Federal Campaign Contributions     Standing Up to Be Counted

What's Really Going on at the National Bison Range?

What is the controversy?  Matt Gouras, Reporter for the Associated Press, wrote in November of 2006 "The American Indian tribe that has shared management of the nation’s only federal wildlife refuge for bison wants to ditch the unusual arrangement and take over full management. But the Interior Department said negotiations are on hold until ‘‘significant’’ personnel issues are resolved." We hope that the following background and PDF Documents will clarify some issues for America's park vistors.

     - Help us Maintain this Site -

The National Bison Range

Setting precedence for federal park and refuge land all over the nation

Documents listed below

UPDATE:  LAWSUIT - re: Tribal Management of the National Bison Range - Press Release Dec. 8, 2008: Go to www.peer.org to donate on line or call 202-265-7337 to make a donation

Unverified Comment on the AFA , Sept. 2, 2008: By November, all USFWS employees will have been transferred to other national refuges and the CSKT will not send anyone until next spring.  The only person that might remain is Darrel Thomas who will work for the CSKT.  ... Jeff King, brother to Mitch King, will come as the project leader.  ...The inner personnel agreement (IPA) for the USFWS workers do not protect them and leaves them at the mercy of the CSKT.  It is a tragedy that no one will talk about.

July 25, 2008: National Wildlife Refuge Association - " NWRA is currently evaluating a new Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) signed between the FWS and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) on June 19th for the National Bison Range in northwestern Montana. The agreement comes prior to the issuance of a national AFA policy by the FWS – the lack of such a policy contributed to the breakdown of a previous AFA at the Bison Range between the CSKT and the FWS in December 2006.  The NWRA has repeatedly called for a national AFA policy for the FWS that would guide how such agreements are managed, and ensure that they advance the mission and purposes of the refuge and Refuge System. Under the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, native tribes can enter into AFAs with agencies within the Department of the Interior, including the FWS at national wildlife refuges. The National Bison Range agreement, which outlines how the CSKT will partner with the FWS at the Range for the next three years (fiscal years 2009 – 2011), is awaiting Congressional review for 90 days prior to implementation. NWRA expects to release its detailed comments soon, and will focus on whether the agreement advances the mission and purposes of the refuge and the Refuge System.

From Susan Reneau, July 25, 2008 - "...the agreement put into place at the National Bison Range starting October 1 IS THE NATIONAL POLICY governing annual funding agreements with sovereign and self-governance Indian tribes.  ...the DOI and top officials at the FWS are using the National Bison Range agreement AS THE NATIONAL POLICY.  There won’t be anything else." Questions from Susan: "...the CSKT do not plan to send any workers to do the work assigned to them until next spring 2009.  What happens to the money set aside to do the work that must continue?  Does the CSKT receive the money before they arrive next spring?  How can this be an AFA for this fall, winter and spring if they don’t come until late spring 2009?" "This “annual” funding agreement is for three years and after three years the federal workers loaned to the CSKT will be replaced completely by CSKT workers, according to the agreement.  ... the CSKT gained inherently federal positions in this agreement..."

New AFA for the National Bison Range was signed June 19, 2008 and goes into effect October 1, 2008.

From Susan Reneau, May 21, 2008 - "FWS has been under the gun for five years of pressure by a sovereign Indian government to turn over inherently federal positions.  Any job with a GS rating is inherently federal because it is advertised throughout the Civil Service with standard duties and experience and educational requirements.  Since February 2003 FWS has been strongly forced to give such duties as well as operational budgets to [a] sovereign government that was given half the operational budget and half the inherently federal jobs in FY 2005 and 2006....please continue to e-mail, call and fax Lyle Laverty, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, and anyone else you can think might be interested in this subject to stop this secret negotiation and remind Mr. Tester that what he is pushing is illegal and a trampling of the human rights of the FWS employees.

Back to Top

Documents and Articles:

• History of the National Bison Range 
• Lawsuit to Block Tribal Takeover of National Wildlife Refuge - December 8, 2008
• Letter from BLUE GOOSE ALLIANCE to members concerning the NBR AFA - Aug. 20, 2008
• Federal Register of National Park Listings - Parks that could fall under similar AFA's.
• Land Letter Report, June 19, 2008
• NWRA Hopeful for Successful FWS/Tribal Partnership at NBR - June 19, 2008   - See July 25 Update -
• U.S. FWS AND CSKT SIGN ANNUAL FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR NATIONAL BISON RANGE COMPLEX - USFWS & CSKT Press Release - June 19, 2008    Link to AFA provided by FWS not yet working?
• INTERIOR DEPARTMENT LEAVES BISON RANGE EMPLOYEES IN DARK - Press Release - Jan. 18, 2007     

                  - Grievance Appeal Filed; New Threats Against Employees -  

                                             - With Related FWS PDF Document Links -

• Tribes file appeal to clear name - Charkoosta News - January 18, 2007
• "Report details bison range charges" - Missoulian Article - January 10, 2007
• "Abuses at National Bison Range Confirmed by Investigation" - Press Release -January 9, 2007

                                           - With Related FWS PDF Document Links -

• "Agreement on bison range management might be reinstated "- Great Falls Article - December 30, 2006
• "FWS pulls National Bison Range pact" - Missoulian Article - December 12, 2006
• "Tribes seek total control of Bison Range"  Missoulian Article - November 23, 2006
• "Tribe seeks full management of National Bison Range" - Associated Press - November 22, 2006
• "Bison Range Grievance Filed: Could Affect Management Talks" - Lake County Leader Article - October 2006
• STAFF REBEL AGAINST HARASSMENT ON BISON RANGE REFUGE - Press Release, Oct. 12, 2006

                   - Joint Complaint of Tribe Trying to Drive Off Staff in Order to Take Over Their Jobs

                                           - With Related FWS PDF Document Links -

• Letter to Editor: Conrad Burns, Money, and the National Bison Range - May 2006
• Contract negotiations complete - March 2006
• Letter to Congress from 32 Wildlife groups -  Names of 32 Wildlife Groups - January 2005
• Former Refuge manager and Board member and co-founder of the Blue Goose Alliance, Don Redfearn - 2003
• Don Redfern - comments on the Proposed 2005 AFA between the US FWS and CSKT - 2004
• Arguments against transfer of management of Federal lands, specifically, the NBR - 2003
• Payments received by the CSKT for the National Bison Range land, and origin of the livestock
• Grand Portage National Monument; Native American Press Article - 1998 - "The negotiations have concluded. The deal has been made. The compact will go into effect on November 15th. (1998)"

- What You Can Do to Help -

• Video - "Dying in Indian Country" the story of Roland J. Morris Sr.

Back to Top

January 2007 - FWS staff at the NBR filed a federal grievance in the fall of 2006, alleging abuse by staff members from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.   In reaction to this and a government report citing gross mismanagement, FWS officials pulled the management agreement away from the CSKT in December.  More Below.

However, for reasons unclear, the Dept. of Interior quickly moved to reinstate the Tribe on December 30, 2006.  A meeting was scheduled with top level officials January 22 - 23, 2007 at NBR offices.

