundaries to participate and form a WPLI Advisory Committee. Advisory Committees will consist of stakeholders representing diverse interests and will work together to develop management recommendations, which will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY This situation assessment was initiated with a review of background information and reports obtained through an independent research process. Information gathered included documents produced by the Wyoming County Commissioners Association1, the U.S. Forest Service2 3, and an unofficial report produced by a participant in the Collaboration Program in Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming4. This review of background information provided the authors with a basic understanding of the issues related to the WSAs and the stakeholders involved, enough to begin the formulation of an assessment strategy.

The assessment conducted by the Ruckelshaus Institute is based on data gathered from in- person and telephone interviews of stakeholders in Teton County, and other stakeholders outside the region who had a demonstrated interest in the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs. With the assistance of members of the Teton County Commissioners and The Wilderness Society, the authors compiled a list of 46 organizations and individuals to interview. The authors narrowed down the list to 29. These individuals were emailed and called to schedule interviews. Follow-up emails and calls were made to find a convenient time for the interview. Not all stakeholders contacted successfully scheduled an interview. In total, 25 stakeholders were interviewed for this assessment. Selena Gerace conducted the interviews in May and June 2016. Each interview took on average of 45 minutes. Table 1 provides a summary of the stakeholder groups and the number of respondents belonging to each group. A list of the individuals interviewed for this assessment is contained in Appendix A.

The interviews consisted of a set of open-ended questions designed to elicit information about the potential for the application of a collaborative, consensus-seeking process for developing recommendations regarding the final designation of Wilderness Study Areas in Teton County. Respondents answered questions regarding their prior experience with collaborative processes, their assessment of the potential of common ground on WSA final designation and use, and logistical details necessary to engage in a collaborative process.

1 Wyoming County Commissioners Association, 2015. “Wyoming Public Lands Initiative: Principles and Guidelines.” WCCA.

2 Bridger Teton National Forest, 2009. “Forest Plan Revision--2009, Appendix 2-C.” BTNF.

3 Forest Service, 2010. “Palisades Resource Are 85,032 acres: Summer/Fall Assessment.” USFS

4 Smitherman, Dan, 2016. “Palisades Area Assessment.” Unpublished Report for Collaborative Program in Natural Resources. Ruckelshaus Institute of the University of Wyoming.

Table 1. Attributes of Participants

Organization/Interest Group:

6 Motorized/mechanized recreation 5 Non-motorized mechanized recreation 1 Outfitters 3 Land Management Agencies 10 Environmental Conservation

FINDINGS: STAKEHOLDER INTEREST AND CAPACITY FOR A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS Stakeholders were asked a series of questions pertaining to their experience and perceptions on collaborative processes in general, as well as their views on what factors would either allow and/or prohibit the success of a collaborative process pertaining to final designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs. These questions were designed to aid the Ruckelshaus Institute in determining if there is stakeholder interest and capacity to engage in a collaborative problem solving process on the potential issues that might arise in the deliberation of WSA designation.

The authors offered interviewees confidentiality to encourage them to be candid in our conversations. In addition, as is required by the University of Wyoming, interviewees were either given or told about the minimal potential risk to participating in the survey. As was explained to the interviewees, this final report reflects what the authors heard in the interviews, but we have not attributed specific information to specific individuals or organizations. The authors express their gratitude to those interviewed for sharing their experiences and opinions freely. The interview protocol is contained in Appendices B.

Stakeholders’ Connections to the Palisades and Shoal Creek Wilderness Study Areas Stakeholders were asked to describe their connection to the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs, including how long they have been involved with these WSA, how they use them, and what qualities they believe are important about them. The purpose of these questions was to gain an improved understanding of the relationship each of stakeholder has to the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs—their history, interactions, and interest areas.

Most stakeholders expressed a strong connection to and interest in the WSAs, especially the Palisades. Many said they have been involved with the land for decades, some for their entire lives, and have an emotional investment in how the land is managed and used.

An interest shared by many stakeholders is the use of these WSAs for recreation. Enthusiasts of motorized/mechanized recreation (mountain biking, snowmobiling, heli-skiing, and ORV use) want to continue to be able to use the WSAs and are concerned about losing access. This is illustrated by one interviewer’s comment in regards to the motorized recreation use in the Palisades: “It’s our last area that is valuable to numerous valley residents. Especially since we’ve already lost the east side of the valley to wilderness.”

However, enthusiasts of non-motorized/mechanized recreation (hunting, angling, hiking, backpacking, equestrian, backcountry skiing, and bird-watching) do not see motorized/mechanized recreation use to be compatible with their values. “When I’m hiking I don’t want to worry about bikers rolling over me,” said another interviewee.

Another widespread interest expressed by many stakeholders is protecting the wilderness qualities of the WSAs. The conservation-minded stakeholders believe it is important to preserve the areas for their biodiversity/ecological values such as the protection of wildlife and wildlife habitats, and the preservation of air quality/water quality. They also value these areas for the solitude they provide due to their wilderness characteristics—characteristics that some believe are becoming increasingly scarce. One conservationist stated, “It’s a quality that many people don’t get to experience. Areas that aren’t managed are becoming more and more rare […] We’re losing that quality at a tremendous speed and in three generations we won’t have the option of saving wild areas.”

Conversely, other stakeholders do not believe the WSAs are in danger of being overrun and do not need such stringent protection. One motorized/mechanized recreation proponent stated that the rough terrain prevents excessive motorized recreation and ensures plenty of opportunities for quiet recreation unhampered by motorists. He said, “The Palisades doesn’t receive a lot of traffic due to the terrain—that’s why it’s unique. It still provides a lot of solitude. It’s been an asset to a lot of folks due to the tranquility. It’s not highly populated due to user groups.”

Additionally, several other stakeholders are interested in the WSAs for economic reasons. For example some commercial outfitters and heli-skiers believe access to their WSAs are vital for the economic stability of their businesses. They also cite the financial difficulty it would put on them if they were banned from the Palisades, especially in light of the access to public lands that they have already lost. One motorized professional said, “At this point we’re just eking out a living in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.” Another stakeholder with economic interests in the WSAs, sited his family’s long history on these lands as evidence of his right to continue using them: “We want to maintain the heritage that we have. Many of us were born and raised here and our history goes back many generations. We want to maintain the use we currently have and not see it restricted. More regulation interferes with our heritage.”

Prior Experience with and Perceptions of Collaborative Stakeholder Processes Stakeholders were next asked about their experiences and opinions on collaborative processes. The purpose of these questions was to gain an understanding of how multi-party negotiations were perceived within the community, and how these perceptions might impact the participation of stakeholders in future processes.

Overall, stakeholders have a positive opinion of collaborative groups and believe they are beneficial. One interviewee stated her belief in the value of getting diverse groups of people together to talk about the issues by staying: “Often I think there’s a lot of value in just talking to people. If you talk to people, animosity fades and you understand that everyone is complicated with many parts and you can agree on some things, disagree on others, and still be friends.”

Many stakeholders expressed their belief that groups work well together when they have similar values and that most people in Teton County share a deep appreciation for the land. One interviewee declared his belief that this core value would help a collaborative process be successful when saying, “Lots of groups work well together. Everyone shares a passion for the land. And they have a fairly good sophisticated understanding of land issues.”

However, stakeholders do have some concerns about collaborative processes. In particular, they worry that even when collaborate groups are formed, the members of the group are not always willing to collaborate. A representative of motorized/mechanized-use said, “Seems like most people are willing to come to the table and collaborate in theory. But when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of the situation, it doesn’t always happen.”

Additionally, some stakeholders doubt that collaborative groups are effective. One interviewee described her experience on a collaborative team as ‘disillusioning’ because the recommendations the team generated were not followed. She said, “I’m skeptical of collaborative processes in general because agencies may not follow recommendations.”

The overwhelming sentiment among stakeholders is that the success of a collaboration depends on how it’s approached. For example, if people are open to options and if the group is inclusive, it can be a positive experience. This belief is illustrated by one interviewee's comment that, “If done respectfully and with an open mind, [collaborative processes] are the way to go. But to be effective, it has to have all the interests represented.”

When asked whether they believe all parties with a stake in WSA designation and management could work collaboratively and discuss the issues in good faith, the majority of stakeholders said, yes, they believe it is absolutely possible if it is organized correctly. “Yes,” said one stakeholder, “if you run a good process and you bring people together.”

Almost all stakeholders said they have worked well with many diverse interest groups. For example, the equestrian and mountain biking communities, commercial businesses and the

Forest Service, and backcountry horsemen, hunters, anglers, and environmental organizations all reported having positive experience interacting on issues and developing solutions.

However, there is doubt among stakeholders that groups with opposing interests will be able to work together on controversial issues. As one interviewee said: “I don’t think they will be [able to work well together] on something more controversial—when they begin at opposite ends of the spectrum.” Particularly, several stakeholders who represent motorized/mechanized-use and commercial interests expressed concern that the conservation groups will not be willing to work with other interest groups and that the conservation groups have a disproportionate amount of power. One motorized/mechanized representative said, “There are so many [conservation groups]. They use their power to band together and it can be hard for smaller user groups who aren’t as well organized or as well funded.” But, the same stakeholders who had these concerns also expressed hope that conservation groups could compromise since they have in the past. “There is a history of conservationists bending and being flexible. But it can take a long time”

Conservation advocates expressed concern about the pressure placed on them to compromise when they believe they already have compromised. One conservationist voiced these concerns by saying, “I get frustrated when we are told we need to compromise. Well, we have compromised. We’ve give up a lot. In the Palisades, mountain bikers have constructed illegal trails. Already we’ve had to give up parts of the Palisades.” However, conservation advocates did express openness to compromise if there are options for mutual gain. For example, if other land (beside the WSAs) were included in the discussions and there was the potential for converting them to wilderness. Another conservationist said, “If they want us to give up parts of the WSAs, what other areas can they give us.”

When asked if all parties could work together collaboratively, some conservation-minded stakeholders said they don’t believe it matters if they can or cannot because these are federal lands and the state has no jurisdiction over them. One interviewee said, “I believe it’s wrong for the county to hold these collaborative discussions about public lands.” And, another interview expressed his concerns about the county commissioners getting involved by saying, ”None of the players that are being talked about right now have the power to make decisions. I’m highly skeptical that this is going to succeed. It may not do much damage, but it could.”

However, the majority of stakeholders (including representatives of motorized/mechanized use, non-motorized/mechanized use, land management agencies, outfitting, and some conservationists) are in favor of a collaborative process and believe it will be a positive experience so long as the right people are chosen for the Advisory Committee and it’s run well. “You need to get the right representatives from each user groups, people who are willing to listen to all sides, people who are willing to compromise,” said one interviewee. Another said, “Everyone will come to the table with their agenda. It’s the job of facilitators to dial that down and concentrate on interests.”

Barriers to a Collaborative Process Stakeholders were next asked to identify what they believe to be the most significant barriers to success of a collaborative process on the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSA issues. Listed below are the major barriers the stakeholders identified: · Competing interests that cannot all be satisfied · Unwillingness to compromise, listen, or let go of positions · Skepticism about the process and the county commissioners involvement · Framing the issue as a zero-sum game (i.e. limiting the scope of the project by only looking at the WSAs instead of considering all the other areas with potential wilderness qualities) · Inequality of resources (e.g. the big advocacy groups have more resources than the small or unorganized groups) · Participants’ lack of knowledge about the Wilderness Act, NEPA process, and public land management · Lack of transparency and timely/accurate information · Lack of inclusivity (i.e. leaving out some key interest groups) · Lack of time, money and resources required to run a collaborative process

Stakeholders were then asked how they believed these barriers could be overcome. A few said they do not believe the barriers can be overcome, but the majority believe it is possible. Overwhelmingly, stakeholders said they think getting the right representative from each interest group will be paramount. One interviewee fervently asserted that the only way to overcome the barriers is to have people who are, “willing to compromise and listen.”

Other ideas about how barriers could be overcome included setting up a balanced committee, using neutral facilitation, having clear ground rules, making the process transparent, having adequate resources and quality data, focusing on interests instead of positions, and giving everyone an opportunity to be heard. “People need a voice,” said one stakeholder, “Being disenfranchised is the worst.”

Concern was expressed about the county commissioners taking on this process, even if the right people are brought to the table. Several stakeholders believe the county may spend time and resources on a collaborative process but no tangible outcomes will result due to conflicting interests and unwillingness of some parties to compromise. However, the possibility of opening up the discussion to include the management of lands outside the WSA was suggested as a way this barrier could be offset. One conservation-minded interviewee said, “Open it up and talk about other wilderness-quality lands in Teton County. […] Otherwise we’re just whittling down the WSA without adding any other land.”

Additionally, even some stakeholders who do not believe all the barriers could be overcome, still believe the process may have some benefits. For example, one stakeholder said the process could begin aid understanding about an issue that will have to be addressed when the FS revises their Forest Plan in 2017 anyway: “Even if they can’t be overcome, we might more forward with understanding. The conversation has to happen. That’s not a reason to not try.”

Ingredients of a Successful Outcome The stakeholders were asked what they would consider to be a successful outcome from a collaborative process. While a few said they did not think a successful outcome could be achieved, most were optimistic that it would be possible. Opinions about what that successful outcome would look like were varied.

Many stakeholders said that what they want most is a concrete final designation. WSAs do not have a clear management plan so there is disagreement about what is allowed to occur on the land and what is not. As one land management agency representative stated, a successful outcome would be clarity: “The FS having a clear vision of what they are doing within each WSA would enable effective management. Right now they don’t know what to do because there’s no clarity.”

Many stakeholders want to maintain access to the WSAs for multi-use activities, including motorized/mechanized and non-motorized/mechanized recreation. This means, of course, they would not consider a designation of Wilderness to be a successful outcome. As said by one advocate for multi-use, “There’s lots of land around Jackson Hole where you can only hike or ride a horse. There’s less land available to mountain bikers and dirt bikers. If they make more wilderness, it takes big chunks of land away from these users.”

The goal of conservation advocates is to gain more area protected as Wilderness. Several expressed that they think a successful outcome would be full Wilderness designation for all the WSAs. And some said that success would be achieved by opening the discussion up to include lands other than WSAs: “I can imagine that we could come out with something better than what we have right now—a greater protected area than we currently have. I really hope that’s on the table. I dislike the focus on [only the] WSAs for this process.”

Some conservation advocates also expressed that, even though they want as much of the land to be protected as wilderness as possible, they believe some form of compromise could satisfy their interests. “I would love to see all of it designated as Wilderness but I don’t think that will happen. And I think there’s a compromise in the middle.”

Even some stakeholders who oppose the county commissioners moving forward with this process concede that, though it may not result in final designation, an Advisory Committee could have some benefits in terms of education and involvement of multiple interest groups; however, there may be some drawbacks also: “There are some opportunities for useful discussion and sharing of information,” said one interviewee, “But it will be wearing and unlikely to produce a result.”

When asked what the potential consequences might be to them or others if a process was either not successful or not undertaken at all most said it would mean the status quo would be maintained. There were mixed opinions about if the status quo is acceptable.

Some conservation advocates are satisfied with the status quo, believing that the lands are well protected under the WSA designation and there is little chance of a final designation resulting from the WPLI anyway. One stakeholder said, “I’m quite happy with the status quo. I have very little faith that this will move all the way through to Washington. I don’t think there will be support for Wilderness designation higher up the food chain.” Further, some actually believe it will be better to not address this issue now since the result of it not succeeding could deplete civic energy: “I would rather see it not undertaken at all than not successful. That would just discourage people.”

Other conservation advocates are concerned about the consequences of continued lack of clarity in how WSAs should be managed. Without certainty in management, uses not allowed under the Wilderness designation could expand and diminish the characteristics many value, as stated by one interviewee, if a collaborative process is not undertaken “There will be no strong management directive and wilderness qualities may be whittled away. If this happens the areas could lose the potential to ever be designated as wilderness.”

Additionally, some stakeholders expressed concerns that if an Advisory Committee is not formed it will negatively impact the community because people will not have an opportunity to express their opinions or be heard: “If it changes to wilderness and there is no collaborative process in place, people will feel a lack of respect—that they didn’t’ have a voice and weren’t’ able to give feedback.”

Process and Logistical Considerations After explaining that collaborative processes strive to be as inclusive as possible with all relevant parties engaged, the stakeholders were asked who they believe should be involved in the process. The list created by stakeholders mostly mirrored the list generated at the outset of the assessment, and included: · Motorized/mechanized recreation · Non-motorized/mechanized recreation · Environmental conservation · Land management agencies · Outfitters · Hunting · Grazing/Agriculture · Commercial organizations · Equestrian · Homeowners associations

The next question in this series was if the stakeholder would be interested in participating in a collaborative effort. Many stakeholders enthusiastically expressed a desire to be included on the Advisory Committee, especially those that represented organizations with a strong interest in the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs. A few expressed concerns about time and financial

commitments and a few others said they didn’t think they were the best representative from their interest groups but could help identify better candidates. Additionally a couple of stakeholders said they either didn’t think it would be appropriate for them to be on the committee or that their involvement would depend on who else was on the committee and what was on the table for discussion. The list of stakeholders willing to serve on an advisory committee are contained in a separate document and provided to the Teton Board of County Commissioners.

The last series of questions focused on the logistical limitations and needs of the stakeholder with regard to their ability to participate in a collaborative process. The purpose of these questions was to gain an understanding of how a process might be structured in order to ensure maximum availability and participation by the stakeholders.

Most stakeholders said they would not have any constraints that would prevent them from participating. There was a great deal of commitment among the interviewees, many stating that they would make this a priority. Of those that did foresee potential constrains, the primary concern was a lack of time, particularly in the summer months.

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS To assess whether a collaborative process is appropriate for the Teton County Commissioners to develop recommendations for final designation of WSAs, we will analyse the findings of our interviews with stakeholders. In his book The Meditation Process5, Christopher Moore lists several elements that make a public issue amenable to collaboration. By considering these elements, we can outline the dynamics of the conflict, which will help determine the potential for collaboration and the potential barriers to collaboration. These elements we analyze are:

● Parties are not happy with the status quo and/or parties view alternatives to collaborative process as undesirable. ● Parties are interdependent and must rely on the cooperation of one another to meet their goals and satisfy their needs. ● Parties are likely to agree on issues to be negotiated. ● Key interests of the parties are not entirely incompatible. ● It is possible to identify the primary parties and involve them in the problem solving process. ● Deadlines or time constraints pressure the parties into sharing the desire for a prompt solution. ● External influences exist which encourage the parties to reach a negotiated settlement.

