Attch_A_SOW_pp6.pdf

Statement of Work

Project Title:

Working Landscapes and Thriving Communities, Culture, and Canis lupus

Background/Purpose:

The conflict around gray wolves is influenced and compounded by local, regional and national conflict dynamics; by competing interests, identities, needs, concerns, perspectives and goals among diverse sectors, groups, individuals, and Tribes; by varying cultural, political, geographic, and social components; by different scales of governance and varying receptivity and engagement across governments and other groups; by larger historical and systemic dynamics; as well as by other intra-group (same side or “us vs. us”) and inter-group (between groups or “us vs.

them”) dynamics. Some of these dynamics are local or specific, while many are national and general. Either way, these dynamics have had and will continue to have a profound influence on working landscapes and the ability of communities and Canis lupus to thrive.

On November 3, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published a final rule delisting the gray wolf everywhere it was listed in the lower-48 United States and Mexico, except for the Mexican wolf subspecies (85 FR 69778). The rule took effect in January 2021.

On February 10, 2022, that delisting rule was vacated by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As a result, all gray wolves in the lower-48 United States outside of the Northern Rocky Mountain region (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon and Washington, and north-central Utah) are currently protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Multiple parties appealed the district court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the parties have been engaged in mediation.

On January 26, 2023, the Circuit Mediator issued an order temporarily staying the appeals for administrative purposes until February 2, 2024. This litigation is the most recent in a long-standing debate about how to manage a species that has met its recovery goals and is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, especially large carnivores. During the abeyance, the Service agreed to commence a gray wolf public engagement effort. The public engagement effort will include stakeholders and Tribes in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, but may include stakeholders in other parts of the lower 48 United States.

The public engagement work will have significant ripple effects for gray wolf and human interactions, and other species across the nation. This ripple effect could be positive or negative, depending on the process and approach used. Stakeholders are more likely to accept the outcome of a process, even if they do not agree with it, if they feel the process is fair, legitimate, and inclusive. Thus, how the conflict over gray wolves is addressed - regardless of the outcome – needs to be thoughtfully approached and implemented.

The above realities call for a relationship-centered conservation conflict transformation (CCT) approach that serves to engage processes that address the tangible, presenting issues around gray wolves, while also reconciling and transforming the deeper-rooted conflicts that currently enable, and often inflame, destructive conflict conditions. The aim is to identify a vision for gray wolf management that includes a set of acceptable management options. The contract recipient should possess experience in implementing CCT through designing and facilitating multi-stakeholder, multi-jurisdictional and nested processes to transform deep-rooted conflict over controversial wildlife issues (preferably with human-wolf conflicts).

Overall goals and outcomes of the multi-year CCT intervention around gray wolves include the following.

Goals Outcomes

1. Communicate clearly and frequently with the Department of the Interior (Interior Department), federal agencies, state(s), Tribes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local partners, Congress, and the public at large about project purpose and progress, emphasizing the difference between the engagement and listing/delisting actions under ESA Section 4.

Improved trust and transparency among the Service, Interior Department, federal agencies, state(s), Tribes, NGOs, local partners, Congress, and the public at large.

2. Create opportunities for stakeholders and Tribes to feel heard regarding their gray wolf concerns.

Lower the temperature - Avoid frustration and break the cycle of litigation over gray wolf actions.

3. Obtain widespread and consistent stakeholder and Tribal participation in conservation conflict transformation process.

Improved perceptions of and relationships within and across group affiliations. This may include federal-state(s), federal-Tribe, government-citizen, interest groups-federal/state/local, citizen-citizen. Improved relationships are characterized by increased trust and communication, demonstrated capacity to repeatedly and productively engage in shared dialogue, more broadly supported organizational decisions, improved morale, and increased collective capacity to engage in and transform the natural ebbs and flows of conflict.

4. Improved intra-group and inter-group alignment and functioning and problem-solving capacity.

Improved receptivity toward and cohesion around conservation conflict transformation needs and goals.

Positive ‘ripple effect’ of increased shared problem-solving capacity and motivation to continually anticipate and prevent destructive conflict.

5. Brainstorm acceptable wolf management options though the Service, state(s), Tribes, NGOs, local partners and stakeholders.

Management actions that benefit from broader and more durable support.

6. Stakeholder and Tribal alignment in vision for acceptable gray wolf management.

Agreement with management actions that lead to conservation conflict transformation goals.

Confidence in gray wolf managing agencies.

Relevant individuals and entities constructively address emerging challenges and transform conflict as it arises.

Scope of Effort:

Four key tasks will address the goals and outcomes. These key tasks are detailed below:

Task 1: Design a clearly defined collaborative process. The project will follow an established project management approach. This will include the development of a clear and concise project plan, regular meetings to track progress and plan for next steps, and a project debrief and closeout report at the conclusion of the project.

Purpose:

• To enable clear and frequent core team-contractor communication and awareness of project components and progress.

• To enable appropriate timeline planning.

• To increase the ability for the Service to respond swiftly to requests for information.

• To allow for the development of lessons learned to inform future relevant projects.