January 2007 - Leo Giacometto, former Chief of Staff for former US Senator Conrad Burns from 1995 to 1999, has hired Burns as a "Consultant" in his lobbying firm, the Giacometto Group.  The Giacometto Group also paid another Burns Staffer, former Legislative Director and Campaign Manager, Mark Baker, $40,000 to lobby for the Salish and Kootenai College in 2004.  The Salish and Kootenai College is located on the Flathead Reservation, home of both the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe and the National Bison Range.   Working through his own Helena firm, Mark Baker was also paid $60,000 to be chief lobbyist for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in 2003-2004 and $120,000 lobbying for CSKT's S&K Technologies during those same years More below

Back to Top

If you would like to help:

Join the Blue Goose Alliance: www.bluegoosealliance.org   Phone: 360-432-8807 also: The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a national non-profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers. land managers, and other professionals, has stepped up with funds to help out the National Bison Range employees with their lawsuit. Their website is: www.peer.org    Phone: 202-265-7337 Please pass along this information to anyone who wants to help.

Remember to keep calling the U.S. Department of Interior in support of FWS Director Dale Hall and his wise decision to permanently terminate the contract with the CSKT at the National Bison Range. Always be polite. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne: 202-208-7351, Deputy Assistant Sec. of Interior for Indian Affairs Jim Casin: 202-208-6291, Deputy Sec. of Interior Lynn Scarlett: 202-208-4203, lynn_scarlett@ios.doi.gov  , Fax: 202-208-6956 US Representative Denny Rehberg: 406-543-9550 ; Rehberg Aide Keli McQuiston: 406-543-9550.  Rehberg Aide Erik Iverson: erik.iverson@mail.house.gov  ; Billings Field Office at 406-256-1019 Encourage the National Bison Range staff:  406-644-2211, ext. 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Top_________________________________________________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:01 AM


... The signing of an Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) between Assistant Secretary of Interior Lyle Laverty and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) on June 19, 2008 was an action that has left us rather speechless.

That AFA essentially assigns total management control, along with budgets, of the National Bison Range Complex of refuges to the CSKT for a period of three years (until 2011).  It is difficult for me to come to terms with this action.  Particularly since Mr. Laverty assured a delegation from the BGA of myself, Eileen McLaughlin and Bill Reffalt, at a meeting in his office on April 15, 2008, that
such total capitulation would not occur.  His assurance was echoed by Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dale Hall two days later at a meeting in his office on April 17, 2008.

The implications of this action goes far beyond the loss of an icon of the National Wildlife Refuge System.  The centennial of the establishment of the Bison Range occurred on May 23, 2008 with little fanfare.  Alliance members Bill and Christine Reffalt, and Don and Evelyn Redfearn were in attendance to mark the occasion.   The Department of the Interior and/or the Fish and Wildlife Service was represented by one individual, Mr. Dean Rundel from the Denver Regional Office of the FWS.  He was the chief negotiator for the FWS on development of the AFA.

..From all appearances his real purpose for being in attendance was to advise refuge staff members of choices available to them once the refuge is turned over to the CSKT.  In retrospect, there was no ceremony extolling the value and purposes of the Bison Range and the National Wildlife Refuge System.  The Bison Range was the first refuge where the land was actually purchased and established by an Act of Congress.  Historically, the effort here served to save an endangered species long before the birth of the Endangered Species Act.

A more accurate characterization of what occurred on that centennial afternoon was a wake for the demise of a symbol of what protection of America's wildlife heritage is all about.  Refuge Manager Bill West hosted a reporter from the Missoulian a few days before that resulted in a far more accurate account about the meaning and the value of the Bison Range.

The only thing I can add at this time is that the Alliance is exploring all options available to us in rescinding this unconscionable and illegal AFA.  It is time for everyone who understands and values the Nation's wildlife refuges, where wildlife is first, to come together to stop this AFA and any other such actions that threaten the integrity of the System.

Don Redfearn
President

August 20, 2008

Back to Top

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC LANDS: Tribal officials, FWS reach agreement on National Bison Range (06/19/2008)

Patrick Reis, Land Letter reporter 

Officials from the Confederation Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have negotiated an agreement to return some control over the National Bison Range Complex to tribes in an arrangement that could have implications for tribal governments on federal lands nationwide.

The annual funding agreement -- expected to be announced later today -- increases the tribe's responsibility for infrastructure maintenance, fire-suppression work and bison management on the range, which is located within the tribal reservation north of Missoula, Mont. A tribal official will occupy one of the two newly created deputy director positions, and three-quarters of the complex's jobs will be held by tribal members, according to CSKT spokesman Rob McDonald.

The annual funding agreement comes nearly two years after FWS terminated the tribe's role on the ranch. In a December 2006 letter, FWS accused the tribes of underfeeding and improperly managing bison, allowing range infrastructure to crumble and failing to plan biological studies.

 Bison 
The National Bison Range is home to about 350 to 500 bison. Photo courtesy of the Fish and Wildlife Service.   

The debate grew nasty, as service employees accused their tribal co-workers of attempting to drive them out to make room for more tribal employees. FWS employees filed a grievance with the agency's regional office in September 2006 detailing the charges, and the ensuing investigation substantiated the charges. FWS sided with its employees, saying they faced constant intimidation and harassment.

The problems, according to Interior Department Undersecretary Lyle Laverty, stemmed from a failure on both sides to delineate and clarify tribal responsibilities. "The structure was there; we just didn't get all the pieces defined with the clarity we needed to," Laverty said.

Laverty held a series of meetings beginning in December that led to the new agreement, which will be delivered to Congress for a 90-day comment period and could take effect as soon as Oct. 1.

Laverty says that while the new agreement increases tribal responsibility on the land, ultimate control still rests at FWS. 

No oversight, enforcement 

But Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has his doubts. Previous agreements, according to Ruch, weakened preservation measures because they lacked oversight and enforcement mechanisms over tribal management. And while he has not yet seen the new one, he fears it will be more of the same.

"The basic problem is that Interior hasn't come to grips with: To the extent they have done these negotiations as sovereign to sovereign, they have no effective measure of ensuring that it's managed as a national wildlife area," Ruch said. "We suggest that they look at cooperative agreement, that they're treated more like contracts, with provisions like liquidated damage, ability to withhold payments for failure of service, the kinds of things taxpayers expect when they pay others for important work."

But McDonald says the federal government cannot treat the tribes as a private contractor because they are a sovereign nation. "This agreement is the same as if FWS were letting a state run a wildlife refuge. We're a government. This isn't us as a private contractor having a couple Indians fill a couple jobs," he said. "We are not getting access to own the land. We must still run it up to the federal standards."

Instead, McDonald blames longstanding fears of tribes retaking control of lands. "Some people have the impression that when an Indian tribe has control over non-tribal members, they'll exact some type of revenge," he said. "We've never been about that." McDonald said the tribes had taken control of other local projects amid initial opposition, only to please everyone in the end.