5 Moore, Christopher, 1986. The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parties are not happy with the status quo and/or parties view alternatives to collaborative process as undesirable. When bringing stakeholders together to negotiate future land use designations for WSAs, if one or more parties is entirely satisfied with maintaining the status quo -- that the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs retain their present designation and management as Wilderness Study Areas -- then discussions about changing future designation of lands within WSAs would not be fruitful. Some conservationists we interviewed believe that maintaining the status quo would be preferable to the possible outcomes of negotiation. However, most stakeholders, including most of the conservationists we interviewed, expressed considerable concern about the continued lack of certainty in how the WSAs should be managed. Many believe that this uncertainty will lead to further conflict between user groups and further degradation of the wilderness qualities of the WSAs. As such, most parties view the alternatives to a collaborative process, i.e., maintaining the status quo, as undesirable. This is especially true considering that this issue will be addressed by the USFS in their 2017 Forest Plan Revision, and that the WCCA is planning to form a legislative land package with recommendations on other WSAs regardless of whether Teton County participates. Most stakeholders want to have a voice in this process.

Parties are interdependent and must rely on the cooperation of one another to meet their goals and satisfy their needs. If one or more key parties were able to act unitarily to meet their interests, then a collaborative decision-making process would not be possible. In developing recommendations for final designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs all parties are interdependent. Any group that is interested in changing the status of these WSAs must work with other parties to make decisions about their future designation. No one party has the power to unilaterally decide how the lands will be used or designated. For all groups to satisfy their needs, they must work together to develop mutually beneficial solutions.

Parties are likely to agree on the issues to be negotiated. Parties must agree on the issues to be resolved through a collaborative process, that is, they must agree to work on the same problem, together. When determining if parties are likely to come to agreement on a recommendation for final designation of WSAs in Teton County, there are two frames through which the stakeholders we interviewed view the issues.

The first frame is the issue of whether the WCCA should even be leading this effort. A few stakeholders have strong reservations about the WCCA being involved in a federal land management issue. They believe it is not the WCCA’s jurisdiction and that many County Commissioners are not sufficiently informed about federal land management and protection to adequately address this issue. Furthermore, some stakeholders are skeptical that any legislative package developed by the WCCA will result in tangible outcomes since they believe it is unlikely to be passed by Congress. This frame encompasses the argument about whether or how the State of Wyoming should engage stakeholders in making decisions about future management of WSAs.

The second frame comprises issues regarding use and access of federal lands between conservation groups and other interest groups (including motorized/mechanized users, outfitters, and commercial interests). Most stakeholders we interviewed agree that the issues to be negotiated involve future use and access of federally managed lands in Teton County, and most of them felt that there was potential for fruitful negotiations of these issues (more on this in the next section).

These two frames represent policy decisions of different scales and cannot both be addressed through the action of convening a Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee. Whether the State should be convening groups to make recommendations for a potential Wyoming Wilderness Bill is not germane to the more local issue of whether a potential Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee could reach agreement on recommendations regarding the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs.

Key interests of the parties are not entirely incompatible. Compatibility of key interests implies that all parties’ most important interests can be met through negotiation. In other words, the negotiation setting or situation must be “integrative”. An integrative situation is one in which, “[t]o the degree that one person achieves his or her goal, the other’s goals are not necessarily blocked, and may in fact be significantly enhanced.”6 In an integrative situation parties are able to create potential solutions to satisfy both their own interests and the interests of other parties.

It is important in this analysis that we separate the stated positions of the stakeholders we interviewed from their interests. For example, the position of some stakeholders is to establish wilderness designation on all (or most) lands within the WSA. Their interests may be that they want to protect the wilderness character of these lands, which could open the door to a range of solution possibilities including wilderness designation for some areas, and multiple use recommendations in other areas that still meet their interests. Even many of those whom we interviewed that expressed a desire to protect as much land as possible also expressed a willingness to negotiate. Considering the varied terrain and overall size of the landscapes that could be included in this discussion, there may be significant potential for stakeholders to create a number of viable options for satisfying key stakeholder interests.

Trust is another issue that came up in the interviews that may hinder the ability for stakeholders to find common ground. Some stakeholders expressed a significant degree of distrust with other stakeholder groups. Specifically, some in the motorized/mechanized interest groups are distrusting of the willingness of some in the conservation community to compromise. On the other hand, there are also many stakeholders (including representatives from motorized/mechanized use, conservation groups, and land management agencies) who believe there is sufficient trust and ample room for agreement. They believe that stakeholders share

6 Lewicki, Roy J., et al, 2010. Negotiation. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. 13

common values and are open to listening to each other which will allow them to come to compromises that everyone can agree on.

The user-group with the highest likelihood of not being able to meet their interests through negotiation are the heli-skiers. Their need for specific terrain may limit the options available to them in the Palisades WSA and surrounding areas. Designation of the area currently used for heli-skiing as wilderness will eliminate this use at that location. This may be a situation in which interests are incompatible and there is not sufficient potential in the realm of possible solutions.

It is possible to identify the primary parties and involve them in the problem solving process. In some situations, the primary stakeholders are not organized by interest group or their interests cannot be represented by a single party in a negotiation, making it difficult to convene a collaborative process. This is not the case regarding the Teton County WSA issue. Interested and invested stakeholders are easily identified, and many have expressed willingness to participate in a dialogue to develop recommendations for how the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs should be managed. Forming an Advisory Committee would give stakeholders an opportunity to participate in the problem solving process and be able to voice their concerns and desires regarding the WSAs.

Deadlines or time constraints pressure the parties into sharing the desire for a prompt solution. Though a few stakeholders do not believe there is any reason to address this issue now, many others expressed frustration that this issues has not been addressed yet and are eager to have clarity around how the WSAs are managed. Additionally, some parties feel pressure to find solutions in order to gain clarity. Land management agencies want to alleviate uncertainty about how to manage the land, and would like to begin the process before the 2017 Forest Plan Revision. Many recreationists want to know how they can use the land so they can continue to enjoy it without continually encountering conflict. For example, mountain bike enthusiast want to know if they can build trails through the WSAs without being impeded by controversy. And, many conservationists feel pressure to find a solution to make sure the land is protected and the wilderness qualities are not further depleted.

External influences exist which encourage the parties to reach a negotiated settlement. Considering that the WCCA has initiated the WPLI and is planning to develop a legislative land package, many parties feel motivated to reach a negotiated settlement on the WSAs in Teton County. They want to express their opinions and have influence on legislation regarding the use of the WSAs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results gathered from the stakeholder interviews, the Ruckelshaus Institute concludes that the potential exists for stakeholders to work together in a collaborative process and make substantial progress toward consensus-based recommendations regarding the final designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs in Teton County. In our analysis, there was no single factor that would negate the ability for a collaborative process to be potentially successful. Most respondents we interviewed were amenable to engaging in such a process and believe that collaboration holds promise for meeting their interests. Though there is some level of skepticism among many respondents about the potential for success in a collaborative process, most also believe a collaborative process is their best opportunity to have their interests heard, considered, and met. In fact, many stakeholders expressed concerns that if an advisory committee is not formed, they will not be able to voice their opinions or have any influence over the potential final designation of the WSAs.

One potential hurdle that needs to be addressed is the potential incompatibility of stakeholder interests. The Teton County case is not unique in this respect. Some parties’ interests will always be antithetical with regard to wilderness versus multiple use designation of WSAs. All WPLI advisory committees will need to overcome this potential barrier. Generally speaking, this conflict can be overcome if the parties are able to expand the range of potential options to enable all key interests to be satisfied. The ability for stakeholders to entertain ideas that expand the range of possibility, including consideration of lands outside the current WSA boundaries, or designing management options that allow multiple uses while protecting wilderness characteristics, will expand the zone of possible agreement.

Another critical issue to consider prior to deciding to convene a WPLI advisory committee is whether the notion of the State’s involvement in this issue through the WCCA’s Wyoming Public Lands Initiative is a valid one. On this issue, many stakeholders do not agree. In our analysis, we identified two separate frames regarding the issues to be resolved: the first frame being the validity of the WPLI, the second being the potential incompatibility of the substantive issues. When deciding whether and how to convene a WPLI Advisory Committee, the Teton Board of County Commissioners must segregate these arguments or frames. Choosing not to convene a local WPLI advisory committee on the merits of the first frame would signal agreement with these arguments. Alternatively, a decision to convene a local advisory committee implies that the Commission has some confidence that a set of recommendations on future use and management of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs can be developed through stakeholder deliberation and these recommendations can be carried forward in whole to a debate in Congress.

If a local advisory committee is convened, it should be composed of stakeholders who wish to be involved in the discussion and deliberation of recommendations regarding management of WSAs in Teton County. A list of the stakeholders we interviewed who expressed a desire to participate in such a process is contained in a separate document accompanying this report.

In selecting participants on the advisory committee, we recommend not setting an arbitrary limit on the number of stakeholders. While It is true that a smaller group will be more efficient in their deliberations, there is no particular number above which a committee is “too big.” The size of the committee should be determined by: ● the number and variety of stakeholder groups involved in a particular Wilderness Study Area; ● the number of interest groups that can legitimately be represented by any single individual; and, ● the effectiveness of communication links between committee members and other interests.

Individuals chosen to participate on an advisory committee should be people who: ● are seen as legitimate representatives of others’ interests; ● can speak knowledgeably about public land management, WSAs, and the landscapes associated with them; and ● are willing to engage in the give and take of negotiating land designations and management recommendations.

If the County Commissioners decide to form an Advisory Committee there are several elements they should consider to increase the likelihood of success:

1. All parties engaged in collaboration must be willing to participate. This implies a certain degree of interdependence among the people at the table, and that the potential exists for all parties to gain more by collaborating than by acting unilaterally. 2. The rules and guidelines governing the formation and function of the collaborative process should be defined and agreed upon in advance through the development of a group charter. 3. The process should be designed to give the parties time and space to get to know one another establish a solid working relationship before engaging on critical decisions. Collaboration requires open communication and trust. When people gain trust, they are more willing to share information that is valuable to others. Sharing information enables people to create value. 4. The process should facilitate the free flow and exchange of information. The process should allow for a discussion of how data and information will be used and shared. 5. A collaborative process needs organizational support. Every meeting should be organized in advance with a clear agenda and a process in place to achieve it. 6. Collaboration requires commitment. Parties must possess a view toward long-term outcomes and be willing to work toward them after an agreement is reached.

APPENDIX A – LIST OF COMPLETED INTERVIEWS

Motorized/mechanized recreation Amanda Carey, Mountain Bike the Tetons Stephen Fodor, Dirt Bikers Investing in Riding Trails (DIRT) founder Wade Kaufman, Skyliners Motor Club Kevin Kavanagh, Teton Freedom Riders John Schick, High Mountain Heli Skiing Jim Woodmency, mechanized-use advocate

Non-motorized/mechanized recreation Kyle Barrus, Red Top Meadows Don Saner, Back Country Horsemen Hilary Eisen, Winter Wildlands Alliance Susan Marsh, Jackson Hole Writers Cathy Shill, The Hole Hiking Experience

Outfitters Rustin Titenson, Double T Outfitters

Land Management Agencies Dale Deiter, District Ranger for Jackson District Linda Merigliano, Wilderness Program Manager for BTNF Tom Segerstrom, Teton Conservation District

Environmental Conservation Lloyd Dorsey, Sierra Club Kathy Rinaldi, Greater Yellowstone Coalition Michelle Jorgensen, Wyoming Wilderness Association Kim Springer, wilderness advocate Connie Wilbert, Sierra Club Dan Smitherman, The Wilderness Society Siva Sundarsen, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance Phil Hocker, former Jackson resident and environmental activist Franz Camenzind, environmental consultant Ann Harvey, wildlife biologist and lifetime wilderness advocate

APPENDIX B – EMAIL SENT TO STAKEHOLDERS

Dear First Name,

My name is Selena Gerace and I’m working with the Ruckelshaus Institute of Environmental and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming.

We’re assisting the Teton County Board of Commissioners to determine whether and how they might convene a Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) Advisory Committee in Teton County (more information on the WPLI below). If the County convenes such a committee, that group would work together to make recommendations on wilderness or multiple use designations for the Palisades and Shoal Creek Wilderness Study Areas.

We will be interviewing a number of key stakeholders in Teton County and elsewhere.

I am writing to see if you would be willing to participate in such an interview, and if so, when would be a good time we could conduct the interview? I am arranging interviews over the next three weeks. The interview will take about 45 minutes of your time. We can do this either in person or by telephone. I will be in Jackson sometime on May 31 and June 1. I could arrange an in-person interview on either of those days, or by telephone at another time.

What date and time will work for you?

Thank you and I look forward to being in touch.

Warmly. Selena

Wyoming Public Lands Initiative The Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI) is a collaborative, county-led process intended to result in one, state- wide legislative lands package that is broadly supported by public lands stakeholders in Wyoming. The ultimate goal is final wilderness designation or release of Wyoming’s 42 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 3 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in Wyoming. Boards of County Commissioners in all 23 counties may participate in the WPLI by forming County Advisory Committees. Each county Advisory Committee will conduct a collaborative review process of the WSAs and other potential land use interests in their county and develop and submit a WSA management recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Once approved, the WCCA, in cooperation with the office of the Governor and the offices of the federal delegation, will review the county or regional Advisory Committee recommendations and include them in a legislative draft to be introduced in Congress.

APPENDIX C – INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

TETON COUNTY WPLI ADVISORY COMMITTEE SITUATION ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION Hello. I am Selena Gerace. I am with the Ruckelshaus Institute at the University of Wyoming. We are assisting the Teton County Board of Commissioners to determine whether and how they might convene a Wyoming Public Lands Initiative Advisory Committee in Teton County. If the County convenes such a committee, it would consist of a diverse group of stakeholders who represent key interests in the management and designation of Wilderness Study Areas in Teton County, such as ranching, motorized and non-motorized recreation, conservation, and others. The committee would work together in a collaborative process to make recommendations on management and use designations for the Palisades and Shoal Creek Wilderness Study Areas.

The Teton County Commissioners have asked the Ruckelshaus Institute to conduct an assessment of the likelihood of whether the formation of a Teton County Advisory Committee can succeed in developing consensus-based recommendations regarding the final designations of Wilderness Study Areas in Teton County. We will also provide a recommendation about whom the County Commission should consider appointing to the WPLI Advisory Committee.

If respondent wants information about the Ruckelshaus Institute: The Ruckelshaus Institute is a division of the Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming. Its mission is to advance the understanding and resolution of complex environment and natural resource challenges through communication of relevant research and promotion of collaborative decision-making. Faculty and professional staff at the Ruckelshaus Institute design, organize, and facilitate collaborative decision-making processes related to natural resources management and environmental policy in Wyoming and the West.

INTERVIEW INFORMATION AND CONSENT We want to understand the views of people interested in wilderness study areas, as well as your expectations for how interested parties can best work together, and under what conditions. This information will help the County Commission decide how to convene and manage an effective collaborative process.

This interview is expected to last about 45 minutes. Information gathered from this interview will be compiled with all the other interviews and be included in a written report to be submitted to the Teton County Board of Commissioners and may be distributed to all members of a WPLI Advisory Committee if it is formed. Your comments will be kept anonymous. We will not use any

information that would make it possible for anyone to identify you in any notes, presentation, or written reports about this study. Where appropriate and with your permission, we might want to use a direct quote from you. Rather than attributing the quote directly to you, we will attribute it to a general affiliation such as: “one survey respondent said…”. The notes from our conversation will be kept for five years. The only people who will have access to these notes are Ruckelshaus Institute staff and only in compiled form.

This study is being conducted and paid for by the Teton County Board of Commissioners. There are no expected direct benefits for you. Indirect benefits to you and others from participating in this study include the potential of a stakeholder-driven process and strategies for future management of federal lands in Teton County that could potentially satisfy the needs of all affected parties.

Expected risks to you for helping us with the study are minimal. The only risk to you might be if your identity were ever revealed. You may stop the interview, or shorten it, at any point. Refusal to participate will not affect your potential participation on the Task Force, nor involve any other loss of benefits related to this project. If we get interrupted, we can complete the interview at another time.

My contact information is: NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER. You can also call Dr. Steve Smutko at 307-766-2703 with questions about the research study. Your participation in the interview will serve as your informed consent. Do I have your permission to begin asking you questions?

STAKEHOLDERS We would like to get an idea of your background and involvement with Wilderness Study Areas in Teton County.

1. First, what is your connection or involvement with the Palisades WSA and/or the Shoal Creek WSA in Teton County?

2. How long have you been personally involved?

3. How would you describe your interests with respect to the Palisades WSA and/or the Shoal Creek WSA and backcountry use generally? For example, are you involved in motorized recreation, backcountry hunting, wildland conservation, etc?

COLLABORATION If an Advisory Committee is formed, it will work through a collaborative process that involves bringing multiple interests to the table and creating solutions that meet those varied interests.

4. What is your experience in working with individuals from different backgrounds, values, or positions to find solutions on tough issues?

5. What groups or organizations in Teton County do you think have worked well together in the past? Why do you think these groups worked well together?

6. Do you believe that it is possible for all of the parties with a stake in WSA designation and management to work collaboratively and discuss the issues in good faith? Why or why not?

7. Do you see a potential for satisfying or improving your interests regarding the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs through a collaborative process such as a WPLI Advisory Committee?

a. If so, what would be an outcome that would satisfy or improve your interests?

b. If not, why not?

8. Is there potential for other groups that are not aligned with your interests to also benefit through a collaborative process?

a. If so, what would be an outcome that would meet their interests and yours?

b. If not, why not?

9. What do you think might be the most significant barriers to collaboration related to designation and management of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs?

10. How can those barriers be overcome?

11. What might the potential consequences be to you and others if a collaborative process is not undertaken or is not successful?

REPRESENTATION ON A WPLI ADVISORY COMMITTEE If the County Commissioners decide to appoint a WPLI Advisory Committee, they have asked us to provide information about committee make-up and process.

12. If the County Commissioners decide to form a WPLI Advisory Committee, would you be interested in serving on the committee?

13. What groups and organizations could you represent?

14. Collaborative efforts as a general rule are inclusive. Who do you think needs to be at the table for progress to be created?

15. What components would need to be considered for a collaborative process to be successful, e.g. open public meetings, use stakeholder group representatives, facilitator, or other components?

Meeting Logistics 16. What do you think are the best days of the week, times of the day, and places to meet?

17. A WPLI Advisory Committee may meet on a regular basis for more than a year. Will you have time or financial constraints that will prevent you from participating?

18. Do you have any concerns or questions regarding the County Commissioners convening a WPLI Advisory Committee? If so, what are they?

Other

19. I am interviewing stakeholders representing: · Motorized and non-motorized recreation (including heli-skiing) · Outfitting · Grazing · Equestrian use · Conservation [You may provide specific names of people you are interviewing] Can you think of any organization or individual that I should contact for an interview?

20. Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.

