**An Overview of BLM's NEPA Process**

**Course 1620-02**

**BLM National Training Center Telecast**

**September 18-20, 1996**

This transcript is from the closed-captioning file produced during the
telecast.

It may contain errors in transcription and omissions.

Day 1 begins here

Day 2 begins on page 61

Day 3 begins on page 121

Good Morning, Everyone and Welcome to NTC\'s Distance Learning Course,
an Overview of

BLM\'s NEPA Process. We\'re Hear to Beat the Drum to Point out the
Opportunity and Promise of

the National Environmental Policy Act. Better Known as NEPA. We\'re Here
to Reenergize You

and Give an Effective Overview. We\'re Here to Teach, to Answer Your
Questions, to Provide a

Forum to Share Your Insights and Hopefully to Foster a Common
Understanding and Consistent

Application of BLM\'s NEPA Process. Enhancing Your Understanding of NEPA
Clearly Puts All

of You Front and Center to Meet BLM\'s Mission. NEPA Is Important to Us,
All of Us. BLM

Spends Millions of Dollars Each Year to Comply with NEPA. Learning to Do
Our Collective

Jobs Better Will Save Money, Help Us Make Better Decisions And Improve
Customer Service.

This Overview Will Be Followed Next Fiscal Year by Two More Distance
Learning Courses That

Expand on the How‑tos. Specifically, These Courses Will Cover EA Level
and EIS Level

Analysis. Joining Me Today Is Gregg Simmons, the National Training
Coordinator for this

Course. Welcome, Gregg.

Thank You, Doug, It\'s Good to Be Here. Looking Forward to a Good
Session, Lots of

Participation From You Folks out There.

Also Coming from Mile City, Montana, Is Glenn Carpenter. Welcome to the
Broadcast, Glenn.

Thanks, Doug. You Mentioned We Spend Millions Of Dollars on NEPA.
Hopefully this Course

Will Allow Us to Spend or Money More Efficiently.

We Would Also like to Welcome All of You from BLM Throughout The United
States,

Including Those in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Desert Southwest,
The Great Basin, the

Northern Rockies, the Northern Plains, The Southern Rockies and Our
Offices in the East. We\'d

Also like to Welcome Our Friends from Other Agencies Who Are Auditing
this Course. We\'re

Pleased to Have You Joining Us. We Want Our BLM Participants to Be
Involved as Much as

Possible. Throughout this Course, You\'ll Be Able to Communicate with Us
Via Telephone and

Fax Using the Numbers Provided by Your On‑site Coordinator. You Can Send
a Fax Question at

Any Time. Use the Form in the Back of Your Workbooks. Be Sure to Legibly
Print Your

Question with a Dark Marker. You May Call Us at Any Time. Normally,
However, We Will Only

Be Putting Calls on the Air During Our Scheduled Interactive Segments.
Our Teleconference

Executive Producer Is Cindy Alvarez, Environmental Specialist at the
Arizona State Office. Our

Teleconference Operators Coming from the Phoenix District Office Are
Sheila Mcfarlin, Resource

Advisor, and Mary Johnson, an Arizona Land Exchange Project Manager. And
Also on the

Phones Is Neil Talbot, Nevada State Office and Washington Office
Planning and Environmental

Liaison to Nevada And California. To Avoid an Echo Effect When You Call
Please Stand Away

from Your Television Set or Turn the Sound Down. By the Way, Don\'t Get
Frustrated If You

End up on Hold a While. Your Calls Are Important to Us. We Will Get to
You as Fast as We

Can. During this Training You Will Be Involved in Working on Several
Exercises. You Will Have

Time During the Breaks and Our Off‑air Periods To Work on the Exercises.
Your Instructional

Materials for This Course Include the Green‑covered Desktop Reference
And Your White Course

Workbook. We\'re All Very Excited about Presenting this Course. We Look
Forward to Hearing

from You. We Have a Great Deal of Material To Cover. So Let\'s Get to
It. Gregg, Are You

Ready to Cover The Self‑assessment Exercise?

You Bet, Doug. Thank You. Good Morning, Everyone. The First Thing We
Will Do Is Review

the Self‑assessment Which Begins on Page 14 of Your Workbook. The
On‑site Coordinator at

Your Location Should Have Provided Each of You an Advance Copy to Fill
in Prior to this

Telecast. The Purpose of the Self‑assessment Is to Get Us All On the
Same Page, So to Speak by

Highlighting Some of the Common Misunderstandings or Misconceptions
Regarding BLM NEPA

Policy and Procedures. Each of the Questions Will Be Discussed Further
During the Telecast. The

Answer to Question 1 Could Be Any Four of the Following Sources of NEPA
Guide Ups: the

National Environment All Policy Act, the Ceq Regulations, Departmental
Manual, BLM NEPA

Handbook, Ceq\'s 40 Most Asked Questions, Ceq Talking Points, Federal
Land Policy and

Management Act, Environmental Case Law, and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Guidance. The

Question to Answer Number 2 Is True. All Actions on or Affecting Public
Lands or Resources

must Be Reviewed for NEPA Compliance. The Answer to Question Number 3:
Five Possible

Categories from Screening Include Exceptions From BLM NEPA Requirements,
Administrative

Determinations, Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact

Statements. Question Number 4: the Answer Is True. In the BLM, it Is
Common for Proposed

Actions to Have Been at Least Partially Addressed in Previously Prepared
Environmental

Documents. Question Number 5: the Tools For Efficiency Include Tiering,
Incorporation by

Reference, Adoption, Supplementing, Administrative Determinations, And
Managing the Process.

Question Number 6: the Answer Is True. Departmental Policy Does Require
Cx\'s to Be

Subjected to Sufficient Review to Determine Whether They Meet Any of the
Exceptions. The

Answer to Question Number 7 Is False. The Ceq Regulations Do Not Require
That the Results of

a Categorical Exclusion Review Be Documented. Question Number 8: Three
Ways a Manager

Can React When a Proposed Action Is Not in Conformance with the
Applicable Land Use Plan

Are:, First, Deny The Action, or Amend the Plan, Or Modify the Action to
Conform With the

Plan. Question Number 9: the Answer Is True. NEPA Does Allow Proposed
Actions To Be

Designed and Modified So As to Minimize Environmental Review and
Documentation

Requirements. Question Number 10: the Answer Is True. The NEPA Process
Should Be Initiated

as Soon as Possible For Applicant‑initiated Actions Or
Externally‑initiated Actions. Question

Number 11: Four Categories of Actions Which Do Not Require an EA Are
Exceptions From

BLM NEPA Requirements, Administrative Determinations, Categorical
Exclusions, and Actions

Normally Requiring the Preparation of an Eis. Question Number 12,
According to The Ceq

Regulations, an EA Serves the Following Three Purposes: to Determine If
an EIS or Fonsi Is

Needed, to Aid In Compliance with NEPA When an EIS Is Not Required, and
to Facilitate

Preparation of an EIS When One Is Required. Question Number 13: the
Answer Is False. Both

Ea‑level and Eis‑level Plan Amendments May Be Done. Question 14: the
Answer Is True. BLM

must Provide Public Notice Of NEPA Related Hearings, Public Meetings and
the Availability of

Environmental Documents. Question 15: Three Possible Outcomes from a
Completed EA Are

Documented in Fonsi, Issue a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS or Stop
Action Altogether.

Question 16: the Answer Is True. Actions Which Are Expected to Result in
Significant Impacts

to The Human Environment must Be Analyzed in an Eis. Question Number 17:
the Answer Is

True. The Ceq Regulations Require Agencies to Evaluate Reasonable
Alternatives Not Within the

Jurisdiction of the Lead Agency. Question Number 18: the Answer Is True.
The Record of

Decision for an EIS must Include a Summary of Any Monitoring and
Enforcement Program for

Actions Being Adopted to Mitigate Impacts. Question Number 19: the
Answer Is False. The

Decisions Made in a Decision Record or a Record of Decision, Rod, Are
Binding on the BLM.

Question 20: the Answer Is True. BLM must Use Environmental Documents
Prepared Either by

Applicants, or BLM Approved Third‑party Contractors. I Think That Is
\"May\" Use. Question 21:

the Answer Is False. An EA Written by One Person Can Satisfy the NEPA
Requirement to Use an

Interdisciplinary Approach. Question 22: the Answer Is False. A Public
Review and Comment

Period Is Not Required for an Ea‑level Analysis. Question Number 23:
Another Agency\'s

Environmental Document May Not Be Used for BLM Administrative
Determination. Question

Number 24: the Answer Is True. BLM NEPA Handbook Does Require Monitoring
and

Evaluation of the Results of Mitigation. Question Number 25: All of the
Actions Listed Start the

Time Clock for a Protest or Appeal Period. The Answer Is All of the
above. Question Number

26: the Answer Is Federal or Nonfederal Agency Or Person. Cumulative
Impacts Regardless of

What Federal or Nonfederal Agency or Person Undertakes Such Actions.
Answer to Question

Number 27: The Answer Is True. Program‑specific Instruction Memoranda,
Manuals, Handbooks

May Impose EA or EIS Requirements in Addition to Ceq Regulatory
Requirements and BLM

NEPA Requirements and Manual and Handbook. Question Number 28: the
Answer Is True. The

Human Environment Includes The Physical, Biological, Social And Economic
Components of the

Affected Environment. Question Number 29: an EA must Contain the Need
for the Proposal,

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action, Environmental Consequences,
and A Listing of

Agencies and Individuals Consulted. And the Last Question, Question
Number 30: the Three

Types of Impacts Are Direct, Indirect and Cumulative. That Concludes the
Review of the

Self‑assessment. If Anyone Has a Lingering Question, You May Either Fax
or Call Us at Any

Time or Wait and Ask Us Directly During One of The Interactive Time
Periods Noted in Your

Agenda. We Would like to Hear from Those Of You Who Feel like You Aced
The

Self‑assessment. This Is How We Get New NEPA Instructors for the Future.
Now Let\'s Turn

Our Attention to The Basics. You Can Find These Listed on Page 1 of Your
Green Booklet.

NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, Was Signed into Law On
January 1st, 1970 by

President Richard Nixon. The Purposes of this Act Are: To Encourage a
Productive and

Enjoyable Harmony Between Man And His Environment; and to Promote
Efforts Which Will

Prevent or Eliminate Damage to The Environment. NEPA\'s Purpose Also Is
to Enrich The

Understanding of the Ecological System and Natural Resources Important
to the Nation and to

Establish the Council on Environmental Quality. Complying with the Law
Is as Important as

Achieving the Letter of the Law. Sometimes We Get So Wrapped up In the
Procedural Aspects

of the Law and the Regulations That We Inadvertently Overlook the
Intent. Section 101, for

Instance, of NEPA Spells out the Intent of The Act. While Section 102
Establishes Procedural

Requirements. Both Are Equally Important to Meeting Both the Spirit and
the Letter of the Law.

Thereby Achieving the Stated Purposes of the Act. The President\'s
Council on Environmental

Quality, Therefore, Was Established with The Passage of NEPA Itself and
Hence Has Issued

Final Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA
Back November 29,

1978\. These Regulations Were Amended Once, and That Was in April of
1986 by Eliminating the

Worst Case Analysis Requirement in Section 1502.22. That Is the Only
Change That Has

Occurred to the Ceq Regulations Since They Became Effective Back In
1978. A Little over a

Year Ago I Was In Washington, D.c. and Asked to Give a Presentation in a
Continuing Education

Series at The National Association of Environmental Professionals
Meeting That Was Held There.

It Was an Annual Conference. During That Time Period, During My
Presentation, I Gave a Talk

On Tiering to That Group, and it Was Real Interesting in a Group Of
about 50 or 60 People That

Were in Attendance During That Continuing Education Series I Asked a
Couple Questions of the

Group. Keep in Mind That These People Are All Professional Environmental
Professionals. All

Environmental Professionals, Either Working in the Private Sector or in
the Public Sector. When I

Asked the Question, I Asked this Question First: How Many People, and
Asked by a Show Of

Hands, How Many People Have Read the Ceq Regulations Front To Back? And
Almost, I Think,

Everyone in The Room Raised Their Hand, Yes, They Had Read the
Regulations And NEPA

Front to Back. Then I Asked a Question That Followed, and That Is: How
Many Of Them

Looked at Anything Other Than Section 1502 or Section 1508.9 When They
Were Doing an EIS

or an Ea? And Asked for a Show of Hands. Only One or Two People in the
Room Raised Their

Hand. The Here Is That We Get So Locked up in Concentrating on What Our
Procedural

Guidance Is For One Particular Document That We Tend to Overlook Some of
the More

Important Stuff. I Want to Go over Some of the Basics in Ceq Regs That
Are Well Up Front in

Section 1500. Ceq NEPA Principles Are These: First, to Ensure That the
Environmental

Information Is Available to Public Officials And Citizens Before
Decisions Are Made and Actions

Taken. A Second Principle Is That NEPA Documents must Concentrate on
Issues That Are

Significant to The Action in Question. We Don\'t Need to Cover
Everything That There Is out

There. Here Is a Key One: it Is Not Better Documents but Better
Decisions That Count. NEPA\'s

Process Is Intended to Help Public Officials Make Decisions Based on an
Understanding of the

Environmental Consequences and Take Actions That Protect, Restore and
Enhance the

Environment. In So Doing, Ceq Directs Agencies to Interpret and
Administer the Policies and

Regulations and Public Laws of The United States in Accordance With the
Policies Set Forth in

The NEPA and Ceq Regulations, Which Means Unless Some Act or Law Is
Specifically

Exempted, All Laws must Comply or All Actions must Comply with NEPA.
Prepare

Environmental Documents That Are Concise, Clear and to The Point and
That Are Supported By

the Evidence That the Agencies Have Made the Necessary Environmental
Analyses. Ceq Also

Directs That We Integrate the Requirements of NEPA with Other Planning
Environmental

Review Procedures Required by Law or by Agency Practice So That All Such
Processes Can Run

Concurrently Rather than Consecutively. Ceq Also Encourages and
Facilitates Public Involvement

In the Decisions That Affect the Quality of the Human Environment. BLM
Has a Couple of

NEPA Principles, and These Are: First, All BLM NEPA Documents And Their
Supporting

Records Make up BLM\'s NEPA Analysis Base. And All NEPA Documents and
Supporting

Records Produced in Support of Resource Management Planning in Decision
Making Will Up

Date, Maintain and Also Modify BLM\'s Existing NEPA Analysis Base. I
Would like to Say One

Other Thing about the Desire to Make Appeal‑proof NEPA Documents. NEPA
Documents Are

Not Appealable Because They Are, by Definition, Analytical Documents.
Only a Decision or a

Decision Document Is Appealable. Any Decision Based on a NEPA Analysis
Which Considers All

Relevant Information and Complies with the Applicable Procedural
Requirements as Provided for

in the Ceq Regulations must Be Upheld. That\'s Key to Adequate NEPA
Analysis. Section 1500.3

Ceq Mandates the Provisions of NEPA and its Regulations Be Read Together
as A Whole in

Order to Comply with The Spirit and the Letter of the Law. So the next
Time You Initiate Some

Level of NEPA Analysis, Remember to Also Go Back and Review the Purpose,
Policy and

Mandate Sections and These Are Up in Section 1500 in the Very Beginning
of the Ceq Regs as

Well as the Guidance on Reducing Both Paper Work and Delay Provided in
Those Sections,

1500.1 to 1500.6. Doug, this Concludes Our Review Of the Base Things
Morning.

Thanks, Gregg. I Have a Couple Questions about The Self‑assessment. I
Wasn\'t Familiar with

the Fact That One Individual Could Write An Ea. Is That Supported by
Additional Reference to

Other Specialists In the Office or Review of the Document?

Yes, Doug, the Requirement in Ceq Is to Have an Interdisciplinary
Approach to The Analysis.

Now One Person Writing an EA Could Be Done Providing That All ‑‑ You
Know, You Have

That Interdisciplinary Input from the Different Specialists and Resource
Specialists and So On.

Okay. We\'ve Got a Fax in from Mile City. I Think Glenn Probably Put
Them Up to this. It\'s

Regarding the Self‑assessment Test, Question Number 2. What about
Congressional Actions, Are

They Reviewed for NEPA Compliance?

Congressional Actions Reviewed for NEPA Compliance\... You Mean like ‑‑
I Guess ‑‑ I Guess

We\'re Talking about ‑‑

These Are Legislative EIS or Ea.

If We Have Legislative Action That We Are Proposing as an Agency, We Are
to Prepare a

Legislative Environmental Impact Statement or Some Sort of NEPA
Analysis. Typically an

Environmental Impact Statement. An Example of this Would Be the Wild and
Scenic River

Environmental Documents That Are Being Prepared or the Wilderness
Documents That Are

Being Prepared. But in Terms of Congress Themselves, There Is No
Requirement ‑‑ Congress

Exempts Themselves from NEPA, Basically.

Thanks, Gregg, for Reviewing The Self‑assessment Exercise and Answering
That Fax Message

and For Giving Us a Good Overview of The Basic Principles of NEPA, The
Ceq Regulations and

BLM\'s NEPA Policy. At this Point, If You Have Any Questions or Comments
about What We\'ve

Covered So Far, Please Fax Or Phone Us. We\'ll Try to Respond to Your
Questions as Soon as

We Can. After Our First Break, We\'ll Be Taking Phone Calls on the Air
to Discuss this Morning\'s

Segments. Now Glenn Will Present the Concept of Screening, Focusing On
the Six Critical

Screening Questions. Screening Will Lead You to a Determination of Which
Analysis And

Documentation Is Appropriate To Comply with NEPA. Glenn?

Thanks, Doug. We\'re Doing Something New Here For this NEPA Training.
We\'re Taking the

Better Part of Three Days to Discuss Something That We\'re All Involved
in One Way or Another.

There Are a Number of Subject Matter Specialists, and Me, the Token
Manager. By the Way, I

Did Not Ace the Self‑assessment Test. It Was Just the Luck or Unluck Of
the Draw. We Would

like to You Relax and Concentrate Where You Are. This Will Be an Update
for Some Of You

and Something Totally New For Many of You as Well. It\'s Really Your
Charge and Responsibility

to Make this Time As Productive as Possible. You Have Some Excellent
Study Aids and Some

Opportunities to Interact with Your Fellow Students and Those of Us Here
at The National

Training Center. Some of What You Hear Will Be Repeated Several Times by
Several of Us as

We Go Through The Week. That\'s Good. That Helps with the Learning and
Instruction. We\'ll Sit

Here in the Hot Lights Sweating and Not Knowing How Well this Is Going
Over, and We\'ll All

Stutter a Bit. I Will Try to Get Used to Interacting with You in this
New Manner and Using the

Telephone And the Fax. We Value this Interaction and We\'ll Try to Pick
up as Much Time as

Possible During the Broadcast So That We Can Give You as Many
Opportunities as We Can for

That Purpose. The Training Center\'s Really Been Working Hard to
Encourage Us All to Use

Available Technology and to Make it Possible for Each of Us to Undertake
These Kinds of

Distance Learning Activities. Over the next Few Minutes We\'re Going to
Take Some Time and

Talk About a Very Cost‑effective NEPA Tool. It\'s Called Screening.
Screening Is an Important

Step In the Streamlining of the NEPA Process. A Good Screening Process
Should Eliminate or

Substantially Reduce Unnecessary Paper Work And Delays. It Also Allows
Us to Use Staff And

Management and Our Capabilities and Interact in an Interdisciplinary
Manner So That We Can

Eventually Determine How NEPA Compliance Will Occur. Of Course, It\'s
the Responsible

Officer Who Has That Responsibility to Make That Determination.
Screening the Proposed

Action Is A Two‑step Process. It Requires, First of All, a Very Clear
Statement of the Proposal,

And, Secondly, Requires That We Apply a Series Of Six Questions to the
Proposal. The First

Step Is to Define the Proposal. It\'s Important That When That Occurs
That You Be Familiar

Enough with the Screening Questions That Those Six Questions, So That
the Description of the

Proposal Can Facilitate That Screening. The Proposed Action Needs to Be
Articulated in a

Manner to Address Those Six Questions, but Before You Get to Those,
It\'s Important That You

Consider a Few Other Questions Which When Answered Will Help Describe
the Proposal or

Action. First, Begin by Understanding What the Proposal Is. Is it
Right‑of‑way? Range

Improvement? Whatever. The next Question Is: How and Where Would it Be
Implemented?