But Ruch says ethnic conflicts have nothing to do with it. "I think this is a legitimate dispute over how these arrangements are going to be handled. I think the fault is with the Department of the Interior, not with the tribes," he said. "Interior hasn't thought out how they want these things to operate. They don't have any policy, they don't have any guidelines."

Ruch says the lack of coordination amounts to a piecemeal giveaway of treasured wildlife areas and parks. "[Interior] makes scores of public lands available every year, and if each is handled as badly as this one, it's going to be a disaster."

Back to Top

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Back to Top

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Contact: David Lucas
Chief, Budget and Finance
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mountain-Prairie Region
(303) 236-4456

Contact: Rob McDonald
Communications Director
Salish-Kootenai Tribes
(406) 675-2700 ext. 1222
Cell phone 249-1818

June 19, 2008 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES SIGN ANNUAL FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR NATIONAL BISON RANGE COMPLEX

________________________________________________________________________________________

Back to Top

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT LEAVES BISON RANGE EMPLOYEES IN DARK

— Grievance Appeal Filed; New Threats Against Employees

 

For Immediate Release: January 18, 2007
Contact: Carol Goldberg

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

News Release (www.peer.org)

Washington, DC — Employees of the National Bison Range Complex are seeking formal review of their charges of abuse and intimidation during the recently terminated joint operation with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), according to correspondence released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). In addition to filing a formal grievance, the attorney for refuge employees reports new threats and promises of retaliation.

On September 19, 2006, seven employees at the National Bison Range filed an unusual joint grievance with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. On December 11, 2006, the Service cancelled the troubled 18 month-long arrangement with the tribes citing both non-performance and harassment of refuge employees. Shortly thereafter, on December 29, the Interior Department, the parent agency over the Service, intervened and reversed the Service’s decision, announcing its “intention to reestablish a working relationship” with the CSKT.

All this time, the National Bison Range employees had no word on the status or outcome of their grievance. In a letter dated January 17, 2007 to Interior, the refuge employees’ attorney, Elizabeth Baker of the Hughes, Kellner, Sullivan & Alke law-firm based in Helena, noted that the agency has yet to –

• Convey any “meaningful” assurance that employees will not again face “intolerable working conditions;”
• Provide the employees with a copy of the report from the independent investigation commissioned by the Fish & Wildlife Service into their grievance. All the employees have been provided are summaries of their own interviews with the investigator; and
• Meet directly with the employees. Scheduled interviews with the designated EEO counselor from Interior did not take place and the time period for EEO investigation expired.

In a January 3, 2007 letter, Ms. Baker cites a threat to one of her clients that he will “know who the boss is now” following Interior’s announcement to re-open negotiations with CSKT.

“It is obvious that the Interior Department is in regular contact with the CSKT but is ignoring its own employees—and that is just not right,” stated Grady Hocutt, a former long-time refuge manager who directs the PEER refuge program. “Interior owes the folks out at the National Bison Range straight answers about how it will specifically guarantee against the reoccurrence of this type of abuse.”

The grievance filing is subject to a seven-day technical review, which then triggers a 20-day period for FWS to issue a decision. Following the agency’s decision, the employees may request a formal evidentiary hearing before a personnel appeals examiner in the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals. Next week, top Interior officials are slated to begin discussions about restoring funding for shared operations of the refuge with the CSKT.

###

Read the January 3, 2007 letter describing new threats and uncertainties facing Bison Range employees

View the January 17, 2007 letters announcing the grievance appeal and other outstanding issues

Trace the growing problems at National Bison Range

See FWS grievance procedures

Read the National Bison Range Complex Annual Funding Agreement Report

See the protest letter about the agreement composed by refuge managers

Look at the concerns about escalating costs

Back to Top

Abuses at National Bison Range Confirmed by Investigation 

Threats, Intimidation and Safety Concerns Documented in Independent Report

For Immediate Release:  Tuesday, January 9, 2007

Contact:   Grady Hocutt; Carol Goldberg

Washington, DC — An investigation commissioned by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service confirmed a severe pattern of intimidation and abuse of its employees during its recently terminated joint operation of the National Bison Range Complex with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  Incidents detailed in the investigation include vulgar remarks to female employees, “physically threatening behavior,” and promises to “run these f—ers (FWS employees) out of here.”

The investigation was conducted by Jim Reilly, the retired Special Agent-in-Charge of the National Park Service law enforcement program for the Rocky Mountain region.   Reilly told FWS management that “conditions [at National Bison Range] are as bad as he has ever seen during his career” and that his 40-page investigation report only “‘scratch the surface’ of the conditions that [FWS] employees are enduring on a daily basis.”  He also cited growing safety concerns for both staff and visitors.

In a memo dated December 6, 2006, FWS Regional Director Mitch King concluded that “involvement in the violations by CSKT management” “make it almost impossible” to resolve.  CSKT refused to cooperate with the investigation and forbade any of its employees from being interviewed.  King recommended immediate cessation of the nearly two-year funding agreement; an action FWS took on December 11th.  Later that month, however, the Interior Department announced that it planned to negotiate a new agreement with the CSKT but did not spell out how it would address the abuse of its employees. 

FWS perceives the situation as so intractable that FWS Deputy Regional Director Jay Slack suggested “divestiture of the refuge lands and property to CSKT” as an alternative if the funding agreement with CSKT was not cancelled.

“The Fish and Wildlife Service did the right thing by canceling this agreement, but political pull by the tribes has put the same menu back on the table, without the slightest hint that things will be any different,” stated Grady Hocutt, a former long-time refuge manager who directs the PEER refuge program.  “If the tribes will not admit that there is a problem, how is it possible for the problem to be fixed?”

Fearful employees at National Bison Range are already seeking transfers to other wildlife refuges.  In addition, the Interior Department has not officially informed them of either the outcome or the proposed resolution of the grievance that the employees filed back in September.  In the coming weeks, Interior officials will resume negotiations with the CSKT but the affected employees will not be a party to those discussions.

“Refuge employees should not be subjected to another day of abuse,” Hocutt added.  “The Interior officials who overruled their own Fish & Wildlife Service need to provide some mutually acceptable assurances to these public servants that they will not be run through the gauntlet again.”

###

Peruse the FWS transmittal letter

http://www.peer.org/docs/nwr/07_9_1_fsw_trans_ltr.pdf

Read the Investigation Executive Summary

http://www.peer.org/docs/nwr/07_9_1_investigation_exec_sum.pdf

View the request by FWS Regional Director to cancel CSKT agreement

http://www.peer.org/docs/nwr/07_9_1_cancellation_req.pdf

Look at the FWS letter terminating the CSKT presence at National Bison Range

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=795

See the Interior Department reversing its own agency and pledging to renew agreement

http://www.doi.gov/news/06_News_Releases/061229.html

---

Back to Top

Report details bison range charges

January 10, 2007
By VINCE DEVLIN of the Missoulian

POLSON - The only way the National Bison Range can function is under the control of either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the service's regional director told his boss last month.