Wyoming Public Lands Initiative Teton County Advisory Committee

Contents

1. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2. PURPOSE 3. PRODUCTS AND OUTCOMES 4. GEOGRAPHIC AREA 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION 6. ROLE OF THE CO-CHAIRS AND STEERING COMMITTEE 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE 8. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FACILITATORS 9. DECISION PROCESS 10. FINAL REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS 11. AD HOC GROUPS 12. GROUND RULES FOR INTERACTION 13. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT GROUP MEETINGS 14. WORKING WITH THE MEDIA 15. SCHEDULE AND DURATION 16. AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER

1. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION In early 2016 the Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) organized the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI). The WPLI is a collaborative, county-led process intended to result in one state-wide legislative lands package that is broadly supported by public lands stakeholders in Wyoming. The WCCA is encouraging commissioners in the 14 counties with Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) to convene working groups composed of representatives of a diversity of interests to develop recommendations for final management designation of these lands -- ranging from multiple use to designation as wilderness to many options in between. The ultimate goal is final management designation or release of Wyoming’s 42 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 3 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in Wyoming. While WSA designations will serve as the launching pad and anchor for the WPLI, county Advisory Committees are encouraged to look more broadly at long- standing land use challenges and build consensus based agreements using whatever tools at their disposal to reach agreement.

2. PURPOSE The Teton County Board of Commissioners has appointed the Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee to conduct a collaborative review process of the WSAs and other potential land use interests in Teton County. The Advisory Committee will develop and submit a proposed WSA management recommendation for the WSAs in the county, as well as any other areas for consideration to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Once approved, the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, in cooperation with the office of the Governor and the offices of the Wyoming federal delegation, will review the Advisory Committee recommendations and to the maximum extent practicable, include them in a legislative draft to be introduced in Congress.

3. PRODUCTS AND OUTCOMES The Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee will develop a proposed management recommendation for the WSAs within the county. The committee may also consider other areas of interest within the county for potential inclusion in its recommendation, including other land use designations, transfers, or other management actions not necessarily related to WSA designation or release. Each recommendation shall be accompanied with sufficient rationale for the recommendation made. A draft of the committee’s proposed management recommendations should be distributed for public comment and the public comment should be adequately considered by the committee. After consideration of the public comments, the committee shall present its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners at a regularly scheduled commissioner meeting.

The Board of County Commissioners shall review the WPLI Advisory Committee’s recommendations and take official action to establish a final WPLI recommendation for the county at a regularly scheduled commissioner meeting. Should the BOCC not-approve the recommendation or have further instructions for the Advisory Committee, the BOCC shall 2

remand the recommendation back to the Advisory Committee for further work to reach consensus approval.

The Board of County Commissioners shall forward its approval of the final recommendation and rationale for the recommendation to the Wyoming County Commissioners Association. In addition to the final recommendation, the Commissioners shall also provide to the WCCA during development of the recommendation the following documents for posting on WCCA’s WPLI hub: a. A copy of the approved minutes from all of the WPLI Advisory Committee meetings; b. All relevant background information gathered by the committee; c. Any formal reports pertaining to the public field trips and impressions noted regarding the wilderness characteristics of the individual WSA/s; d. A copy of the draft committee WPLI recommendation forwarded to BOCC; and e. A copy of public comments received on the draft recommendation, and the WPLI committee recommendation as it was initially presented to the commissioners.

Following receipt of county recommendations, the WCCA in conjunction with the office of the Governor and the federal congressional delegation, will review the recommendations for consistency and develop one legislative bill for introduction in the U.S. House and Senate.

4. GEOGRAPHIC AREA The Teton County Advisory Committee will develop recommendations for the Shoal Creek WSA and the Palisades WSA.

The Advisory Committee will work with the WPLI Advisory Committee in Sublette County to develop joint recommendations related to Shoal Creek WSA. The Advisory Committee will communicate and, potentially, coordinate with representatives from Lincoln County, WY, Bonneville County, ID and Teton County, ID regarding recommendations for the Palisades WSAs when and as appropriate.

The committee may also consider other areas of interest within the county for potential inclusion in its recommendation, including other land use designations, transfers, or other management actions not necessarily related to WSA designation or release.

5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION The Advisory Committee is representative of persons with interests in the designation and management of WSAs in Teton County. Members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners and will serve on the committee through the completion of the committee’s work.

Although it is recognized that Advisory Committee members have multiple interests and may participate in discussions from various perspectives, for organizational purposes each Advisory Committee member has been assigned to an interest category below: ● Conservation - Local: o Pat Kearney, Greater Yellowstone Coalition; o Siva Sundaresan, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance ● Conservation - State: o Lisa McGee, Wyoming Outdoor Council; o Steve Kilpatrick, Wyoming Wild Sheep & Wyoming Wildlife Federation ● Conservation - National: o Lloyd Dorsey, Sierra Club; o Dan Smitherman, The Wilderness Society ● Recreation - Mountain Bicycling: o Amanda Carey, Mountain Bike the Tetons ● Recreation - Summer Motorized o Greg Buchko, DIRT ● Recreation - Winter Motorized: o Mike Mielke, Jackson Hole Snow Devils ● Commercial - Winter Motorized: o Jim Woodmency (multiple) ● Industry - Oil/Gas: o John Hebberger, Retired from Chevron ● Guides/Outfitters: o Dave Hodges, JH Llamas Guide ● Ag/Ranching: o William Resor ● General Public: o Abigail Moore, Mike Brennan, Bruce Hayse, Don Saner, David Sollitt, Harry Statter, Tom Turiano, Rob Shaul

Advisory Committee members will be expected to represent the interests of (1) themselves, (2) organizations that have authorized the Advisory Committee member to represent them, or (3) groups of constituents from a similar stakeholder group. Ideas presented within Advisory Committee discussions will not be assumed to be the official position of the organizations or groups represented unless specifically stated to be so. Advisory Committee members have the responsibility to keep the organizations and interest groups they represent informed about the actions and outcomes of the Advisory Committee’s process.

Alternates Each organization and interest group is represented by one or more Advisory Committee members. In the event that an Advisory Committee member cannot attend a meeting, 4

he/she may be represented by an alternate member of his/her choosing without concurrence of the Advisory Committee. Alternate group members are encouraged to attend Advisory Committee meetings along with the primary group members, but should be fully briefed by the primary group member before attending any meetings as the sole representative. Alternates are permitted to fully participate, including in consensus votes on proposals before the committee, and if an alternative is not available a member of the Advisory Committee as a proxy may be designated. .

Voluntary Withdrawal and Replacement Appointments If an Advisory Committee member withdraws from the committee, he/she may appoint a replacement (typically their alternate committee member) from the same organization without concurrence of the Advisory Committee. If the Advisory Committee Member is unable to appoint a replacement from his/her organization, the Advisory Committee may appoint a replacement member from the same interest category, subject to the approval of the Teton County Board of Commissioners. Replacement members are expected to take the initiative to spend extra time prior to their first Advisory Committee meeting reading through all the past meeting summaries and this charter, talking with the facilitators and committee members to be sure they understand the status of the Advisory Committee’s activities, how the Advisory Committee operates, and what will be expected of them. Replacement Advisory Committee Members must make every effort to minimize the impact of their addition to the Advisory Committee’s progress toward its goals.

New Member Appointments A strong effort was made during the forming of the Advisory Committee to encourage participation by representatives from all the various interests related to the WSAs and associated landscapes within the county. While it is certainly the Advisory Committee’s desire to be inclusive and sensitive to the many various interests, the Advisory Committee recognizes the need to remain focused and move ahead to achieve the Advisory Committee’s goals. When evaluating potential new members, the Advisory Committee should first ensure that the interests that the potential new member would represent cannot reasonably be covered by an existing Advisory Committee member. If the Advisory Committee decides there is in fact a need to have additional interests represented, then the Advisory Committee will identify potential candidates and review their qualifications (e.g., past experience in collaborative Advisory Committee processes, knowledge about the issues and the interests they represent, communications mechanisms for sharing information, etc.). The Advisory Committee will decide by consensus if a particular candidate should be added to the Advisory Committee. Once added to the Advisory Committee, new members are expected to spend extra time prior to their first full meeting educating themselves on the Advisory Committee’s history, operations and expectations in the same fashion as is required for replacement Advisory Committee members. New 5

Advisory Committee members must make every effort to minimize the impact of their addition on the Advisory Committee’s progress toward its goals. Once the active negotiations have begun, new Members will not be added unless the Advisory Committee decides by consensus that the specifics of the options under consideration significantly impact previously unidentified interest group.

Role of Committee Co-Chairs The 3 co-chairs of Advisory Committee will lead the Advisory Committee through meetings in order to reach its recommendations. The 3 co-chairs will work with the facilitator to provide input and direction at various points throughout the process, as well as communicate with the Board of County Commissioners when necessary. The 3 co-chairs will participate as a full Advisory Committee member, including communicating interests and voting on options.

6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE a) Conduct of Advisory Committee Members All Committee members agree to operate in good faith at all times. Acting in good faith means disclosing interests, needs, actions, and issues in a timely manner and committing to the goals of the committee’s process. Acting in good faith also means respecting the interests, needs, and concerns and time commitments of others. Good faith also entails giving the committee every reasonable chance to reach its goal before pursuing other alternatives. Advisory Committee members will endeavor in good faith to develop recommendations that are satisfactory to all Advisory Committee members. Advisory Committee members will ensure that an integrated approach is taken in formulating recommendations by meeting together as needed to assure strong communication and collaboration among Advisory Committee members.

b) Keeping Constituents Informed Advisory Committee members will engage in active communication with constituents about actions and outcomes of the Advisory Committee. Active communication can include written, verbal, and electronic means of communicating. Members will have meeting summaries available to them for keeping constituents informed.

c) Representing Constituents In developing recommendations, Advisory Committee members will consider the interests of other group members as well as their own particular interest group when reviewing issues and recommendations. Advisory Committee members will invite proposals from their constituents to present to the Advisory Committee and will provide proposals from the Advisory Committee to their constituents for feedback and input.

d) Attending Meetings Each Advisory Committee member is expected to attend and fully participate in each meeting, which includes being present for substantially all of the meeting. Advisory Committee members shall read appropriate materials and arrive prepared to work. Materials presented for discussion should be distributed at least one week in advance of the meeting or longer, as is practical. Advisory committee members can designate either an alternate or a proxy from the Advisory Committee.

e) Understanding and Abiding by the Charter Advisory Committee members are expected to read, fully understand, and conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of this charter.

7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FACILITATORS The Advisory Committee will be facilitated by the Ruckelshaus Institute. The roles and responsibilities of the facilitators include: ● Facilitating meetings in a manner consistent with interest-based negotiations and this charter; ● Handling meeting logistics with support of Steering Committee; ● Keeping meeting attendance records of all Advisory Committee members; ● Helping the Advisory Committee stay on task and on process; ● Protecting Advisory Committee members and their ideas from attack while ensuring that provocative issues are not avoided, but are discussed in a candid and respectful manner; ● Helping Advisory Committee members to concisely describe their interests; ● Helping Advisory Committee members find innovative and workable solutions; ● Helping Advisory Committee members reach consensus; ● Providing for equitable participation by all Advisory Committee members; ● Working, both at and between meetings, with Advisory Committee members to assist in the free exchange of ideas between the Members and to resolve any impasses that may arise; ● Periodically surveying Advisory Committee members to assess fairness, meaningfulness and efficiency of the process;

● Maintaining a list of significant topics on which the Advisory Committee has reached consensus or have failed to reach consensus.

Meeting Summaries Facilitators will develop meeting summaries within _7 days following the Advisory Committee meetings and will notify committee members of their availability. The WCCA’s WPLI web portal, a Teton County WPLI website, and Slack and/or email will be the primary forms of information dispersal and correspondence within the Advisory Committees with the option of having material faxed or mailed to those who do not have email or web access. Summaries shall include an attendance record, a summary of actions taken at the meeting, and other information pertaining to the deliberations. In general, discussion of new substantive issues will not commence until the summary of the preceding meeting is approved. Unless a committee member requests additional review time, the approved-as- edited meeting summary will be considered final. These final meeting summaries prepared by the facilitators and reviewed by the Advisory Committee are the official meeting summaries.

Agendas At the end of each meeting, the committee will specify a tentative agenda for the following meeting. The facilitators will develop draft meeting agendas prior to each meeting. Final agendas including any added topics will be approved by the committee at the start of each meeting and will include opportunities for public comment as required by this charter.

8. DECISION PROCESS The Advisory Committee will operate by consensus of all members represented at the meeting. Consensus is the decision rule that allows collaborative problem solving to work. It is a way for more than two people to reach agreement. Consensus prevents domination by the majority, allows building of trust and the sharing of information, especially under conditions of conflict. Consensus does not mean that everyone will be equally happy with the decision, but all do accept that the decision is the best that can be made at the time with the people involved.

Consensus requires sharing information, which leads to mutual education, which provides the basis for crafting workable and acceptable alternatives. Consensus promotes joint thinking of a diverse group and leads to creative solutions. Also, because parties participate in the deliberation, they understand the reasoning behind the recommendations and are willing to support them.

In making decisions, each Advisory Committee member will indicate his/her concurrence on a specific proposal using a six-point scale. The scale allows Advisory Committee members to clearly communicate their intentions, assess the degree of agreement that

exists, and register their dissatisfaction without holding up the rest of the Advisory Committee. The six-point scale is as follows: 1. Endorsement –Member likes it. 2. Endorsement with Minor Point of Contention – Basically, member likes it. 3. Agreement with Minor Reservations – Member can live with it. 4. Stand aside with major reservations – Formal disagreement, but will not block the proposal/provision 5. Block – Member will not support the proposal. 6. Indecision – Member cannot make a decision without more information. Member must specify what information is needed, and re-vote once that information has been obtained.

Facilitators will measure and record the Advisory Committee’s consensus on a given proposal by open polling of the members present. The levels of consensus are: ● Consensus - All Advisory Committee members present rate the proposal as a 1, 2 or 3. ● Consensus with Major Reservations – All Advisory Committee members present rate the proposal as a 1, 2 or 3, except at least one Advisory Committee member rates it as a 4. ● No Consensus - Any Advisory Committee member present rates the proposal as a 5.

Any Advisory Committee member that rates a significant proposal (i.e., a proposal that involves significant discussion and has the support or qualified support of a majority of Advisory Committee members) as a 5 is required to specify their dissention in a written statement for inclusion in the final report to the Board of County Commissioners. Dissenters who share the same basic concerns can use a single dissention statement. Dissenters will also identify themselves by name and organization on their dissention statements. Any Advisory Committee member that rates a proposal as a 4 can specify their reservation in a written statement for inclusion in the final recommendations if the member so chooses In the event that neither the primary Advisory Committee member nor the alternate Advisory Committee member is able to attend a meeting of the Advisory Committee, and the primary Advisory Committee member is not in agreement with any actions taken by the Advisory Committee during his/her absence, that member has until the meeting summary review at the next meeting to register his/her dissatisfaction with actions taken. A reasonable amount of time will be devoted to old business at meetings. Email may be used to expedite this process.

9. AD HOC GROUPS Ad Hoc subcommittees may be formed in order to address specific topics or issues. Subcommittees serve at the pleasure of the Advisory Committee and will be formed and disbanded at the will of the Advisory Committee. At least one member of the ad hoc group has to be an Advisory Committee member. Subcommittee members will be appointed by the Advisory Committee. Work generated from these subcommittees will be reported back to the full Advisory Committee. All subcommittee decisions are to be considered recommendations to the full Advisory Committee for formal decision making.

Subcommittees will follow the same decision process and ground rules for interaction as the full Advisory Committee. Subcommittees may choose to bring in subject matter experts for a particular topic, but must first inform the Advisory Committee co-chairs before doing so.

10. GROUND RULES FOR INTERACTION In order to have the most efficient and effective process possible, Advisory Committee members will follow these basic ground rules:

Discussion Ground Rules During the Meetings ● Raise hand to be recognized by the Facilitator. ● Speak one at a time in meetings as recognized by the Facilitator. Everyone will participate, but none will dominate. ● Be concise and stick to the topics on the meeting agenda. Honor a two- minute time limit for statements and responses unless the Facilitator allows more time. ● Speak only on one topic per entry (no laundry lists). ● Speak to the whole group when talking. ● Avoid side conversations. ● Avoid off-topic questions. ● Treat each other, the organizations represented on the Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Committee itself with respect at all times. ● When communicating with the media, Advisory Committee members will treat each other, the organizations represented in the Advisory Committee, and the Advisory Committee itself with respect. ● Refrain from interrupting. ● Monitor your own participation – everyone should participate, but none should dominate. ● Adhere to the agenda and time schedule with diligence. ● Put cell phones on “vibrate” and leave the room when a call is received. ● Be prepared to start on time. ● Recognize that everyone’s interests are important. ● Avoid repetitiveness (i.e., one-track-mind behavior). 10

● Agree that it is okay to disagree, and disagree without being disagreeable. ● Avoid “cheap shots” and/or sarcasm. ● Refrain from hostility and antagonism. ● Leave personal agendas and “baggage” at the door; put personal differences aside in the interest of a successful Advisory Committee. ● Focus on the problem, not the person.

Process Ground Rules throughout the Stakeholder Process ● Adhere to the charter. ● Review information and stay informed. ● Work as team players and share all relevant information. Ask if you do not understand. ● Encourage free thinking. Offer mutually beneficial solutions. ● Encourage candid, frank discussions. Be honest and tactful. Avoid surprises. ● Openly express any disagreement or concern with all other Advisory Committee members. Focus on the problem, not the person. ● Actively strive to see the other points of view. ● Follow through on commitments. ● Share information discussed in the meeting with the organizations/ constituents represented and bring back to the Advisory Committee the opinions and actions of your constituencies as appropriate. ● Communicate the requirements of this charter with the organizations you represent to minimize the possibility of actions contrary to the charter. ● Commit to issues in which you have an interest. ● Support and actively engage in the Advisory Committees’ decision process.

11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT GROUP MEETINGS All Advisory Committee meetings are open to observation by the public. Members of the public attending the meetings may comment during the specified time at each Advisory Committee meeting. Public comment periods will be specified in advance. Speakers will have time limits to allow as much participation as possible within the allotted time. The Advisory Committee will not normally attempt to respond to public or media comments or questions at the meeting in which they were made. The Co-Chairs have the right to deny the floor to public speakers who are simply repeating previously delivered messages or who are unruly.

A record of all Advisory Committee activities will be made available to the public on WCCA’s WPLI website portal and Teton County’s website, including: a. A copy of the approved meeting summaries from all of the WPLI Advisory Committee meetings; 11

b. All relevant background information gathered by the committee; c. Any information pertaining to the public field trip and impressions noted regarding the wilderness characteristics of the individual WSA/s; d. Draft concept papers or other preliminary recommendation materials for which the Advisory Committee desires or believes public review is important; e. An initial draft of WPLI recommendations with the purpose of getting public input; f. A copy of public comments received on the draft recommendation, and the updated WPLI committee recommendation; and g. A copy of the committee WPLI recommendation submitted to Teton County BOCC.