Include with That Any Design Features or Mitigation. A Proposal Which
Mitigates Impacts Also

Minimizes the Complexity of the NEPA Analysis. You Need to Be Sensitive
to What The

Proposed Schedule Is for Implementation. Is the Proposed Action
Internally or Externally

Initiated? If It\'s Internal, It\'s More Likely to Have Considered
Sensitive Resources and

Incorporated Those in the Project Description. We Need to Know What
Authority BLM Is

Operating under Regarding The Proposed Action. This May Lead to Some
Coordination

Requirements Which We Will Discuss Later. If All These Items Are
Addressed Adequately, You

Should Have a Proposed Action Which Provides Sufficient Detail to Make
Taking It Through the

Screening Questions a Worthwhile Exercise. It\'s the Purpose of the next
Step in Screening to

Lead You to Determining the Appropriate Analysis and Documentation Path
To Follow When

Complying with NEPA. The Answers to the Six Screening Questions Lead You
to Determine The

Appropriate Analysis as We Consider this Documentation Obligation.
Looking in Your Desktop

Reference on Page 6 You Will Find the Screening Process Diagram. The Box
on the Left

Contains the Screening Questions. The Answer to Each Question Leads You
to Either Another

Screening Question or Causes You To Leave Those Questions and Implement
the Action, Take

No Action or Start One of the Analysis and Documentation Processes.
After We\'ve Identified

That Proposed Action Clearly, this Second Step, the Screening, Runs You
Through These Basic

Six Questions. In a Nutshell, Each of Those Are Asking These Questions:
Does The Proposal

Conform to the Plan? Is There an Exception from BLM NEPA Requirements?
Does the Proposal

Require an Eis? Are Existing Analysis and Documentation Sufficient? Does
it Fit on the

Categorical Exclusion List? Or Are There Environmental Impacts Which Are
Expected to Be

Significant? Now, That\'s the Six in a Nutshell. We\'ll Examine Those
Individually. I\'ll Give You a

Little Additional Explanation about Each. First, Does the Proposal
Conform To the Existing Land

Use Plan? 43 Cfr Tells Us That Conformity Or Conformance Means That a
Resource

Management Action Shall Be Specifically Provided for in The Plan or If
Not Specifically

Mentioned Shall Be Clearly Consistent with the Terms, Conditions and
Decisions of the

Approved Plan or Plan Amendment. What We\'re Talking about Regarding
Conformance Is this\...

Is it Allowed by the Plan? Is the Action Prohibited by the Plan? Does
the Plan Call for an

Amendment for this Type of Proposal? Is the Plan Silent? Is the Proposal
Clearly Consistent with

the Objectives Of the Land Use Plan? The Responsible Official must
Interpret the Plan and Make

That Decision. The next Question Asks If the Proposal Is an Exception
from BLM NEPA

Requirements. You NEPA Gurus out There Know Only Federal Laws Can Exempt
Actions from

NEPA, and this May Relate Back to That Fax, Which I Did Not Set Up, from
Mile City. Those

Federal Laws That Exempt Actions Really Constitute a Category Which
Means That We Don\'t

Have to Prepare a NEPA Dock If That Exemption Has Occurred. Another
Category of NEPA

Exceptions Is an Emergency Action Such as Wildfire Suppression. We\'ve
Had Plenty of Those

this Year. The Final Category Is Rejection Of Proposed Actions, and this
Is A Key One as Well.

If a Proposed Action Is Prohibited by the Plan and Is Not in the Public
Interest, Managers Should

Not Be Afraid to Reject the Proposed Action. Just for Purposes of Your
Information, the

Reference for That Is in BLM\'s NEPA Handbook As It\'s Presently
Constituted in 1790‑1. The

next Question for Us to Consider Is Whether or Not the Proposed Action
Normally Requires an

Eis. Those Actions Which Normally Do Require an EIS Are Included in a
List Found in the

Departmental Manual 516, 6, Appendix 5.3. Actions That Either May or Are
Expected to

Significantly Affect The Quality of the Human Environment and Those
Actions Whose Effects on

the Quality of The Human Environment Are Expected to Be Highly
Controversial. Those Are

Really the Two Really Distilling Points Which Help Us Determine If an
EIS Is Required. The next

Question Is: Is Existing Analysis and Documentation Sufficient? You
Should Be Knowledgeable

About Other NEPA Documents Prepared for Actions in the Same Geographical
ArEA of the

Proposed Action. Consider How Well Those Documents Address Impacts
Associated with the

Proposal. Actions That Are Covered to Some Extent in an Existing EA or
EIS Prepared by BLM

or Another Agency May Not Have to Be Analyzed in a New Environmental
Document. Analysis

Should Determine the Adequacy of Existing Documentation. There Are Seven
Criteria Found In

the NEPA Handbook to Help Determine the Adequacy. A Determination Made
by the

Responsible Official That the Action Is Adequately Covered by BLM\'s
NEPA Analysis Base must

Be Documented in the Record. If You Have Questions about this Topic,
Hopefully They Will Be

Answered as We Move Through the Course. The next Screening Question Is:
Is the Proposal

Listed as Categorically Excluded? Categorical Exclusions Are Effective
Tools in Streamlining Our

NEPA Processes. Take a Look at the Proposed Action and Compare it to the
List of Categorical

Exclusions In the Departmental Manual 516. If You Find the Proposed
Action On the List, the

next Step Is to Review the Specifics of the Proposal to Determine If it
Meets Any of the 10

Exceptions To Categorical Exclusions Which Are Also Found in the
Departmental Manual. If it

Doesn\'t Meet Any Exception, the Action Doesn\'t Need to Be Addressed in
an EA or Eis. This

Determination Is Made by The Responsible Official and Must Be Documented
in the Record. The

Final Screening Question to Be Answered Is Whether or Not The
Environmental Impacts Are

Expected to Be Significant. That\'s Found on Page 36 of Your Desktop
Reference. And If the

Impacts Are Expected To Be Significant, Then Obviously It\'s Necessary
to Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement. Notice That I Said an Environmental
Impact Statement. Again,

If the Action Is Expected To Cause a Significant Impact, Or If the
Impact of an Action Are Likely

‑‑ Let Me Back up and Restress That. If the Impacts of an Action Are
Likely to Be Highly

Controversial ‑‑ the next Thing To Say, of Course, Is We Need to
Recognize That There Are

Many Eiss Which Have Been Prepared Because the Proposal Has Been
Politically Controversial,

but Strictly Speaking an EIS May Not Have Been Needed. The Action Is
Related to Another

Criteria for an EIS Is Whether Or Not the Action Is Related to Other
Actions Which Are

Individually Insignificant. But If There Is a Number of Those Kinds of
Actions Which Have

Occurred, If Cumulatively All of Their Impacts Are Significant, Then an
EIS Will Be Necessary.

Otherwise, an EA Should Be Prepared. Even When the Preparer Is Uncertain
and Needs Further

Analysis to Determine the Significance. Now, Understand, this Is If We
Want to Streamline the

Process. We Also Need to Be Sensitive to The Fact There May Be Other
Factors Which Are

Political Which Help Determine Whether the EIS Will Be Prepared. We\'ve
Come to the Screening

Process Exercise Now. In Your Work Books You Will Find On Page 18 a
Screening Process

Exercise. You Have a Series of Four Questions There, and What We\'d Like
You to Do Is Take

this Time To Go Through Each of Those in Your Individual Little Work
Groups Where You Are

Now Watching this Broadcast and Develop Responses to Each of Those
Questions. We Will Be

Contacting Some of You Offices to Make Sure That You\'re Doing Your
Homework and To Give

You an Opportunity to Respond. I Think We May Be Running a Little Bit
Ahead, So You\'ll Have

Some Extra Time. How Much Time Can We Give Them For this?

We\'re Going to Have a 25‑minute Break When We Break. Thank You, Glenn,
for a Good Job

Of Discussing Screening, an Initial and Very Critical Step In
Streamlining BLM\'s NEPA

Procedures. Now, Folks, We\'re Going off the Air for 25 Minutes to Allow
You Time to Work on

the Screening Process Exercise on Page 18 of Your Workbook. During this
Period We Will Be

Calling Eight Downlink Sites to Discuss Your Answers to the Screening
Exercise at the Start Of

Our next On‑air Segment. We\'ll Be Back in 25 Minutes to Discuss the
Exercise and Any

Questions You Have up to this Point. We\'ll See You Soon.

Welcome Back to the BLM National Training Center\'s Overview of BLM\'s
NEPA Process. We

Have Eight BLM Sites Standing By on the Phones to Talk to Us About the
Solutions to the

Screening Process Exercise. We Also Have Several Faxes Covering Material
That Was Presented

Earlier in the Broadcast. We\'re Going to Answer the Screening Process
Exercises First and Then

We\'ll Get to the Other Faxes. I Would like to Caution You to Realize
That this Is an Overview

Course and We Are Going over Material That Perhaps Is Rather Basic to
Some of You. So You

Do Have a Lot to Contribute in this Process. Your Expertise and
Experience Can Lend

Appreciably to the Learning of Others in Your Group. Joining Me in this
Segment Are Glenn

Carpenter and Gregg Simmons. Should You Have Any Unanswered Questions or
Comment,

Please Call or Fax Us. We\'ll Try to Respond as Fast as We Can. We Look
Forward to Hearing

from You. Gentlemen, Let\'s Go to the Phones.

Okay. We Have ‑‑ We\'re Going to Go to Dave in Yuma, Colorado. Dave,
You\'re on the Air.

Are You There with Us?

Caller: Yes, I\'m Here in Yuma.

Good, Dave. I Said Yuma, Colorado. Didn\'t I? I Apologize.

Caller: Close Enough!

Okay, Dave. Situation Number 1, Screening Situation Number 1, What Did
You Guys Come up

with and Why?

Caller: Okay. First of All, We Felt That the Proposal Is in Conformance
with The Plan Because

It\'s Going to Be Occurring Within an Existing Lease Area.

It\'s in Conformance with the Plan?

Caller: Right. For That Reason.

Okay.

Caller: Perhaps Made a Little Assumption. All Right? Did You Want Me to
Go on down

Through All Six?

No, No. Just Tell Us Which NEPA Documentation Process You Would Use to
Implement It.

Caller: Okay. We Concluded an EA Would Be Appropriate. It\'s Not Exempt
and It\'s ‑‑ We

Determined it Doesn\'t Normally Require an Eis. And Then Item 4,
Existing Documentation

Sufficient, We Figured, Well, No, Probably Not Because of the Two Issues
That Were Left out

10 Years Ago. Probably Need to Be Addressed in A New, More Current Ea.
And 5, Let\'s See\...

We Didn\'t See an Appropriate Categorical Exclusion for It. And When it
Came to What We

Expected to ‑‑ Impacts to Be Significant or Not, We Thought Not, at
Least Going into in this

Case What Would Be an EA to Perhaps Speed the Process up We Felt We
Could Tier to the

Existing Ea. Of Course, We Could Incorporate By Reference Those Parts of
it That Are Still

Valid and Include Mitigation, Again, That We Still Support Just an EA
Level Document.

Okay. Good, Dave. Thank You. That ‑‑ Any Comments on His Remarks?

No, I Think That Was Well Done. One of the Things in These Screening
Exercises We Have to

Be Sensitive to Is the Fact We Didn\'t Give You All of the Information,
and That Was Intentional

So Would You Make Your Own Assumptions and Extract Your Data from Each
of These

Exercises. So as You Present Your Determinations, If You Would Give Us
That Rationale, We

Would Appreciate it Also. You Did Very Well in Yuma. And That\'s in
Arizona. We Appreciate

That a Lot. I Think ‑‑ Let\'s Go to Question Number 2.

Question Number 2, Let\'s Go To Terry in Boise, Idaho, this Time. Terry,
Are You with Us? We

Got You on the Air.

Caller: Hello?

Hello.

Go Ahead, Terry. What Did You Have for Question Number 2? First of All,
What Was Your

Rationale And, Secondly, What Did You Come up with as the Appropriate
Level of Analysis For

NEPA?

Caller: Okay. We Did Conclude That it Is in Conformance with the
Existing Land Use Plan, and

as You Mentioned, Some of the Other Information Isn\'t Necessarily
Complete. If We Assume

That We Have an EA For the Integrated Activity Plan, We Felt That
Administrative

Determination Would Be Appropriate, and If There Is No EA with That
Plan, We Would

Probably Go to an Ea. It\'s Definitely Not Something We Would Do an EIS
on and It\'s Not

Exempt and It\'s Not Listed as a Categorical Exclusion.

Okay. Very Good. One Additional Item on That\... The Categorical
Exclusion List Is up for

Revision. So Just Remember That at Some Point in the Future That List of
Cat Gore Cull

Exclusions May Change. You Did Very Well. Let\'s Go to the next Caller
on That Particular

Question.

That Would Be Caller Number 4, Jerry, in Lewistown, Montana. Jerry, Are
You with Us?

Caller: Yes, I Am. What Did You Guys Come up with On Situation Number 2?

Caller: We Concluded Basically the Same as the Other Group. Our Group
Concluded That We

Would Prepare an EA Based on it Is in Conformance with the Rmp, But
It\'s Not Clear Whether

the Rmp Provided Enough Analysis for This Project, So We Didn\'t Feel An
Administrative

Determination Would Be Appropriate. Again, the Activity Plan Was
Prepared but It\'s Not Clear

Whether an EA Was Prepared for The Activity Plan Either.

So You\'re Say Field Goal There Had Not Been a NEPA Document Prepared
with That

Integrated Activity Plan, Then You Would Have Taken the Process Through
the Screening and

Determined Your Level of Analysis? Is That Correct?

Caller: Yes. And, You Know, Based on the Way We Looked at it Now, We
Would Look at

Preparing an EA at this Time.

Great. Very Good.

Thank You, Jerry. Thank You Very Much. Now We\'ll Move to Mary in Baker
City.

Caller: Hello.

Hi, Mary, How You Doing?

Caller: Fine.

You\'re Going to Respond to Us On Situation Number 3.

Caller: That\'s Right. This Is the Ohv 100‑mile Track In an ArEA That Is
Designate by The Rmp

as an Acec. We Decided Through the Screening Process this Is Not in
Conformance with the

Land Use Plan. We Felt That it Was Unlikely to Warrant a Plan Amendment
in Order to

Accommodate the Proposed Action, but That an Appropriate Thing to Do
Would Be To Work

with the Applicant to Encourage Them to Modify the Proposal for the
Location to an Ohv Open

ArEA That\'s Been Designated Through the Rmp and Possibly to Review Some
of the Existing

NEPA Documents We Have For Those Areas to See Whether An Administrative
Determination

Or EA Would Be Required. This Also Is Something We Decided Was Not a
Minor Event And

Probably Would Not Likely to Be Categorically Excluded.

Excellent, Mary. That\'s Very Good. We Appreciate That. I Think We\'ll
Take the next Caller in

Ely for the ‑‑

72 Right. We Have Martin in Ely.

Martin, Did You Have Anything Else to Add to What Mary Had to Say?

Caller: No, Basically it Was Pretty Obvious If it Wasn\'t in The Land
Use Plan as Approved Then

We Would Deny That Action And Maybe Seek Some Other Opportunities for
Them to Hold It,

but Maybe in Another Area.

Okay.

That\'s Good. Thank You, Martin. Any Other Comments? Thank You. Let\'s
Go to Larry in

Rawlins, Wyoming. Larry, You\'re on the Air with Us. Are You There?

Caller: I\'m Here.

What Did You Guys Figure out For Situation Number 4?

Caller: Well, We Read Through It There and it Appears That the Only
Thing We Don\'t Know

for Sure about this ‑‑ One of the Things That\'s Important Is We Don\'t
Know If That\'s an Existing

County Right‑of‑way. If It\'s an Existing County Right‑of‑way, There
Won\'t Be Any Action

Required Because the Maintenance Would Have Been Covered under the
Original Right‑of‑way

Grant.

Okay.

2477 or Whichever.

Great.

Caller: but If It\'s Not, Then You\'ll Have to Do an EA on It, Unless
You Already Have an EA

Done on Maintenance on Bureau Roads, and Might Cover it That Way.

Okay.

Let\'s See. Do We Have ‑‑

We Have Another Call Hold on That Situation. Let\'s Go to ‑‑

Appreciate That, Larry.

We\'re Going to Burt in Richfield.

Caller: Good Morning.

Good Morning.

Caller: Basically We Considered That an Exception as The Maintenance Was
Allowed and We

Appreciated the Compactness.

an Exception. Okay.

All Right. We Have One More Call from Ridgecrest.

Ahmad, You There?

this Is for Question Two, I Believe, Is That Correct? Go Ahead, Ahmad.

Caller: Can You Hear Me Okay?

Yes, Go Ahead.

Caller: We Have, Looking at All the Four Proposals, We Just Have One
Process That We Try

and Approach It. Rather than Trying to Look at The Actions That Are If
They Are Excluded or

Have Some Kind of Exemption, We Tried to Use a Scoping Process since We
Don\'t Have All the

Resources in Similar Areas and the Land Use Plans That Were Passed in
the Past Don\'t Always ‑‑

Aren\'t Always Consistent with the Situation That Happens on the Ground,
We Try to Use a

Scoping Process to Determine What the Impacts Are of the Proposal, and
That Determines

Whether the Proposal Could Be Administratively Determined or
Categorically Excluded or an EA

Is Required. Not by Using a List or by Some Regulatory Guidance Because
We Know in the

California Desert That Our Areas on the Ground Are Not Necessarily
Conform to All The

Regulations and All the Issues That We Have Passed from Washington Level
and from

Headquarters. So We Try to Use a Scoping Process, Which Is a Two‑week
Review Period

Between the Staff To Highlight Any Issues or Concerns, Because the
Environment Is a Dynamic

Thing, And We Have a Lot of Variables, Political Variables, Scientific
Variables, Personnel

Variables. So We Try as Much as Possible to Try Not to Use Guidance
Unless That Guidance Is

Specific Enough. Scoping Really Tells You What The Impacts Are. The
Answer, I Guess, to 1, 2,

3 And 4 Would Be to Use a Scoping Process to Determine Through Your
Interdisciplinary Staff

What Are the Issues on the Ground Because We Are Managing This for the
Public and If the

Public Is Not Aware of What\'s Going on on the Ground and We Make
Assumptions on Their

Behalf, We May Get Appeals and We May Get Decisions That Will Help Us in
Future Land

Management Issues. So I Look at this Screening Process as Key to Finding
out What Are Your

Level of Documentation Rather than Go by Existing Guidance or a List of
Actions That Are

Exempt.

Okay. That Sounds Good. And That Is Definitely an Alternative Way of
Doing Some Screening

on Your Proposals. Thank You, Ahmad. Did You Have Any Other Comments On
the Screening?

Each of the Situations.