Shortly thereafter, FWS director Dale Hall canceled the annual funding agreement that for 14 tumultuous months had divided work at the refuge between the service and CSKT employees.

In his letter to Hall, Mitch King said unacceptable working conditions created by CSKT involvement at the range, concern for visitor safety and unacceptable work performed by tribal employees during the 14 months - plus the fact that the tribes would still have to operate under FWS oversight - led him to conclude that returning the range entirely to the Fish and Wildlife Service was “the only viable option at this time.”

The tribes have strongly disputed the FWS conclusions, and the Department of the Interior, which oversees the FWS, agreed and announced Dec. 29 it was overturning Hall's decision and would seek to reinstate another funding agreement that would have FWS and tribal employees again working side-by-side.

In Interior documents obtained and released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, King also said he considered recommending complete divestiture of the public lands and property that make up the National Bison Range to CSKT, but said that would require congressional action.

PEER, which strongly opposes outside involvement in the day-to-day operation of the refuge, also released an executive summary of an investigation by Jim Reilly, retired special agent-in-charge of the National Park Service law enforcement program for the Rocky Mountain region, that detailed allegedly vulgar and offensive language, and intimidating tactics made, on the part of tribal employees working at the refuge.

The report, which spokesman Rob McDonald said the tribes have wanted to see since its completion but hadn't been given access to, “Does not match up with the internal conversations we've had with our people. There is no doubt there has been tension at the range, but nothing remotely like what they're talking about in that report.”

For instance, he said, an incident cited in the report that alleged a tribal employee had tried to intimidate a FWS biologist by kicking the door and outer walls to her office wasn't likely, given that “her office is at the end of a trailer that's 4 1/2 feet off the ground. I don't think we have anyone who can kick that high.”

McDonald noted that the investigation report released by PEER “was deemed flawed by (the Department of the Interior), and needed to be redone.” The Interior Department's Office of Equal Opportunity is re-investigating, he said.

The executive summary of the report obtained by PEER, labeled “Draft Not For Release,” includes seven references to the F-word and alleges tribal employees also used derogatory terms to refer to women and black people.

“We did our own internal questioning of people, and nothing described matches anything that we experienced,” McDonald said. “We sound like terrible people in the report, and it doesn't sound like the people I know. We're thankful these things were tossed out.”

Tribal employees did not talk to Reilly while he was conducting his investigation, McDonald said, because “We were very uncomfortable answering questions without knowing what the allegations were against us. We cooperated fully, but we didn't want our people in the unenviable position of being interviewed on who-knows-what. We thought it only fair we be told what the allegations were. We made many requests but were denied that.”

The tribes have filed appeals, McDonald said, to letters sent to CSKT on Dec. 6 and 11 that reference the report asking they be removed.

“We felt it was important to go back and have the record corrected,” McDonald says.

Fish and Wildlife employees filed a grievance with the service last fall over working conditions.

Meantime, a former project manager at the bison range who retired from the Fish and Wildlife Service last week spoke out for the first time.

Dave Wiseman blamed both the Department of the Interior and the tribes for the problems at the refuge.

“DOI says it is fulfilling an obligation to the tribes, but there is no legal requirement” mandating the tribes be given any role at the refuge, Wiseman says. “It's entirely discretionary, but that's not the way they're implementing it. What they're doing is cramming it down the Fish and Wildlife Service's throat, and everybody in the region knows it to be the case.”

The tribes, meanwhile, don't want a cooperative relationship to succeed, Wiseman claims, because their goal is complete control of the range.

“I'd say it hasn't worked because the tribe doesn't want it to work,” says Wiseman, who managed the bison range from 1995-2004 and was involved in all negotiations between the federal government and the tribes concerning the refuge during that time.

“From the beginning of the negotiations they told us there was not going to be a partnership,” Wiseman says. “They always intended to get everything. What changed was they were willing to compromise in order to get a foot in the door. The tribes had a tremendous opportunity to be partners at the bison range, but they told us early on there was never going to be any partnership.”

The tribes' desire to take over control of the bison range has never been a secret, McDonald says. But the notion that, after finally getting to do some of the work at the refuge, that they would do it poorly or not at all makes no sense if CSKT retains any hope of running the show one day.

“He's entirely accurate that the only legal requirement was that we be given the right to negotiate for control,” McDonald says of Wiseman. “But we realized early on, given the tenor and tone of the negotiations, that we were not in a position to name our terms on how we would participate, and we would have to work toward whatever opportunity came our way. We've overcome so many obstacles in other issues and our employees were dedicated to make this joint agreement work.”

Wiseman agrees with King that the two sides can't work together, because different rules and regulations apply to federal and tribal employees. Nepotism isn't illegal in tribal hiring practices, he says, while it's against federal law. The tribes can put people with criminal records to work at the range, but FWS can't. If the Fish and Wildlife Service objects to someone who's been hired at the range, the tribes make it clear they get to decide who works for them.

“Federal law doesn't allow Fish and Wildlife Service employees to be placed in a hostile working environment,” Wiseman says. “But the law doesn't say the tribes can't create one.”

King, who once praised the CSKT Wildlife Program, saying it was as good as many state fish and wildlife agencies, and who predicted the partnership at the bison range would be a success, did not return phone calls seeking his comments on the letter urging the termination of the annual funding agreement.

Late Tuesday, the Department of the Interior issued a statement through press secretary Shane Wolfe in response to PEER's release of the documents earlier in the day.

“The Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation have been working together to manage all the responsibilities related to the National Bison Range,” it said. “Over time, this has been a working relationship that appeared to be positive and productive.

“Recent allegations raised by employees at the National Bison Range of harassment and a hostile work environment are serious. These allegations demand an investigation that meets the highest standards possible. Senior departmental officials immediately referred the allegations and an associated preliminary Fish and Wildlife Service report to the department's Office of Equal Opportunity for a full and comprehensive investigation that will meet such standards. Department officials also made the department's inspector general aware of issues related to the National Bison Range and he is taking appropriate action.

“As previously announced, the department intends to re-establish a working relationship between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation regarding management and operation of the National Bison Range. We must seek to build the foundations for future management in a way that fulfills all of the department's obligations - to the refuge and its employees, to tribes, and to the American public. The process that will be followed in re-establishing this relationship is spelled out in the department's Dec. 21st press release available at www.doi.gov.”

That release said an ombudsman would be retained at the range, and negotiations that could lead to full tribal control “would be suspended at this time.”

McDonald said the tribes and federal officials were in “pre-negotiation status, getting the playing field ready where we can hammer out a new agreement to get tribal members back on the range.”

---

Back to Top

TRIBES FILE APPEAL TO CLEAR NAME

January 18, 2007

PABLO -The Tribes have filed an administrative appeal to correct the record abOOt statements made regarding Tribal management of the National Bison Range (NBR).   The CSKTfiled the appeal with the Interior Board of Indian Apeals, requesting that it vacate U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Regional Director Mitch King's Dec. 11 , 2006 decision to terminate the contracting agreement at the NBR.