12. WORKING WITH THE MEDIA Advisory Committee members are free to speak with the media about the discussions of the committee. When speaking to the media, members must make it clear they are representing themselves and not the Advisory Committee at large. Advisory Committee Chairs may speak on behalf of the committee. Concise talking points will be generated by the Advisory Committee at the end of each meeting, summarizing the discussion and any decisions made. These talking points may be helpful in communicating with the media, as well as constituents.

13. SCHEDULE AND DURATION The Advisory Committee will meet periodically at times and locations determined by the facilitator and steering committee, in consultation with the full committee. The committee will remain in place until it has completed its deliberations and its recommendations have been accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, and/or the Board of Commissioners elects to disband the committee.

14. AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER Changes to the charter can be made at any meeting of the Advisory Committee by consensus.

15. SIGNATORIES TO THE CHARTER

As a Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee member, I acknowledge that I have read and understand this charter, agree to abide by it as long as I remain an Advisory Committee member or alternate member.

1. Signature Print Name Date

2. Signature Print Name Date

3. Signature Print Name Date

4. Signature Print Name Date

5. Signature Print Name Date

6. Signature Print Name Date

7. Signature Print Name Date

8. Signature Print Name Date

9. Signature Print Name Date

10. Signature Print Name Date

11. Signature Print Name Date 13

12. Signature Print Name Date

13. Signature Print Name Date

14. Signature Print Name Date

15. Signature Print Name Date

16. Signature Print Name Date

17. Signature Print Name Date

18. Signature Print Name Date

19. Signature Print Name Date

20. Signature Print Name Date

21. Signature Print Name Date

A Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan

by Lloyd Dorsey, Bruce Hayse, Peggie dePasquale

August 1, 2018

Palisades WSA (Photo provided by EcoFlight)

We offer this Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan from Lloyd Dorsey, Bruce Hayse and Peggie dePasquale for consideration by the Teton County Wyoming Public Land Initiative (WPLI) advisory committee to forward as a recommendation to the Teton County Commissioners.

This proposal is submitted in the spirit of the Jackson/Teton County, Wyoming, Comprehensive Plan Vision statement which states in part:

“Preserve and protect the area’s ecosystem in order to ensure a healthy environment, community and economy for current and future generations.”

“Wildlife, along with natural and scenic resources, draw both residents and visitors to this special place and are at the core of our heritage, culture, and economy. . . . To achieve our desire community character, the community must protect and enhance the ecosystem in which we live.”

“Each resident and visitor has a responsibility to use public and private lands in a way that preserves the function of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem so that it can continue to be enjoyed in its intact state for generations to come.” (Comp Plan:ES-2)

This proposal is also submitted with appreciation for and acknowledgement of the terms and conditions agreed upon in the Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee Charter:

“All committee members agree to operate in good faith at all times. Acting in good faith means disclosing interests, needs, actions, and issues in a timely manner and committing to the goals of the committee’s process. Acting in good faith also means respecting the interests, needs, and concerns and time commitments of others. Good faith also entails giving the committee every reasonable chance to reach its goal before pursuing other alternatives. Advisory Committee members will endeavor in good faith to develop recommendations that are satisfactory to all Advisory Committee members. Advisory Committee members will ensure that an integrated approach is taken in formulating recommendations by meeting together as needed to assure strong communication and collaboration among Advisory Committee members.” (Charter:6)

“The Advisory Committee will operate by consensus of all members represented at the meeting … Consensus prevents domination by the majority, allows building of trust and the sharing of information, especially under conditions of conflict. Consensus does not mean that everyone will be equally happy with the decision, but all do accept that the decision is the best that can be made at the time with the people involved.” (Charter:8)

INTRODUCTION

Only US Forest Service System lands within Teton County, Wyoming are included in this proposal. While the geographic limits of this proposal stop at the Teton County, Wyoming line, with multiple federal land jurisdictions in the county, we know that the world renowned Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem spans county and state jurisdictional boundaries. We recognize that the Teton County WPLI task force is constrained to look only at lands within the county but must note that many wilderness study areas (WSAs) and other undeveloped, wild landscapes in Teton County extend well beyond our county lines. This forced fragmentation of landscapes based purely on political jurisdictions is ecologically unjustified and will lead to an inferior outcome for the long-term protection of these wild lands. We urge our Board of County Commissioners and other elected officials and community leaders to work diligently and consistently with adjacent jurisdictions, agencies, and communities to implement effective conservation measures to protect and improve ecosystem health and function, for the benefit of the economy and the well- being of future generations.

We also recognize that Teton County does not own these lands. We have a responsibility to this nation to develop a plan that best serves all the individuals of the entire country, as well as future generations, and does not serve simply to satisfy needs of Teton County residents. It is crucial that we maintain the perspective that these lands are of national and even international significance and do not simply serve to provide a local playground.

This proposal is focused on maintenance of the wild and pristine qualities of Teton County. Jackson Hole is nearly unique in the lower 48 states for being largely surrounded by high quality wilderness. That is what defines our community, provides its character, makes it distinctive and

2 results in our unparalleled wildlife populations. Wilderness designation provides an incomparable, universally acknowledged degree of protection to the landscape. It is the only designation with a widely accepted understanding of its meaning and significance. It is the only classification providing the highest degree of protection and preservation that our local ecosystem deserves.

The Wilderness Act was born in Jackson Hole, spearheaded by Olaus and Mardy Murie, and reaches its highest quality here. Teton County has a long history of defending wilderness, including the resolution by the county commissioners 40 years ago endorsing the proposal that recommended the Palisades Range be classified as wilderness. Now in 2018, the need for such protection is greater than ever, due to a booming population that is projected to continue to grow exponentially. “Conservatively, if the growth rate of the past 30 years continues, the overall population of the Greater Yellowstone region is expected to surge, in just 13 years’ time, from the current 450,000 denizens, to 677,000. That translates on the ground...to another 100,000 homes” (Wilkins, 2018).

Unfortunately, several prime wild areas in Teton County have never received adequate protection. This occurred primarily due to conflicts with potential resource extraction; conflicts which have now been abated. These two areas, the Palisades Wilderness Study Area (WSA) and Mt. Leidy Highlands, therefore form the centerpiece of this proposal. Formal wilderness is clearly the classification most compatible with the county comprehensive plan as stated above. Those two areas along with six significantly smaller areas would add 254, 280 acres of wilderness protection. These areas would greatly add to the wilderness buffer present in Jackson Hole and nearly absent in the rest of the lower 48. They would clearly provide a high degree of wildlife protection while at the same time providing for the type of primitive recreation opportunities for which Jackson Hole is world famous.

We recognize that there is a large amount of other wild land in Teton County in need of additional protection. Of those lands we recommend that 124, 453 acres be designated as Teton Conservation Areas. In addition, we encourage formal withdrawal from commercial mining and timber extraction county wide, beyond the areas included in this proposal.

This proposal consists of three parts. However, it is imperative that the potential wilderness presented in this proposal remain the keystone of the document. The latter two sections are not intended to stand alone and should not move forward without the accompaniment of the wilderness recommendations. 1. Recommendations for new areas to be designated as wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act, totaling 254,280 acres; 2. Recommendations for withdrawal of all mineral rights and commercial timber harvest associated with US Forest Service lands in Teton County that have not already been withdrawn by previous wilderness designations, totaling more than 465,000 acres; and 3. Recommendations for new Teton Conservation Areas totaling about 124,453 acres.

4 NEW WILDERNESS AREAS IN TETON COUNTY, WYOMING

Wilderness is the preeminent level of land protection. Wilderness classification is the only designation with an established and commonly agreed upon set of strictures. Any lesser degree of protection has a high likelihood of resulting in landscapes controlled by regulations that could be changed at any time. Wilderness is the only designation that puts emphasis on the importance of the ecological value of land and removes the anthropocentric focus that all too often dominates such conversations. Some argue that there is too much designated wilderness already, but with only 2.7% of the lower 48 designated, that argument is without credence. We stand at a cross roads, as our forefathers did, granted with opportunity and privilege to give these lands the protection they so deserve.

Seven areas of National Forest System lands will be designated as new wilderness areas or additions to existing wilderness areas, to be permanently protected under the 1964 National Wilderness Preservation System, also known as the Wilderness Act. These lands, all within the boundary of Teton County, Wyoming, are listed in this table and further described below:

Table 1: Proposed Wilderness Acreage Comments

Palisades WSA 54,380 acres New Palisades Wilderness Area within Teton County, WY; minus a carve out for motorized/mechanized recreation area from Mosquito Creek Rd north to near Hwy 22 Shoal Creek WSA 11,619 acres Addition to existing Gros Ventre Wilderness Area, only that part of the WSA within Teton County Grizzly Lake 3,955 acres Addition to existing Gros Ventre Wilderness Area Spread Creek-GV River-Mt. Leidy 132,152 acres New Mt. Leidy Wilderness Area within Teton County; minus a carve out not to exceed not to exceed 2,500 acres for Horsetail motorized trail Willow Creek and Beaver Mtn 25,820 acres New Grayback Wilderness portions of Grayback Ridge IRA Area within Teton County Pacific Creek-Blackrock 23,761 acres Addition to existing Teton Wilderness Area Granite-Boulder-Little Granite 4,752 acres; Addition to existing Gros Ventre Wilderness Area

Total 254,280 acres

While the 1964 Wilderness Act itself is well known, and its language would be adopted in successful federal legislation in conformance with its provisions as has been case for 54 years for new wilderness areas, it is worthwhile to offer here some quotes from the Wilderness Act to emphasize the purpose of protecting these national public landscapes in Teton County, Wyoming.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 states in part:

“ …to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." Sec 2(a)

“these [areas] shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wild character. . . . “ Sec 2(a)

In the 1964 Act, wilderness is defined in part as:

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor and does not remain.” Sec 2c

“(Wilderness) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable . . .” Sec 2c

“(Wilderness) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; “ Sec 2c

Our plan to protect these areas as designated wilderness is informed in part by the relative paucity of wilderness in America. Only 5% of the United States has been protected as designated wilderness, and only 2% in the Lower 48 States (Wilderness.org). Only 4.7% of Wyoming has been protected as designated wilderness, and only 10.2% of the public land in Wyoming is wilderness (D. Smitherman 2018). We acknowledge that Teton County, Wyoming has large areas protected as wilderness and national parks, and that those protected landscapes and the wildlife that depend on those protections are unique among counties in the U.S. They are the basis for our year round tourism economy and quality of life for residents. We recognize that there is some motorized and mechanized recreation in some of the areas we are proposing for wilderness, and we acknowledge that those uses are incompatible with the Wilderness Act and would end when wilderness designation is conferred by Congress. We believe that our economy and natural ecosystems will be better sustained for future generations with the wilderness designations and Teton Conservation Areas specified in this proposal. We recognize that there 6 are Forest Service System public lands in Teton County appropriate for motorized and mechanized recreation, and we have included them in this proposal as Teton Conservation areas.

Recognizing that within proposed new wilderness areas, activities such as chainsaw use, mountain biking, motorized recreation or travel, and heli-skiing will not be allowed, we have adjusted proposed wilderness boundaries to reduce the disruption to existing incompatible motorized and mechanized uses.

Many activities that are ongoing in these areas are compatible with wilderness designation. Wilderness designation does not:

• Affect state or private landowner right of access to their land • Affect livestock grazing and grazing facilities (fences, corrals, water developments, etc.), including allowing the Forest Service to leave vacant or close livestock grazing allotments as policy and law currently allow • Affect grazing of saddle and pack stock as determined by the Wilderness Act, forest plans and existing policy and law • Affect the designation, use, and maintenance of primitive National Forest System or other hiking and stock trails in accordance with the Forest Plans, except that only primitive tools may be used for maintenance • Affect existing irrigation ditches, water impoundments. or water rights • Affect valid existing rights including, but not limited to, rights of way • Prevent scientific research • Affect wildlife management as practiced and managed by the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department • Affect hunting or fishing as currently permitted and managed by the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Areas recommended for wilderness:

a. Palisades WSA becomes the Palisades Wilderness Area - 54,380 acres only in Teton County, Wyoming. This area was rated a 12 out of 12 on wilderness quality by the Forest Service (BTNF, 2008). This proposal deletes (carves out) a non- wilderness Teton Conservation Area north of Mosquito Creek and south of Hwy 22 and also leaves Palisades WSA (Photo provided by EcoFlight) out the roaded areas in Mosquito Creek drainage. “Natural and undeveloped character- high. . . Long- term ecological processes are intact and operating in this area . . . . A high degree of natural integrity exists in the area.” (BTNF 2008:22)

7 b. Shoal Creek WSA becomes an addition to the Gros Ventre Wilderness Area - 11,619 acres only in Teton County, Wyoming. Adjacent to the Gros Ventre Wilderness. “Natural and undeveloped character - high. . . . Scenic views of the southern Gros Ventre Range are outstanding. . . The area is important habitat for big game . . . pronghorn and mule deer spend summers here and migrate to the Green River basin for winter.” (BTNF 2008: 29-30) c. Grizzly Lake becomes an addition to the Gros Ventre Wilderness Area - 3,955 acres. “The trail to Grizzly Lake is moderately used and it is possible to find no one else on the trail except on high-season weekends; this trail also gives access to Shoal Creek WSA (Photo provided by Lloyd Dorsey) Blue Miner Lake in the Gros Ventre Wilderness.” (BTNF 2008:19) “This area could be managed as wilderness; it can be protected from unauthorized uses and is sheltered from nearby developments. Its southern boundary meets the Gros Ventre Wilderness.” (BTNF 2008:20) d. Spread Creek-Gros Ventre River-Mt. Leidy becomes the Mt. Leidy Wilderness Area - 132,152 acres. This includes a carve out not to exceed 2,500 acres for the Horsetail Creek motorcycle route, and an additional carve out to the north to accommodate snowmobile and OHV routes, and loss of approximately 30,684 acres of wilderness quality lands in Fremont and Sublette counties. “Water quality is high and watershed conditions are healthy and functioning properly. Ecological communities or species that are rare or at risk find protection and Spread Creek/Mt Leidy Area (Photo provided by quality habitat in the area, including Lloyd Dorsey) grizzly bear, gray wolf, sage grouse, and Canada lynx. . . . Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation- high in most of the area. . . . The area demands physical ability, orienteering, and outdoor skills to safely recreate.” (BTNF 2008:17) e. Willow Creek (Grayback Roadless Area) becomes the Willow Creek (or Grayback) Wilderness Area - 25,820 acres of the Grayback Roadless Area in the northern portion of the Wyoming Range in Teton County only. “Outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation- high. . . . Outstanding opportunities for backcountry hunting are offered by the large, remote area and

8 the wildlife it supports. . . . There is a high degree of remoteness in much of this large area.” (BTNF 2008:36-37)

f. Pacific Creek-Blackrock becomes an addition to the Teton Wilderness Area - 23,761 acres. “non-native plant species are few and species at risk, including gray wolf, Canada lynx, and grizzly bear, find quality habitat here. . . . there is a sense of remoteness possible even in this relative front country.” (BTNF 2008:15)

g. Granite-Boulder-Little Granite becomes an addition to the Gros Ventre Wilderness Area - 4,752 acres. This area is adjacent to the Gros Ventre Wilderness Area on its western boundary and the Granite Creek-Granite Hot Springs Road on its east. The Little Granite road spur intrudes into this area and would be Granite-Boulder Creek Area (Photo provided by Lloyd cherry-stemmed out of the Dorsey) proposed Wilderness.

MINERALS AND TIMBER WITHDRAWAL

All US Forest Service System lands on the Caribou-Targhee and Bridger-Teton national forests in Teton County, Wyoming that have federal mineral rights not yet withdrawn by previous wilderness designations and/or which still allow commercial timber harvest shall be withdrawn from mineral leasing and development and withdrawn from commercial timber extraction. We believe this amounts to more than 465,000 acres including the specific areas we recommend for Teton Roadless Conservation Areas and new designated wilderness areas; this will require calculation and verification by the respective national forests prior to submission to Congress for deliberation.

Such prohibitions against mineral leasing and development and against commercial timber harvest are not meant to and shall not affect production of sand and gravel at existing quarries and sites yet to be determined; and shall not affect gathering of firewood including with the use of chainsaws for personal use and Christmas trees for personal use in road accessible non- wilderness areas as is currently allowed through the issuance of permits by the respective national forests.

The areas of National Forest System lands in Teton County outside of proposed Teton Conservation Areas or new designated wilderness are included for minerals and commercial timber harvest withdrawal. Such areas are characterized by roaded and intensively recreated areas such as the three ski resorts, the north side of Teton Pass, Shadow Mountain, lower elevations of the Gros Ventre Valley, the roaded areas of the Blackrock Ranger District in northern Jackson Hole, Leeks Canyon, and Camp Creek and others. These areas provide 9 motorized and mechanized recreation and front country camping opportunities and are popular with residents and visitors alike. And, other than the minerals and timber withdrawal, we do not propose changes in designations or management for those areas. A map of these areas will be needed to forward this recommendation for consideration before Congress.

NEW TETON CONSERVATION AREAS

Eight areas of National Forest System lands will be designated as Teton Conservation Areas where it is prohibited to construct new roads reconstruct old roads, commercially harvest timber, and lease or develop minerals. Those lands are listed in this table:

Table 2: Teton Conservation Areas Acreage Comments

Curtis Canyon 9,581 acres Unroaded area only Cache Creek-Game Creek 14,867 acres Unroaded area only Phillips Ridge 9,786 acres Unroaded area only Munger Mountain 10,063 acres Unroaded area only Palisades WSA carve out near Hwy22 17,462 acres From Mosquito Creek Road north to near Hwy22 West Slope of the Tetons on CTNF 39,189 acres Spread Creek-GV River-Mt. Leidy 2,439 acres Not to exceed 2,500 acres carve out for Horsetail Creek route to allow continued use of motorcycle route Northern carve out from Mt Leidy- 21,066 acres From Continental Divide Spread Creek IRA Snowmobile Trail northward to allow continued motorized/mechanized use Total 124,453 acres

Creation of Teton Conservation Areas as described will protect the social and ecological values and characteristics of inventoried roadless areas from road construction, reconstruction, timber harvest, and mineral development. Without strong and permanent protection, “these development activities may adversely affect watershed values and ecosystem health in the short and long term, expand the road maintenance backlog which would increase the financial burden associated with road maintenance, and perpetuate public controversy and debate over the management of these areas.” (RR:3247)

For lands proposed for protection as Teton Conservation Areas, we recommend that the Act conform with most of the specific activities allowed or prohibited by the Roadless Rule, forest

10 plans and other existing policies and law, with some specific exceptions regarding mineral leasing and commercial timber harvest as described above.