Deliverable(s):

• A project plan that outlines project goals, objectives, outcomes, deliverables, scope, constraints, risks, and audiences; team member roles; and timeline.

• Biweekly project team meetings and associated notes.

• A project debrief at the conclusion of the project and a project closeout report with lessons learned and suggestions for the future.

Task 2: Comprehensive assessment of the social conflict around gray wolves. Federal agencies, states, Tribes, NGOs, communities, and individuals’ impact and are impacted by efforts to live alongside gray wolves. Identification of those entities that are influential within the gray wolf conflict will be essential to progress in this project. This comprehensive conflict assessment will first identify the audiences to be included and second conduct confidential group and individual interviews with entities involved in the conflict and influential with other organizations. An assessment report will be written and disseminated to and vetted by all participants of the assessment. This assessment report will provide a robust characterization of the system, including key stakeholders, their concerns and the mechanisms used to address their concerns, the external components that contribute to conflict, potential mechanisms to transform conflict sustainably, and a strategy for initiating and implementing conflict transformation.

Purpose:

• To provide contextual, systemic, and historical information about the conflict and those involved.

• To understand the complexity and depth of the conflict as well as potential opportunities and obstacles to progress.

• To build momentum and receptivity for constructive engagement.

• To ensure that those involved in dialogue processes are well connected and supported by their broader communities and constituents.

• To inform the design of processes to reconcile conflict and engage society in constructive, shared problem-solving and planning that is efficient, effective, and culturally and context sensitive.

• To prevent and minimize unintended negative consequences of actions in the conflict transformation process.

Deliverable(s):

• A list of 40-50 potential entities to include in group or individual interviews including but not limited to federal agencies, states, Tribes, and NGOs. The Service will provide an initial list to work from and will approve the final list of participants in the interviews.

• Between 20-25 interviews will be conducted.

• A comprehensive assessment report that outlines the key stakeholders, their concerns and the mechanisms used to address their concerns, the external components that contribute to conflict, potential mechanisms to transform conflict sustainably, and a strategy for initiating and implementing conflict transformation.

Task 3: Capacity building and group alignment. Capacity building in CCT aims to build individual and group knowledge and efficacy regarding the theory, skills, processes, principles, and strategies of CCT. As a result, those who are involved in the issues are better able to understand their own role in conflict and work better with others to transform current and future conflicts. Building CCT capacity within participating groups will create a networked system that can function more effectively and cooperatively, while minimizing and preventing retaliatory actions and unintended negative consequences. This task will be completed through formal or informal training or strategic alignment workshops where activities are completed to identify similarities in attitudes, needs, and interests to develop opportunities for alignment. The breadth, depth and methodology of capacity building efforts will be tailored to individuals and groups based on need, culture, time constraints and other preferences. For instance, some entities may engage in one or more five-day workshops whereas other entities may be more receptive to significantly shorter or more informal engagements.

Group-level and same side engagement typically continue in some capacity throughout the duration of the intervention, such that multi-party engagements are interspersed among targeted group-level and same side engagements to ensure that multi-party processes are supported by and aligned to meet the needs of the larger society – the institutions and interest groups involved in and impacted by the multi-party process.

Purpose:

• To encourage notable culture changes that support longer term improved relationships, improved structures and processes for dialogue, communication and decision-making, and more efficient and effective problem-solving capability.

Deliverable(s):

• A plan for engagement of different entities that identifies the type of engagement strategy, the entities to be included, and the dates and times. The Service will approve the plan before the implementation of engagement activities.

• Between 4-6 formal or informal training or strategic alignment workshops in which at least 75 people representing different entities including but not limited to federal agencies, states, Tribes, and NGOs participate.

• A final report that briefly describes each capacity building event and the outcomes that were achieved.

• Up to 50 hours of continued individual and group-level conversations with interview participants.

Task 4: Reconcile relationships, identify goals, and begin problem solving. The assessment will support the conditions of constructive receptivity and capacity for improved dialogue. This task will include multiple dialogue processes to allow for a demonstrable increase in trust and social cohesion among members of diverse groups. The processes will guide participants toward the development of a vision for wolf management that includes a set of management strategies outside of the Endangered Species Act. The groups will consider and discuss ways that the vision could be maintained long-term.

Purpose:

• To develop broad and durable support for management agencies and a vision for management.

• To enable entities to constructively address emerging challenges and transform conflict as it arises.

Deliverable(s):

• Diverse groups and subgroups will identify 3-5 actions for future management of gray wolves.

• Written statement of the vision developed through the CCT process and ways that it could be maintained over time.

• Up to 96 hours of continued same-side conversations with participants in capacity building and group alignment.

Period of Performance:

The period of performance of this contract is 36 months, August 2023 – August 2026.

The timing breakdown of tasks is as follows.

Task Date of Completion

Task 1: Design a clearly defined collaborative process

September 2023

Task 2: Comprehensive assessment of the social conflict around gray wolves

August 2024

Task 3: Capacity building and group alignment

August 2025

Task 4: Reconcile relationships, align groups toward shared goals and begin shared problem solving and decision-making.

August 2026