Correcting the record of facts is crucial to the Tribes , according to alan. 16 press release.  "People who oppose the Tribal presence at the Bison Range can only coast on unsupported allegations for so long,"'said Tribal Chairman James Steele, Jr. "This has been a classic echo chamber - instead of talking with us about allegations, a number of individuals within the Fish & Wildlife Service just recycle the allegations in various memos and reports until they appeared factual.. The Tribes need to correct the record of our performance at the Bison Range and we will do so through the administrative process.
According to the news release, there's been a pattern developing in which FWS staff allegations surface when it apears that the Tribes are making progress towards a new contracting agreement for the NBR.  Last fall, when some FWS employees heard that the Service was considering a proposal for CSKT to assume full local management of the bison range, a mysterious grievance was suddenly filed that alleged CSKT staff were creating a hostile work environment.

The requested relief was for the agreement between the FWS and CSKT to be terminated -not the normal solu:tion for addressing a hostile workplace, the release states. The FWS has never provided a copy of the allegations to CSKT.  Tribal officials have repeatedly requested the information.  "One would think that some mention of these mysterious allegations, or the alleged hostile workplace, would have suraced sometime during the previous year and a half of the Tribes' presence at the Bison Range," said Chairman Steele. "There was certainly a great deal of scrutiny towards the Tribal workers performance. Yet, strangely, there was no mention of a hostile workplace or any other significant personnel issues during that whole time."
Now, on the heels of a Dec. 29 announcement that the Department of the Interior would re-establish the partnership between the FWS and CSKT, more allegations have suddenly surfaced.  This time, according to the Jan. 16 press release, more documents full of allegations but short on facts are being released by individuals and organizations who have always opposed the Tribes' presence at the NBR.
This latest round of :accusations again auempts to portray tribal staff as creating a hostile work environment for their federal supervisors at the bison range. "This has been a surreal and at times hurtful experience for the Tribal staff at the Bison Range," said Tribal communications Director Robert McDonald, "The very people who have made our work at the Bison Range so difficult are now claiming that we created a hostile workplace for them."
"Anyone who examines the record will see that FWS has no solid reason for not sharing the allegations with CSKT ," Tuesday' s news release states "Not having the allegations has prevented the Tribes (from responding) , that is if a problem ever truly existed. 

"The Interior Department has looked at these draft investigation documents and seen them for what they are."

The Department's Office of Civil Rights has ordered that the grievance allegations be investigated by the Department's Equal Employment Opportunity counselors who are completely independent of FWS. CSKT welcomes a neutral third- party investigation, and we have been in contact with the E EO counselor assigned to investigate this issue."
The Tribes have also communicated with the Department's Office of the Inspector General, with respect to its investigation.  "We look forward to working with the E EO and OIG investigators and correcting the record so we can repair the damage done to CSKT's reputation," said Chairman Steele.
The Jan. 16 press release lists the following issues that have yet to be discussed by any of the newly-released documents: 

  - Prior to CSKT being abruptly ejected from the Bison Range in December, the Regional Director made no effort to share with CSKT the allegations upon which he acted. There was no opportunity provided for CSKT to correct or rebut those allegations.   Other than what is discussed in the newly released documents, CSKT still does not know the exact basis of the allegations.

  - In an exhaustive 2005 "evaluation" written by FWS staff at the Bison Range, there are no allegations of anything like harassment, intimidation, discrimination, or a hostile work environmient. These allegations suddenly appeared in the fall of 2006 after some FWS employees learned of a proposal for CSKT to assume full local management of the Bison Range; Ratheithan sharing these allegations with CSKT for investigation and response,the FWS Regional Office instead decided to terminate the agreement with no notice to CSKT.

  - CSKT's Bison Range Coordinator, Sheila Matt, who supervises all the Tribal staff and volunteers, has eight years of service on Equal Employment and Civil Rights Advisory Committees during her previous position as a federal employee. In that capacity , she receiyed a great deal of equal employment opportunity training.and also received awards and recognition fother work in that field. Prior to taking the job as CSKT's Bison Range Coo.rdinator, she was a consultant for the State of Montana 'and made presentations on equal employment opportunity issues."

Back to Top

Agreement on bison range management might be reinstated

Article published Dec 30, 2006

By GWEN FLORIO, Great Falls Tribune Capitol Bureau

HELENA — The agreement between the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes to share some management duties at the National Bison Range, which was abruptly canceled earlier this month, may be reinstated, the Interior Department announced Friday.

"This is a great morale-booster for us and to the tribal employees" who lost their Bison Range jobs when the agreement was canceled, said tribal Chairman James Steele. Jr. The tribes had felt "broadsided" by the earlier action, he said.

Interior officials said Friday that they want to re-establish a working relationship between the tribes and Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the Bison Range. The new plan would be very much like the former one — which engendered considerable controversy from its inception — in which the tribes cared for the bison and did maintenance work on the range.

However, a plan to permanently phase in the tribe's role has been suspended, according to the announcement by Deputy Interior Secretary Lynn Scarlett; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall and Associate Deputy Interior Secretary Jim Cason.

The Salish-Kootenai had long-sought management of the roughly 19,000-acre range at Moiese, within the boundaries of western Montana's Flathead Indian Reservation.

They attained some responsibilities two years ago, and as part of that process replaced about half of the range's 25 longtime Fish and Wildlife Service employees with tribal workers. The agreement was criticized by conservation groups, which complained it was an attempt to wrest wildlife management duties from the federal government and put them into private hands.

Opponents complained that the tribal workers weren't trained wildlife managers. A Fish and Wildlife Service performance review gave the tribes poor marks in some areas. Meanwhile, some Fish and Wildlife employees complained that they were harassed after the tribes became involved in management.

On Dec. 11, the tribes received a fax informing them the agreement was terminated. Friday, the tribes heard from news organizations that it was being reinstated before getting official word from the Interior.

Steele said tribal authorities have been in constant telephone contact with various officials in Washington, D.C., during the last couple of weeks.

Friday's announcement said that senior Interior officials, including Hall and Cason, would travel to the range to discuss the concerns of both tribal and Fish and Wildlife Service employees. It also said the range would retain an ombudsman to resolve conflicts.

That didn't mollify Susan Reneau of Missoula, a member of the Blue Goose Alliance that opposes outside involvement in Bison Range management.

"The fact that conservationists and environmentalists have been unified in opposition to this contract speaks a lot to the complexity of this situation," she said. "This isn't over."

Steele said he hopes the new agreement means that tribal workers will get back their jobs at the Bison Range. As for an ombudsman, he said the tribes are used to what they felt were the insults lobbed at them during the process.

"We have, as a tribal people, had to deal with hard feelings for 200 years. We've learned how to adapt," Steele said. "Now it's time to move on."

Back to Top

FWS pulls National Bison Range pact

December 12, 2006

By PERRY BACKUS of the Missoulian

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially pulled its controversial agreement with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes for shared management of the National Bison Range on Monday, saying the tribes have failed to live up to their responsibilities and have created an unacceptable workplace environment.

