Collaborative Resource Management: An Assessment of NOAA Sanctuary Advisory Councils and BLM Resource Advisory Councils Project Team: Project Team: Kathy Chen - Dana Jackman - Camille Kustin - Josh Kweller - Carolyn Segalini Advisor: Julia Wondolleck Advisor: Julia Wondolleck Prospective Clients: NOAA and DOI Prospective Clients: NOAA and DOI

Project Objective To assess the potential of advisory councils to promote effective communication, collaboration, and problem-solving in resource management. To assess the potential of advisory councils to promote effective communication, collaboration, and problem-solving in resource management.

The Sanctuary Advisory Councils (SACs) The National Marine Sanctuaries The National Marine Sanctuaries –Authorized by Marine Sanctuary Act of 1972 –Protects marine environments recognized for ecological and cultural significance –13 designated sanctuaries protecting 18,000 square miles of ocean and coast SACs advise and make recommendations to sanctuary managers and NOAA on the designation and management of the Sanctuaries SACs advise and make recommendations to sanctuary managers and NOAA on the designation and management of the Sanctuaries Represent local residents, government, academia, business and environmental protection groups Represent local residents, government, academia, business and environmental protection groups 12 SACs established 12 SACs established Exempt from Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Exempt from Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

The Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) –Responsible for managing 261 million acres of public land in western states –Balances multiple-use resource demands for present and future needs of the public Submits official recommendations to BLM on public land management Submits official recommendations to BLM on public land management Represent commodity, environmental and preservation, and governmental and academic interests (60 CFR 162: ) Represent commodity, environmental and preservation, and governmental and academic interests (60 CFR 162: ) 25 RACs established in 12 western states 25 RACs established in 12 western states Established in 1995 and mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, PL , Sec.1739) Established in 1995 and mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, PL , Sec.1739) Must comply with Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 86 Stat.770) Must comply with Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 86 Stat.770)

Why Examine SACs and RACs? Assess potential to promote communication, collaboration, and problem- solving Assess potential to promote communication, collaboration, and problem- solving No assessment of advisory council processes exists- agencies are interested in what can be learned No assessment of advisory council processes exists- agencies are interested in what can be learned Why both? Why both? –Broader set of experiences to draw from –Different types of issues, organizational context, and legal frameworks present a unique opportunity for analysis

Overarching Questions 1. What have been the experiences of SACs and RACs to date? 2. What are the lessons to be drawn from these experiences? 3. What can be learned from a comparison of the similarities and differences in the SAC vs. RAC experience?

1. What have been the experiences of SACs and RACs to date? Who is involved? Who is involved? Issues tackled? Issues tackled? Accomplishments and challenges? Accomplishments and challenges? Structure and management? Structure and management? Decision-making process? Decision-making process? Agency involvement? Agency involvement? Impacts on individuals and agencies? Impacts on individuals and agencies?

2. What are the lessons to be drawn from these experiences? What is the potential of advisory councils to promote productive collaboration in resource management? What is the potential of advisory councils to promote productive collaboration in resource management? What factors contribute to the realization of this potential? What factors contribute to the realization of this potential? –Structure and management of process –How decisions are made –Roles of agency and participants –Characteristics of participants

3. What can be learned from a comparison of the SACs vs. RACs? With regard to: Types of issues Types of issues Organizational context Organizational context Legal frameworks Legal frameworks

Research Approach Interviews and Surveys Interviews and Surveys Case Studies Case Studies Literature Review, Background, & Preliminary Interviews Case Studies and Analysis Surveys and Analysis Comparative Analysis Develop Research Questions & Framework

Timeline Develop research questions: Develop research questions: Develop analytical framework: Develop analytical framework: Lit review and background research: Lit review and background research: Preliminary interviews: Preliminary interviews: Survey and survey analysis: Survey and survey analysis: Case study development & analysis: Case study development & analysis: Comparative analysis Comparative analysis Writing and production: Writing and production: Information Dissemination: Information Dissemination: Feb – May ‘05 Mar – May ‘05 Mar – Aug ‘05 Jun – Jul ‘05 May – Nov ‘05 Sep ‘05 – Jan ‘06 Dec ‘05 – Jan ‘06 Jan – Feb ‘06 Feb – Apr ‘06

Products Final report providing a comprehensive analysis of SAC and RAC assessment including: Final report providing a comprehensive analysis of SAC and RAC assessment including: –Survey of CRM and advisory council research –Systematic, broad overview and analysis of SAC and RAC experience –Case study analyses –Comparative analysis of SACs and RACs Summary report and recommendations for DOC-NOAA Summary report and recommendations for DOC-NOAA Summary report and recommendations for DOI-BLM Summary report and recommendations for DOI-BLM Presentations to SNRE, DOC-NOAA, and DOI-BLM Presentations to SNRE, DOC-NOAA, and DOI-BLM Conference presentations Conference presentations Peer reviewed article(s) Peer reviewed article(s)

Budget Estimated Project Expenses $16,836 Estimated Project Expenses $16,836 Estimated Funding* $13,875 Estimated Funding* $13,875 –SNRE Master’s Project Funds 675 –Rackham Discretionary Funds 7,500* –EFA5,000* –SNRE Travel Grants 300* –Rackham Travel Grants 400* Unmet Need $2,961** Unmet Need $2,961** *Maximum estimated amounts, not yet secured ** Minimum unmet need

Questions? Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS

Thank you!