No, I Think Our Respondents Did Very Well. The Intent Here Was Just to
Give Relatively

Simple Scenarios to Allow People to Walk Through the Process. I\'m Not
Confident That Bureau

Wide Screening Has Been Used Much in the past and I Think If It\'s Used
Efficiently and

Effectively, it Can Save Us Time In the NEPA Process. We Have Some Faxes
That We Received

Also. Let\'s Kind of Move to Some of Those, and Those May Cover Some Of
Your Earlier

Comments as Well As Perhaps Something on These Case Studies. Go Ahead.

We Got Several Faxes in from You Folks That Highlighted an Apparent
Contradiction Between

Question 7 on the Self‑assessment and Something That Glenn Said During
the Screening Process,

and We\'ll Try And Give Some Clarification to That. First of All, If You
Take a Look At the Elmo

Card That We Have Sitting over Here, the Key to This True/false Question
Is That The Question

Was: Do the Ceq Regulations Require That the Cx Review Be Documented,
and the Answer

There Is, No, it Does Not. The Ceq Regulations Do Not Require a Document
of a Cx Process.

The 10 Exception Process, for Instance, Is Not a Requirement. We\'re Not
Asking You to Go out

And Put Together a Document That Shows 10 Exceptions, as Many of You
Might Use That

Sample Form That\'s in the Departmental Manual Section. But, Again,
It\'s Not a Requirement.

Our Handbook Even Says So. What Glenn Referred to Was That The
Determination, a Statement

That You Made a Determination That the Action Is Categorically Excluded
Is What Should Be

Documented in the Record Somewhere. Otherwise, How Can You upon Review
Show That You

Took the Necessary Look? And We Gave You in Your Green Booklet, in the
next Segment,

You\'ll See There Are Some Suggested Documentation for the ‑‑ this Cx
Determination of the

We\'re Not Talking about Anything More than like a Small Paragraph. So I
Hope That Clears up

That Question. We Got Another Question Regarding Question Number 23.
That Was Regarding

‑‑ it Says The Answer Was, You Could Not Base a BLM Administrative
Determination on

Another Agency\'s NEPA Document. This Conflicts with Information On Page
4, Item D, I

Believe it Is, Doesn\'t It? Are We Talking about Page 4, Item D of the
‑‑ If We\'re Talking about

the Page 4, Item D, in the Desktop Reference ‑‑ Have You Got it There?

this Would Be a Good Time for You Folks to Call into Us While We Try to
Answer this One

Question Here. Please Give Us Your Phone Calls, And We Will Answer Them
Accordingly.

I Think That We Don\'t Believe That There Is a Conflict Between The Two
Statements. If You\'re

Going to Use Another Agency\'s Ea, Those Procedures Are Provided for in
Your Green Booklet

Back under the Management Tools for Efficiency Which We\'ll Be Covering
Later on This

Morning under the Section Of Adoption Where We Talk about Using Other
Agency\'s Eas and

Eiss but It\'s Been Bureau\'s Policy since the NEPA Handbook Came out in
1988 That a Bureau\'s

Administrative Determination Must Be Based upon a BLM NEPA Document.
Now, That Could

Be Something That You Were a Cooperating Agency In, If You Were a
Cooperating Agency in

an Environmental Assessment or an Eis, Then it Is Our Document. So You
Could Use That in

Those Situations. We Got a Question on ‑‑ Question Number 2 of the
Self‑assessment. Pardon

Me as I Flip Back to Remind Myself Which ‑‑ Question 2 Was ‑‑ Question 2
Was All Actions on

or Affecting Public Lands on the Resources must Be Reviewed for NEPA
Compliance, And the

Question Was: What About Nondiscretionary Actions Such as Mining
Notices, and I Believe

That When You Look at The Program Specific Guidance in The Regulations,
the Regulations Say

That No Additional NEPA Analysis Is Needed or No NEPA Analysis Is Needed
for Mining

Notices. So That Is Where Some Other Law Or Regulation Has Specifically
Indicated No

Additional Analysis Is Needed. We Had a Question on Number 25. Is
Mailing the Decision

Enough? In Some Cases, That Is Sufficient. When You Make an Attempt at
Public Notice of the

Decision, That Should Be Sufficient for Initiating the Protest Period,
Or the Appeal Period,

Whichever The Case May Be. The Question Went on to Say: What If They Are
out of Town for

Several Weeks When Does the Clock Really Begin? Again, That Depends
Upon, Again, As I Said

a Few Minutes Ago, If You\'ve Made an Attempt to Provide Public Notice
of the Decision and

Somebody Just Happens to Be on Vacation, I Guess That\'s Going to Have
to Be Determined

upon a Case by Case Bays, but Typically Speaking, When You Provide
Public Notice, And That

Constitutes Mailing, Especially If It\'s Certified Return Receipt, That
Day Initiates the 30‑day

Appeal Period. And We Had a Question on Self‑assessment Question Number
23, Which Is the

Correct Answer?

the Question for 23 Addresses Another Agency\'s Environmental Document
and Whether or Not

it Can Be Used for BLM Administrative Determination.

and I Think We Covered That Just a Few Minutes Ago. We Have Another Fax
in from Salem

District in BLM, And, Glen, this One Says It\'s for You, but You
Mentioned the Possible

Coverage of Existing Eas by Their Agency ‑‑ this Is The Same Kind of
Question Relating to the

True/false Question on Item Number 23, and I Think We\'ve Covered That.
Again, You Can Use

Another Agency\'s EA or Eis, but an Administrative Determination Must Be
Based upon BLM

NEPA Document. Could You Explain Question Number 9?

That Question Asks Whether or Not Proposed Actions Can Be Designed and
Modified So as to

Minimize Environmental Review And Documentation.

and the Question Is: Could You Explain Question Number 9 of The
Self‑assessment? I Thought

That the Proposed Action Was Set in Concrete. Please Give an Example of
When You Could

Change It.

I\'ve Had a Number of Opportunities to Have this Kind Of Action Occur,
Especially When I Was

an ArEA Manager. You Get a Proponent That Walks Into the Office, and If
You Review Their

Application, and Based on Your Knowledge of the Resources You May Very
Well Know As

Written It\'s Going to Be Very Difficult to Accommodate the Request.
Simply Discussing with

Them the Fact That If They Modify Their Proposal That it Can Simplify
The Process and You

Can Really Help Them to Minimize That Proposed ‑‑ Minimize the Impacts
Of Their Proposed

Action If They Have Built‑in Mitigation Already In the Proposal.

an Example ‑‑ Another Example Of When You Can Modify an Action, I Often
Get this Question

If It\'s Relating to Both Internally‑initiated Action And Externally.
Let Me Address the

Internally‑initiated Proposed Action First. Back in the Days When I Was
an Environmental

Coordinator in the Oregon State Office and Also Working out of the
Washington Office, Planning

and Environmental Staff, I Often Counseled People to Spend Some Time in
Determining the

Scope And Screening and Checking out All the Issues and to Build as Much
Mitigation into the

Proposal as Possible. Your Proposal Might Be to Offer A Parcel of Timber
for Timber Sale, a

Timber Sale Parcel. Now, You Can Build and Design That Proposal to
Include Road

Construction, to Include Site Preparation Activities Afterwards like
Broadcast Burning and So

On, and You Could Design That Proposal and Continue to Refine it in
Order To Mitigate

Impacts. Now, for Externally‑initiated Actions, When a Proponent Comes
In with an Application,

like a Mining Plan of Operations, in That Kind of a Situation, it Is
Probably Appropriate to Retain

The Original Proposal as the Original Proposed Action. You Can Build
Another Alternative If We

Feel ‑‑ If BLM Feels That There\'s a Better Way Of Doing Business out
There, We Can Build a

BLM Preferred Alternative as Opposed to Having The Original Proposed
Action. But There\'s

Also Nothing Wrong With Going Back to the Proponent And Asking Them to
Consider

Modifying Their Original Mining Plan of Operations. This Is Permitted,
and it Can Be Done to

Mitigate Impacts. It\'s Also Wise to Keep a Documented Record of this
Kind Of Exchange. This

Question Came from Salem, And it Says: Did We Understand Correctly That
the Affected

Environment Is Not a Required Element in an Environmental Assessment,
Reference to Question

Number 29? And the Answer Is, Yes, You Heard That Correctly. The ‑‑ in
Section 1508.9 of the

Ceq Regs, it Identifies Four Components to Be Documented in An
Environmental Assessment,

and That Is the Need for the Proposal, Alternatives, Including the
Proposed Action, The

Environmental Consequences, And Individuals and Agencies Consulted. Now,
If You\'re Asking If

It\'s a Good IdEA to Include a Discussion of the Affected Environment in
an Environmental

Assessment, Typically That\'s the Case. It Is a Good IdEA Often to
Include That Kind of a

Section. You Could Have it as an Individual Section or Give Some Sort of
a Brief Description at

The Beginning of the Environmental Consequences Section. If You\'re
Doing an EA That Is

Tiered to a Programmatic Eis, BLM Veg Treatment, Western Oregon Veg
Treatment, Northwest

ArEA Knox Us Weed, Oftentime You Will Be Able to Incorporate by
Reference and Refer and

Tier to The Broader Documents. So There Is Different Ways of Building
this In. But the Actual

Answer Is It\'s Not a Required Documentation ‑‑ It\'s Not a
Documentation Requirement for the

Environmental Assessment. And We Have a Question from Kevin in Ely.
Let\'s See.

Actually, this Isn\'t a Question as Much as it Is a Suggestion for How
We Can Do a Better Job of

Talking to You. And as We Reference Back and Forth Between the Workbook
and The Green

Book We\'ll Try to Make Sure That It\'s Clear Which One We\'re Referring
To.

We\'ll Try to Refer to the Workbook, the White Workbook, as The
Workbook, and We\'ll Try to

Refer to the Desktop Reference As the Green Booklet. If That\'s Okay.

Gregg, We Had a Question Coming in from Vernal Regarding Question Number
28 on the

Self‑assessment. They Want to Know Why this Is True, and They Go on to
Say That Ceq Defines

Human Environment as Including the Natural and Physical Environment
Which Means That

Economic or Social Effects Are Not Intended by Themselves To Require
Preparation of an Eis.

They May Be Discussed If Interrelated with the Natural or Physical
Environment.

I Don\'t Know How Much of an Answer this Needs. Whoever Sent this in in
Vernal Has Stated

this Correctly. The Human Environment Does Contain All Four Components,
the Physical,

Biological, Social and Economic Environments. I Mean, That Is Stated in
the Regulations. But it

Is Also Correct That Ceq And the Courts Have Found That The Significance
of the Social And

Economic Impacts in and of Themselves Cannot Be the Sole Basis for
Determining That an EIS

Is Necessary. And That Is Correct. We Have Another Question from Idaho
Falls Saying That the

Departmental Agency Lists Actions Normally Requiring Eis. When Would
These Same Actions

Not Require an Eis? You Have to Look at Each One of Those Individually.
One of the Items

Listed Is, for Instance, Resource Management Plans and Those Types of
Documents. When with

a Do Rmps, a Full‑blown Rmp, We must Do an EIS Level Analysis. We Cannot
Use an EA Level

Analysis to Approve Resource Management Plans. However, We Can Do an EA
Level Analysis

to Approve a Plan Amendment or an Amendment to That Rmp. If You Want to
Look Specifically

At the ‑‑ and this Is What it May Refer to ‑‑ the Item That Says That
Mining Plans of Operations

Affecting, I Believe It Is, More than 640 Acres, in That Kind of a
Situation I Would Agree That

You Could Have a Mining Plan of Operations Where 700 Acres Could Be
Affected but Yet No

Significant Impact Is Anticipated. But, on the Other Hand, You Could
Have a Mining Plan of

Operations for 300 Acres, and Depending upon the Resource Values out
There, You Might Have

A Significant ‑‑ Potential for Significant Impacts and an EA Should Not
Be Attempted. Any ‑‑ Do

You Have Any Comments On That.

.

Nope, You\'re Doing Fine. Hang Right in There.

Question Number 29: I Think We Answered the Question Number 29 from
Lewistown,

Montana. Yes, We Did Go Through it Quickly. They Had a Question Both on
29, Which Is the ‑‑

the Affected Environment Section Required in An Ea. We\'ve Responded to
That. And Also They

Had a Question Regarding the Cx Documentation Of the Cx.

I Think One of the Things That this Little Exercise Has Identified Is
the Fact That Ceq Has

Some Fairly Specific Requirements, but It\'s Also Important to Recognize
That BLM And the

Department Have Procedural Requirements and While Ceq Has a Minimum
Level of

Documentation Which Has Been Identified, for Purposes of Helping Bayless
Out, for Lack of A

Better Term, and Experience Has Shown Us If We\'re Challenged And Court
Has Determined ‑‑

or Addressed What We\'ve Been Concerned About, It\'s Sometimes Better
for Us to Ensure That

We Include an Affected Environment And That Type of Thing. So
Procedurally We May Be in

Good Shape as Far as Ceq Is Concerned, but Functionally it May Make
Sense for Us to Do Some

Additional Documentation. I Think Some of What I\'m Seeing Come out in
Some of These

Questions. That Self‑assessment Test Focus To Do a Large Degree on Ceq
Requirements, and

We Have to Make Sure There Isn\'t Too Much Confusion That\'s Generated
Through this.

Okay. We Hope We\'ve Answered Your Questions. If You Still Have Some
Lingering Questions,

Do Not Hesitate to Call Us or Fax Us. In Your Workbook, the White
Workbook, There Are Bio

on Each Of the Instructors. You Can Call Us Here or Even Back Home Later
on If You Still

Have a Lingering Question Regarding Some of These Things. Doug, Let\'s
Go Back to You and

Move on with the next Segment.

Okay, Recapping Our Discussion of the Screening Process, it Is Important
to Realize That Much

Time, Energy And Money Can Be Saved If Interdisciplinary Teams Ask and
Definitively Answer

the Six Critical Screening Questions That Glenn Introduced Earlier. Now,
We Know That We

Have Quite A Few Pink Slips. I\'m Going off Script Here for a Minute,
and We Have Yet to

Answer These. I\'ve Never Gotten a Pink Slip Before and I Hope this
Isn\'t Indicative of What\'s

Going to Happen down the Road. We Do Have Some Questions Here Pertaining
to the Screening

Exercise We Didn\'t Get To, and We Will Cover Those at a Later Time,
Possibly this Afternoon

When We Wrap Up. We Are Joined Today in Casper, Wyoming, by Several
Natrona County

Officials and Members of The General Public and We Welcome You to Our
Broadcast. I

Recollect When I Was Going off To Work When I Joined BLM Some 20 Years
Ago and I Was

Going off To Mark Some ArEA with Some Survey Tape, My Young Son at the
Time Was about

Three Years Old And My Wife Was Hanging the Laundry, and She Asked ‑‑ My
Son Asked My

Wife, Where Is Daddy Going? And She Said, He\'s Going off to Work. And,
You See, He Makes

Red Tape. Well, That\'s Part of What We\'re Trying to Address in this
Overview of the NEPA

Process, Is To Cut to the Tape ‑‑ or Cut Through the Tape and Go Through
The Administrative

Procedures And Documentation That Is Required. We\'re Now Ready to
Address These NEPA

Administrative Procedures And Documentation Requirements, And next
We\'ll Be Talking about

The BLM Administrative Procedures and Documentation Requirements
Starting on Page 7 Of

Your Green Book. This Section Includes a Discussion about Exemptions to
BLM\'s NEPA

Requirements, the Administrative Determination Process, Categorical
Exclusions, Environmental

Assessment Level Analysis, Environmental Impact Statement Level
Analysis, and Other NEPA

Requirements. As I Mentioned Earlier, NTC Will Be Broadcasting Two
Companion Courses, EA

Level Analysis and EIS Level Analysis. These Courses Are Tentatively
Scheduled for next Year.

Joining Me Now on the Set Is Bob Armstrong, a Veteran NEPA Instructor
and NEPA

Coordinator.

Glad to Be Here. Good to See the Temperature in Phoenix Is Going to Be
below 100 Degrees.

Also from California Is Francis Berg, Chief of Resources At the Redding
Field Office. Welcome

to the Telecast.

Thanks, Doug. It\'s a Pleasure to Be Here and Join All You BLMers out
There. Hopefully These

Dark Clouds Around Phoenix Aren\'t a Pour Tent of Things to Come.

Bob Will Present the First Three Topics. Then We\'ll Have a 10‑minute
Break and Francis Will

Conclude The Instructional Session Before We Once Again Take Your Phone
Calls on the Air.

Bob, Are You Ready to Begin?

Yes, Doug, Thank You. Let\'s Move Right on into the Administrative
Procedures and

Documentation Requirements. The Six Items We\'re Going to Cover Today
Are the Exceptions

From the BLM NEPA Requirements, The Administrative Determinations,
Categorical Exclusions,

Eas, Environmental Impact Statements and Then Some Other NEPA
Requirements. Let\'s First

Look at the Exceptions from the BLM NEPA Requirements. These Are Things
That Are

Congressionally Excluded and Examples of Things Excluded Would Be the
Kerr Mcgee Pipeline

‑‑ I Am Sorry, the Alaska Pipeline, the Kerr Mcgee Land Sale, the
Navajo‑ Hopi Relocation

Amendment Act, and an Act Called the Alaskan Native Lands Conservation
Act. Another ArEA

for Exceptions Is Certain Emergency Actions. These Include Things like
Forest Fires, Flood

Control, Areas of Hazardous Materials, Accident Site Cleanups and Search
and Rescue Activities.

The Last ArEA Is Rejections of The Proposed Actions. These Come into Two
Categories. One of

Them Is Where the Proposed Action Is Not Consistent with the Rmp and the
Other Is Where the

Proposed Action Is Not Within the Authority of the BLM to Implement.
Let\'s Look Back at the

Proposed Action That\'s Not Consistent With the Rmp and Let Me Give You
One Example of

this. This Happened Several Years to Me in a Little Town Called Kanab,
Utah. At That Time the

Resource ArEA I Was Working in Had the North Shore of Lake Powell as a
Boundary. This

Happened on a Late Thursday Morning, 8:00 in the Morning, a Fellow Came
in to Talk to Me.

He Was the Only Person I Ever Seen Dressed this Way. I Remember in
Kanab, Utah at This

Time, If You Had on a Pair Of Clean Levis You Were Considered to Be
Dressed Up. This Fellow

Was Dressed in Spotless Black Patent Leather Shoes, a Black Suit, a
Black Tie And a Black

Shirt. I Never Seen Anyone Dressed this Way Before. His Purpose of Being
There, He Had Been

Sent to Kanab to Talk To the BLM about Purchasing Land, BLM Land, along
the North Shore of

Lake Powell. He Was Sent by a Group of Investors from Hollywood,
California. I Explained to

Him That There Are Land Plan Use Decision for That ArEA Was to Retain
That Federal Land

into Public Ownership. He Seemed to Understand That Process. We Talked
for about an Hour.

He Left. We Never Had Any More Discussions after That. The Basic Result
Was That There Was

a Proposed Action That Was Not Consistent with the Rmp. At That Time We
Just Rejected That

Proposed Action. Let\'s Move on into ‑‑ Continuing On with the
Administrative Procedures for

Exceptions. It\'s a Determination That the Decision ‑‑ or the Action Is
an Exception from the BLM

NEPA Requirements and it must Be Documented in the Record. And this
Decision or this

Documentation or Determination Is Made by the Responsible Official. Next
Let\'s Turn Our

Attention to Administrative Determinations. These Are Abbreviated Ad.
There Has Been Some

Discussion About These this Morning. Let\'s Look at the Definition of
This. It\'s a Determination

by BLM That NEPA Documentation Previously Prepared by BLM Fully Covers a
Proposed

Action, in this Case We\'re Talking about Site Specific, and No
Additional Analysis Is Needed.

Some Key Points about Administrative Determinations, It\'s Made by the
Responsible Official.