Tribal officials said the announcement was unexpected and denied the allegations contained in FWS Regional Director Mitch King's letter.

“It's taken us off guard. We were in the middle of something and trying to make it work,” said CSKT Tribal Council Chairman James Steele Jr.

King's letter said the agency was terminating negotiations for future annual funding agreements. The letter ordered the tribes to immediately stop performing any activities at the Bison Range, return all FWS equipment, and withdraw all CSKT employees, contractors and volunteers from the refuge by the end of the workday Tuesday.

The decision marked the end of months of negotiations between the tribes and the Fish and Wildlife Service over future management of the National Bison Range.

The two entered into an agreement in 2004 that split management duties beginning in 2006. King's letter said the FWS wanted to continue that agreement into 2007 with some minor revisions, but the tribes argued for more management control.

After the 2006 agreement expired Sept. 30, the FWS agreed to extend it while negotiations continued.  The tribes sought a phased takeover of the refuge, which sits in the heart of the Flathead Indian Reservation, under provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. The legislation allows tribes to apply to manage certain federal public lands where they can show a cultural, historical or geographic connection.

Matt Kales, a regional FWS spokesperson from Denver, said the legislation allows the government to sign annual funding agreements with tribes to manage selected federal lands.

While there are similar arrangements in other parts of the country, this agreement was the most far reaching, he said.

A report last summer indicated the tribes weren't satisfactorily accomplishing the work that had been agreed upon. The tribes vehemently disagreed with that report.

Kales said the FWS attempted to provide some leeway because this was the first year of the program, but the situation at the refuge continued to deteriorate. After a lengthy review, Kales said the tribes were not meeting management obligations and were creating a hostile work environment for FWS employees.

King's letter said the work environment was characterized by “harassing, offensive, intimidating and oppressive behavior on the part of the employees of the CSKT, including obscenity, fighting words and threats of violence and retaliation directed at employees of the Service.”

The decision was made at the “highest level” of the FWS that dual management of the refuge was not tenable, Kales said.

“This wasn't a hasty or whimsical decision,” he said.

Steele said the tribes don't agree with the Fish and Wildlife Service's reasons for terminating the agreement. This was the first time that anyone in the tribes had seen some of the allegations in King's letter, he said.    The FWS should have attempted to work within the guidelines established in the annual funding agreement to address the management issues with the tribes, he said.  “The AFA spells out ways of doing that,” Steele said. “There were ways to notify us and allow us to sit down and talk about these issues.”

The tribes are in the process of putting together a response to the allegations, and will appeal the decision, Steele said. In the short term, the tribes will attempt to find other work for the employees displaced by the federal government's action.

Steele said it's ironic that the FWS has decided the tribes are unable to manage the bison at the National Bison Range since the herd is descended from the Pablo-Allard herd cared for 100 years ago by tribal members.

“For the Fish and Wildlife Service to say to us that the Salish and Kootenai people do not know how to handle bison is just an ironic statement,” Steele said. “If it wasn't for the tribal connection, this herd likely wouldn't have been here in the first place.”

Tribal council member Steve Lozar said he grew up in Dixon in the “shadow of the Bison Range. I was one of those little kids who went over to see Big Medicine (a famous white bison) after school. When I see what's happening here, it absolutely hurts my heart. It's just wrong.”

The refuge management change was opposed by 129 refuge managers, by nearly 50 different environmental groups, and by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.  PEER's refuge keeper, Grady Hocutt, was a wildlife refuge manager for 30 years.  He says the agreement was a poor idea pushed by political appointees under duress and could have set a precedent harmful to the entire national wildlife refuge system.  Still, Hocutt didn't see the government's decision to pull the agreement as a victory. Too many people have been hurt, and it's going to take time for that to heal, he said.  There are other avenues for the tribes to be involved with management of those lands, including cooperative agreements and contracting, Hocutt said.

---

Back to Top

Conrad Burns and the National Bison Range

Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 7:11 PM

To the Editor

Mark Baker, former legislative director for Senator Conrad Burns and recent Burn's campaign chairman, was paid $60,000 to be chief lobbyist for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in 2003-2004. Working through his Helena firm, Baker also made $120,000 lobbying for CSKT's S&K Technologies during those years and another $40,000 working for CSKT through the Giacmetto Group. Leo Giacometto was Burns' chief of staff from 1995-1999.

2003-2004 were the same years in which CSKT was negotiating with feds for management of the National Bison Range in Moiese, Montana.  Many who signed petitions and wrote letters asking Burns to oppose the transfer were confused as to why Burns had switched sides on the issue since 1997.   Denver FWS officials said Burns had the power to stop the transfer, and with his former statements in mind and the need for Western MT federal jobs to remain open to all, many expected that he would.

Whether or not one agrees with the transfer, few people really want Montana issues of importance to be made on the basis of who can afford the most influence.  The next time an issue is influenced, it could be something they themselves care about. 

In 1997, Burns not only stood against the NBR transfer, but he introduced a draft bill opposing tribal jurisdiction AND supported bill S. 1691, opposing Tribal Sovereign Immunity. At the time, Burns said tribal sovereign immunity interfered with Fifth Amendment rights. Now, Burns' staff has told Montana citizens that Burns won't support any legislation concerning tribal government unless all 500+ tribes agree to it.

According to a 2006 PoliticalMoneyLine.com report published in Roll Call, Senator Burns pocketed $192,090 from tribal entities over the last few years.

Lisa Morris

---

Back to Top

Tribes seek total control of Bison Range

11/23/06

By VINCE DEVLIN of the Missoulian

 MOIESE - Control of the National Bison Range is again on the negotiating table - and again sparking a fierce debate.

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are talking with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about a complete takeover of one of the nation's oldest wildlife refuges, which sits in the heart of the Flathead Indian Reservation.

The phased takeover would begin in 2007 and be completed by 2010.

More than a year ago, the tribes were given contracts for some duties at the Bison Range, in a cooperative management agreement that was extended in September. The agreement led to a controversial and critical evaluation of how well the tribes performed their duties to date.

It also prompted an ongoing investigation by the Interior Department into the possible misuse of federal funds by the tribes, and to a grievance filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by some employees who claim the agency created a hostile work environment by entering into an agreement that promised the tribes control over more jobs if Fish and Wildlife Service employees left the Bison Range.

The tribes seek control of the Mission Valley refuge under provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, which allows them to apply to manage certain federal public lands where they can show either a cultural, historical or geographic connection.

“This is a cherished piece of land we watched be taken out of our hands decades ago,” said Rob McDonald, communications director for the tribes. “Twelve years ago, there was a shift of laws that said we could negotiate for this, and we have been talking about it. We have a direct cultural and historical link to this place.”

The takeover is opposed by 129 refuge managers from around the nation, by some 50 environmental groups such as Ducks Unlimited and the American Bird Conservancy, and by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a national nonprofit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers and other professionals whose stated goal is to uphold environmental laws and values.