Teton Conservation Areas would not:

• Affect state or private landowner right of access to their land • Prevent suppression of wildfire, or mechanical vegetation treatments as guided by current laws and policies including forest plans • Affect firewood gathering or the use of chainsaws • Affect livestock grazing and grazing facilities (fences, corrals, water developments, etc.) including allowing the Forest Service to leave vacant or close livestock grazing allotments as policy and law currently allow • Affect grazing of saddle and pack stock as determined by Forest Plans and existing policy and law • Affect the designation, use, and maintenance of primitive National Forest System or other hiking and stock trails in accordance with forest plans • Affect existing irrigation ditches, water impoundments, or water rights • Affect valid existing rights including, but not limited to, rights of way • “Suspend or modify any existing permit, contract, or other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use of National Forest System land.” (RR:3270) • Prevent wildlife habitat improvement projects or wildlife or other scientific research • Affect wildlife management as practiced and managed by the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department • Affect hunting or fishing as permitted and managed by the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department • Close roads or motorized or mechanized trails. • Affect motorized and mechanized recreation and travel on trails, or in other areas designated in a CTNF or BTNF travel plan.

Specified Lands in this proposal

Some National Forest System lands in this proposal will be lands described in the Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Final Rule 36 CFR Part 294 published in the Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations, known hereafter as the Roadless Rule (RR:xx in citations), and, as stated above, will be further limited to only some lands of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and the Bridger-Teton National Forest within Teton County, Wyoming.

Some of these lands are also described in the BTNF's Evaluation of Areas with Wilderness Potential 2008. The same areas described in the 2001 Roadless Rule and the 2008 Evaluation of Wilderness Potential are very similar in size. Where the size and perimeters of the areas differ between the 2001 Roadless Rule and the 2008 Evaluation of Wilderness Potential due to “updated and corrected” information about forest roads and trails (BTNF 2008:3) we recommend using the 2008 area and acreage since it is the most accurate. Our maps accompanying this proposal use the GIS database made available by the Teton Conservation District. Our maps are meant to guide our proposal and discussions, but we recognize that they may not represent the true boundaries exactly. Accurate and final maps created by the Forest

11 Service should accompany federal legislation that is presented to Congress. If passed, accurate and final maps should be archived and made available to the public as is customarily required.

Descriptions of various elements in this proposal are borrowed from, and credited to, some of the excellent language in the Roadless Rule which we recommend be carried forward in a final Act to protect these areas. We also offer some language from the 2008 BTNF Wilderness Inventory to describe the natural values of these landscapes.

Areas recommended for designation as Teton Conservation Areas:

a. Curtis Canyon (9,581 acres): Adjacent to the Elk Refuge and the Gros Ventre Wilderness, “this area is known for spectacular views of the Tetons, enjoyed from the main road system that gives access to campsites and trailheads. Other special values include wildlife, particularly elk, . . . bison, bears, falcons, and gray wolves.” (BTNF 2008: 25)

b. Cache Creek-Game Creek (14,867 acres): “Contiguous with the west side of the Gros Ventre Wilderness. Most of the area is in a natural condition. . . . The opportunity to see wildlife is notable and the area includes lovely wildflower parks.” (BTNF 2008:26) A very popular hiking, walking, and cross country ski area accessible from Jackson.

c. Phillips Ridge (9,786 acres): “This area is adjacent to the Jedediah Smith Wilderness and Grand Teton National Park, and most of it is in natural condition. . . . The Ski Lake/Phillips Pass area receives heavy recreation use year-round and trails have been upgraded to handle this use, with bridges and other structures.” (BTNF 2008:20)

d. Munger Mountain (10,063 acres): “For a relatively small area surrounded by roads and housing developments, Munger Mountain appears quite natural. Its proximity to the South Park elk feed ground and lower elevations of the Snake River Range make it prime migration and winter habitat for elk and moose.” (BTNF 2008:41) It is popular for summer Northern Palisades Carve Out (Photo provided by hiking, biking, OHV use, and fall Peggie dePasquale) hunting.

e. Palisades WSA carve out near Hwy 22 From Mosquito Creek Road North (17,462 acres): This area has been carved out from wilderness protection in this proposal due to “the area (of the Palisades WSA) near Teton Pass and Black Canyon (having) many structures, rights-of-way, and high recreation use.” (BTNF 2008:22) 12

f. West Slope of Tetons on the Caribou- Targhee National Forest adjacent to the Jedediah Smith Wilderness (39,189 acres): With burgeoning development on private lands in nearby Teton Valley, Idaho, these roadless lands are important for wildlife. They act as a vital stronghold for wildlife with a mix of plant communities and aspects. They contain ungulate winter range of mountain mahogany, serviceberry and chokecherry and diverse- West Slope of Tetons (Photo Provided by Deb Patla) aged aspen stands. They have mature large Douglas fir and lodgepole providing forest raptor habitat, and also important riparian zones in the canyon bottoms. Prey and predator species alike depend on these wildlands for crucial movement zones. (D Patla 2018: email to L Dorsey)

g. Spread Creek-Gros Ventre-Mt Leidy carve out for the motorcycle route near Horsetail Creek (2,439 acres ), and the carve out to the north of the proposed Wilderness to accommodate motorized recreation (21,066 acres). “The state of Wyoming grooms numerous snowmobile trails, some of which are within the (Roadless) area. “ (BTNF 2008:17) “Resource use that would not be compatible should the area be added to the Wilderness system include motorized and mechanized recreation . . . “ (BTNF 2008:18) Therefore, we carved out this area from protection under the Wilderness system.

Spread Creek/Mt. Leidy Carve Out (Photo provided by Lloyd Dorsey)

CONCLUSION

We feel that this proposal represents highest and best use for these lands of Teton County.

We look forward to answering questions and considering suggestions for this plan. Respectfully submitted to the Teton WPLI Advisory Committee by Lloyd Dorsey, Bruce Hayse, and Peggie dePasquale.

13 References:

Bridger-Teton National Forest. 2008. Evaluation of Areas with Wilderness Potential 2008. Jackson, WY.

Bridger-Teton National Forest. 2014. Map: Palisades Wilderness Study Area. Bridger-Teton National Forest Intermountain Region-Wyoming. March 11th, 2014. National Wilderness Preservation System. Wyoming Wilderness Act- Oct 30th, 1984. Legislative Map-Public Law 98- 550. Washington, D.C..

Federal Register. 2001. Part VI Department of Agriculture Forest Service 36 CFR part 294 Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Final Rule. Known as The Roadless Rule. Federal Register/Vol.. 66, No. 9/ Friday, January 12, 2001/ Rules and Regulations. Washington, D.C..

Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan. 2012. “Our Vision and Executive Summary” of the Comprehensive Plan. Teton County, WY.

Patla, Debra. 2018. Email to Lloyd Dorsey describing the Inventoried Roadless Areas on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest in Wyoming. July 29, 2018.

Smitherman, Dan. 2018. Email to L Dorsey and others from Dan Smitherman July 20, 2018. With word document titled, “Wyoming Wilderness Index”. “Percent of Wyoming that is designated wilderness: 4.7%.” And additional figures to arrive at 10.2% of Wyoming Public Lands are wilderness. Jackson, WY.

Teton County Wyoming Public Lands Initiative Charter. 2016. Wyoming Public Lands Initiative Teton County Advisory Committee Charter. Teton County, WY.

The Wilderness Society. 2018. Wilderness Designation FAQs. Wilderness is just two percent of the Lower 48 States land mass. At https://wilderness.org/article/wilderness-designation- faqs Last viewed July 31, 2018.

Wilderness Act. 1964. Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session. September 3, 1964. An Act to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other reasons. Washington, D.C.

Wilkinson, Todd. 2018. Mountain Journal. Unnatural Disaster: Will America’s Most Iconic Wild Ecosystem Be Lost To A Tidal Wave Of People? http://mountainjournal.org/the-wildest- ecosystem-in-america-faces-death-by-too-many-people

14 Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan Tables August 8, 2018 Teton WPLI meeting

Summary: Proposed Wilderness: 254,280 acres (Table 1) Proposed Teton Conservation Areas: 124,453 acres (Table 2) Roaded Areas not affected by either Wilderness or Conservation Areas: 237,040 acres (Table 3) Total: 614,773 acres (all USFS lands in Teton County included for Minerals and Timber Withdrawals)

2 A Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan

By Lloyd Dorsey, Bruce Hayse and Peggie dePasquale Presented to the Teton WPLI Committee August 8, 2018 Striving for a Balanced & Practical Approach Towards Long-term Conservation in Teton County Wyoming  What’s new in this Plan? Besides Improved Powerpoint and maps. Thanks Peggie!

 Less Wilderness: From 298,772 acres decreased to 254,280 acres.

 Teton Conservation Areas (formerly Codified Roadless) increased from 102,486 acres to 124,453 acres.  We also estimated USFS Front Country Roaded Areas (Table 3). Teton County This Plan includes the following recommendations being applied county wide on US Forest Service lands:

 Federal minerals withdrawal Except for sand & gravel  Commercial timber withdrawal

Photo provided by EcoFlight Overview Overview:

Table 1: Proposed Wilderness Acreage Comments

Palisades WSA 54,380 acres New Palisades Wilderness Area within Teton County, WY; minus a carve out for motorized/mechanized recreation area from Mosquito Creek Rd 30980 & Trails 3005 & 049 north to near Hwy 22

Shoal Creek WSA 11,619 acres Addition to existing Gros Ventre Wilderness Area, only that part of the WSA within Teton County Grizzly Lake 3,955 acres Addition to existing Gros Ventre Wilderness Area Spread Creek-GV River-Mt. Leidy 132,152 acres New Mt. Leidy Wilderness Area within Teton County; minus a carve out not to exceed 2,500 acres for Horsetail motorized trail 4090

Willow Creek and Beaver Mtn portions of 25,820 acres New Grayback Wilderness Area within Grayback Ridge IRA Teton County Pacific Creek-Blackrock 23,761 acres Addition to existing Teton Wilderness Area Granite-Boulder-Little Granite 4,752 acres; Addition to existing Gros Ventre Wilderness Area

Total 254,280 acres Palisades Northern Carve Out Mt Leidy Wilderness Greyback Ridge Wilderness Overview:

Table 2: Teton Conservation Areas Acreage Comments

West Slope of the Tetons on CTNF 39,189 acres Spread Creek-GV River-Mt. Leidy carve out for 2,439 acres Not to exceed 2,500 acres to allow Horsetail Creek route continued use of motorcycle route 4090

Northern carve out from Mt Leidy-Spread Creek 21,066 acres From Continental Divide IRA Snowmobile Trail to “K” Trail northward to allow continued motorized/mechanized use according to Forest and Travel Plans

Total 124,453 acres West Slope of Tetons Table 3: Roaded Areas- No change via the Acreage Comments Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan (except minerals & timber withdrawals apply)

Gros Ventre Valley (Lower Slide Lake, Slate Approximately 44,000 The roaded and motorized lower Creek, Crystal Creek, Upper Slide Lake, Gunsight acres elevations Pass, Breakneck, Soda Lake, Cottonwood Creek, Big Cow Creek, Darwin Ranch, etc.) Buffalo Valley-Blackrock-Togwotee Pass-North Approximately 60,800 Not in proposed Wilderness nor in Fork of Fish Creek roaded areas acres Conservation Areas Toppings Lakes Approximately 6,000 acres Shadow Mountain Approximately 8,000 acres Snow King-Leeks Cyn-Hwy 191 faces Approximately 4,000 acres “Dino” footprint & Fall Creek roaded areas within Approximately 6,000 Palisades WSA acres South Fork of Fish Creek, Buffalo Meadow, Approximately 18,000 Not in proposed Wilderness nor in Wagon Creek, Mosquito Lake acres Conservation Areas West Slope of the Tetons on Caribou-Targhee Approximately 87,680 Not in proposed Conservation National Forest acres Areas Wind River Lake, Sheridan Creek on the Approx 2,560 acres Shoshone National Forest near Togwotee Pass

Total Approximately 237,040 acres Some of What The Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan Does:

 Adds 254,280 acres of Wilderness (Table 1).

 Designates 124,453 acres of USFS land as unroaded Teton Conservation Areas. (Table 2) Still allows motorized and mechanized recreation.

 Estimated 237,040 acres of Roaded USFS land (Table 3) maintains motorized and mechanized.

 Total mineral/timber withdrawal: approximately 614,773 acres. (Tables 1, 2, & 3).  Allows motorized and mechanized uses to continue on approximately 361,493 acres of USFS land in Teton County. (Tables 2 & 3). Does Not:

 Does not: Affect WUI issues nor change USFS Wildfire Management Policies for Wilderness or non-Wilderness lands.  Does not: Remove motorized or mechanized uses in approximately 124,453 acres of Teton Conservation Areas. (see Table 2)  Does not: Remove motorized or mechanized uses in approx. 237,040 acres of already roaded USFS lands in Teton County, Wyoming. (see Table 3)  Does not: Affect the three motorcycle-only backcountry trails at issue (Mosquito Creek, Munger Mountain, and Horsetail Creek)  Does not: Significantly affect Heli-skiing user days; most of 5-year average user days maintained by this Plan.  Does not: Affect livestock grazing.  Does not: Affect collaborative wildlife management among the WGFD, USFS, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Does not: Affect hunting or fishing as collaboratively managed by the 3 agencies. (However, non-residents require resident or commercial guides for big game hunting in Wilderness Areas. And, travel by stock or on foot only.) The Teton Wildlands Plan: Less is More

The Forest Service has more than a century of experience implementing the many existing laws and legal directives regarding Forests and Grasslands. This Plan capitalizes on that history. Therefore, this Plan relies heavily on the 2001 Roadless Rule, the 1964 Wilderness Act, and Forest and Travel Plans. This Plan uses the existing USFS Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)GIS database verified over the years. In conclusion:

 The Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan balances many interests and uses on our public lands. This Plan “Preserve(s) and protect(s) the area’s ecosystem in order to ensure a healthy environment, community and economy for current and future generations.”

Questions?

F. Camenzind Roaded US Forest Service Lands in Teton County, WY, where minerals & timber withdrawn; manage according to Forest & Travel Plans

Inventory Roadless Areas Winegar Hole West Slope Tetons In Wyoming

West Slope Tetons

Palisades

Legend

LandCT_Districts RoadlessAreaName Palisades Stump Creek West Slope Tetons Stump Creek 0 7 14 21 28 Winegar Hole Miles

Teton County Wyoming WPLI Proposal-Palisades and Shoal Creek Special Management Areas Proposal Alliance

The following Alliance of local and regional stakeholders have a common and unified interest to maintain a broad based and diversified multi-recreational use of all remaining public lands located in Teton County Wyoming (collectively the “Alliance”):

Advocates for Multi-Use of Public Lands Dubois Sno-Katters Jackson Hole Snow Devils Lander Snowdrifters Teton Freedom Riders Powder River Sno-Buffs Wyoming State Snowmobile Association Riverton Sno-Goers Bear Lodge Snowmobile Club Snowy Range Snowmobile Club Big Horn Mountain Snomads Sour Doughs Big Horn Sno-Goers & ATV Campbell Sweetwater Snowpokes Snowmobile County Sno-Goers Club Top of the Rockies Casper Snow Gypsies Sky Liners Cody Country Snowmobile Association High Mountain Heli-skiing

1521 Individuals who have filed written public comments in support of protecting the mechanized and motorized recreational opportunities in the Palisades and Shoal creek Wilderness Study Areas in Teton County and Sublette County Wyoming

The constituents of the Alliance represent a Grassroots collection of public land users for recreational purposes including all forms of human only as well as mechanized and motorized activities.

This proposal is a culmination of conversations among the various groups of the Alliance and others who share a common interest in maintaining public land access for all types of recreational use in a manner fair to all. Of premier importance to all members of the Alliance is to continue and protect the heritage of public lands as used and enjoyed by previous generations of Wyoming residents for the benefit of future generations.

This proposal is being presented to the Committee for Wyoming Public Lands Initiative in Teton County (“WPLI”) for consideration as it develops its proposal to Congress for legislation to create a new designation for the Palisades and Shoal Creek wilderness study areas in Teton County, Wyoming.

Background

The public lands in Teton County have provided diverse and spectacular recreational opportunities for generations of local and regional citizens and families for decades. It is the backbone of the way of life for our residents and the reason most have chosen to live and stay in Teton County and the surrounding areas. These residents have enjoyed the opportunity to appreciate the natural beauty of the region and all the activities that are important to them including horseback riding, camping, snowmobiling, backpacking, mountain biking, cross country and downhill skiing, dirt biking, hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, firewood gathering, hiking, paragliding, heli-skiing and ATV riding to name a few. Many of the residents that have been attracted to the region over the last century to enjoy the quality of life the region offers and to participate in these recreational activities are also conservation minded and respectful of the environment wishing to maintain its rugged beauty for future generations to enjoy as they participate in those multi-use recreational activities. To date, 82% of the county has already been designated or otherwise restricted to only non-mechanical and non-motorized uses. It is important to retain into perpetuity the remaining, limited 18% of public lands in the county for use by the large portion of the population in the county and visitors who enjoy the multitude of other types of recreational activities for which the region is well known and appreciated.

This broad base of recreational activities provide great economic stimulus to the area, some of which generate fees to support environmental protection, conservation efforts, maintenance and enhancement initiatives. Additionally, the livelihood of many of our residents is dependent upon that economic support. The residents and guests that participate in these many recreational opportunities represent a substantial share of the region’s population that supports local businesses, restaurants and hotels; creates employment opportunities for local residents who are employed in recreation related businesses; and generates user fees and state and local taxes.

Currently Teton County has a good balance of wildlife protection, quiet recreational use and multi- recreational use areas. The county is currently comprised of 2,697,290 acres of which 96.8% (2,613,138 acres) is Federal land and the balance is private, state or local land. Of all public land in Teton County, 81.2% (2,190,659 acres) is already preserved within the national parks and other designated Wilderness areas for wildlife preservation and non-motorized and non- mechanized recreational uses. That leaves only 18.8% (507,129 acres) of the public land in Teton County available for the broad base of multi-recreational uses. 1As a result of this potential imbalance of public lands for multi-recreational use, any further reduction or limitation of such uses by designation of additional wilderness regions will have adverse conservation, economic and quality of life impacts on the region and its citizens. The Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs, as well as the remainder of the public lands in Teton County available for multi-recreational use, are invaluable regions for those purposes and must be preserved for the use and enjoyment by the broad base of our residents and visitors alike.