Now, in this Case When We Talk About Responsible Official, Generally
We\'re Referring to an

ArEA Manager or a District Manager. It must Be Documented in the Record.
The Decision May

Be Administratively Appealed. In the Administrative Determination
Process, There\'s Four Steps

and We Will Go Through These Four Steps Individually Here. First,
Identify the Existing and

Relevant NEPA Related Document. The next Step Is the Criteria For NEPA
Adequacy. You

Conduct a Review. You Analyze the Results of the Review. And You
Document That Review.

Now, Weary Going to Go Specifically into Detail for Each of These Four
Requirements. Let\'s

Look at Step 1. Starting with the Relevant Existing Documents Can
Include Your EIS as Part of

Your Original Rmp Preparation. EIS or EA Associated with Rmp Amendments.
Some More

Documents Helpful, Eiss or Eas That Are BLM Programmatic Actions. Eiss
or Eas That Are

Actives or Eiss or Eas Prepared by Other Agencies as Long as BLM Is a
Cooperating Agency.

And Step Two, Looking at the Criteria for NEPA Adequacy, There Are
Several Criteria to Look

At. The New Proposed Action Is a Feature or Essentially the Same As the
Alternative Selected

and The Document Being Reviewed. Number 2 Is a Reasonable Range Of
Alternatives to the

New Proposed Action Was Analyzed in The Document Being Reviewed. The
Owner Understands

There Are No Resolved Conflicts Regarding Alternative Resource Uses for
The New Proposed

Action. You Don\'t Need to Write These Down, by the Way. You\'ll Find
Them in Your Desktop

Reference Starting at the Bottom Of Page 9. Continuing on with Step 2,
Another Item Is the

Information And Circumstances must Be Germane to the Proposed Action.
The Methodology and

Analytical Approach Used in the Document Being Reviewed Is Appropriate
For the New Action.

Number 5, the Direct and Indirect Impacts of the New Proposed Action Are
Not Significantly

Different. Number 6, Is There No Significant Changes in the Cumulative
Impact Analysis.

Number 7, the Public Involvement In the Document Being Reviewed Is Both
Appropriate for

Coverage For the New Proposed Action. Let\'s Move on to Step Number 3.
Analyzing the Results

of the Review. If All the Criteria Are Met, Additional Analysis Will Not
Be Needed. If Some or

All of the Criteria Are Not Met, a New NEPA Document Must Be Prepared.
In this Case We\'re

Usually Talking about an EA or an Eis. Let\'s Look at Step 4. For the
Administration

Determination, There\'s No Specific Format for an Ad. We Recommend the
Following. It\'s a

Suggestion. You First Identify the Proposed Action and Decision. Next,
You Document That the

Proposed Action Is in Conformance with the Existing Land Use Plan. You
Identify Which EA or

EIS Was Reviewed. Indicate That the EIS or the EA Reviewed Satisfied All
Seven Criteria.

Included in That Same Document Determination, a List of All Mitigation
Measures Applied and

Describe Any Additional Consultation and Coordination That Took Place.
Quite Often We Have

Calls in the Office When Our Resource Areas Are Working with Ads and
They Say What Do We

Include as an Ad In the Determination? We Offer You Some Suggested
Wording Here. This

Wording Is Shown in Your Desktop Reference at the Bottom Of Page 10.
We\'ll Read it Through

Here. The BLM Has Determined That this Proposal Conforms to the Land Use
Plan, That NEPA

Documents Previously Prepared by the BLM Fully Covers the Proposal, and
That No Additional

Analysis (Neither an EA Nor an Eis) Is Needed. This Action Will Be
Implemented Subject to the

Stipulations Attached to the Authorizing Document. What We Recommend
Also as You Review

and Use That Particular Section, That Particular Wording, That You Adapt
Tight Particular

Resource Area. ‑‑ Adapt it to Your Particular Resource Area. Let\'s Move
on to Categorical

Exclusions. We\'ll Start out with a Definition. It Means Appear Category
of Actions Which Do

Not Individually or Cumulatively Have a Significant Effect on the Human
Environment and

Which Have Been Found to Have No Such Effect in Procedures Adapted by
The Federal Agency

in Implementation of These Regulations and for Which, Therefore, Neither
an EIS Nor an EA Is

Required. Some Key Points to Remember About Cxs\... The Ceq Regulations
Stress That Cx

Procedures and the Process Are To Republic Reduce Paper Work And Delays.
BLM\'s Cxs Are

Identified and Adopted Through Required Agency Procedures. These Were
Found ‑‑ the

Procedures Are Not Found but the List for Cxs for the BLM Is Found in
the 516 Departmental

Manual 6, Appendix 5. The Department of Interior List Of Cxs Is Found in
516, Departmental

Manual 2, Appendix 1. Some More Points to Remember, That All Potential
Cx Actions Must

Undergo the Test of the Ten Exceptions Before the Cx Determination Can
Be Made. We Will Go

into More Specific Detail about the List of Ten Exceptions Here in Just
a Minute. The

Determination for a Cx Is Made by the Responsible Official. Important
Point to Remember

Here\... The Decision Based on a Cx May Be Administratively Appealed
under 43 Cfr Part 4.

Let\'s Talk about the Process for A Cx. You Verify That the New Proposal
Is Listed on One of the

BLM Cxs. You Apply the Test of the Ten Exceptions, and You Make a
Determination and

Document That As Appropriate. Only Those Three Items, If You Keep Those
in Mind, Those

Will Get You Through the Process. The BLM Cx List Is Found in 516 Dm 6
Appendix 5. You\'ll

Find That List in Your ‑‑ On Your Appendix on Page 2‑2. That\'s in Your
Desktop Reference. If

You\'ll Turn to That Desktop Reference, and Look at That Appendix Right
Quick, Look If You

Would at Part 5.3. There\'s a List There of Major Actions Normally
Requiring an Eis. I Point this

out to You Specifically Because We Have Received over the Years Some
Phone Calls about Why

Do I Have To Write an EIS on a Mine Plan Proposal That\'s Greater than
640 Acres. This Is One

of the Typical Calls We Get. We Get this Call about Once or Twice a Year
Now. It\'s Easy for

You to Refer to This Particular Part of Your Documents in Your Reference
Material and Explain

to That Caller That the Reason for the Eis. You Can Look at the Other
Lists Of Things Normally

Requiring an EIS There and Get a Feel for What\'s Going On. While
You\'re There Look at Part

5.4. If You Haven\'t Seen That List Before, You\'ll Notice That There
Are Several Subheadings

There. These Subheadings List by Resource. Let\'s Run down Through Them.
There\'s a Fish and

Wildlife, Fluid Minerals, Forestry, Rangeland Management, Realty, Solid
Minerals,

Transportation Signs and Others. If You Never Have Reviewed and Read
Through this List of

Cxs, Go Ahead and Do That Sometime During the Course in the next Three
Days. You\'ll Find

Some Interesting Items in There That You Probably Weren\'t Aware They
Existed. Pay Particular

Attention to Your Resource Categories That You Normally Work In. In
Addition to the BLM Cx

List, There Is a Departmental Cx List Shown in the Reference at 516 Dm
2, Appendix 1. This Is

Another List of Areas That Are Cxs by the Department. Normally in the
Normal Days of a Day\'s

Activity for a Resource ArEA or District Office You Will Never Have an
Occasion to Refer To

That List. This List Also Is Found in Your Desktop Reference. It\'s on
the Appendix 2‑1. We Said

Earlier We Would Talk About the Exceptions to the Categorical
Exclusions. Let\'s Go down

Through Those Exceptions. The First One Is ‑‑ Remember, If One of These
Exceptions Applies,

You Cannot Do Cx. The First One Is Adverse Affects On the Public Health
and Safety. The

Second One Is Adverse Effects on the Unique Characteristics of an Area.
The Third One Is

Highly Controversial Environmental Effects. Number 4, Highly Uncertain
or Potentially

Significant Effects. 5, Establish a Precedent for Future Actions. 6,
Individually Insignificant But

Cumulatively Significant Effects. Number 7, They Have Adverse Impacts on
the National Register

Of Historic Places. 8, Adverse Effects on T&e Species or Their Habitat.
Number 9 Is Compliance

with Executive Order 11988 Which Is Floodplain Management or Executive
Order 11990 Which

Is Protection of Wetlands for the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Number 10, Threatens to

Violate Federal, State Local or Tribal Requirements. You Will Find this
List for 10 Exceptions for

Future Reference On Your Desktop Reference on Pages 11 and 12. Let\'s
Now Look at Suggested

Documentation for the Cx Process, Starting out Again as An Ad, There Is
No Specific

Requirements for this Documentation. We Suggest That When You Do it That
it Include the

Following\... You Identify the Proposed Action; You Document That
Proposal in That it

Conforms With the Existing Land Use Plan; You State Where the Action Is
Found on the Cx List,

in Other Words, You List Whereabouts It\'s Found on the Cx List; and You
State That None of

the Ten Exceptions Apply. Continuing on with That Documentation, You
List All the Mitigation

That Applies, and Then You Describe Any Consultation and Coordination
That Took Place. As in

the Case of Ads, We Have Received Calls on Cxs about Suggested Wording,
the Wording That

Goes ‑‑ What Do You Write Down on a Sheet of Paper for a Cx as Part of
the Documentation.

We Have this Wording Here. Don\'t Try to Copy this down. You\'ll Find it
on Your Desktop

Reference at the Top of Page 13. The Wording Goes like this. The BLM Has
Determined That

this Decision or Action Conforms to The Land Use Plan, That None of The
10 Exceptions Apply,

and That Therefore Neither an EA Nor An EIS Is Needed. The Decision or
Action Will Be

Implemented Subject to the Stipulations Attached to the Authorizing
Document. Let\'s Look at

Some Questions That I\'ve Had ‑‑ That I\'ve Received over the Last Few
Years Relative to this

Subject, and One of Them ‑‑ First One Is on Cxs. Several Times During
the Year We Get Calls in

Our State Office Asking Us If the State Office Will Make a More Liberal
Interpretation of the Cx

List So That More Actions Can Be Used ‑‑ So the Cx Can Be Used More
Often In Resource

Areas. The First Time We Got this Question, We Reviewed the List, We
Looked at the Workload

They Were Trying to Solve in the Resource Area. We Determined That, No,
We Can\'t Relax the

List and We Were Not Going to Relax the Interpretation. It\'s Very
Specific, the Cx List. The

Proposed Action Is Either There or It\'s Not There. And Can You Follow
That Accordingly. The

next One Is an Example That I Uncovered in a Resource ArEA Here about a
Year Ago. One of

the Specialist, Resource Specialists, Was Promoting the IdEA That a
Proposed Action Which

Would Normally Require an EA Should Be Cx and He Was Citing Reference
Material We Were

Not Familiar with for Cx Procedures. In Checking this out When I Visited
the Resource ArEA

and Discussed this Item with Him, He Produced His Reference Material.
What He Had Was in

His Reference File Was an Old Draft Part of a Cx List That Was in the
Original Cx

Determinations. I Think Now the BLM Is in its Second Version of the Cx
List. Remember When

You\'re Doing Cxs, Be Sure and Use the Current Existing Documentation,
And, Doug, That\'s All I

Have for My Presentation.

Well, Your Presentation Prompted a Lot of Faxes Coming In, So You Just
Finished Discussing

the Cx Questions That You Have Been Asked in Your Office, and We Had a
Similar Question

from Prineville District Office, and That Pertained to How Liberally Can
We Interpret the List of

Cxs, or Must We Stay Within the Exact Letter of the List? And You
Indicated You Have to

Adhere to That Existing List as It Currently Is Presented. We Might
Point Out, Though, to Our

Viewing Audience That the Washington Office Is in the Process of
Restudying the Cx List and

That a List Will Be Promulgated and out for Review. It Takes Some Time
as this List Does Go

Through the Department For Clearance and the like. But Presently, as Bob
Indicated, We Do

Have to Stay Within the Exact Listing as ‑‑ Another Question Is More
Pertaining to Practical

Application. The Question Reads as Follows: May a Cx Be Used for
Commercial Outfitting and

Guiding on Public Lands When the Operation Is a Day‑use‑only Business?

Okay. You Go to the List of 10 Exceptions, and Looking at That List You
Would Find out If

It\'s On That List and If It\'s on the List, the Answer Is Yes. If It\'s
Not on the List, the Answer Is

No.

Okay. We Had Several Faxes in on the Administrative Determination, Bob.
From Idaho Falls,

the Question Reads: Did We Understand You to Say That Administrative
Determinations Are

Subject to Appeal?

the Administrative Determination Itself Is Not Subject to Appeal. It\'s
Any Decisions You Make

as a Result of the Ad. That\'s What\'s Subject to the Appeal Process.

and a Related Question from The Baker Resource ArEA in Oregon, Does a
BLM Administrative

Determination Constitute a Decision Subject to Public Notice of
Availability?

the De ‑‑ Again, a Decision That Comes out of ‑‑ as a Result Of the
Administrative

Determination Is Subject to Appeal. The ‑‑ the Public Notice of
Availability, the Way We Handle

That in Our Process Is We Put That on the List along with Existing Eas
Being Prepared in Each

Office, and We Follow That Procedure Regularly. You Can Go to That List
Where The Public Is

Invited to Review The List, You Will Find the Ad, EA and Eass Are All
Listed on That Same

List. A Related Follow‑up Question, How Is it Administratively
Appealable, Page 9 in the

Resource Book?

I Guess I\'m Not ‑‑ I\'m Have To Look at That and Get Back to That One.

Okay. Let\'s Go to this Other Fax Here. For Ads Is it Enough to Say the
Criteria Are Met, or in

Some Discussion ‑‑ or Is Some Discussion Regarded to Show How The
Issues, Impacts, et

Cetera, Apply to the Proposal?

the Ads, as I\'ve Read, They Generally Consist of about a Page to Three
Quarters of a Page Of

Discussion That Includes the Documentation for the Ad. If You Just
Follow the Outline We

Presented for You, I Think You Will Be Safe in Any Ad Determination.

and Pertaining to That Unanswered Question, We\'ll Get An Answer Back to
You on That There

in Baker. Thank You, Bob, for a Great Job On Covering the Subject. Now
We\'ll Take a Short

Break. Please Be Back Promptly in 10 Minutes to Resume Our Broadcast.

Welcome Back to Our NEPA Overview Course from BLM\'s National Training
Center in

Phoenix, Arizona. We\'re Ready to Resume Our Session on BLM NEPA
Administrative

Procedures and Documentation Requirements. Before We Go on to Our next
Segment, We Want

to Answer Some Of the Unanswered Questions When We Broke. That Was from
Our Baker

Resource ArEA in Oregon. Robert, the Question Was, Pertaining to
Administrative

Determination, it Says, How Is Administrative Determinations Appealable?

the Answer to the Question Itself Is the Administrative Determination
Itself Is Not Appealable.

It\'s Any Decision That Results From the Administrative Determination,
That\'s What\'s Appealable

under the 43 Cfr Part 4.

Okay. From Mile City, Here\'s Another Glenn Carpenter‑prompted Question.
Can You Do an Ad

If a New Cultural Resource Survey Was Needed for the Proposed Project
And Will the Criteria

for NEPA Adequacy in an Existing Document Be Met?

in Response to That and All Other Similar Type Questions That Would Come
That Way,

Following Existing Procedures We Outlined for You, Go Through the Review
of the Seven

Criteria for Your Documents and If They Fit And They Apply, Then the
Answer Is, Yes, Can

You Do a Cx.

Okay. We Answered These Two Other Faxes Earlier, but We\'ll ‑‑ Because
They\'re in the

Context Of These Questions, Please Clarify Whether or Not Another
Agency\'s Environmental

Document Can Be Used for an Ad and How The Process Works.

the Other Agency\'s Documents Can Be Used Only If the BLM Was A
Participating Agency.

When BLM Was a Participating Agency, it Becomes Our Document For
Decision Purposes and

We Can Do That, and If it Meets All the Criteria and Through the Process
We Talked about for

Cxs and Ads, The Answer Is Yes.

this Comes to Us from Idaho Falls, and the Question Says: Does Age
Itself Ever Render an EA

Inadequate for Purposes of Making an Administrative Determination?

the Age of the EA That Is Being Reviewed, It\'s Not Normally a Factor. I
Have Not Seen it

Referred to As Factors in the past. What You Look at Is the Existing
Environment, the Things

That Are Described in There and See If They\'re Still Relevant. If
They\'re Still the Same, a Lot Of

BLM Places and Locations in The Field over Time, Say, Five, 10, 15, 25
Years, the Existing

Situation in the Ground Changes And Alters Very Little. Again Here You
Review the Document

Using the Seven Criteria. If Things Are Still the Same, Then Yes.

a Question Coming in on Cx Here Pertaining to Land Acquisitions Being
Part of Departmental

Cx If Congressionally Funded to Require Such as Congressionally Funded
Land and Conservation

Fund Acquisition Projects, Would That Be Covered under Cx?

Things like That That Are Described in Congressional Actions If They\'re
Specifically Mentioned

That Way, If They Say They Can Be Categorically Excluded or If Congress
Exempts It, Yes, but

Otherwise No.

this Is from Our Washington Office Coming in from Our Minerals Shop.
Regarding Cxs, Could

BLM Remediation or Abatement Activities at Abandoned Mine Sites to
Reduce Public Safety

Hazards or Environmental Problems Be Conducted under a Cx?

They Can, but Only If They Are Listed on the Cx List. If Not, We
Recommend That You

Prepare at Least as a Minimum Requirement an EA for That.

and Then Follow‑up Question\... How Can BLM and the Washington Office
Revise the List?

The Process, as I Understand it Is That We Promulgate the List And it
Goes Through the

Solicitors and We Also Work with The Department\'s Environmental Shop
and Throughout the

Bureau Reviewing Comment, and this Process Is Going to Commence Next
Fiscal Year, Early in

the Next Fiscal Year, to Amend the Cx List. Now Francis Berg Will
Present The EA and EIS

Level Analysis And Other NEPA Requirements. Then We\'ll Open up the
Phones Again to Hear

from You. Francis?

Thanks, Doug. And I Have to Take Note That You Look Absolutely
Senatorial in Your Suit

There Today. I\'m Really Glad to Be Here Sharing Time with All You Folks
Out in BLM Land.

I\'m Kind of the NEPA Rookie on This Staff. I Don\'t Want That as an
Excuse, But Do Take it into

Consideration That I\'m Not a NEPA Guru. I Don\'t Even Rate as a NEPA
Geek Yet. There\'s Been

a Lot of Stuff If You\'ve Been with BLM for Any Other Agency for a
Period of Time That Kind of

Comes and Goes. It Might Be Topical. The Catch Phrase, the Initiative Du
Jour, but the NEPA

Process Keeps Going and Going and Going And Why Is That.

There\'s Probably Two Reasons. First of All, of Course, It\'s
Legislation. It\'s the Embodiment of

the Spirit and Will of the American People That We Do this. Moreover, it
Really Helps Us to

Make Good Decisions. It Gets the Public Involved, and It Will Hopefully
Lead to a Better

Decision. It Is an Open Decision Making Process. We Are Still
Responsible for Making That

Decision. But That\'s Probably Why it Keeps On Going Because It\'s Still
Relevant Today as it Was

26 Years Ago. The Section I Am Going to Be Covering Is on Pages 13,‑18
of Your Green

Workbook ‑‑ Not Workbook, but Your Desktop Reference, or It\'s a Green
Booklet, as They Call

It. We\'ve Already Gone Through Screening with Glenn. So We Assume There
Is a Need to Go

Further. We\'ve Gone Through the Administrative Determination and
Categorical Exclusion

Process And We Have Determined Those Are Not Sufficient, So We\'re
Probably Looking at an

Environmental Analysis of Some Sort. So What Should We Do? Should it Be
an EA or Eis?