PEER fears takeover of the National Bison Range would be a precedent-setting step that could begin, if not a dismantling, then a severe weakening of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

“Over 300 tribes theoretically could qualify to request takeovers around the country,” said spokesperson Grady Hocutt, a retired refuge manager. “Only a fool would argue Indian tribes can't meet one of the requirements - cultural, historical or geographic - virtually any place in this country. And they only have to meet one of the three. Imagine if this goes through, and this becomes the blueprint for dedicated trust lands owned by the public.”

But McDonald said only a handful of tribes can meet the criteria, and the federal government has spelled out which refuges tribes can apply to run.   The National Bison Range is one.

“I don't know what they're pointing at to make this domino effect happen,” McDonald said. “It sounds like they're using fear politics and slippery slope arguments.”

Hocutt makes it clear his organization is opposed to any outside group taking over refuges currently operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not just Indian tribes. PEER successfully fought a previous proposal to turn over a national wildlife refuge to the state of Kansas, he said.

“The anti-Indian flag is raised every time we stick our head up,” Hocutt said. “I'm saddened that the racism card gets played. It hurts. I spent 30 years managing refuges, and I worked with tribes from South Dakota to New York very successfully.”

Responds McDonald: “They say it's not personal, but then they say we could be the end of the world. I invite them to break bread with us and talk with us about how we would manage the Bison Range, instead of waging a campaign against us from Washington, D.C.”

But PEER's beef lies in Washington, D.C., with the Bush administration, not the Flathead Reservation, Hocutt said. There, Deputy Interior Secretary Paul Hoffman follows former Interior Secretary Gale Norton in pushing for the Bison Range to become what PEER fears would be the first of many refuges to be wrested from federal management, Hocutt said.

And, PEER adds, it is being done at a time the inspector general of the Department of the Interior is investigating possible misuse of funds by the tribes in connection with their contracts at the Bison Range, and while the employees' grievance is still alive.

Dirk Kempthorne, who replaced Norton, has not taken a public stand on the issue, but Hocutt said it's unlikely the Department of the Interior would be negotiating with the tribes if he weren't agreeable to the idea.

“Many of us do not feel Secretary Norton and Paul Hoffman were brought in to take apart dedicated trust lands,” Hocutt said. “It's frustrating that, outside of the Mission Valley and the tribes themselves, that people can adopt such a cavalier attitude toward the National Bison Range.”

“The National Wildlife Refuge System has been 100 years in the making. (President Bush's appointees) don't own these lands,” he added. “These are just political appointees, appointed by a president who's not going to be there much longer, who are doing this.”

Although the group insists the bone it wishes to pick is not with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, PEER is quick to point to what it calls a “sharply negative evaluation for the first year of joint operations which found that the CSKT failed to perform many functions, did other work incompletely and, in some cases, misplaced funds.”

McDonald noted that, prior to the tribes' involvement at the Bison Range, the Fish and Wildlife Service had never conducted a similar evaluation of its own effectiveness, “so there is no benchmark to compare the quality of our work to the quality of their work.”

PEER's characterization of the evaluation, McDonald said, “is false. If you read the performance report, it found areas that can be improved, but very few amounted to anything substantial. Š There is something in it about documenting the number of birds. In the past this had been done by horseback, but we did it on foot, then we were told the information was thrown out because we had done it improperly. There are a lot of petty things like that designed to chip away at our credibility.”

Hocutt argues that the report the tribes want you to read was a watered-down version of the original, which PEER has posted on its Web site. The tribes counter by saying the original evaluation was filled with inaccuracies, such as claiming tribal involvement had cost the refuge 4,500 volunteer hours, when the tribes actually increased it to 4,700 hours.

“Twenty years ago, the CSKT took over management of the existing electric utility on the reservation,” McDonald wrote in a recent press release. “We heard the same ridiculous, misinformed, categorically incorrect ‘sky-is-falling' arguments then that we are now hearing from PEER, yet two decades later, Mission Valley Power is considered a model utility.”

Hocutt reiterated that the National Bison Range must be viewed in the broader scope, as part of a national system that must be kept intact.

“I empathize with the tribal aims,” Hocutt said. “I understand how they feel - I can't feel it myself, but I understand how they feel. If I were them, I'd be fighting and scrapping just as hard. But I will fight until my last breath to stop it, because if you look at the much bigger mosaic, the precedent this will set will put refuges all over the country in jeopardy.”

---

Back to Top

Tribe seeks full management of National Bison Range

11/22/06

By MATT GOURAS - Associated Press Writer -

HELENA — The American Indian tribe that has shared management of the nation’s only federal wildlife refuge for bison wants to ditch the unusual arrangement and take over full management.

But the Interior Department said negotiations are on hold until ‘‘significant’’ personnel issues are resolved. After that, though, it will consider more management responsibility for the tribe, said spokesman Matt Kales.

The two-year joint management agreement between the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the federal agency expired in September. The tribe said it has submitted a proposal seeking full management of the 19,000-acre National Bison Range in northwestern Montana under a contract in which the federal government would pay the tribe for its work.

The joint agreement was a compromise for the tribe, which has been seeking full management of the bison range near Moiese for years. The tribe’s proposal comes just months after the release of a performance report that indicated some of the work the tribe was responsible for wasn’t getting done.

‘‘Instead of two heads running it, there would be one head. We found it a little bit awkward this style of management,’’ tribal spokesman Rob McDonald said Tuesday. ‘‘The original deal that was offered to us wasn’t perfect, but we decided to take it and show how we could run it.’’

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will consider a deal that gives the tribe greater responsibility ‘‘on a performance-driven basis’’ over a three to five year transitional period Kales said.

First, the agency must resolve personnel complaints, he said. Kales said he could not elaborate on the problems, but said they are related to complaints that arose earlier this year that work conditions have deteriorated since the tribes got involved in running the range.

The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has said staff members want the tribe’s involvement ended.

‘‘The issues are significant,’’ Kales said. ‘‘Moving forward at this point is predicated on resolving those issues.’’

The bison range, within the borders of the Flathead Indian Reservation, was created in 1908 on Indian land the government bought to save bison from extinction. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was charged with managing it prior to the two-year joint agreement.

‘‘We’ve always had interest in being managers of this completely and this is our solution to get there,’’ McDonald said of the tribe’s proposal.

The tribe’s proposal would phase in full management over three years under a federal contract starting in 2007. The proposal calls for the tribe to be paid $1 million a year for its work.

Under the joint agreement, the tribe performed some of the activities on the range, including bison roundups, weed control, fire suppression and collection of federal public use fees. About half of the range’s 24 employees were under the tribe’s supervision.

Negotiations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are ongoing, and the proposal is sure to have its critics.

‘‘This is a complex issue,’’ Kales said. ‘‘It always has been.’’

Earlier this year, a performance report indicated much of the tribe’s assigned work wasn’t getting done. And environmentalists worry the tribe’s management could lead to reduced stewardship.

McDonald said those worries are unfounded, and are based on subjective and arbitrary reports of the tribe’s work.