Heli-skiing in the region represents an example of a current recreational use that provides substantial economic stimulus into the region, supports many of our residents with quality jobs and allows locals and visitors alike with an opportunity to enjoy a unique and spectacular outdoor recreational opportunity. The heli-skiing operator in the region has been operating responsibly for 44 years. Heli- skiing requires a relatively large permit area to be able to provide heli-skiing clients with an untracked powder experience during extended periods of favorable weather conditions. When an area becomes “tracked out” (e.g., no more untracked skiable runs available), the operation must move to a different location. In addition to the availability of untracked snow, factors such as avalanche activity, snow conditions and weather determine where heli-skiing will take place on any given day. Historically, heli-skiing operated within the Gros Ventre Range and the west slope of the Tetons as well as the Snake River Range and Wyoming Range. With the passage of the Wyoming Wilderness Act in 1984, ski terrain within the Jedediah Smith Wilderness (west slope of the Tetons) and the Gros Ventre Wilderness was removed from the permit area. Removal of these areas reduced the permit area by roughly one-third. The vast majority of current heli-skiing use occurs within the Palisades area. Any further reduction of the permitted area for heli-skiing operations would risk the loss of that industry within the region and the many jobs and economic stimulus from visitors that support that use.

Since 1984, an additional 260,465 acres2 of public lands in Teton County have been restricted and removed from use by mechanized, motorized and related recreation enthusiasts. Of the 1521 individuals who have submitted written comments in support of this proposal, the following are a

few of those comments which are representative of the sentiments expressed by most of those submitting comments:

“I can’t wait to take my 5 yr. old son to some of my favorite spots growing up when he is old enough. I want him to have the opportunity of experiencing the beauty of this country as I have. Not everyone is fortunate enough or have the abilities of hiking or biking and should have the same opportunity to enjoy the outdoors! We should all be equal in that respect like handicap access.”

“We live here to enjoy the backcountry access, it’s one of a kind, and the reason we stay in this area.”

“This WSA land is so important to so much of our community recreation. We are so fortunate to have two national parks at our back door, but any more loss of recreational land would be a huge hit. This community lives in the mountains. Please don’t limit that!”

“I feel that allowing people to use these areas creates advocates for the environment. People have to be able to access these areas so that future generations can love and appreciate them as well.”

“I have grown up in Jackson my whole life and the woods is where I have been my whole life. I love snowmobiling and dirt biking. It will be devastating for it to be gone. I have gone to cut my Christmas tree down every year since I was born and these are the things I look forward to every year. I really hope I will still be able to have these adventures.”

Proposals:

To further the objectives of the Alliance and all their various constituents, the Alliance respectfully requests that the WPLI adopt the following general criteria and recommend to Congress the passage of legislation declining the designation of the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs as wilderness and incorporating the following guidelines to protect the quality of multi-recreational opportunities within the region for all current and future generations:

1. Activities not Allowed: Recognizing the severe negative and irreversible impact on the region’s natural beauty and ecosystem, the following activities should be prohibited:  Oil and Gas exploration, leasing, extraction and related activities; and  Mining and Mineral exploration, leasing, extraction and related activities.

2. Conservation Measures: The Alliance supports the following conservation focused measures:

a) Public Access Points: Maintain all existing public access points, and allow for the relocation of an existing access point as reasonably determined necessary by the Forest Service or Wyoming Game and Fish Department, or in cases where an access point is made inaccessible due to natural disasters or causes such as flood or landslide. Provide that interested user groups and volunteers be allowed to improve and maintain existing and replacement public access points consistent with Forest Service or Wyoming Game and Fish Department regulations.

b) Maintenance: Allow volunteers and user groups in cooperation with the Forest Service to help maintain the existing and newly created roads, trails and structures as necessary to fully realize the benefit of and safe passage over those road and trail systems.

c) Seasonal Closures: Allow for limited seasonal closures for summer motorized usage on those trails located within (i) wildlife closure areas, or (ii) recognized hunting areas during the regulated hunting season to avoid potential conflicts and to improve public safety.

3. Permitted Uses: The Alliance supports the following permitted uses:

a) Multi-Use Activities Allowed: Allow and preserve the following recreational activities which were occurring in 1984 and include, but are not limited to, horseback riding, camping, cross-country snowmobiling, backpacking, mountain biking, cross country and downhill skiing, dirt biking, hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, firewood gathering, hiking, paragliding, heli-skiing and ATV riding; and

b) Heli-Skiing: Commercial use days on U.S. Forest Service lands within Teton County, WY to be determined by the guidelines set forth in the BTNF 2005 Environmental Impact Statement or future revisions to the forest plan.

Concessions and Collaboration:

The members of the Alliance represent a diverse segment of the region’s residents, many with very different and sometimes opposing views and prejudices toward their preferred recreational activities as well as biases toward public land, wildlife, environmental and economic issues. However, through communication, collaboration, compromise and respect for the preferences and viewpoints of others, the Alliance was able to craft the solutions and proposals contained herein that is supported by all members and groups of the Alliance.

This Proposal is respectfully submitted this ____ day of ______, 2018 on behalf of the Alliance by the following members of the WPLI who are also members of one or more of the Alliance organizations:

Mike Mielke Greg Buchko

Jim Woodmencey Wade Kaufman

1 SUMMARY OF TETON COUNTY LAND OWNERSHIP WITH COMPARISON OF WILDERNESS AND MOTORIZED RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES (7/31/2017)

Table 6: Summary of Current Snowmobiling Opportunities in Teton County (Source: USFS GIS data {July 2017} supplied by Jackson Ranger District) Total Acres % of Teton County Open Land Ownership Status Open Closed to Snowmobiles U.S. Forest Service RESTRICTED to Designated Routes: 150,561 acres has 90 miles of designated routes / 3,276 147,285 0.12 travel permitted 50 yards off each side of trail = 36.4 acres/mile x 90 mi. = 3,276 acres OPEN to Cross-Country Snowmobile Travel 503,853 0 18.68 CLOSED to Snowmobile Use 0 711,946 National Park Service 0 1,219,919 Private Land 0 76,134 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 0 24,706 BLM 0 2,652 State 0 7,365 Local Government 0 652 Total Teton County Acres 507,129 2,190,659 Total % of Teton County 18.8 81.2 18.8

If the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs were to be given full Wilderness status by Congress, a total of 83,399 acres would be subtracted from the USFS ‘Open’ to snowmobiling category – resulting in only 423,730 acres (15.7% of total Teton County lands) remaining open to snowmobile use.

2 SUMMARY OF TETON COUNTY – MOTORIZED ACCESS CLOSURES SINCE 1984 Compiled by Trails Work Consulting 8/3/17

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Grand Teton National Park 2002 - Potholes-Baseline Flats area closed to snowmobile use; 16,000 acres - Numerous interior roads segments were closed to snowmobile use; 14 total miles - Jackson Lake: closed to all snowplane use; 25,400 acres 2003 - Jackson Lake: snowmobile use restricted to limited access by only fishermen using a Best Available Technology (BAT) snowmobile 2009 - Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail closed, eliminating snowmobile use; 34 miles

Yellowstone National Park 1990 or earlier: all snowplane use eliminated on Yellowstone Lake and on all park roads

2003 - All snowmobile use restricted to only ‘commercially guided on a special BAT snowmobile;’ 180 total miles of road

PARK SERVICE TOTAL: - 41,400 acres and 48 miles of roads and trails have been closed in Grand Teton - 180 miles of groomed roads in Yellowstone have become heavily restricted

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

1990 Jackson & Blackrock Ranger Districts, Bridger-Teton NF – Wildlife Winter Range The 1990 Bridger-Teton Forest Plan established new management standards for (1) Big Game Winter Range (human activity restricted from November 15 thru April 30) – which closes areas to snowmobile use, and (2) Elk Calving Areas (human activity restricted from May 15 thru June 30) – which closes areas/roads to summer OHV use. The Big Game Winter Range standard is implemented through B-T N.F. Special Order 04-03-300 – Winter Closure while the Elk Calving Area standard is implemented through B-T N.F. Temporary Special Order 04-03-549 – Temporary Closure Roads and Trails (and possibly others).

Total Closure to Snowmobiles: 147,285 acres (150,561 total acres with 90 miles of designated routes where travel is permitted 50 yards off each side of trail; 36.4 acres/mile x 90 mi. = 3,276 acres Open with balance of 147,285 acres Closed) Total Closure to Wheeled OHVs: unknown, but definitely several miles of roads and trails were impacted

2002 Teton Basin Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee NF – Teton Pass Trail EA The Teton Pass EA’s Decision Notice changed this area to “non-motorized during the snow season,” which effectively eliminated late-season snowmobile access to the Palisades WSA, through Mail Cabin and other historic access points. This area was used historically used by snowmobilers for spring access after lower elevation access points melted out, so its closure effectively eliminated late-season access to the entire 134,417 acre Palisades WSA, 71,780 acres of which are located in Teton County. Total Closure to Snowmobiles: 71,780 acres

2005 National OHV Travel Rule The 2005 national OHV Travel Rule required all forests to designate authorized travel routes (roads and trails) for wheeled OHVs and generally disallowed cross-country travel by wheeled vehicles, which closed a substantive number of acres (everything that was zoned open to motorized travel previously) along with a number of motorized trail routes not designated as Open. Total Closure to Wheeled OHVs: unknown, but definite many acres and several miles of existing roads and trails

FOREST SERVICE TOTAL: - Snowmobile = 219,065 acres - Wheeled OHVs = Unknown

GRAND TOTAL OF TETON COUNTY CLOSURES SINCE 1984

- Snowmobiling: 260,465 acres and 48 miles of roads/trails - Wheeled OHVs: Unknown MOUNTAIN ATHLETE WORKING GROUP (MAWG)

MIDDLE GROUND

PROPOSAL WHAT IS MAWG? “MOUNTAIN ATHLETE WORKING GROUP” • Collaboration-Driven: • Everyone Invited • Compromise Mandated • Get some work done • Transparency • Workshops Open to WPLI Members/Alternates • Report distributed Committee-wide after each workshop with decisions/ updates • Participation • Every WPLI Committee member or his/her alternate attended at least 1 workshop • Goal: • Develop a “Broad” and “Widespread” Middle Ground Proposal WPLI PROPOSAL COMPARISON - COUNTY WIDE

Teton Wildlands MAWG "Middle Ground" Multi-Use Proposal Proposal Proposal

Prohibits Oil & Gas Development Yes Yes No County-Wide? Prohibits Mineral/Mining Yes Yes No Development? Prohibits Commercial Timber Yes Yes No Development? Creates New Wilderness? Yes - Approx 240,000 Yes - Approx 167,000 No Acres Acres Creates New Conservation Areas Yes - Approx 124,000 Yes - Approx 214,000 No (Codiﬁed Roadless)? Acres Acres

Developed Colloboratively? No Yes No WPLI PROPOSAL COMPARISON - NEW WILDERNESS DIFFERENCE?

Teton Wildlands MAWG "Middle Ground" Diﬀerence? Proposal Proposal

Palisades Approx 54,000 Acres None 54,000 Acres

Shoal Approx 11,000 Acres Approx 5,000 Acres 6,000 Acres

Mt. Leidy/Spread Creek Area Approx 132,000 Acres Approx 118,000 Acres 13,000 Acres

Willow-Creek Grayback Approx 20,000 None 20,000 Acres

Total 93,000 Acres WPLI PROPOSAL COMPARISON - PALISADES WSA

Teton Wildlands MAWG "Middle Ground" Multi-Use Proposal Proposal Proposal Creates New Wilderness in the Yes - Approx 54,000 No No Palisades WSA? Acres Impact to Mountain Biking? Restricts it to 17,000 Not impacted in 27,000 Not impacted Acre Northern Carve Acre Northern Recreation Out Corridor Corridor, limited to 5 Trails and July-August in the WSA south of the Cooridor Impact to Snowmobiling? Eﬀectively Eliminates Improved - Mail Cabin Not Impacted Snowmobiling - Corridor Access after April Northern Zone is 1 includes signiﬁcant winter non-motorized areas for BC Skiing Impact to Heli-Skiing? Eliminates It Not Impacted Not Impacted

Impact to Summer Motorized? N/A - There are Improved - allows for a N/A - There are currently no motorized new single track trail to be currently no trails in the Teton constructed connecting the motorized trails County Portion of the Mosquito Creek trail in the Teton Palisades WSA system to trails in Idaho County Portion of the Palisades WSA WPLI PROPOSAL COMPARISON - SHOAL WSA

Teton Wildlands Proposal MAWG Motorized “Middle Ground" Proposal Proposal

Creates New Wilderness in the Yes - Approx 11,000 Acres Yes - Approximately 5,000 No Shoal WSA Acres

Impact to Mountain Biking Eliminates It Restricts it to the southern Not impacted 6,200 Acre Jackson Hole Conservation Area

Impact to Snowmobiling Eliminates It Restricts it to the southern Not Impacted 6,200 Acre Jackson Hole Conservation Area

Impact to Summer Motorized Eliminates It Restricts it to the southern Not Impacted 6,200 Acre Jackson Hole Conservation Area ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT!

• The MAWG Middle Ground Proposal is the result of hundreds of hours of work, hard conversations, and difficult compromises …. but it can be better. Please help us!

MAWG Final "Middle Ground" Proposal BOCC, 8.9.18 Description

County Wide - No mineral or Oil & Gas development - No commercial Timber harvesting - Mechanism to acquire state inholdings - Wildlife and fish conservation to include habitat improvement projects, scientific research, low density recreation designed and managed with wildlife principles in mind

Palisades - Entire area will become a JHCAA, but with an added 27,000 Acre "Northern Recreation Zone" where Mountain Biking will be allowed and Mountain Biking expansion will be allowed as per regular USFS Travel Planning

- South of the Recreation Zone, Mountain Biking will be limited to 5 current trails and seasonally restricted to July 1 - August 31 use. These trails will be required to remain classes 1&2 as per the USFS matrix. Below are the 5 Trails:

Big Elk Creek S/N Fork Fall Creek Trail Dog Creek Cabin Creek Green Knoll/Hunter Trail

- Snowmobiling will be allowed throughout the entire JHCA.

- No new snowmobile access points will be allowed. No expansion of existing parking areas for summer or winter access points (trailheads).

- Heli-Skiing will be allowed through the entire JHCA in accordance with USFS permitting.

- One new single track summer motorized trail (dirt bike) will be allowed connecting the dirt bike trails in Mosquito to Idaho. This new trail need to be constructed in the Northern Recrea- tion Zone.

Shoal - North (5,303 acres) will become a Wilderness Addition to the Gros Ventre Wilderness

- South (6,286 acres) will become a Jackson Hole Conservation Area

Mount Glory - New Winter Non-Motorized Area codifies existing use between snowmobilers and bc skiers and addresses future user conflicts.

Mail Cabin - Access corridor for snowmobilers after April 1 through a new Mosquito-State Line non-motorized winter zone allows sledder access to the high country in Palisades further south while preserving the northern slopes and faces for backcountry skiers

New Wilderness Areas and Wil- Teton Wilderness Additions derness Additions: Pacific-Angle - 11,238 Acres Breccia - 1,190 Approx 167,000 Acres Gros Ventre Wilderness Additions Grizzly Lake - 1,805 Camp Creek - 3,019 Boulder Creek - 4,883 Shoal North - 5,303

Jedediah Wilderness Additions (west slope of Tetons) Game Creek North Fork - 1,289 Beard Beaver - 1,377 Jackpine North-Boone - 13,499

New Wilderness Area Burnt Bacon - 49,815 Green Fish - 39,302 Mt. Leidy - 29,274 Beaver Mountain - 5,619

Wilderness Subtraction: Jedediah Wilderness Subtraction (west slope of the Tetons) @ Pinnacle - 201 Acres

201 Acres

New Jackson Hole Conserva- Pacific Blackrock - 13,286 acres tion Areas: Camp Creek - 2.541 acres Palisades - 72,296 acres Approx 214,000 Acres Total Munger - 9,638 acres Phillips Ridge - 9,946 acres Mt Leidy / Spread Creek - Approx 100,000 acres Shoal South - 6,286 acres

MAWG "Middle Ground" Proposal Jackson Hole Conservation Area Prescriptions

We recommend the designation of several Jackson Hole Conservation Areas (JHCA) totaling approximately 214,000 acres to be comprised of specific parcels of federal lands within Teton County. JHCA designation recognizes the outstanding wildlife, conservation, recreation, and other values of proposed JHCA lands. The specific lands to be managed as JHCAs are set forth in Section 2.C.

Below are the specific JHCAs and their approximate acreages, recommended by this proposal:

Pacific Blackrock - 13,286 Acres Camp Creek - 2.541 Acres Palisades - 72,296 Acres Munger - 9,638 Acres Phillips Ridge - 9,946 Acres Mt Leidy / Spread Creek - 100,000 Acres Shoal South - 6,286 Acres

We recommend that JHCA lands continue to be managed by their respective land managing agency consistent with the prescriptions set forth below. Note: where specific land designations and management prescriptions are recommended for particular parcels of federal lands (Subsection 2.C. below), the general prescriptions described herein should likewise apply unless specifically modified in those recommendations.

The Committee recognizes that the federal land manager (the U.S. Forest Service or USFS) will and should retain discretion to apply its expertise in managing JHCA lands. We think it critical that such discretion be guided by a clear and implementable statement of the purposes for which those lands should be managed, which statement should inform USFS decision-making in implementing the Committee’s recommendations regarding JHCA management prescriptions.

The Committee recommends that the anticipated legislation include a purpose statement declaring:

“The purpose of this legislation is to create a management structure for travel, commercial and recreational uses that promulgates and facilitates the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat. Management purposes are to maintain the area’s recreational, scenic, cultural, ecological, and wildlife values. Management consistent with purposes and only uses consistent with the purposes are permitted.”

The Committee’s management recommendation for JHCA lands are as follow:

JHCA lands should be managed according to the following prescriptions:

1. Wildlife management.

 One of the principal goals of these recommendations is to provide for and ensure active management of JHCAs for wildlife conservation. To accomplish that objective, the

USFS shall consider and prioritize management of JHCAs for wildlife conservation in Forest Planning and related activities.

 The USFS will collaborate and cooperate with the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish, and, when required by law or otherwise as appropriate, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to manage wildlife and wildlife habitat to provide for and maintain healthy populations of the full range of fish, wildlife and plant species native to Teton County. These actions may include encouraging habitat improvement projects, scientific research, and low density recreation designed and managed with wildlife principles in mind, and may likewise include restrictions on recreational use and the active engagement of programs to control and arrest the spread of noxious and invasive plant and animal species.

2. Habitat and resource conservation

 No commercial logging. Commercial timber removal shall be prohibited within JHCAs.

 No oil and gas leasing or development, no commercial mineral extraction. Activities, including prospecting, leasing, or other forms of contracting or sale, for the purpose of gathering information about or development of oil and gas, other hydrocarbon resources, and locatable or leasable minerals other than sand and gravel, shall be prohibited within JHCAs.