Going Back to What Doug Said Earlier this Morning and When He Introduced
Our Segment, We

Are Not Intending to Show You Folks How to Construct an Environmental
Assessment for an

Environmental Impact Statement In this Training. Those Will Be Offered
next Fiscal Year for

Those People Who Would like to Take That Specific Training. Rather this
Is an Overview. So If

You Really Want to Stump The Chum That, You Can Really Do It Here. This
Is Probable

Something That You\'re Most Familiar with out There in the Field Offices
Doing Environmental

Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements Of the So Most of You Are
Probably Ahead of

the Learning Curve on this. We Develop Eas and Eiss Daily Just About,
and We Spend, as I

Think Glenn Mentioned Earlier Today, Millions of Dollars Doing Those
Kinds of Things. First

Let\'s Look at Eas and a Definition. An Environmental Assessment Is a
Concise Document with

Emphasis On Concise, That Serves to Briefly Provide Information to
Determine Whether to

Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement For a Finding of No
Significant Impact, or Fonsi. It

Helps BLM Meet Our Obligation To Comply with NEPA If, Indeed, An EIS Is
Not Needed. Or,

We May Make a Determination That, Indeed, an EIS Is Required, and for
Those Who like The

Nice Technical References, You Can Follow along in Your Desktop
Reference and Find Those,

but it Is the Ceq Regulations 1508.9. Gregg Covered the Same Points, By
the Way, in the

Self‑assessment. Well Now That We ‑‑ as Long as We\'ve Got That Kind of
Defined, What Do

We Usually Put into Environmental Assessment? Well, We Put a Lot of
Stuff in Environmental

Assessments. There\'s Already Been Some Talking About, Well, Do We Have
To Have an Effect

on the Environment? There\'s Things We must Have in There. Then There
Are Things We Could

Have in There. Let\'s Look at What We Really Have to Have Inside an
Environmental Assessment.

We must Include Need for the Proposal, We Have to Include Alternatives
as Mentioned in

Section 102 of NEPA, We Have to Critically Assess the Environmental
Impacts of Those

Alternatives, and We Have to Provide a List of Agencies and Persons
Consulted. Recognize,

Those Are All Non‑negotiable. In Other Words, They Have to Be In There.
We\'re Obliged to

Have to Do That. Well, Most of You Are Probably Saying Put a Rot More
Stuff in

Environmental Assessments than That. You Are Absolutely Right. What Are
Some Things We

May Include in an Environmental Assessment? Well, They Could Include
What We Call

Identifying Information. That\'s Going to Help the Reader To Understand
What We\'re Talking

About as Well as Provide the Decision‑maker with Good Background
Information. First of All,

Through BLM Policy We Require a Discussion or Mentioning the Title and
the Type of the

Project. It Stands to Reason. We Need to Know the Location of The
Project, Again, That Would

Seem to Be Stand to Reason. What\'s the Name of the Preparing Office or
Offices? That\'s a

Requirement. When Applicable, It\'s Good to Discuss What Are the
Relevant Numbers. You

Know, It\'s the EA Number, The Lease Number, the Case Number, Serial
Number, Whatever.

Also When Applicable, the Applicant\'s Name. A Requirement Through BLM
Policy Is the Date of

Preparation Because We Know That They Give It Somewhat of a Shelf Life,
Much as Bob Was

Mentioning, to Make Sure That They Are Still Relevant Today. And We
Recommend a List of

Preparers. It\'s Always Nice to Go Back to See Who\'s to Blame ‑‑ I Mean
Who Went Ahead and

Prepared That. So If We Do Have Questions, We Can Get Back to Them.
Well, There\'s More

Things That We Can Consider to Put Inside of An Ea. An EA Could Also
Include Planning or

Other Type of Information. Again, BLM Requirement. We\'ve Heard a
Discussion Through Glenn

as Part of Screening, Better Conform to Our Existing Land Use Plans. If
Not, We Have to Look

at Amending or Rejecting the ‑‑ Amending the Land Use Plan or Rejecting
the Proposal. Or

Changing the Proposal. We Recommend That It\'s Got to Relate to the
Gottas, That\'s the

Regulations, Legislation and Policies of the Agency and the Of the
Department. It\'s Optional to

Discuss Alternatives That Are Not Fully Analyzed. You May Have an
Alternative That You

Thought of for a Short Period of Time, but for Good Rationale You Have
Rejected it From Full

Analysis, and Just Mention Those up Front. It\'s Optional, Again,
That\'s Probably a Mind‑blower

to a Lot Of You Resource Specialists out In BLM Land. You Do Not Have to
Have a Discussion

of the Effect on the Environment in an Environmental Assessment, but
this Is Something We

Typically Do Put in There Because it Does Give the Reader Some
Worthwhile Background, and

it Helps the Decision‑maker Come up with a Responsible Decision. What
Are Some of the Other

Documentation Requirements If We\'re Going to Be Doing an Environmental
Assessment? We

Have the Ea. And We Have Two Other Things. First of All, the Finding of
No Significant Impact.

That\'s Defined under Title 40 of The Federal Regular Legs, 1508.13.
Again, I Stress, a Brief

Document in this Case, Explaining an Action Will Not Significantly
Impact the Elements of the

Human Environment. We Already Heard What Those Elements Were. This Would
Include an EA

or a Summary of the ‑‑ a Summary of The Ea. You Want to Make Sure That
You Mention

Related Documents. You Want to Make Sure That You Carefully Word
Substantive Rationale,

Why You Think it Is Not a Significant Impact. And the Ceq Regulations
1505, Make Sure That

We Need to Have a Determination Again by Responsible Official. When
We\'re Talking about

Responsible Official, We\'re Not Talking about Personal Characteristics
of the Individual. Rather,

We\'re Talking about a Person Who Happens to Be in a Position of
Authority, Typically A Line

Manager. Well, What Are Some of the Related NEPA Documents That We Can
Kind of Tier To?

First of All, We Have an EIS From a BLM Rmp. That Would Be Something We
‑‑ Would Be a

Related Document. An EIS or EA from Plan Amendment, and Most of You out
There Probably

Know You Could Have Either Depending on the Case. An EIS or an EA on BLM
Programmatic

Actions Such as the Herbicide Eis. An EIS or EA on a BLM Activity Or
Project Plans. And Then,

Finally, You Can Look At an EIS or EA from Others If BLM Was a
Cooperating Agency. The

Last Document That We Have In Doing an Environmental Assessment Is the
Decision Record. In

the Decision Record We\'re Required to Identify the Selected
Alternative, Describe The Specific

Features of the Decision, Identify the Mitigation Measures That Are
Going to Be Implemented,

and We\'re Going to Identify the Limitations on Implementation. For
Instance, Maybe It\'s the

Season of Use. Maybe There\'s Snow on the Ground And We Can\'t Get out
There and Do

Something until the Snow Is Gone. Or Maybe We\'re Still Kind of Hanging
Far Waiting for a

Response from Shpo Regarding Our Consultation Regarding Some
Archaeological Sites or

Something. So We Have to Put off the Implementation. The Decision Record
Also Is Required to

Include Identifying The Supporting Environmental Assessment and the
Finding of No Significant

Impact for the Decision, Provide the Rationale For Your Decision and How
it Conforms with

Your Approved Land Use Plan, You Want to Include Your Compliance and
Monitoring Plan (If

Needed) ‑‑ Obviously Some Eas Are Relatively Simple Proposals and You
Don\'t Have Much of a

Compliance or Monitoring Plan Required ‑‑ And, Again, Here Is That
Approval by The Again

\"Responsible\" Official. Well, Let\'s Think About, in Addition to the
Documentation Requirements

for an Environmental Assessment What Are Some of the Kind of Rules For
Public Participation in

Doing an Environmental Assessment. I Think There Was Some Discussion
Earlier with Gregg

That There Is No Such Thing as a Draft Ea. That\'s Already Kind of Come
Up, And That\'s

Probably Surprised People. Maybe It\'s Semantics, but There Is No
Requirement for a Draft Ea.

However, for Public Participation, We Want to Make Sure That We Include
the Appropriate

Level of EA Involvement, and That\'s in 40 Cfr 1506.6. That\'s Really up
to You out There That Is

Going to Be Doing The Environmental Assessment to Figure out What Is the
Appropriate Level.

There Is Nothing That Says You Have to Use \"X\" Pounds of Public
Involvement. You Need to

Make That Determination. That\'s Quite Often Pretty Difficult. You Have
to Come up with ‑‑

Make Sure the Fonsi Is Available to The Affected Public. Between, the
Affected Public Is

Something That Comes out of the Ceq Regs. We Want to Make Sure That We
Do Make That

Available to Those People Who Have Been Involved in That Process.
Sometimes We Do Want to

Provide A 30‑day Review Before the Fonsi, and I Am Stressing Now The
Fonsi, Not the Ea, but

Before the Fonsi Is Signed. If We Feel the Action Is like One, You Know,
Bordering on an EIS

or If the Action Is Without Precedent. And, Finally, We Want to Make
Sure That EA and the

Fonsi and The Decision Record Are Made Available to the Affected Public.
In Your Desktop

Reference on Page 15 You\'ll See a Flowchart That Kind of Compares the
Two Different

Processes You Can Use. I Find That Desktop Reference Very Useful. I
Think it Will Have Utility

to You Far Beyond this Training Session as a Handy Reference. That\'s
Why We Call it a Desktop

Reference. This Is Kind of a Comparison That Kind of Parallels What You
See on Page 15. What

We See Is on an EA Level Analysis with No Public Review Or with Public
Review of the Fonsi,

the First Step, Same, Determine Your Scope. Second Step, Same, You\'re
Going To Prepare the

Environmental Assessment. And Here\'s Where We Die Verge. If You Are Not
Going to Have a

Public Review, You Prepare and Sign the Fonsi. However, If You Want to
Have Some Public

Review, Then You Prepare an Unsigned Fonsi. If We\'re Going Back over
Here, Finishing up the

‑‑ I Guess You Would Call it the Simpler System, with No Public Review,
You Prepare and Sign

the Decision Record, and You Make The Notice of Availability for The
Decision Record, Fonsi

and The EA to Start Your 30‑day Appeal Period, and There Is No Federal
Register Requirement

on This Notice of Availability. But You Will Want to Put That in The
Appropriate Media. Going

Back with Public Review, We\'ve Already Prepared an Unsigned Fonsi and
We\'ve Sent That out.

Now We Want to Make a Notice of Availability for it and the Supporting
EA and Provide,

Perhaps, a 30‑day Review Period. After We Get Those Comments Back, We
Prepare the

Environmental Assessment, Which Really Means We Incorporate Those
Comments That We

Received On Review of the Fonsi, If We Felt They Related to the Ea. We
Sign the Fonsi at this

Point And We Sign the Decision Record, And Then this Last Step, Same
Over Here. Make a

Notice of Availability For the Decision Record. The Fonsi and the Ea.
Start Your Appeal Period.

And There Is No Federal Register Requirement. Now That We\'ve Finished
up Environmental

Assessments, Let\'s Go to Environmental Impact Statements. A Lot of
People Are Kind of Feared

of Those. They Equate an Eia as B‑a‑d or The New York Phone Book. They
Don\'t Have to Be

That Way. Let\'s Take a Look at a Definition of an Eis. Section 102 of
NEPA and the Ceq Regs

under 1508.11 Says We Want A Detailed Written Statement and It Shall
Include the Proposed

Action\'s Environmental Impact, a Discussion of the Unavoidable Adverse
Environmental Effects.

We Want to Look at Alternatives To the Proposed Action. We Need to
Discuss Short‑term

Versus Long‑term Productivity. And We Need to Consider Irreversible and
Irretrievable Use of

Resources. Well, That\'s What NEPA Says We\'ve Got to Do. So What Is it
That We Want to Put

into the Document? What Are the Required Element, If You Will, of an
Eis? Well, Not

Surprisingly, the First Thing We Need under the Ceq Regs Is a Cover
Sheet. And it Is, Indeed, a

Requirement. A Summary. I Think We Can All Appreciate That. Provide a
Table of Contents. Try

to Make this Thing as Reader‑friendly as Possible. The Purpose of and
Need for the Action. We\'ll

Be Discussing That a Little Bit Later in the Presentation. In Addition
to Those Requirements ‑‑ or

Required Elements of an Eis, We Have a Few More. That\'s Perhaps Why
They\'re a Little Bit

Longer than an Ea, Huh? We Need to Discuss the Alternatives, Including
the Proposed Action

and the No Action. Now Specifically in an EA You Do Not Have to Have a
No Action

Alternative If You Feel It\'s Not Value Tide Discuss It. In an EIS You
must Discuss the No

Action Alternative. Here We Do Require Discussion of The Affected
Environment. We Do

Require a Discussion of The Environmental Consequences. Provide a List
of the Preparers. And,

Finally, and Let Me Just Slap this Thing Right up Here Real Quick, a
List of the Agencies,

Organizations and Individuals That Will Be Receiving the Eis, Appendices
If Any. Don\'t Get

Carried Away on Appendices. Again, Think about Your Audience. If
There\'s Only a Small

Percentage of the People Who Give a Hoot about That Potential Appendix,
Maybe Just Keep it at

Home and Make it Available upon Request. And an Index. This Will Buy You
a Lot If You Have

a Reader‑friendly Index for That Document. Well, Unlike an in an EA
Where We Have a Fonsi,

Once We Have an Eis, the Only Other Document, Instead of Having an Ea,
You Have the

Environmental Assessment, the Fonsi and the Decision Record. In an EIS
You Have Really Two

Documents. You Have the Environmental Impact Statement And, Then, the
Record of Decision.

Now, What Do We Require in a Record of Decision? First, We Need to
Clearly State What the

Decision Is. Don\'t Fog Them. Identify the Alternatives That Were
Considered. Identify the

Environmentally Preferable Alternative or Alternatives. And Provide
Rationale for the Decision. A

Couple More Elements That Need To Be in That R.o.d. Include Indicating
What Mitigation

Measures Have or Have Not Been Adopted, and Then Identifying The
Monitoring and

Enforcement For Each of Those Mitigation Measures. We Discussed a Little
Bit about Public

Participation Process for An Environmental Assessment, the Public
Participation Process for An

EIS Is Perhaps a Little Bit More Rigorous Because It\'s Already Laid out
for Us. We\'re Required

to Have an Notice Of Intent in the Federal Register Which Begins the
30‑day Or More Public

Scoping Period. We Do Have to Provide a Federal Register Notice of
Availability Of the Draft

EIS Which Starts The 40‑day ‑‑ 45‑day Review and Comment Period. And We
Need to Ensure

That the Supporting Documentation Is Available for Review During the
Comment Period. We

Also Need to Make Sure That We Provide a Notice of Availability of the
Final Eis, Again, in the

Federal Register, Beginning the 30‑day Waiting Period Before the R.o.d.
May Be Issued. Once

You Go Ahead and You Get ‑‑ Once You Finish That 30‑day Waiting Period,
You May at That

Point Issue the R.o.d. and Make A Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register. In Addition to

Environmental Assessments and the Eiss, We Have Some Other NEPA
Requirements, Some of

Which Are Very Specific to BLM. The Three Categories That We\'re Going
to Discuss under this

Topic Include Limitations on Actions, Our Hope, Our Abiding Hope, to
Eliminate Duplication,

And Plan Amendment Timing, Something That\'s Quite Peculiar To BLM. Let
Go Ahead and

Look at the Limitations on Actions First. Limitations on Proposed
Actions. Until a Decision Is

Reached, BLM Will Take No Action on Those Proposals That Have Adverse
Environmental

Impacts or Limit The Choice of Reasonable Alternatives. In Other Words,
We Don\'t Want to

Hook Them with an Environmental Dock Ment and Go out and Do Something
Else That\'s Going

to Nullify the Value of Conducting That Environmental Analysis. Now, If
You Look at Page 18

in Your ‑‑ in Your Desktop Reference, You\'re Going to See Plan
Amendment Timing

Requirements Between Eas and Eiss.

Francis, If I Might Point Out, at this Time, Getting Ready For Our next
Interactive Air Time,

We Would like Pour You to Begin Your Phone Calls to Us at This Time.
I\'m Sorry, Francis, Go

Ahead.

That\'s Quite All Right. These Are the Planning Amendment Requirements
for BLM and the

Difference Between an EA Analysis or an EIS Analysis. The Notice of
Intent for an Ea, You

Have to Go Ahead and Issue That and Afford an Opportunity For the
Planning ‑‑ to Make the

Planning Criteria Available and Begin a 30‑day Review of That. That\'s
the Same for an Eis. We

Also in Planning Amendment Requirements Make a Notice of Availability
for the Proposed Plan

Amendment, the Fonsi, the 30‑day Protest Period and the Governor\'s
Review. In the Eis, You

Will See the Big Change Here Is We Provide a 90‑day Review and Comment
Period. Boy, I\'m

Really Slipping That Puppy Around There, Ha? Again, Comparing the EA
Versus The EIS

Analysis of a Planning Amendment, on the Ea, Then, You Want to Make a
Notice of Significant

Change, If You Feel It\'s Needed, If There Was, Indeed, Significant
Change. Whereas in the EIS

Analysis We Make the Notice of Availability Of the Final EIS Which
Starts a 30‑day Protest

Period and a 60‑day Governor Review Period. Ea, We Finish up with the
Decision Record. Kind

of Going ‑‑ Kind of a Similar Parallel Here, We Have a Notice of Change
from the FEIS To Your

Record of Decision If You Are Doing the Environmental Impact Statement.
The Big Difference

Between the Two Is That We Go from a Draft To a Final EIS Using an EIS
Analysis Where We

Don\'t Have to Do That with an Environmental Assessment, of Course,
Because There Is No Such

Thing. Hopefully We Are Learning as A, Quote, Draft, End Quote,
Environmental Assessment.

And in Our Fervent Hope, Lastly, To Eliminate Duplication with Others,
We Want to Make Sure

That We Cooperate as Fully as Possible with Others. So We Should Be
Looking at Joint Planning

Processes, Joint Environmental Research and Studies, Joint Public
Hearings, And Consider Doing

Joint Eas or Eiss, and That Direction Is Provided under 1506.2 of the
Ceq Regs, and That\'s about

Everything That ‑‑ as Far as That\'s Required Within the EA And EIS
Documentation

Requirements, Doug. So If You Would like to Take it Away from Here.

Okay. Well, We Have Considerable More Faxes Coming In. Let\'s Take Them
in the ‑‑ Just In

the Order of Your Presentation Here and Then We\'ll Go Back to Other
Questions That Pertain to

Cx and Ads. The Question Is Coming from the Montana State Office, and it
Reads: Depending

on the Level Of Controversy We Have Completed Draft and Final EA and
Amendment. We

Realize the Washington Office Has No Draft or Finals Are Required,
However, this Process

Provides for Better Public Participation. Is this Okay?

What Do You Think, Bob? Do You Think this Is Kind of Semantics? It\'s
Not a Draft, per Se,

but It\'s Really a Question of the Making the Unsigned Fonsi Available
with the Supporting Ea,

Isn\'t It?