‘‘We can’t deny that some of the areas showed weakness, but they were not substantial at all,’’ he said.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/11/22/montana/a09112206_03.txt  

Back to Top

Bison Range Grievance Filed : Could Affect Management Talks

10/26/06
By Nate Traylor
Leader Staff

MOIESE -- A grievance has been filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stemming from allegations that some Bison Range employees have been subjected to a harassing work environment by Tribal employees.

However, a Tribal attorney working on negotiations to extend the Tribe's management of some of the functions at the Range said the grievance was timed to disrupt those negotiations, and that it's simply an effort to reduce Tribal management of some roles there.

According to Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), the FWS communicated to the Tribe that they could have additional positions if they wanted. Essentially, if an employee were to quit or leave the Bison Range, that person could be replaced with a tribal member, which would give the Tribe more than 50 percent of the workforce.

Ruch speculates that the Tribe is inducing people to quit by creating a hostile work environment.

"Federal employees should not be subjected to racial or sexual intimidation and should expect their own agency management to do more than just stand by and watch," Ruch stated in an article posted on PEER.org. "The Fish and Wildlife Service has put its own people in an untenable position by signaling to the tribes that they would get to keep any jobs that became vacant -- in essence putting targets on the backs of refuge staff and creating an incentive for harassment."

The timing of the grievance is a bit suspicious, says tribal attorney Brian Upton, as the Tribe and FWS are currently in negotiations to renew their contract. He speculates that this is yet another effort by PEER to throw a monkey wrench into the works to delay or hamper the negotiation progress. PEER was one of several organizations that was critical of Tribal management of certain positions at the range, when the Tribes were negotiating with FWS in 2004 and 2005.

"PEER has a history of this," Upton said. "This fits in with their standard practice."

"It wouldn't surprise us if some of the employees were using the grievance to delay negotiations for a new agreement," he added.

PEER have been vocal opponents of the Tribe/FWS agreement enacted last year.

Ruch said that a majority of the Bison Range employees and about 40 conservation organizations opposed a contract agreement between the Tribe and FWS, which was finalized a year ago. The concern, he explained, was that a split-management system would result in the breakdown of wildlife operations.

The Tribe remains uncertain as to what the allegations are, or what particular incidents have occurred to create the alleged hostile working environment. They requested a copy of the grievance, but the FWS will not give them a copy, he said. The Tribe appealed their decision through the Freedom of Information Act.

In their grievance, the refuge employees request that the split-management agreement be rescinded or re-negotiated. In an effort to investigate the allegations fairly, U.S. FWS Deputy Regional Director Jay Slack indicated that the agency would use an outside party to conduct the investigation.

Upton explained that open positions at the range can be filled by tribal members, and that employment option was agreed upon in the initial Tribe/FWS negotiations last year. Upton said that he has not heard of any disharmony among Bison Range employees in the past year since the agreement was signed.

Furthermore, FWS retains almost all supervisory positions at the range, he added.

But Ruch said that the FWS and the Tribes were supposed to have renewed their contract in September. When asked why they haven't yet, he said "We assume it's because the [FWS] leadership doesn't know what to do."

"The annual agreement was set to lapse this past September but has been extended indefinitely by FWS on a provisional basis after the CSKT refused to sign a renewal of the agreement. The CSKT are seeking additional positions and funding, leading to a complete take-over of all refuge operations," reads the PEER.org article.

Upton stated that the Tribe submitted a proposal to the regional FWS office and they are waiting to hear back.

Back to Top

Letter to Congress from 32 Wildlife groups

AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY * ARKANSAS AUDUBON SOCIETY * ASSOCIATION OF FIELD ORNITHOLOGISTS * BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL * BIRD CONSERVATION NETWORK * CAMPFIRE CLUB OF AMERICA * CHICAGO ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY * CONNECTICUT ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY * CORNELL LABORATORY OF ORNITHOLOGY * DELMARVA ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY * DUCKS UNLIMITED * ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AT AIRLIE * FRIENDS OF PONDICHERRY * FOUNDATION FOR NORTH AMERICAN WILD SHEEP * IUCN SPECIALIST GROUP ON STORKS, IBISES AND SPOONBILLS * ILLINOIS AUDUBON SOCIETY * IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA * LINNAEAN SOCIETY OF NEW YORK * MADISON AUDUBON SOCIETY * NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION * NEW JERSEY AUDUBON SOCIETY * NEW YORK CITY AUDUBON * OTTER CREEK AUDUBON * POPE AND YOUNG CLUB * RIVEREDGE BIRD CLUB * ROGER TORY PETERSON INSTITUTE OF NATURAL HISTORY * TENNESSEE ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY * THE TRUMPETER SWAN SOCIETY * VIRGINIA SOCIETY OF ORNITHOLOGY * WATERBIRD SOCIETY * WILDLIFE INFORMATION CENTER * WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE * THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

ANNUAL FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR MONTANA NATIONAL BISON RANGE AND RELATED NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED

January 24, 2005

Dear Senator/Representative:

We, the undersigned, are writing to express our deep concerns with the proposed Annual Funding Agreement (AFA) between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) at the National Bison Range Complex in Montana. The Department of the Interior has now sent the agreement to Congress for review.

Many groups and individuals have detailed serious flaws in the AFA that would turn over approximately half of the budget and staff positions at the National Bison Range Complex from the FWS to the CSKT. See the attached Summary. These flaws, communicated to the Interior Department during the public comment period, would cripple administration of the National Bison Range lands and provide a template for future AFAs that would be damaging to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Unfortunately, the major concerns raised during the comment period have been ignored by Interior, and the agreement sent to Congress fails to address these fundamental problems.

Concerns with the National Bison Range AFA as presented to Congress:

1) Although the AFA reserves to FWS the ultimate responsibility and authority for operation and management of the NBRC, many of its provisions hamstring the ability of the FWS to fulfill its duty and public trust obligation under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to manage the refuge units or inappropriately shift management responsibility to CSKT under that statute.
2) The AFA imposes new and substantial costs to the National Bison Range Complex and the National Wildlife Refuge System that adversely affect the management and operation of the refuge units. Further, cost estimates for the agreement vary wildly, from $23,000 to $230,000. Additionally, $288,000 has been spent by FWS on negotiations since 2003.
3) The AFA will result in the loss of liability coverage for federal volunteers at the National Bison Range. Volunteers at the Bison Range contribute more than 5,000 hour a year. However, due to the Tribes sovereign immunity, volunteers will be exposed to liability issues.

It is important to note that, on October 8, 23 National Wildlife Refuge Managers from across the country filed a written protest urging rejection of the AFA, stating “No Refuge Manager, no matter how skilled, could successfully implement this agreement as it is written.” The managers represent 23 Refuges eligible for inclusion in AFAs that could be negotiated with self-governance Tribes. Since then, more than 100 other Refuge Managers have added their names to the letter.

The Department of the Interior has listed 34 National Parks and 34 National Wildlife Refuges and Na