 Dams, power projects, and transmission lines. Prospecting for water resources, and development of new water retention reservoirs, water-conservation works, hydropower projects, and transmission lines shall be prohibited within JHCAs.

 Let vestigial roads molder; protect resources. Where moldering and currently closed roads from historic commercial logging or other activities exist within the boundaries of JHCAs, managers may take such actions as they deem appropriate to limit damage to resources associated with road-induced erosion from slope failures, snowmelt impacts, and stormwater runoff, and otherwise allow, facilitate, or accelerate the reversion of these vestigial roads to trails or undeveloped land.

3. Transportation system management

 No new roads. No new passenger vehicle roads may be constructed or permitted within JHCAs.

 No temporary roads, no aircraft landing, no motorboats. Except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), or as otherwise provided in these recommendations, there shall be no temporary road, no motorized access equipment except for over-snow motorized and summer motorized recreational equipment as specifically addressed in Section 2.B.5 below, no motorboats, and no landing of aircraft within any JHCA.

 No recreational helicopter access. Except as otherwise provided in these recommendations, helicopter-access recreation is prohibited. Where the control of invasive plant and animal species or human rescue operations reasonably require the

overflight, aerial treatment, and landing of aircraft, including helicopters, such use of aircraft shall be permitted.

 USFS Travel Management Planning to continue. JHCAs shall be managed pursuant to USFS Forest Planning (including resource protection) and Travel Planning processes and requirements, providing USFS the flexibility to open, close and otherwise manage trails and resources as conditions change in the years ahead.

4. Facilities

 There will be no buildings, structures or installations within any JHCA other than cell tower and relay system facilities and those installations necessary for conservation and management activities by federal and state land management agencies. Installation and maintenance of any such facilities or installations must be performed consistently with the prohibition against new or temporary roads, and aircraft landing.

5. Recreation management

 Dirt-based motorized recreation (dirt bikes, ATV/UTV, Electric MTB) shall be allowed subject to management pursuant to USFS Forest Planning (including resource protection) and Travel Planning processes and requirements.

 Mountain bike and snowmobile use shall be allowed subject to management pursuant to USFS Forest Planning (including resource protection) and Travel Planning processes and requirements.

6. Commercial activities

 Commercial guiding services allowed. Commercial guiding services may be performed within JHCAs as necessary for activities that are proper for realizing the recreational or other backcountry conservation purposes of the areas. Commercial guiding services shall be managed pursuant to applicable USFS Forest Planning and commercial use processes and requirements.

 Commercial Heli-skiing is allowed within certain areas of the JHCA, in accordance with USFS permitting, (Reference: High Mountain Heli-Skiing Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued on June 30, 2005 by the National Forest Service,) or as per future permit revisions.

 Livestock grazing permitted; allotment retirement allowed. Existing livestock grazing activities shall be permitted to continue subject to management pursuant to applicable USFS Forest Planning and commercial use processes and requirements. The USFS shall accept the donation of valid existing leases or permits authorizing grazing activities within the JHCA, and shall terminate the grazing permit or lease. The USFS shall ensure an permanent end to grazing on the lands covered by such permit or lease. If the land covered by the donated lease or permit is also covered by an existing valid lease or permit that is not donated, USFS shall reduce the authorized level of use to reflect the donation and to ensure a permanent reduction in the level of grazing authorized on that land. The USFS shall have the authority to retire and ensure a permanent end to grazing on lands covered by grazing allotments that may have been

administratively retired or which may subsequently be retired with the consent of the then-permitted grazing allotment holder.

7. JHCA boundaries, inholdings, and land exchanges

 JHCA boundaries should be established a distance of fifty (50) meters from the edge of established roads and one-half (.5) miles from privately-owned lands.

 Inholdings, State lands. The Forest Service may acquire privately owned land or State of Wyoming lands within the perimeter of any JHCA if (1) the owner agrees to such acquisition or (2) the acquisition is specifically authorized by Congress.

 The USFS may acquire land or interests in land within or adjacent to JHCAs by donation, exchange or purchase from a willing seller.

 The USFS shall seek to complete an exchange of two parcels of lands owned by the State of Wyoming located within the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

 Any lands acquired by the USFS within designated Wilderness or within the JHCA, whether by donation, purchase, or exchange, shall be managed as Wilderness or as a part of the JHCA, as the case may be.

8. Specific resource area designation and management

We recommend a variety of specific resource area designations and management prescriptions, subject to the following general conditions:

 When an area is proposed for designation and management as Wilderness, the Wilderness boundary should be drawn to provide (a) a minimum buffer of one-half (1/2) mile from private property, and (b) to follow readily-identified natural boundaries such as rivers, streams, cliff bands and the like.

 JHCA boundaries should be established a distance of one-half (.5) miles from privately- owned lands.

a. Palisades JHCA

We recommend designating the Palisades WSA as the Palisades JHCA. We recommend the following management proscriptions.

1. Mountain Biking

(a). Northern Recreation Zone - Mountain Biking in the Northern Recreation Zone will be allowed to continue as is. Trail maintenance and new trails shall be allowed in accordance with regular USFS Travel Management regulations and procedures.

(b). Outside the Northern Recreation Zone - Mountain Biking will be limited to 5 existing trails, and be seasonally restricted to July 1 through and August 31. Listed below are the 5 trails, which will be remain classes 1 and 2 as per the USFS trail maintenance matrix:

Big Elk Creek S/N Fork Fall Creek Trail Dog Creek Cabin Creek Green Knoll/Hunter Trail

2. Snowmobiling

(a). Snowmobiling will be allowed in the entire JHCA, but there will be no additional parking areas created or expansion of existing parking areas.

(b). Snowmobilers will have access to the Mail Cabin trailhead after April 1 and via a travel corridor, passage through the Mosquito-Stateline Non-Motorized Zone to areas further south.

3. Heli-Skiing

(a). Heli-Skiing will be allowed throughout in the JHCA in accordance with USFS permitting.

3. Summer Motorized Single Track

1. A single summer motorized single track trail will be allowed traversing the JHCA East to West to connect the existing motorized trail system in the Mosquito Creek area with exiting trails in Idaho. This new single track motorized trail must be built within the Palisades JHCA Northern Recreation Zone.

August 20, 2018

Teton County WPLI Advisory Committee Statements of Dissent to the Teton County Board of County Commissioners

Dear Commissioners Newcomb, Macker, Rhea, Vogelheim, and Epstein,

What follows are dissent statements from ten members of the Teton Wyoming Public Lands Initiative committee. Dissent statements from other members of the committee, submitted in PDF format, have also been emailed to the BCC today. Committee members who voted a ‘five’ (meaning the member cannot support that proposal) on any of the final proposals were required by the Teton WPLI charter to write a statement explaining the rationale behind their dissenting vote. These statements should be read alongside the three final proposals submitted to the Board of County Commissioners: the Multi-Use Proposal, the Teton Wildlands Proposal, and the Mountain Athlete Working Group (MAWG) Middle Ground Proposal.

Respectfully,

Nicole Gautier Research Associate, Ruckelshaus Institute Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources University of Wyoming

August 20, 2018

Dear County Commissioners,

Here’s my reasoning for voting a 5 on the motorized proposal:

The AMPL/motorized proposal is a loss for conservation. It would take away protections that currently exist in the congressionally-designated Wilderness Study Areas in Palisades and Shoal Creek. The only prohibition accompanying this proposal would be on oil and gas leasing and development and hard rock mining. The motorized proposal does nothing to prohibit commercial timber harvest, roadbuilding or limit in any way new motorized or mechanized trail building. All forms of recreation and human presence in wildlife habitat have an adverse impact on wildlife, and the proposal doesn’t do enough to address or attempt to limit these impacts. The only seasonal wildlife closures the proposal would support refer to: “summer motorized usage on those trails located within (i) wildlife closure areas, or (ii) recognized hunting areas during the regulated hunting season to avoid potential conflicts and to improve public safety.” I’m not sure whether this refers only to existing “wildlife closure areas” and “recognized hunting areas” —and if so, where those places are, or to areas that could be identified in the future.

L I S A M c G E E Executive Director | Wyoming Outdoor Council 307.733.3845 | [email protected]

August 20, 2018

I thought that I would go ahead and provide you with the requisite short summaries for why I voted "5" on two of the 3 proposals that were discussed and finally voted on yesterday. My statement for both of the proposals on which I voted 5 will be identical, and so can be appended to each of them for the BCC's consumption. To wit:

"I voted 5 for both the "Multi-Use" and the "Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan" because I firmly believe that the "Mountain Athlete Working Group" (MAWG) plan best represents the intent of the WPLI process, that it attempted to consider and include needs and wishes of the widest cross section of user/interest groups possible. Further, my vote of 5 was a result of my belief that adherence to the Teton County WPLI committee members' charter was required, a document which we all signed, & which explicitly required that the processes used be collaborative - even if a consensus outcome was in the end not possible. Only the MAWG process was truly collaborative, inviting and clearly incorporating input from ALL committee member represented user groups. Specifically, as a WPLI committee member, I was never, ever, invited by the groups that crafted the other two proposals to provide any input during the nearly 2 year WPLI process. As such and partly because this disregard of the requirement of the WPLI Charter I feel unable to vote other than 5 on those two proposals. I do like and/or could live with elements from both of those 2 other proposals, and I respect the individuals who worked on them. I do believe it to be in the best interest of Teton County that the two proposals on which I voted 5 be considered by the Teton County Board of County Commissioners - along with the MAWG proposal." Respectfully, John J Hebberger Jr.

So there you go, and unless something else is required I believe that this ends, finally, my efforts towards this WPLI process. It has been a long 2 years.

Again many thanks for your work and efforts,

John Hebberger Jr.

Representative for the oil and gas industry

August 20, 2018

I voted a "5" on both the Teton Wildlands Proposal and the Multi Use Proposal. Below are my reasons:

Dear BOCC,

Going in, I hoped to see two specific results of the WPLI Committee's efforts: (1) Continued use of Palisades for mountain biking and snowmobiling, and (2) Creation of new Wilderness areas or additions in Teton County. Below are my reasons for voting "5" on both the Teton Wildlands and Multi-Use proposals:

Teton Wildlands Proposal This proposal lacked in fairness to the motorized/multi use community, especially snowmobilers, and their continued use of Palisades. As well, this proposal was not developed collaboratively - in accordance with the intent and spirit of the WPLI effort.

Multi Use Proposal The WPLI effort in general presents Wyoming with the first opportunity in over 30 years to create more Wilderness in our state. The Multi-Use Proposal disregards this incredible opportunity by not offering to create even one acre of new Wilderness in Teton County. As well, this proposal was not developed collaboratively - in accordance with the intent and spirit of the WPLI effort.

Respectfully,

Rob Shaul

Representative for members of the public

August 20, 2018

Dear County Commissioners,

While I appreciated the AMPL motions to create opportunities to enjoy the backcountry, eliminate extractive industry, and to yield to wildlife regulation in Teton County, I voted a 5 on the AMPL proposal for the following reasons:

1. The proposal only addressed Palisades and Shoal Creek WSAs and did not get on board with the committee direction early in the process to consider other areas in Teton County. The only chance for consensus was through consideration of other areas.

2. The proposal did not compromise by including some Wilderness. There are plenty of Wilderness areas they could have supported where no little or loss of motorized or mechanized terrain would occur (ie., Camp Creek, Grizzly Lake, Pacific-Angle, Beaver Mountain, Game Creek North Fork, Jackpine-North Boone), but instead they chose to dig their heels in on the ideology of “no more Wilderness.” This was unacceptable to myself and several others on the committee.

3. While no outsiders were expressly invited to participate in the creation of their proposal, compromise is a two-way street. Dissenters could have taken the initiative to meet with them, send them comment emails, or call them to object to proposal specifics. Three times during the process, I initiated an offer to meet with Mike Mielke, but he did not respond. Apparently, Mike met with one or two other dissenters, but not me. Hence, for me, the AMPL proposal was not a collaborative effort.

4. The snowmobile representative Mike Mielke dropped out of the collaborative process 3 months before the last meeting. He did not identify an alternate to advance his group’s interests. Many other committee members, including myself, designated alternates and our interests were well-served by doing so. No snowmobiling voice made it very difficult to finish the MAWG proposal, as we had to guess what snowmobilers might want, and ask other snowmobilers we know. The AMPL proposal did not change from when it was first proposed last year until August 1, 2018. AMPL was obviously unwilling to incorporate feedback as the process unfolded, yet they felt entitled to show up at the final meeting on August 8, and try to kill the collaborative effort.

5. The proposal stipulates that all recreation use levels to revert back to the 2005 levels with no heed paid to the efforts and results of the 2006 heli-skiing lawsuit. This was a deal breaker for me.

6. Perhaps most importantly, the AMPL proposal does not do enough to limit motorized use. With this proposal, I could imagine going backcountry skiing in the Palisades and choking on blue smoke as groups and groups of snowmachiners pass me by as I skin up a canyon. When I finally arrive on the summit, the nearby bowls are already tracked up by sleds, and the buzz of two or even three helicopters are transporting wealthy skiers to untracked powder, hopefully not on the peak I am standing on! Untracked snow for the human-powered traveler and quiet pristine backcountry will be a thing of the past in the Palisades. It would become a mountain motor park. Not acceptable.

Tom Turiano

Backcountry Skiing Representative

August 20, 2018

Dear County Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Teton WPLI Committee. Our public lands are special and I value this opportunity to engage in a productive discussion about the future of our public land management with diverse stakeholders. I participated in good faith on this committee representing a regional conservation interest and brought data, information and the views of my constituents to the committee at both formal and informal meetings. I emphatically support interest-based collaboration as a way of addressing land management issues despite our inability to achieve a single consensus proposal. I remain committed to finding solutions through dialog that work for all users while also protecting wildlife and wild places.

As required by Teton WPLI charter I submit my reasons for blocking support of the Teton WPLI motorized proposal or multi-use proposal.

This proposal does not provide for options that meet the interests of the conservation community. We do agree with one element of that proposal: that federal lands in Teton County be made off limits to mining, leasing and other industrial extractive uses. However, it contained no other options that ensured protection of these landscapes. It did not address commercial timber harvest, or the impact of recreation on wildlife or the desire of many recreationists to maintain their recreation experience in this wild landscape . Overall, the measures in the proposal represented a net loss for the conservation interest relative to the current status. Further, the proposal was developed without sufficient input from other stakeholders on the Teton WPLI committee. For these reasons, substantive and procedural, we oppose this proposal.

The two other proposals, “MAWG” and “Teton Wildlands” contain provisions that represent a gain for the conservation community and we support those proposals.

Thanks,

Siva Sundaresan

Greater Yellowstone Coalition

August 20, 2018

Board of County Commissioners

Teton County, Wyoming

Dear Members of the Board of County Commissioners: Per the protocol of the WPLI – Teton County Advisory Committee, this forwards my explanation of a “5” vote for the Motorized Recreation Proposal in the recent Collaborative voting. I gave this proposal a 5 primarily because I did not see that the proposal is a good faith execution of the committee or the process.

The motorized group was being directed, largely, by Mike Mielke, representing snowmachiners. Even while the BCC was forming the Advisory Committee, Mike was working with Jesse Combs to found Advocates for Multi-Use Public Lands (AMPL). One of the stated purposes of AMPL (from their web site) is:

“Oppose new Wilderness designations in our area, especially Teton County where 82% of public land is off limits to winterized motorsports and over 99% of public land is off limits to summer motorized use.”

It would appear that Mike was a founder, Board member and officer of AMPL when he was selected for the Advisory Committee. Committee member Greg Buchko is also a member of AMPL.

I attended multiple AMPL events; including one at the Elks Club, where Mike and Jesse stated to a raucous, enthusiastic audience, that AMPL would oppose any new Wilderness in Teton County.

It is inherently impossible to have a good faith negotiation with someone who is steadfastly averse to any negotiation or compromise regarding a possible Wilderness designation on WSA’s or other lands. It would seem he joined the Committee for the sole purpose of defeating any Wilderness designation in Teton County. Mike stated publicly in Committee sessions that he was willing to consider some Wilderness designations. His actions during deliberative meetings belied that claim.

That lack of good faith was further demonstrated when Wade Kaufman, also an officer of AMPL and an ‘alternate’ for Mike at MAWG meetings, assured members of the MAWG group that AMPL had not organized a lobbying campaign to Representative Cheney that had been chronicled in news reports, and questioned by work group members. Yet I and others saw Mike ask AMPL membership at the same meeting at the Elks Club if they’d seen AMPL’s work in the papers, as a means of further rallying support at the meeting. Again, good faith was virtually impossible.

This frustration over lack of good faith is combined with the disappointment that the accommodation of the motorized recreation interests obviated a very real opportunity - perhaps the last in anyone’s lifetime - to advocate for additional Wilderness in Teton County to protect these lands for future generations. As an active member of the MAWG group, I know we bent over backwards to reflect the stated concerns of the motorized recreation interests; the obviation of any wilderness designation within the Palisades WSA, for example. While these lands and their unique characteristics were provided an improved level of protection in the MAWG proposal, not even a symbolic Wilderness designation was

August 20, 2018

considered, to accommodate motorized concerns. This was an exercise in true collaboration by many in the conservation community, that was not reciprocated by the motorized community.

In fact, the proposal presented by motorized recreation at the end of the 2 year process was virtually identical to the one they opened with over a year ago. Without any attempt at good faith by the leaders of the motorized recreation contingent, it was impossible to give their proposal any credence.

Sincerely,

David Sollitt

Representative for members of the public

August 20, 2018

Teton County Board of County Commissioners:

I voted “5” on the Multi-Use Proposal as well as the Teton Wildlands proposal. I made it clear in my remarks at our last WPLI meeting that my vote on those two proposals had nothing to do with the substance or merits of either. I voted 5 because neither plan represented true compromise or was the result of the collaboration clearly intended by the Teton County Board of County Commissioners when they signed up for WPLI, selected this particular group of people to be on its Advisory Board, and devoted considerable County resources to this process.

The Teton County WPLI Advisory Board was a “working group” tasked with collectively developing a proposal and set of recommendations based on compromise through collaboration which meant sitting at the table with people with very different values and priorities and making very difficult decisions and not developing a plan away from the group with largely (or entirely) like-minded people and packaging it as “compromise.” Those two proposals contained at best “token” concessions, if any.

I have over my years practicing law participated in a multitude of negotiations and mediations. I know what compromise looks like and it does not look like either the Multi- Use nor the Teton Wildlands proposals. It usually results in something that is difficult for both sides to swallow. In many mediations each side sends a mediation statement to the mediator that outlines their position, their values and what they think the outcome should be. They frequently contain token concessions to the other side in a sincere attempt to be fair or an attempt to appear so to the mediator. Then, after eight hours or eight days or eight weeks of very tough negotiations and painful decisions, if you are successful, you have an agreement reached though compromise that lands somewhere in the middle. The Teton Wildlands proposal and the Multi-Use proposal look like the mediation statements I see at the outset of that process - not where you land after two years and hundreds of hours of discussion and negotiation. Much of my work involved family law and child custody where your options are limited since you cannot in fact split a baby in two. This was easier. Or should have been. But there were hard truths that neither one of these groups wanted to face starting with respect for the other side’s values and rights as equal to their own.