Yeah, this Is ‑‑ That\'s the Approach You Want to Use. It Varies from
Resource to Resource,

We Found. Resource ArEA to Resource Area. Some Resource Areas on Certain
Subjects Cannot

Get Away with Anything less than a Draft EA on Certain Subject Matters,
Particularly Relative to

Spraying Projects, Chemical Spraying Projects or Any Projects That
Involve Chemical

Treatments. We Usually Let the Resource Areas Follow the Procedures That
Work Best for Their

Location. If They Need to Do a Draft, We Allow That, but We Prefer That
You Actually Prepare

an EA and Send out an Unsigned Fonsi. That\'s Our Recommendation.

the Only Thing I Would Add to That Is That the ‑‑ It\'s Not So Much the
Washington Office

Frowns upon Having the Term Draft Ea. There Simply Is No Requirement In
the Ceq Regulations

for Draft Environmental Assessment. So, Yeah, You Want to Do What\'s
Right to Make Sure You

Get Proper Public Input But, Again, Maybe It\'s Semantics. You Just
Don\'t Want to Call It, A

Draft, End Quote, Environmental Assessment.

Here\'s a Question from Idaho: Is There a Regulatory Requirement for a
Notice of Availability on

an EA Without a Public Review Period?

No.

No.

Okay. The Answer to That Is No.

I like Those Kinds of Questions. \"No.\"

this Fella Is an Attorney ‑‑ Or Looks like an Attorney. Is a Spitting
Image of Former Secretary

Watt. And How Are You, Terry? EA Level Analysis, with Public Review, Why
Send out an

Unsigned Fonsi and Why Not ‑‑ Why Not Assign ‑‑ Why Not a Signed Fonsi?

I\'ll ‑‑ Let He Me ‑‑ Let Me Answer That One for You. The Unsigned Fonsi
We Found in Some

of Our Resource Areas and This Is in the Public Relations ArEA and Each
Resource ArEA

Knows What Works Best for Their Location. Some of Them, If They Sign
Anything They Send

Out, the Public Immediately Interprets That as a Decision Has Already
Been Made, So Why

Comment. Other Areas, It\'s Not Quite the Case. But If You Do ‑‑ We Do
Recommend That If a

Fonsi Goes out and You Want Public Comment That You Do Not Sign the
Fonsi? And a

Follow‑up Question Is: Why Is a 30‑day Review ‑‑ Can\'t It Be a Two‑week
Review, a One‑week

Review, as Long as We Let the Public Know about the Availability of ‑‑
or the ‑‑ How Long

Review Period Is?

the Time for Review on an EA Is Usually Set by the Office That\'s
Preparing the Ea. There Is No

Specific Requirement. What We\'ve Found in Dealing with Our Public Is
That the Eas, Their

Minds Are Adjust to Do a 30‑day Public Review, and All Our Teachings We
Go Through, We

Recommend If You Have a Choice, Go with a 30‑day Review.

That\'s Why I Use the Word \"Perhaps\" a 30‑day Review. It\'s a Good
Question from out There.

Very Perceptive. You\'re Listening.

They\'re Not Only Listening, They\'re Sending in Faxes, and We\'ve Yet
to Have a Phone Call. We

Do Have a Lot of Faxes, and We\'ll Take These, but We Would Appreciate
Any Phone Calls.

Don\'t Be Intimidated by Going on The Air. It\'s Not as Hard as You
Think it Might Be. Here\'s a

Question Coming in from Casper from Plat River and the Question Reads:
Is Question Number 8

on the Workbook an Administrative Action, Then?

Let\'s Take a Look at That One Again. What\'s That Question?

I\'m Sorry.

Quite All Right. Quite All Right. Is Question Number 8 on the Workbook
an Administrative

Action, Then?

We Will Have to Get Back to You.

We\'ll Have to Get Back to Say What Question Number 8 in the Workbook
Is. We\'ll Hold onto

It.

Okay. Here Is One from Vernal Referencing Stipulations in Mitigation.
This Is a Very Crisp

Question Regarding the Use of Stipulations with a Cx or an Ad. I Thought
That at Least for

Realty Actions We Were Prohibited from Including Stipulations to Cxs or
Ads, Yet Your

Information States to Reference Stipulations Attached To the Authorizing
Document. If

Stipulations Are Necessary to Mitigate Impacts They Should Have Been
Derived Through the EA

Process and the Cx or an Ad Would Be an Appropriate Level of NEPA.
Please Discuss.

Relative to Stipulations, the Documents That You Review, If They Have
Stipulations That You

Carry Forward into Your Decision, Then They Become Part Of That Decision
Document, and

The Supporting Documentation for That Is Either Cx or an Ad.

Okay. On Line 1 We Have Mary Lou in Medford. Mary, Are You There?

Caller: Yes, I Am.

Could You State Your Question For Us, Please?

Caller: Please Explain the Timing Requirements Related to The Completion
of Surveys Needed

To Determine the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions And the
Finding of the Fonsi?

That Is, Can a Fonsi Be Signed Before Surveys Are Completed?

and Your Question, the Surveys You\'re Talking About, Are They Resource
Surveys?

Yes.

Caller: Yes.

like Wildlife Surveys, Vegetative Surveys?

Caller: Yes.

Kind of Subject to What Is Revealed in These Surveys? In Other Words, We
Can\'t Get out On

the Ground to Look at Some Botany but They Want to Get Something in the
Pipeline, So Sign

the Fonsi with Kind of a Caveat Regarding, I Don\'t Know, It Will We Can
Get out and Do

Botanical Surveys When the Snow Clears? Would That Be an Example, Mary
Lou?

Caller: Correct.

the One Procedure I Have Always Followed in Circumstances Like This, and
it Becomes

Especially True in Cultural Resources Surveys, If Those Are Not Done
Prior to the Authorization

Being Approved, I Have Always Held the Authorization until Those Reports
Were Completed

and Those Surveys Were in and Approved. Vegetative Surveys, Other Kinds
Of Wildlife Surveys,

it Depends On the Time it Takes to Do the Survey, but Before You Make
Any Decisions, I

Would Delay the Decision until You Have That Information Available So
You Could Factor That

into Your Decision.

Does That Answer Your Question, Mary Lou?

Caller: Yes, Thank You.

Thanks for Calling.

We Have a Fax Here Addressed To Either One of You. The Question Is: Can
an Applicant

Commence Action on the Proposed ‑‑ on a Proposal Prior To the Completion
of the 30‑day

Appeal Period? For Instance, an Adp, Application for Permit to Drill, Is
Posted for at Least 30

Days Prior to Approval. Must the Operator Also Wait 30 Days after the
Approval?

the Approval Process ‑‑ Could I Look at the Question Just a Moment Here
and Get More

Familiar with it Here? In All Cases, the ‑‑ Ground Disturbance Should
Not Begin Until the

Applicant Has the Approval in His Hand. It\'s One of the Things You
Don\'t Want to Get Started

Because You Can Get into Situations That Can Get You into Trouble Later.

Plus, We Discussed That under The Limitations for NEPA ‑‑ for Other
Requirements for NEPA,

Limitations on Proposed Actions. Again, We Don\'t Want to Be Going
Through an Environmental

Analysis Procedure and Then Yet Go out and Do Something on the Ground
That\'s Going to

Nullify That. At Best That\'s Going to Be an Erosion of Our Credibility.
So We Don\'t Want to Do

Anything Out There That May, Again, Nullify That Environmental Analysis
Procedure or

Foreclose Opportunities to Consider One of The Reasonable Alternatives.

Gentlemen, We Have a Call Coming in from Mike in Glasgow, Montana. Mike,
Are You There?

Okay. Michael, Are You There?

Caller: Yes, I Am.

Could You State Your Question, Please?

Caller: My Question Has to Do With on Page 15 of the Green Book, the EA
Level Analysis

Timing Requirements with the Public Review Period. The Notice of
Availability Indicates That

That Initiates The 30‑day Appeal Period. My Question, Then, Is That Kind
Of in Conflict with

Page 2, Item 4, That Indicates That NEPA Documents Are Not Appealable?
To Me That Raised

Confusion in My Mind.

No, the Confusion ‑‑ Let Me Explain it this Way. The NEPA Documents
Themselves Are Not

What\'s Being Appealed. It\'s the Decision That Comes out Of the NEPA
Document.

Right.

What You Have Here Is ‑‑ the 30 Days after Notice of Availability ‑‑
Let\'s See. Mike, You\'re

Talking about the First Notice of Availability on Page 15?

Caller: No, I Would Be Talking at the Bottom on Page 15 Where They Have
the Notice of

Availability for Decision Record, Fonsi, EA Initiating the 30‑day Appeal
Period.

Right. And in That We Are Specifically Talking Just about the Decision
Record Portion of

Those Three Documents. So That\'s All That\'s Being Related To, I Think,
Mike, on That One.

Since We Used the Slashes Through, There it Sounds like We\'re Throwing
Them All Together,

but Specifically, and Bob Is Absolutely Correct, on That, the Only
Document of Those Three

That Can Be Appealed Is The Decision Record. Did That Answer Your
Question, Mike?

Caller: Yep, That Should Answer It. Thank You.

Thank You Very Much, Michael.

We Do Have Some Corollary Questions That Came in on the Waiting Period
in the Public

Comment Period. I Think That You\'ve Answered Them, but Let\'s Just to
Be Sure: Please Go

over the Required Waiting Period or Appeal Period Before the Proposed
Action Can Be

Implemented after Preparation For the Notice of Availability For the
Decision Record and Fonsi.

Okay. The 30 ‑‑ Again, It\'s the 30‑day Waiting Period That\'s Required
For an Ea.

Okay. And Another Question, on Page 15, EA with Public Review Period
Question, since There

Are No Draft Eas, in Quotes, Is the Public Comment Period Restricted To
the Accompanying

Fonsi?

No.

Or, Would the Comment Period Apply to the EA and Fonsi?

When We Send out Documents to The Public, an EA and an Unsigned Fonsi,
We\'re Asking for

Comments on Both Documents. And We Generally Expect to Get Them. Most of
the Time We

Get Comments Back on the EA Itself. Not Too Many Comments Back on The
Fonsi Part.

Francis, Here Is a Real Stumper. We Have a Question Coming in From
Susanville. On Your

Biographical Sketch, Francis, You List Madrigal Singer as an Interest.
What Is That?

and Do You Have to Do an Environmental Analysis.

No, Indeed You Do Not. I Think We Make Categorical Exclusions. Madrigals
Is a Music Form

That Dates to the Renaissance Period, English, French, and Italian. They
Are Sung a Cappella in

Four Or More Parts. You Will See Them in Shakespeare Festivals.

We Have Several Faxes Coming In. We Also Have a Call in Process Of Being
Punched up to

Us. Let\'s Take this Question. It\'s from the Yuma Field Office, And the
Question Is Directed

Pertaining to Determination of Highly Controversial. What Is a Good
Example to Use as A

Threshold for Determining If a Proposal Is Really Highly Controversial,
That Is, One Person or

One Group, and Where Do You Draw the Line?

Oh, Oh\...

Good Question. That\'s a Judgment Call That\'s Usually Made by the
Responsible Official

Whether or Not It\'s Highly Controversial, Because, Remember, That\'s
One of the Questions

That\'s Asked, Is Whether or Not You Prepare an EA Or Eis. In the Group
Discussions at the

Resource ArEA and District Level, If You Determine, Yeah, This Is
Controversial, or It\'s Highly

Controversial, Rather Than Do an EA and Then Turn Around and Possibly
Get Hit with An EIS

Requirement Later, We\'ll Just Go Right into the EIS Process.

Yeah, I Was Going to Say, I Couldn\'t Agree More with You, Bob. I Am Not
Trying to Make

Light of The Question. I Think It\'s a Really Valid Question. We All
Have to Struggle with That

One. But It\'s Not like We Have a Controversy Meter, and When the Needle
Gets up to a Certain

Point, Boom, That Means We Are Going to Do an Eis. Rather, We Just Have
to Make That

Reasonable Judgment Based On Our Knowledge in That Locality, and It\'s a
Real Tough Decision.

Okay. Question Coming in and Appears ‑‑ I Can\'t Read Where It\'s Coming
to Us From, but

Nonetheless, it Reads: We Have An Amendment to an Approved Mining Plan
of Operations That

Will Bring the Total Acreage Over 640 Acres. Part of the Operation Is on
Patented Lands. The

Public Domain Land Portion Is less than 640 Acres. Would the EIS
Requirement Kick In Whether

it Is a Combination Of Public and Private or Only If The 640 Acreage Is
BLM‑managed Lands?

Yeah, the Response to That Would Be This: When You Look at The Question
of an EA or an

Eis, Look at Two Criteria. One of Them Is Are the Impacts Significant?
We\'ll Get into a Later

Discussion on Significant Impacts. The Question Is, If You Determine
That the Impacts Are

Significant, Then You Trip into The EIS Process. The Other Question That
You Asked, the

Second Question, Is It Highly Controversial? If it Is, You Can Still
Have a Small Mining ArEA

Still Be Highly Controversial. If Either One of Those Trip In, Then
You\'re Definitely into the EIS

Process.

Okay. Thank You. We Have a Call Coming in from Richard in Great Falls.
Let\'s Go on the Line.

Richard, Are You There?

Caller: Yes, I\'m Here.

Could You Please State Your Question?

Caller: We Had a Question on The Appeal Period after an Apd Was Signed.
It\'s Our Thinking

That When an Apd Is Signed That Decision Is In Full Force and Effect and
We Don\'t Have a

30‑day Waiting Period Once That Is Signed. There May Be an Appeal
Period, But the Appellant

Has 30 Days to Appeal, and They Have to Request A Stay. So I Think
There\'s Some Cases in

Our Regulations for Documents That We Issue, and We Can\'t Forget the
Full Force and Effect

That We Have in Our Regulations.

That\'s Right. If There Is No Request for a Stay, You Can Go Ahead and
Proceed with Your

Actions. However, We Do Try to Recommend If You Can Wait 30 Days to Do
So.

Does That Answer Your Question, Richard?

Caller: Well, it Answers the Question. This Is News That We Wait That 30
Days. We Usually

Go Ahead Once We Approve an Action, and Then If We Get an Appeal, We
Wait for Whether

Ibla Is Going to Grant a Stay or Whatever. But\... Usually Those Actions
Move Forward.

Okay. Richard, Why Don\'t You Let Us Check on That During the Break And
We Will Get Back

to You with More Information on It.

Caller: Okay.

Is That Acceptable?

Caller: Sure.

Okay. Thank You Very Much for Calling. Now I Have Another Fax in Here On
Cx Appeals

Again. How Can the Public Appeal the Decision under a Cx, and If a Cx Is
Not Documented and

Made Available to the Public?

in the Case of a Cx, the Cx Is the Determination Process. If There\'s a
Decision That\'s Made,

That\'s Appealable. Any Decision That Any Responsible Official Makes Is
Subject to Appeal.

Okay. Another Question Is, the Ten Cx Exceptions Only May Apply, Then A
Cx Cannot Be

Used; Is That Correct?

If There Is an Exception, If It\'s on the List of Exceptions, Then You
Cannot Use a Cx.

That\'s Exactly Right.

and There Was a Follow‑up Down at the Bottom, Robert.

Yeah, the Question Is, I Think the Other References to Cx Used the Word
\"May.\" In this Case

It\'s Left up to Your Judgment Call When You\'re Reviewing the Different
List.

Here\'s a Question Coming in From Butte, Montana. The Question Pertains
To, Are There Any

Efforts Underway to Develop a Similar Cx List for Both BLM and the
Forest Service? Given Our

Closer Working Relationships. The Answer to That Is, Yes, We Are Working
in Collaboration

With Them. They\'re Probably on Different Timetable, but We Are in
Deliberations on What Their

List Constitutes and with Their Administrative ‑‑ or Their Solicitors
and the like. So We Are in

Communication with Them, and We Will Continue to Be So. On this Other
Fax That We Got

Earlier Pertaining to the Acreage Question, Gentlemen, There Was a
Follow‑up. If BLM Believed

That the Action Did Not Warrant an Eis, Could That Be Adequately
Determined by Internal

Scoping to Determine If There Were Significant Resource Conflicts and
External Scoping To See

If the Action Could Be Controversial or There Were Conflicts That Were
Missed by The Internal

Scoping?

Oh, Absolutely. Wouldn\'t You Think, Bob?

That\'s a Process That You Use. You Use Internal Scoping, and You Go out
to External

Scoping, Visiting with Your Public, to Find out What Their Perception
Is, What They Expect.

and Then Any Other Advice or Comments on That Score?

No, I Think It\'s Very, Very Perceptive. Sometimes the Best People out
There to Get a Sense of

Whether We Should Be Doing an Environmental Assessment or an Eis,
You\'re Going to Start

with Your Home Folks and Then, Again, Gauge That Controversy, That
Litmus Test Is Going

out to Talk To Some Select Publics That You Probably Have Been Working
with To Kind of

Gauge It, and Then Based on That Assessment, That\'s Almost like
Preliminary Scoping. So Don\'t

Get That Confused with Formal Scoping of an Eis, Because You Scope for a
Long Period of

Time, Really. There\'s Different Ways of Scoping. So, Yeah, Just Jump
Right out There and Do it

That Way. That\'s the Excellent Way of Doing It. Good Point. Who Wrote
That One?

We Have a Call Coming in from The Montana State Office. Jim, You\'re on
the Line. Could You

State Your Question, Please?

Caller: Well, There Was a Previous Call about If a Decision Would Have
to Wait for 30 Days

Before it Could Be Implemented, and I Think What You Need to Do Is Take
a Look at The

Particular Subactivity, like The Right‑of‑ways, Is That All Decisions
That Are Authorized

Become Effective, Full Force and Effect, Unless an Appeal Is Filed and a
Stay Is Granted by The

Solicitor\'s Office in Washington.

Good Point, Jim. There Are ‑‑ Once a Decision Is Made, There Are Certain
Resource

Requirements That Are Different. One ‑‑ Let Me Give You Some Examples.
You Mentioned

There about the Lands Program Has a Different Process. The Grazing
Program Has a Different

Process for Appeals. Oil & Gas Program Has a Different Process. I Think,
If I Remember Right,

The Coal Program Even Has a Different Process. So Pay Particular
Attention and Follow Those

Program‑specific Requirements When You\'re Looking Through the ‑‑ after
You Make Your

Decision What the Appeal Requirements Are.

We Do Have Considerable Additional Faxes Here, but It\'s Time for Us to
Move On. We Will Be

Answering These Faxes. We Do ‑‑ Thank You, Jim, There In Montana for
Your Call. Thank

You, Gentlemen, That Was Great Interaction with Our Audience. We
Appreciate Your Questions

and Observations out There, and We\'ll Be Showing a Case Study Video
Pretty Soon, and So

You\'ll Want to Get Your Vcrs Loaded and Ready to Record the Video since
You Will Be

Working on These Case Study Exercises after We Sign off this Afternoon.
We Will Give You a

Heads‑up When You Should Start Recording. Now, I\'m Sure You Are Ready
for A Break. I\'m

Sure I Am. And So Let\'s Take One. Be Back Exactly in 15 Minutes,
Please. We\'ll Review

Management Tools For Efficiency.

Welcome Back to Our NEPA Course. The next Session on Management Tools
for Efficiency

Will Be Presented by Glenn Carpenter and Gregg Simmons, Who Have
Considerable Experience

with the Streamlining Features of NEPA. Prior to Going to Glenn, We Do
Want to Answer One

Unanswered Question, And, Gregg, Would You Handle That?

Sure. Bob Armstrong Got Quite a Few Questions Regarding the 30‑day
Waiting Period with

Regard to The Apds Once They\'re Signed. The Calls Coming in from the
Field, You Guys Are

Correct, There Is ‑‑ Apd Decisions Are in Full Force and Effect and from
The Date That They

Are Signed, The Decision Is Made, and Stay Would Only Occur If Someone
Was Granted a Stay

on That Particular Decision. However, If We Could Hold off on Any
Further Calls Regarding the

Subject, We Do Have a Section Tomorrow on Appeals and Protests Which We
Would ‑‑ We

Should Be Able to Address All of Your Concerns Regarding Appeals and
Protests and Stays and

30‑day Appeal Periods and So On.

We Have Lots of Other Unanswered Faxes and Just Want To Make Sure That
Baker, Oregon,

Is Aware That We Have Received Your Two Faxes and We Will Answer Your
Question, but It\'s

Now Time to Go to Glenn to Explain the First Three Tools For Efficiency.
Glenn?

Thanks, Doug. It\'s Interesting to Note That There Are These Kinds of
Questions, and It\'s Kind

of a New Struggle for Us to Deal with The Cameras and the Faxes and The
Telephone Calls, et

Cetera, Instead of Having the More Personal Interaction in the Classroom
Setting. That\'s

Probably Leading to Some Of the Almost Apparent Confusion. It\'s Not
Really Confusion as Much

as it Is Figuring out How To Get the Questions Answered in The Period of
Time We Have and

Be Responsive and Get the Information Across as Well. As Far as the
Management Tools For

Efficiency Are Concerned, There\'s a Quote That Comes from The Ceq Regs
That Says This:

Ultimately, of Course, It\'s Not Better Documents but Better Decisions
That Count. NEPA\'s

Purpose Is Not to Generate Paper Work, Even Excellent Paper Work, but to
Foster Excellent

Action. Well, That\'s an Excellent Statement. But it May Not Mean a Lot
to Some Folks, and in

Truth We Really Need to Pay a Lot of Attention to It. It Is the Better
Decisions. We Need Good

Documents, but It\'s Really the Decisions That We Need to Focus On. Ceq
Has Directed That

Certain Tools Be Used to Reduce Paper Work and Delays. Federal Agencies
May Efficiently

Produce Adequate Yet Concise Environmental Documents, and We\'ve Chosen
to Use the Phrase

\"Management Tools for Efficiency\" to Describe Some of Those Tools That
Exist or Opportunities

That We Have to Use Certain Approaches to Realize Greater Efficiency. As
a Part of this Section

I Will Be Addressing the Incorporation By Reference Tiering and
Supplementing. To Start With,

Incorporation by Reference Is a Tech Meek Used to Avoid Redundancies in
Description or

Analysis and to Reduce Both the Bulk of ‑‑ Reduce the Bulk of a NEPA
Document. Both Eas and

Eiss May Incorporate Previous Material That Has Been Generated by
Reference. The Materials

Are the Analyses Incorporated by Reference Are Not Limited to NEPA
Documents. Special

Technical or Professional Studies and Analyses Prepared by BLM or Other
Agencies, State,

Local, Tribal Governments or Private Interests, May Be Incorporated By
Reference. But

Incorporating by Reference Should Not Result in a Loss of Comprehension
to the Reader. Now,

These Documents Still Need To Be Readable. To Use the Technique of
Incorporation, We must

Ensure That a Document Is, First of All, Relevant and If it Is Then We
Need to Briefly Describe

its Content. We Need to Ensure the Document Being Incorporated by
Reference Is Reasonably

Available for Inspection Within the Time Allowed for Comment. And We
Also Need to Reference

Page Numbers When Using Portions Of Analyses from Another Document. We
Should

Summarize Material to The Degree to Which the New NEPA Document Will Be
Able to Stand

On its Own. The Document Has to Be Able to Stand on its Own. Even Though
We Reference. If

a Document Is Incorporated by Reference, Which Is Incorporated By
Reference Is Really Kind of

At the Heart of the Eis, it Should Be Circulated for Comment As Part of
the Draft. With Regard

to Tiering, That\'s Really Referring to the Coverage Of General Matters
in Broad Eiss And a

Subsequent Narrower Statement Such as an ‑‑ a Narrower EIS or More
Narrow Environmental

Analysis. Tiering Is the Incorporation by Reference, Again, That Term,
but Of the General

Discussion and Concentrating Solely on the Issues Specific to
Environmental Document That Had

Been Previously ‑‑ I Am Sorry ‑‑ Subsequently Prepared. I Should
Probably Back up and Try and

Make Sure That\'s in English. Tiering Really Is a Method of
Incorporation by Reference, but We

Need to Understand That There Is a Hierarchy of Documents, and I\'ll Get
into That in a Little Bit,

but with Regard to the Quotation out of the 40 Cfr, Which Are the Ceq
Regs, Tiering Is the

Incorporation by Reference of the General Discussion and Concentrating
Solely on the Issues

Specific to Environmental Documents Subsequently Prepared. With Regard
to the Tiering, Again,

the Analysis for the Proposed Action Will Be a More Site or More
Project‑specific Refinement or

Extension of the Existing Analysis. The Second Part of That Is That The
Decisions Associated

with The Existing Environmental Document Will Not Be Changed as A Result
of the Tiering. It

Will Probably Help Clarify Things to See Some Examples of Tiering, and I
Guess I\'d Direct You

to Your Desktop Reference, Which We Have Called the Green Book, on Page
20. That Will Give

You Some Good Examples of Tiering. To Help Understand the Examples,
It\'s Necessary to

Understand That There Are Three Levels of Decisions. The First Is the
Programmatic or

Bureau‑wide, Which Is Geographical and a Very Large Scale. Next You Have
a Smaller or

Lesser Scale, Which Is a Regional. And an Example Would Be the
Geographic ArEA Called by

Resource ‑‑ Covered by Resource Management Plan. And the Third Level Is
Even More Local

than That. It\'s Local or Project Specific. It May Be Absolutely
Specific to A Very, Very Confined

Geographic Area. Now, When You Think about Those, A Regional or Local
Document Can Tier

to a Programmatic. So, in Other Words, an Rmp‑level Document Could Be
Actually Tiered to a

Programmatic Document. Now, the More Specific Document Will Concentrate
on Site Specific

Issues and Impacts Which Are Not Site Specifically Covered in the
Broader Document. The New

Site Specific Decision Kind of Redefines the Decision Based on the
Broader Document For the

Small Site‑specific Application, but it Cannot and Does Not Change the
Previous Decision. The

New Document must Identify The Broader Document to Which It\'s Tiered.
With Regard to

Supplementing, We Prepare Supplements to Either Draft or Final
Environmental Impact

Statements. If the Agency Makes Substantial Changes in the Proposed
Action That Are Relevant

to Environmental Concerns, or If There Are Significant New Circumstances
or Information

Relevant to Environmental Concerns and Bearing on the Proposed Action,
or its Impacts. It\'s

Important to Remember Several Points about How a Supplement Should Be
Prepared. It Should

Be Prepared, Circulated and Filed in the Same Manner as the Original
Draft or Final Eis. That

Document, of Course, Is the One That\'s Being Supplemented. Now, this
Constraint Does Not

Apply to Scoping. You Don\'t Need to Scope in the Same Manner as the
Original Document. It\'s

Important to Explain Why The Supplement Is Needed and What Document Is
Being

Supplemented. I Think That\'s Kind of a No‑brainer, but We Need to Make
Sure That We Cover

That. Some Examples of Why a Supplement Might Be Prepared Include the
Identification of

Significant New Circumstances or Information Relative to the
Environmental Impacts or

Substantial Changes to the Original Proposed Action, and It\'s Not
Uncommon for Us to See That.

The Record of Decision on the Supplement Should Define its Relationship
to the Previous Record

of Decision. Now, this Will Probably Get Some Folks\' Attention.
Remember I Have Been Talking

About Environmental Impact Statements. We\'ve Got a Topic Here That\'s
Near and Dear to

Gregg\'s Heart. That\'s the Purpose of What\'s on The Screen Here. There
Is No Such Thing as a

Supplemental Ea. Supplements Apply to Eiss, but If You Have Question Oz
This, Gregg\'s the

Best One Equipped. So If Questions Come In, We\'ll Make Sure That
They\'re Referred To Gregg.

Thanks a Lot.

Sure. By Now, Actually, Everyone Should Be Reasonably Well Informed
about the Mechanics

and Techniques. This Is an Overview, and That\'s All It\'s Intended to
Be, but I Think in Going

Through the Overall Processes of Referencing And Tiering and
Supplementing, As Well as the

Rest of the Information That Had Been Provided this Morning, We Should
All Be Reasonably

Well Prepared For the Techniques or Using the Techniques in Preparing a
NEPA Document. I

Wouldn\'t Be Surprised If You\'re Wondering What Else There Is That We
Can Let You Know

About That Is of Value Relative To NEPA, but Right Now Really All You
Have Is the

Framework. It\'s Probably a Good IdEA to Think about a Couple of Other
Items That Are Part of

the NEPA Process. Informed Decision‑making Sounds Like Our next Subject,
but it Really

Relates to Including the Information That Is Available From Other
Sources, and Those Other

Sources Are, Indeed, the Incorporation by Reference, the Tiering and the
Supplementing. With

That I Think I\'m Going to Turn Some Time Back over to Doug Or Gregg. I
Know We\'re a Little

Ahead of Schedule.

Before We Do Go Back or Move Ahead to the next Tool for Efficiency,
Doug, Maybe it Would

Be a Good IdEA to Go over a Couple of Examples Where Existing Examples
of Things That

Have Occurred in the past to Explain What We\'re Talking about In Terms
of Incorporation by

Reference, Tiering and So On, And One of the Things That Comes To My
Mind Immediately,

Glenn, Is When You Are Incorporating ‑‑ You Can Use the Tool of
Incorporation by Reference

If, Say, the Forest Service Has Produced a Really Nice Document, You
Were Not a Cooperating

Agency, You Don\'t Have the Time To Go Through Maybe a Similar Analysis,
but You Can

Incorporate Segments of it by Reference into Your Existing Document.
It\'s out There. It\'s

Available to the Public and It\'s Available for Your Use. This Came up
Some Time Ago When We

Did a Northwest ArEA Noxious Weed EIS That Curved the States Of Oregon,
Washington,

Wyoming, And Once it Was Completed I Many Phone Calls as a Team Leader
Wanting from

Several Regional Forest Service Offices Asking How They Could Utilize
That Environmental

Impact Statement And the Best Way That I Could Tell Them Was Either Tier
to it Or to

Incorporate it by Reference into Their Site Specific Analysis. The
Analysis Was Done and it Was

Valid and We Could Do the Same Thing. As for Tiering, I Think You\'ll
Find in Your Green

Booklets at The Reference That Glenn Mentioned You Can Tier
Site‑specific ‑‑ I Mean, Normally

Tiering Occurs Where You\'re Tiering a Site‑specific Environmental
Analysis to a Broader

Programmatic EIS like The BLM Veg Treatment EIS Where You Are Doing a
Site Specific

Treatment at the Local Level. Then Can You Tier to the Significant
Impacts Addressing That EIS

and Not Have to Readdress Them as Long as You\'re Operating Within the
Framework Of Those

Decisions Previously Made That Were Based on That Environmental Impact
Statement. So\...

Just Wanted to Throw out Those Comments.

Those Are Good Ones. Gregg Has Had Some, as Can You Probably See in the
Vita, Has Had

Some Real Personal Experience in the Development of That Veg Treatment
EIS and That Has

Been a Very Useful Document For Those of Us Who Are Dealing With Weeds,
Especially in

Montana We Have a Lot of That, And in the Agreements That We Have for
Weed Treatment,

We Consistently Refer to That as a Document, and We Tier to It. So Good
Examples, and You\'ve

Got Good Experience on It.

Thank You, Gentlemen. Using the Tools of Incorporation By Reference
Tiering and

Supplementing Will Save Both Time and Money. As You Know, BLM Has a
Wealth of

Documents to Draw upon. Once Again, We\'d like to Remind You That Coming
up Later in this

Segment We Will Be Showing Our Case Study Video. So You Should Have Your
Vcr Loaded

with a Blank Tape and Be Ready to Record. Remember, a Recording of this
Video Will Help You

Complete Your Assignments over the next Two Days. After Our next
Instructional Segment, We

Will Once Again Be Going on the Phones to Hear from You. So Think about
Your ‑‑ Any

Questions or Comments, Concerns, You Have That Were Covered Earlier this
Morning. We\'ll

Try to Answer Some of These Faxes as Well. Now, Gregg Will Continue with
The Three More

Tools for Efficiency. Adoption, Contracting and Management
Considerations. Gregg, Are You

All Wired up There?

I Think So, Doug. Thank You. I Would like to Stress a Couple Of Points
Regarding the Tools

For Efficiency. First, the Three Tools Which Glenn Presented,
Incorporation By Reference,

Tiering and Supplementing, and the next Tool, Adoption. All of These Are
Defined as Such In the

Ceq Regulations. We Strongly Suggest That These Tools Be Used as
Provided for And Intended

in Those Regulations, and to Resist the Urge to Redefine Them or Alter
The Procedures for Their

Use. The Reason for this Is That Ceqs Must Be Provided Substantial
Difference on Their

Interpretation. If upon Appeal, Challenge or Whatever Any Procedures You
Develop Will ‑‑ Will

Be Weighed Against Ceqs. Having Said This, Let\'s Continue Our
Discussion on the Management

Tools for Efficiency, Which You Can Find on Page 21. The Ceq Regulations
Intend the Tool of

Adoption Be Used as Follows, and That Is That an Agency May Adopt a
Federal Draft Or Final

Environmental Impact Statement or Portion Thereof as Long as it Meets
the Standards For an

Adequate Statement in the Ceq Regulations. Now, Ceq Also Establishes
Some Adoption

Guidelines. Okay? Let\'s Go over These Adoption Guidelines as They\'re
Provided For in the Ceq

Regs. First, Adoption Procedures Depend upon Whether the BLM Was A
Formal Cooperating

Agency or ‑‑ in Preparing That Eis. If We Were a Cooperating Agency, The
Adoption Procedures

Are Different than If We Were Not. When a Formal Cooperating Agency, the
Lead Agency\'s

Analysis Can Be Utilized as it Is. Okay? It Becomes Our Document If
We\'re A Cooperating

Agency. If We\'re the Lead Agency and There Are Other Cooperating
Agencies, it Is Their

Document As Well. Next, When BLM Is a Cooperating Agency, There Should
Be an Mou

Signed Between All Cooperating Agencies and the Lead Agency. And this
Mou Should Identify

What the Roles and Responsibility Are of Each Cooperating Agency and the
Lead, Who Is Going

to Do What, What Information Is Going to Be Provided, What Decisions Are
Going to Be Made

and So On, and BLM Should Be Identified as a Cooperating Agency in the
Notice Of Intent, the

Draft EIS and the Final Eis. Another Adoption Guideline Is That If BLM
Is Not a Formal

Cooperating Agency, Then We Follow the Adoption Procedures That Are
Provided in the

Regulations and That Is to Treat Their Original Draft or Final EIS as a
Draft and Recirculate It

for Public Review. And Following the Public Review And Comment Period,
Then You Prepare

and File a New Final Eis. Remember These Things, That BLM Assumes Full
Responsibility for

The Environmental Impact Statement, Whatever Is Adopted. And the
Availability, as Well as ‑‑ as

Well as the Availability Of the Referenced Material. Also Keep in Mind
That BLM must Prepare

its Own Record of Decision. You Cannot Adopt Some Other Agency\'s Record
of Decision. Now,

Before We Go on Talking About Adopting Eiss, I Often Get This Question
about Now: Can We

Adopt an EA Level Analysis That Was Prepared by Someone Else? The
Correct Response Is No.

The Ceq Regulations Only Provide Direction for Adopting an EIS Level
Analysis. However,

There Are Ways That We Can Use Another Agency\'s EA or Eis, and Let\'s
Talk about Them. First

‑‑ but Before We Talk About Them, Let\'s Look at this One Elmo Card
Here. The Criteria for

Using Part or All of Another Agency\'s EA or EIS Are Listed Here. First,
it must Meet Ceq, Doi

and BLM Standards. When We\'re Talking about These Standards, We\'re
Talking about

Procedural Requirements as Well As Documentation Requirements. So Any
Document That We

Use by Another Agency must Meet These Standards. Secondly, BLM Reviews
the Document and

Concludes That it Addresses All of Our Concerns And We\'ve Documented as
Such in The Official

Files and the Decision Document. Next, Let\'s Go over the Procedures for
Using an EIS When

BLM Is a Cooperating or Formal Cooperating Agency. As We Mentioned a
Little Bit Earlier, but

to Reemphasize, You Should Request Formal Designation as a Cooperating
Agency If Some

Other Federal Agency Is Designated the Lead And We Have a Decision to
Make. By Doing So,

We Can Integrate Our NEPA Procedures, Our Environmental Review
Procedures And Streamline

the Analysis Process. Second, If We Are the Lead Agency, If BLM Is the
Lead Agency, Then We

as a Lead Agency Can Request Other Agencies to Be Formal Cooperating
Agencies with Us. In

So Doing, Then We Would Go on To the next Step, and That Is to Develop
an Mou Between All

Cooperating Agencies and the Lead Agency, Identifying the Items That Are
Listed There,

Responsibilities of Each. When We Are a Formal Cooperating Agency, BLM
Should Be Named

as a Cooperating Agency in the Federal Register Notice of Intent. We
Should Be Named Also in

the Draft and the Final Eis, as We Said Before. Some Additional
Procedures\... It Is Possible for

the Lead Agency and the Cooperating Agencies to Reach Different
Conclusions with Regard to

Significance of the Impact and Preferred Alternatives and So On.
However, We Should Try, to

the Greatest Extent Possible, to Work out These Major Differences. The
Responsible Official

must Carefully Evaluate the Scope of The Eis, and BLM must Prepare Its
Own Record of

Decision. Now Let\'s Review the Adoption Procedures for an Environmental
Impact Statement

When BLM Was Not a Cooperating Agency, Although the Green Booklet
Presents a Few

Situation Analyses on Page 23, Today I\'ll Only Summarize What the Ceq
Requirements Are. I\'ll

Resummarize Them and Just Bulletize Them Here. When You Formally Adopt
under 1506, Has

to Be an Environmental Impact Statement, and You Treat That Original
Draft or Final as Your

Draft, and You Recirculate It for the Required Public Review and Comment
Period as Francis

Showed You Earlier under The Administrative Procedures For an EIS Level
Analysis. You

Recirculate it for Public Review and Comment. Once You Get the Public
Comment, You Would

Go Through Your Public Comment Analysis and Prepare a New Final
Environmental Impact

Statement. Following the Appropriate Time Frames, Cooling off Period,
What Have You, Then

You Would Issue Your Own Record of Decision. Finally, Let Discuss
Procedures For Using

Another Agency\'s Ea. Okay? Procedures for Using Another Agency\'s EA
Are Fairly Clear.

There\'s Three Points Here. First They must Meet Ceq, Doi And BLM
Standards. Remember,

Both Procedure and Documentation Standards. BLM Takes Full
Responsibility For the Scope and

Content of the Ea. But BLM must Prepare its Own Fonsi and Decision
Record. And If You\'re

Curious as to Where this Comes From, It\'s in Your Existing BLM NEPA
Handbook. You Cannot

Use Another Agency\'s Fonsi or Decision Record. Now Let\'s Turn Our
Attention to Another

Management Tool for Efficiency, Which Is Contracting. Let\'s Go over a
Few Contracting Points.