Merriam-Webster defines compromise as “a settlement reached by consent reached by mutual concessions; something immediate between or blending qualities of two different things; a concession to something [viewed as] derogatory or prejudicial.”

There was very little or nothing in either of those two proposals that did not reflect the wishes and positions of those two groups (recreationists and certain conservationists) at the outset of this process two years ago. I was very disappointed. They wasted everyone’s time including their own. And time is the most valuable commodity any of us has. If they had put that time and effort into continuing to work on the true middle ground, the MAWG proposal, or educating their constituents instead of inflaming them I wonder how much better the MAWG proposal could have been or how much more support it could have garnered. I spoke with people who showed up to offer comment and most were not particularly educated about the issues they faced but were mainly told to show up and voice “support for recreation and access” or “support wilderness.” I saw emails and sat in on meetings of the various stakeholder groups on the fringes that contained little or no information about the goals of WPLI, the opportunities it presented, or the very real risks the status quo poses to their stakeholders’ interests.

August 20, 2018

I cannot emphasize enough that the MAWG proposal represents significant contributions from everyone on the committee and all stakeholders - including a tremendous amount of work and input from members of the committee who in the end decided to vote against it. Tony Ferlisi, Bruce Hayes (through his surrogate Peggie DePasquale), and Jim Woodmency were very involved in MAWG and their concerns and contributions are deeply imbedded in the MAWG proposal. Thirteen MAWG contributors voted to support it despite reservations by some. A tremendous amount of time and effort and research went into meticulously drawing the maps to protect snowmobile routes and recognize current and potential future mountain bike routes. It presents a tremendous opportunity and a win- win. It gives almost everyone what they said they wanted at the outset. The snowmobilers get to continue to sled in Palisades without fear of a lawsuit for a level of activaty that is occurring above 1984 levels. While they have some interesting legal theories about how to defend against that and you never know - my instincts are that they will lose because as a practical matter everyone knows they are sledding above those levels. The mountain bikers have the most to gain with WPLI and the most to lose without it if there is a lawsuit about current uses violating the Wyoming Wilderness Act. They would get to keep the trails in the north of Palisades that they love and have devoted so many resources to building and maintaining. Conservationists gain thousands of acres of new Wilderness and other areas are protected. There are areas for quiet recreation and summer motorized use.

In the end, despite spending a significant of time at the outset educating ourselves on the difference between defending a “position” which accomplishes little as a practical matter and advocating for “values” - too many people caved into positional thinking and positional bargaining. For example, the “not one more acre” theme of the recreationalists versus a proposal that allows them to go where they, in fact, want to go and to do what they want to do. The recreationalists have been held back in their thinking according to an old school/wild west/pioneer/freedom attitude of going where you want, when you want and how you want on public lands. Those days are over. There are over seven billion people on the planet and growing. Everything you want to do you must think about the consequences when the number of people doing that same activity is increased by magnitudes. Another reality is the level of impact a particular recreational use has on the land itself and the wildlife - what is appropriate or even “fair” is not acre for acre against other means of recreating - impact and disturbance matters in the analysis.

The representatives of the Multi-Use proposal represented wildlife closures and the mineral withdrawal as a “concession” to the conservation groups. That is insincere. From the beginning the one thing that everyone did agree on was the value and need for protecting wildlife - it was merely the means people disagreed about and the recreational users always from the beginning conceded there was a need for wildlife closures in certain areas and at certain times. They were also all clear, not surprisingly, that would never want to see oil, gas and mineral development or commercial timber in Teton County.

I am equally critical of some (but by no means all) of the conservationist representatives on the committee and in the community. Like David Sollitt’s criticism of AMPLE in his dissent I believe there were members of the conservation community who only saw WPLI as a threat and not an opportunity and worked to thwart it constantly. Outside the committee that is their right to advocate for their beliefs and values - if it occurred within the committee it was wholly inappropriate. My criticism of the more strident conservationist in the community struck me as I read Franz Camenzind’s Guest Shot in the Jackson Hole News and Guide the day of our last WPLI meeting in which he implicitly criticized newer faster forms of recreation that start to look like an amusement park. How, he asks, can one appreciate

August 20, 2018

the hummingbird feeding on a carpet of wildflowers while racing down a zip line making selfie videos and blasting music? I ask myself questions like these all the time as I amble casually along our trails jumping off frequently for bikers tearing by dressed as storm troopers with helmets and headphones. The difference is that I don’t think I have the right to lecture or patronize others about their chosen method of recreating on our public lands. I try not to rank and judge people that way. And how do you realistically expect to get additional Wilderness in Wyoming without compromise?

The Wilderness Act of 1964 was the result of compromise. The Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984 was the result of compromise. The US Constitution was the result of compromise. Democracy only functions pursuant to comprise.

Despite the negative tenor of my remarks and the lack of consensus and no matter how the Commissioners decide to proceed, I feel strongly that the WPLI committee was comprised of smart and generous people who worked very hard with the tools they were given. The MAWG plan is fair and balanced and presents a tremendous opportunity for long overdue legislative action on these lands.

It was an honor to serve.

Thank you,

Abigail Moore

Representative for members of the public

August 20, 2018

Teton County Commission 200 S Willow ST. Jackson, Wy 83001

I am the recreational snowmobile representative for Teton County, Wyoming’s WPLI process. However, much more than that I am a multi-use advocate representing constituents across a broad platform of public land uses including not only snowmobilers, but also local and out-of-area users of our public lands for horseback riding, camping, backpacking, mountain biking, cross country and downhill skiing, dirt biking, hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, firewood gathering, hiking, paragliding, heli-skiing and ATV riding. Neither I nor any other representatives of this group are paid representatives, but are instead all volunteers representing this broad constituent grassroots organization, all of whom are passionate about our public lands and both the environmental protection of our uniquely beautiful region as well as maintaining the broad multi-use opportunities on the very limited remaining available public lands. The desire to maintain the environment while utilizing those same public lands is what drives the passion for all of us and why many of our residents live here and many others visit each year. While these interests may at times seem contradictory, we firmly believe that both interests can be successfully achieved through thoughtful and respectful consideration and accommodation of the varying interests.

My duties through this process have included the unbiased representation of my diverse constituents, to educate and guide them through the WPLI process and to help develop a common and consistent perspective among us on the use of public lands. For nearly 2 years I have been involved in public outreach, group and community meetings, manning information tents and holding special events to educate the user base and gather their diverse thoughts and opinions.

The WPLI board was assembled by the Teton County Board of County Commissioners to assess Wyoming’s WSAs and to propose and support by consensus fair regulations and practices to promote the use of public lands in the best interest of all those that may be affected, not the special interests of the few. I volunteered to represent the broad and very populous group of multiple use citizens to help facilitate the process and to represent that large group of public land users to be heard against the well- funded minority, many of whom have no ties to our region.

Unfortunately, the WPLI board has had period of dysfunctionality throughout much of the process and has failed to arrive at a consensus proposal that has a broad and fair public benefit. Initially it took nearly 5 months for the members to agree on the scope and language of the board’s charter alone. Although substantial changes were made, a clear direction was never achieved that would provide all participants and their constituents with an equal opportunity to be involved in the policy making with equal voices. However, one concept survived the evolution of the charter and was agreed to by its members; namely that the resulting proposal of the WPLI would require a consensus of all its members.

Now more than a year into the process the WPLI board is still debating whether we are dealing within the confines of the WSA’s or whether the policy of use of public lands should encompass the entire county. Meeting minutes will reflect my attempts to get some resolution on what lands should be included and excluded from the board’s scope. More than once it was said publicly at the WPLI meetings that the Palisades WSA is too contentious to include in the same assessment as other public use areas and would therefore be discussed separately and at a later date.

August 20, 2018

Of great concern to me and my constituents was the lack of adequate consideration by the board of the economic and lifestyle impacts that many restrictions under consideration would have not only on Teton County businesses but also the high percentage of area residents. Many live in the region solely to enjoy the unique aspects and usage of public lands. Similarly, the livelihood of a very large portion of the region’s population depends on businesses related to and that support those recreational and other public land uses. With tourism being Wyoming’s number two economic driver and even more significant in Teton County, the economic impacts and the more personal lifestyle impacts on local residents deserved far greater consideration than was extended by the board.

The WPLI has now held more than a year of monthly meetings, with hundreds of hours consumed by those of us involved in the process. Despite that process and consumption of resources, I am still not sure what areas in Teton County are under discussion for compromise. As a result, our broad constituency, and my work to represent them has been greatly compromised. Without focus, it was impossible through our grass-roots efforts to gather extensive or representative public comment on the various regions. The user group and opinions varied among users of the Palisades, Shoal Creek and Togwotee pass areas. Due to this uncertainty as to the areas under consideration and the issues and considerations applicable to each area, it was impractical to effectively gather constituent’s input opinions and present consensus positions and support with regard to each region. This process placed our broad group at a substantial and unfair disadvantage resulting in outcomes that were not properly representative of the majority of public land users.

Of further concern, Commissioner Mark Newcomb at the June 2018 WPLI meeting set the deadline for submitting final proposals and set the official vote with regard to the proposals for August 8th. At that June meeting members decided to form the MAWG group with the charge to develop a consensus plan within the remaining 60 days. I declined to be part of the MAWG Group as it was charged with making recommendations regarding the use and restrictions on public lands behind closed doors without adequate opportunity for the large multi-user base to participate in that process that would affect most of the remaining public multi-use lands in Teton County. For nearly a year and a half, as a result of the lack of clarity regarding the scope of review undertaken by the WPLI board, my constituents were unable to develop a consensus and present their proposals for other areas that were under consideration for new Wilderness as those areas where not finally defined until the August 8th meeting.

In further degradation of our opportunity to be heard in the process, it was erroneously reported at the August 8th WPLI meeting that our multi-use proposal was not timely submitted and did not allow other board members to contribute or respond. However, the record is clear that our multi-use proposal was submitted to the WPLI in March 2018 with basically no feedback from any of the committee members. Later at the August 8th meeting, Jim Woodmencey, Greg Buchko and I again presented the same Multi- Use proposal that was submitted at the March WPLI meeting.

When this process began to develop a proposal for the multiple uses applicable to the small portion of remaining multi-use lands, I was assured and signed the charter agreement believing that each individual board member would have the power to veto any proposal from moving forward without a consensus of all the members. With that understanding and the expectation of finding some common ground with the other board members that would be fair and reasonable to all applicable public land users, this truly seemed to be a worthwhile endeavor for my time and energy, and it has been. My commitment as a volunteer representing snowmobile and other multi-use activities in Teton County was to put my best effort into educating myself and my constituents about the location of the proposed WSA’s and their potential impact on our community. Through this effort I have really come to

August 20, 2018

understand the public lands within the boundaries of Teton County, the significant erosion of multi-use regions and the very small portion remaining today for snowmobiling and other motorized and mechanized multi use activities.

Teton County now has only 18% of the public land that remains available for over snow recreation. Over time the taking of public lands by extensive and over-reaching use restrictions, and through Wilderness and critical habitat area designations have so significantly reduced the public lands now available for multi-use that my constituents feel they have been squeezed and effectively driven from those public lands that have been identified for years and in campaigns designed to draw visitors to the region as the “Land of Many Uses.” That vision is now being lost.

Of that remaining 18%, the areas accessible for recreational purposes by motorized or mechanical means is a significantly smaller area. The “Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan” would add an additional 254,280 acres of Wilderness, which in my opinion and that of my constituents is an attempt for an extensive “Wilderness land grab” of public lands in Teton County without proper public input and consideration of the interests of the extensive population in the region. Likewise the MAWG “Jackson Hole Conservation Area Proposal” had a similar end result with an additional 167,613 of additional Wilderness. Both proposals that designated extensive new Wilderness areas neglected to consider the existing winter closure areas which have further reduced the winter recreation opportunities. Also the TWCP and JHCA proposals adjusted provisions and verbiage up to and after the final votes were cast preventing those members representing anyone other than themselves from getting adequate constituent feedback and making their voices heard.

As the recreational snowmobile representative for Teton County, my constituents and I strongly oppose the “Jackson Hole Conservation Area proposal” and the “Teton Wildlands Conservation Plan” for all of the reasons mentioned above. I also feel there are significant and adequate conservation measures within our Multi-Use proposal that if given due consideration, all WPLI members could reach a consensus.

Therefore it is my opinion that the process failed to meet reasonable standards of due process for public input and a consensus required by the charter agreement that all WPLI members signed. Therefore no proposal should rise to the top and be sent off as a Teton County recommendation. Instead, since we have failed to reach a consensus, I believe that the various proposals should now be submitted to the United States Forest Service. The USFS has resources that specialize in public land use and able to address the complicated issues raised in the three proposals that have been submitted utilizing the public input and comment channels available to the Forest Service.

Respectfully,

Mike Mielke

August 20, 2018

Dear Commissioners,

I voted a 5 on the multi-use proposal.

I would like to start by stating that this is not a true multi -use proposal. In the proposal, they "claim" they represent equestrian, hiking, and hunters, yet there is nothing in their proposal that addresses the concerns or desired conditions for the Palisade or Shoal Creek WSA for these user groups. This proposal addresses motorized and mechanical access and again does nothing for the non-motorized or the non- mechanical user. What non-motorized or non-mechanical users are looking for is an area where wildlife is not being pushed, no noise, and be able to use a trail without having to worry about being run down by a high speed motorized or mechanical type of travel . I put in a lot of work with the B-T people during the 2009 summer motorized travel plan for the B-T and I feel the folks at the B-T got it right. Summer motorized creates a large amount of damage where every they go (Just the nature of the beast). They went everywhere; down every creek bottom and across every ridge. There are still scars from the damage they did back then. Second, they have the greatest impact to wildlife. I have seen Elk & Deer leave an area when there is motorized use such as in the east side of Munger Mtn. This area is also a calving area for Elk and for a number of years, they left. After the summer motorized plan went into effect, the Elk & Deer are returning. By opening these area to more Motorized and Mechanical use, we are going against years of work that went into the forest planning process. What do folks come to Teton area for? It is not to ride an ATV. They are coming here for the Wildlife and a true Wilderness experience. I would ask that you visit one of the areas open to motorized and see it for yourself. The snow machines do not have the impacts that the summer motorized has, but to set aside a landscape such as the Palisade and Shoal Creek for the use of such a small group that we saw that were interested in it, does not server the area well. I live out at Red Top Meadows and I see the few snowmobilers that use the area. The motorized have held the Palisade WSA hostage by saying if the Palisades was not released, they would not support removing Teton county from oil & gas, mining, and exploration. A point that all other user group agreed upon. I would also like you to look at the Mtn Bike use in the Palisades and Shoal Creek WSA's. There is not supposed to be any form of Mtn biking right now yet they have been poaching these areas for years. There is nothing in the 84 WY. Wilderness act that allows Mtn Bike use at all.

I voted a 4 on the middle ground proposal

This group tried hard to make everyone happy, maybe a little too hard. Their reason was to try to bring the motorized group in to work with the rest of the committee and they had limited support from the Motorized group. I feel the group gave too many concessions to the Mtn. Bike and Motorized group too keep them happy. Motorized wanted full release and no new Wilderness. Again I feel both Palisades and Shoal Creek areas should be wilderness. The middle ground had no wilderness in Palisades, but did try to make up for it in other areas.

Donald Saner Equestrian representative WPLI committee member

August 20, 2018

Dear Commissioners,

Regarding the 5 I gave the AMPL/Motorized proposal, I could not support a proposal that contained zero wilderness and full release of Palisades and Shoal.

Regarding the 4 I gave the Conservation proposal, I struggled with the layout of the Gros Ventre polygon for wilderness and for roadless. I do not think the Conservation proposal was sensitive to the patterns of human use in the Gros Ventre. I would support inserting the MAWG polygons for roadless and wilderness in the Gros Ventre/Leidy/Spread Cr areas.

Regarding the 4 I gave the MAWG, I struggled with releasing in full all of the Palisades from Wilderness. I am in support of a portion of the north palisades in Teton Cty WY being released to mechanized multi use to be managed by the USFS; and the southern portion in Teton Cty being designated Wilderness. For this reason, I would prefer to see the Palisades portion of the Conservation proposal be inserted into the MAWG proposal.

In summary, I would support a proposal that coupled the Palisades portion of the Conversation proposal with the MAWG Gros Ventre Proposal together with the MAWG Shoal Cr.

OR,

I would also support a proposal that was limited solely to the Palisades and Shoal Cr WSA areas and followed the Conservation proposal in these areas; and brought in no other lands.

Thanks,

Harry Statter

Steve Kilpatrick

Justification for casting a 5 vote for the Multi-Use Proposal.

The science is very clear that most, if not all, forms of human recreation result in some form of wildlife disturbance. Wildlife are affected by recreation in a variety of ways, including direct and indirect mortality, lowered productivity, reduced use of habitat/preferred habitat, and aberrant behavior/stress that in turn results in reduced reproductive or survival rates (Purdy et al). Motorized activities are reported to have the greatest negative impacts (Rowland et al 2000, Rowland et al 2005).

The Multi-Use Proposal was not specific relative to where and how many motorized assess routs and dispersed motorized access areas they wished to establish/maintain. The proposal did support seasonal and area (i.e. winter range) restrictions to be determined by the USFS and WGFD. This was appreciated. However, having been involved in past and present deliberations over recreational restrictions, both motorized and nonmotorized, it is a fight and wildlife usually comes out on the short end. Therefore, I am not confident that implementation would be likely.

Lastly, during the Aug 8, 2018 meeting it was stated clearly that the groups support of no energy development or timber extraction was conditional on total withdrawal of the WSAs. This is not stated on the web site and is inconsistent with what I thought I heard earlier.

Both WSAs provide important habit and much needed connectivity to adjoining landscapes. This is evident as we learn more about the extensive travels and need for intact landscapes form the Wyoming Migration Initiative. I did not feel the Multi-Use Proposal adequately addressed this wildlife “need” if we are going to maintain viable, heathy and intact wildlife populations.

Literature Cited Purdy, K. G., G. R. Goff, D. J. Decker, G. A. Pomerantz, and N. A. Connelly. 1987. A Guide to Managing Human Activity on National Wildlife Refuges. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.

Rowland, M.M., J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. J. Wildl. Manage. 64: 672-684.

Rowland, M.M., J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M.J., tech. editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Trans. Of the North American Wildl. And Natural Resources Conf., Alliance Communication Group, Lawrence, Kansas.