The Ceq Regs Do Provide for Us Opportunities to Use Environmental
Contractors or as A Lead

Agency Prepare the EIS Ourselves. It\'s Our Option. We Can Do ‑‑ Have
Contracted Eiss. There

Are Both Advantages and Disadvantages to Using Environmental
Contractors. Let\'s Go over

Some of the Advantages. It May Reduce BLM Workload. And I Want to Stress
\"May.\" Not Too

Long Ago We Did a Little Bit of an Analysis That ‑‑ of What it Cost to
Do Third‑party

Contracted Eiss, and We Concluded That in Looking at All Of the
Environmental Impact

Statements That We\'ve Done since We Started Doing Them Back in The
Early, Middle \'70s, We

Figured That the Average Cost Was Somewhere in the Neighborhood of about
\$200,000 Per

Environmental Impact Statement. In Looking at Our Most Recent History on
Our Involvement in

Third‑party Contracted Eiss, and Contracting Eiss, Our Anticipated
Workload in Terms of Work

Months or Dollars Has Been Right in the Neighborhood of About \$75,000
per Environmental

Impact Statement. So There\'s Not Much of a Savings. It Does Reduce Some
of Our Workload,

but It\'s Not ‑‑ it Doesn\'t Eliminate It. That\'s a Key Point to
Stress. One Thing Another

Contracting Advantage Is it Does Supply Some Scarce Skills. When We Did
Both the Northwest

ArEA Noxious Weed EIS and the BLM Veg Treatment, We Went to Contract to
Obtain Scarce

Skills In the Areas of Toxicology and Analysis of Toxicological
Information. That\'s One Thing

Contract Can Go Do for You. It Provides an Independent Analysis. And at
Least it Can Certainly

Look That Way as Being Real Independent and Nonagency Bias. Reduces BLM
Costs for EIS

Preparation. And it Does That, Again, to Some Extent, but it Does Not
Eliminate All of Our

Costs. Some Disadvantages to Contracting\... More Difficult To Control,
Time Frame and So On.

It May Lack ‑‑ Our Contractors May Lack Knowledge of BLM\'s Programs and
this Is One of the

Areas Where We End up Spending All of Our Time and Effort in Correcting
‑‑ Making

Corrections In the Overall Analysis as Well As the Descriptions of
Bureau Programs and So On.

A Proponent May Have Influence On a Contractor. BLM Is Responsible for
the Contract

Administration and the Monitoring of the Consultant\'s Work. So When You
Start Adding All This

Up, That\'s Where You Start Raising the Overall Cost of Doing the
Third‑party Contracted Eis.

Here\'s Ceq\'s Position on Contracting, and I Think We Got A Comment on
this Earlier. So Let\'s

Care If I this Point. Any Environmental Impact Statement Prepared
Pursuant to The

Requirements of NEPA Shall Be Prepared Directly by the Lead Agency or by
a Contractor

Selected by the Lead Agency. So I Think That\'s Self‑explanatory. The
Responsible Official Shall

Independently Evaluate the Statement Prior to its Approval And Take Full
Responsibility for Its

Scope and Analysis. When You\'re Doing Third‑party Contracting, There
Are Some Preparation

Options. Okay? The Proper Option Will Depend Upon the Type and Action of
the Analysis, Level

of NEPA Documentation Needed, the Proponent Supplies the NEPA Document
Is One Option.

You Can Do a Third‑party Contracted NEPA Document, or BLM Can Contract
with Consultants

on Their Own. Some Examples of Each of These Might Be That the Proponent
Supplies the

NEPA Document. This Is ‑‑ this Can Be Done Where ‑‑ Usually for an
Environmental

Assessment‑level Analysis, and the Proponent Just Simply Prepares the EA
Themselves.

Remember That All EIS Level Analysis must Be Either Prepared By a
Contractor Selected by Us

Or by Us Ourselves, by BLM Themselves ‑‑ Ourselves. And Some Examples of
That Would Be,

Typically, Mining Plan of Operations or Land Exchange Eiss And So On.
BLM Has Contracted

with NEPA Consultants. We Did So for the Preparation of The BLM
Vegetation Treatment EIS

And We\'ve Done So on a Few Others, but It\'s Fairly Rare to ‑‑ for Us
to Do That. It Is Usually

More Cost Effective for Us to Prepare the Document Ourselves. For
Further Information and

Guidance on Both Contracting and Third‑party Contracting, Please Refer
to the Appendix 3 in

Your Green Booklets. Following a Discussion on Management
Considerations, We\'ll Go Back to

the Phones for Any Further Questions That You Might Have. All Right? So
Now We\'re Going to

Review the Last Tool for Efficiency, Which Involves Discussion of the
Management

Considerations. Management Considerations\... First of All, One of the
First Management

Considerations That We Should Do Is Look at Managing The Process. In
Order to Manage the

Process Effectively, We Need to Look at These Things. We Need to
Concentrate on What Are

the Issues and Identify What They Are? We Need to Identify the Resources
That Are Needed. We

Also Need to Identify Any Supports ‑‑ Support That Is Needed, Be it
Individuals or Materials,

Whatever. What Is the Priority of the Project? When We Did the Northwest
ArEA Noxious Weed

EIS it Had Very High Priority Within the State Office and It\'s
Important to Note That If You\'re

Busy Working On Something, and it Doesn\'t Have the High Priority, it
Sometimes Can Fall

Behind Some Other Priority Items and Delay The Project Itself. It\'s
Real Important to Keep

NEPA Analysis and NEPA Documents on Schedule. How Will the Document Be
Prepared? Who

Will Be on the I.d. Team? And, of Course, Let\'s Not Forget Management
Representation on That

I.d. Team. When must the Document Be Completed? And Also, Then, NEPA
Adequacy Review

by the Managers Themselves. I\'ve Heard Lots of War Stories Over the
Years about Eiss That

Have Been Completely Gone Through Drafting, Getting Ready To Submit to
the Proposed Final

EIS to the State Director, All To Have the State Director Kick It Back
and Say \"That\'s Not the

Direction I Want to Go,\" and So We Need to Make Sure That We Get
Adequate Management

Review Sometime Before We Get That Far Along in the Process. Here\'s
Some Other

Management Considerations. There Are Some Typical Roadblocks to Success
That We Should

Look At. One Is the Lack of Interdisciplinary Review, and With
Management Involvement One Is

the Lack of ‑‑ a Second Is a Lack of Understanding for ‑‑ of Assigned
Roles and Responsibilities.

Managers Make the Decision. The Responsible Official Makes The Decision.
But We as Team

Members, We Counsel. We\'ve Got to Understand That They Ultimately Make
the Decision, Not

Us. Lack of Adequate and Timely NEPA Coordination. I\'m Sure That If You
Checked Around

with Other Offices in This Agency You\'ll Find Several Situations Where
Consultation Is Begun

So Late in the Process it Has Really Thrown Things off and Delayed the
Approval or the Filing of

the Final Document. Failure to Build Mutual Respect And Support Is
Another Roadblock To

Success. Let\'s Go over ‑‑

Gregg, If We Might, Our Phone Bank Here Isn\'t Lighting up at All, and
We Would Just like to

Remind Folks to Call in Any Questions in this next Segment And Start
Your Phone Calling Now

So That We Can Get to Them Before We Go to Your Recording Of the Case
Studies.

Thank You, Doug. Let\'s Look at the Last Section On Management
Considerations We\'ve Got

Here. What I\'ve Done Is Summarized Several of These Things. You\'ve Got
a Complete List this.

List Was Put Together by One of The Best Writer/editors I Think We Have
in the Bureau, and I

Think He Did a Pretty Good Job Of Pulling Some Things Together For Us,
and Let\'s Just Kind of

Quickly Go Through Them. Number 1, Coordination with All Team Members to
Ensure

Consistency in Writing. This Is Really Important. It\'s One of the Keys
to Having a Good,

Adequate Document, We Feel. It Would Not Do Good for Your Fisheries
Biologist to Say the

Habitat Is Increasing or Declining and Have the Hydrologist Say Water
Quality Is Increasing or

Decreasing, Quite The Opposite What the Fisheries Biologist Was Saying
about the Fishery

Habitat. Second, Let\'s Place Discussions In the Proper Place in the
Document. Keep the

Description of the Proposal Separate from the Discussion ‑‑ or
Description of The Affected

Environment, and Keep Your Environmental Consequences Back in the
Environmental

Consequences Sections. In Order to Reduce Bulk, Don\'t Be Afraid to Use
Appendices and Refer

to That at the Appropriate Point Within the Proper Section. Carefully
Document Sources of

Information. Back When We Did the Noxious Weed EIS and the Timber EIS in
The \'70s and

Early \'80s, it Became Kind of a Standard Practice Every Reference We
Cited in the Document

Was Often Requested. It Got to the Point Where We Had To Reference the
Cited Section,

Duplicate it in the Xerox Machine and People Circling the Reference
Materials They Wanted And

Sent the Entire Section Back Us to and Saying Please Provide Us Copies
of this. It Is Important

to Carefully Document the Sources of Your Information and to Also Have a
Copy Available

During the Time Allowed for Comment. Avoid Vague and Meaningless
Statements. I Think

There Are a Couple of Suggestions in the Green Booklet On That. Our
Writer/editor Also Says

Save Copies of All Drafts of the Document, and That Way You Have A Track
Record up until

the Point That Your Final EIS Is Filed. Maintain Consistency. Use Short,
Simple Words Rather

Than Multi‑syllable Words. And I Know There Are Some Examples in Your
Green Booklet. You

Can Take a Look at Them. Keep Your Sentences and Paragraphs Short. I
Don\'t Recall a Rule of

Thumb For the Number of Sentences in a Paragraph, but as I Recall, 25 To
30 Words in a

Sentence Is About the Maximum You Want to Go. Pardon Me, My Voice Is
Getting a Little Dry

Here. Another One Is to Write So as Not to Attract Reader\'s Attention
to Your Writing Style

And Divert it Away from the Message That You\'re Trying to Give.
Additional Writing Tips\...

Use Strong, Vigorous Verbs. Avoid Vague Verbs. Also, Avoid Meaningless
Modifiers. I Know

He\'s Given You Some Examples of Those Situations in Your Green Booklet.
Place Subjects and

Verbs as Close as Possible to Each Other In a Sentence and Adjectives ‑‑
And Avoid Ambiguous

Pronouns. The Last of the Writing Tips That Are Provided There Are Use
The Words \"Will\" and

\"Shall\" and \"Would\" and \"Could\" Correctly Remembering the Words
\"Will\" and \"Shall\" Indicate

Something That Is Going to Happen. A Mitigation Measure ‑‑ or ‑‑ a
Mitigation Measure

\"Could\" Be Implemented. But Some Design Feature of Your Proposal
\"Shall Be\" Implemented Is

a Good Way of Looking at It. Never Put a Label on a Statement Of Effect.
A Lot of People like

to Discuss This Point. The Key Thing Here Is If You Identify ‑‑ If
You\'re Writing an Ea‑level

Analysis or Doing an El‑level Analysis and You Identify an Impact and
You Inadvertently Say this

Impact Is Significant and Then Your Manager Makes a Finding of No
Significant Impact, You\'ll

Have An Automatic Contradiction Right There Between the Two, the EA And
the Fonsi. We

Don\'t Need to Label the Impact. We Can Allow the Public and the
Managers to Draw Their Own

Conclusions. Simply State What the Effect Is And Allow People to Draw
Their Own Conclusions

If They\'re Adverse, Beneficial, Significant Or Insignificant. Lastly,
for Good Reference, See The

Government Printing Office Style Manual. And They\'ve Got in the Style
Manual All Sorts of

Suggestions On Capitalization, How to Use Numbers and That Sort of
Thing. Now We Would

like to Hear from You Regarding the Management Tools for Efficiency or
Any Other Comments

or Questions You Have up to this Point.

Let Me Jump Right in Here for Just a Moment and Say That We Don\'t Have
Any Telephone

Lines Busy at this Moment. We Have a Ton of Faxes. It\'s Going to Be
Difficult to Get to All of

the Faxes. If We Do Get a Phone Call, You May Get an Opportunity to Have
Your Question

Answered Perhaps More Quickly than Just by the Number of Faxes.

We Can Hit One of the Faxes Right Now While Waiting for the Phones to
Ring. Gregg, Does a

Cooperating Agency ‑‑ Does Cooperating Status for An EA Also Require an
Mou and Is It

Recommended?

Any Time You\'re a Cooperating Agency, of Course, the Ceq Regulations
Identify the Use of

Cooperating Agency with Respect To Eis‑level Analysis. And It\'s Clearly
Intended in the

Regulations That Some Sort of an Agreement Be Established Between The
Lead Agency and the

Cooperating Agencies. If We\'re Going to Apply That Same Philosophy to
Ea‑level Analysis, it

Seems Highly Appropriate to Do the Same Kind Of Thing for an Ea‑level
Analysis. So to Say It\'s

Required May Be a Misnomer. To Say It\'s a Good IdEA Is Definitely a
Good IdEA ‑‑ or Should

Be Done. When You Do an Mou Between Your Cooperating Agencies, Remember,
That\'s What

Lays out What Your Roles and Responsibilities Are, What Decisions You
Have to Make, What

Your Jurisdictional Land Bases Are and What Information You Need to
Provide to the Lead

Agency to Be Included in That Document. So We Do Recommend That Even for
An Ea‑level

Analysis.

Okay. Regarding Modifying Eas, Can You Explain What Is Intended in the
Handbook 1790‑1 by

Modifying an Ea?

I\'m Sorry, Doug, Would You Mind Repeating the Question or Handing it
Here? I Apologize.

Can You Explain What Is Intended In the Handbook by Modifying an Ea? Any
Time That You

Put a Environmental Assessment Level Analysis out for Reviewer Giving A
Strong Indication to

the Public That You Will Consider The Comments Received and Make
Adjustments as

Necessary. What This, I Believe, Is Referring to Is That If You Were To
Follow the Procedures

Laid Out in Your Green Booklet and You Put out the Unsigned Fonsi With
the EA Attached to

It, Supporting EA Attached Tight for Public Review Asking for Comment On
Your Intent to Find

No Significant Impact, and They Say ‑‑ and They Comment Back, Well, Your
Analysis Is

Incomplete, You Should Have Considered This, and They Provide You with
Some Additional

Information, Take the Information, Consider It. If It\'s Appropriate, Go
Back and Modify That

Environmental Assessment. It\'s Already to Modify the EA Before You Make
Your Final Fonsi

Determination. That Is Not a Problem. Just Don\'t Label it Something.
The Ceq Regs Don\'t ‑‑

They Don\'t Define a Draft EA or a Final EA Or a Supplemental Ea.
There\'s No Definition. So

Don\'t Produce One. You Can Achieve the Same Goal And Objectives by
Following the

Procedures That\'s Laid out in Your Green Booklet.

These Questions Basically, I Think Glenn Could Be the Best Answer to
These. These Pertain to

Intergovernmental Relations. For Joint EA and Eiss with Local County
Governments, Does

NEPA Provide for 50/50 Decision Making?

No, NEPA Doesn\'t Provide for 50/50 Decision Making, but it Is Important
That We ‑‑ When

We Consider Going into Partnership, If You Will, or Cooperating with
Local, State or Even

Other Federal Agencies That There Be a Clear Understanding of How the
Decisions Will Be

Made. If There\'s Private Land, Obviously BLM Isn\'t Going to Be Making
the Decision for the

Private Land. That\'s the Jurisdiction of Another Agency or the Local
Government. It Just Needs

to Be Clearly Understood Going in Who Will Be Deciding What and Where.

So ‑‑ Is There a Provision For BLM Being the ‑‑ Being Key Or the
Ultimate Decision‑make

Center.

Not on Private Land. We Stick to Our Own Jurisdiction. When it Comes to
Those Kinds of Joint

Efforts.

Having Worked at Local and Municipal Governments Level, I Could Point
out That\'s Not

Private. That\'s Very Public, Too. So to Make That Segue\... Also
Regarding the Government

Consistency Review, Please Describe the Government Consistency Review.
Does this Apply Only

to BLM\'s Rmps and Rmp Amendments or for Instance EIS or Forest Service
And Park Service

Management Plans, and If So Why?

I Can Take That. The Government Consistency Review That\'s Being
Referred to Must Be That

That Is Required in The Planning Regulations. This Requirement Pertains
Only To the

Development of Resource Management Plans and Rmp‑level Plan Amendments.
It Does Not

Apply to Environmental Impact Statement Analysis on Projects, Site
Specific Proposals or

Whatever. It Only Applies to the EIS Level Analysis Documented with the
Rmp, Again, or the

EIS Level Plan Amendment. And It\'s a Requirement in the Planning
Regulations. There Is No

Such Requirement in The Ceq Regulations for Government Consistency
Review of Final EIS or a

Recorded Decision.

Back to the EA Level Analysis, Gregg, When We Send Out an Unsigned
Fonsi, Why Not Send

out an Unsigned Draft Decision Record Also? Probably ‑‑ I See Probably
Two Sides of That. I

Recommend it Strongly, and I Think Most of the Other Instructors Here Do
as Well. Number

One, the Reason That You\'re Being ‑‑ It\'s Being Suggested That You
Concentrate On Sending

out an Unsigned Fonsi For a 30‑day Public Review Period Is That Is the
Process Laid out in the

Ceq Regulations. I Believe It\'s 1501.6. And I Might Have to Take a
Quick Look at and That

Check That and Come Back Later and it If I\'m Wrong. That Is the Process
Laid out. It Says Issue

the Fonsi for 30‑day Public Review Period Before You Make Your Final
Fonsi Determination.

Now, If You Send out a Decision Record, How Will it Differ from The
Proposed Action in Your

Ea, Number One? Secondly, Any Time You Send out A Decision Document
Signed or Unsigned

and it Says \"Decision Document\" on It, the Public Almost Always and
Rightly So Makes the

Determination Themselves That You\'ve Already Made Your Decision, So Why
Bother to

Participate Any Further? And I Think That\'s the Wrong Message to Give
to the Public If You\'re

Going to Go out and Ask For Them to Review an Ea‑level Analysis Before
You Finalize It.

There Is a Follow‑up to That Question. If We Want Comments, Why Don\'t
We Let the Public

Comment on the Whole Action? The Sender Says I Realize That The Decision
Record Is for the

Appeal Process, but Why Not Send Out All of it for Review and Comment?

Are We Referring to the Decision Document Again?

Correct.

I Think for the Same Reasons I Just Said.

Just Wanted to Make Sure We Answered That. We Also Have Some Questions
Going up the

Scale to EIS Levels. Are Joint Lead Designations Legal for Eiss?

Yes, They Are. And it Can Be Any Other Federal Or State Agency Can Be a
Joint Lead.

Okay. From Palm Springs, California, Does the EIS Have to Be
BLM‑generated or BLM

Third‑party Generated to Be Able to Tier, Supplement, et Cetera?

the Answer Is No. That Goes Back to the Recognition of the Quality of
The Information in the

Document. There May Be Some Relationship To the Availability. Again, as
We Tier, We Have to

Make Sure of the Availability of Information and That the Magnitude That
‑‑ That That Tiered

Information Holds as We Develop Our Document.

We Do Have a Phone Call Waiting, but Inasmuch as this Phone Call Is
Originating from

Phoenix, We\'ll Go on to These Two Follow‑up Related Questions On Eiss
Before We Take Ann\'s

Call in Phoenix. Gregg, Can You Tier off an EIS That Is under Appeal and
Can You Tier off a

Draft Eis?

Tiering off of a Draft Eis\... What Comes to Mind Is ‑‑ the Answer to
Tiering off a Draft EIS Is

No. If I Can Take You Back to the Time When We Were Preparing the Draft
and Final EIS for

the Noxious Weed Effort in the Northwest Area, When the Draft EIS Was
out for Public Review

And Comment, It\'s Not Complete, And, Therefore, You Cannot Tier To
Something That Is Not

Complete. Also Keep in Mind That What You\'re Doing Is Tiering
Decisions. Cite Specific

Decisions Within The Framework of Broader Decisions Made as a Result of
That Eis‑level

Analysis. So You Really Need to Have That Record of Decision Done Before
You Can Tier to It.

And the Other ‑‑

Well, Let Me Jump in for a Moment. It Could Be That There Is a Little
Confusion of Terms

Here, Too. It May Be That What the Individual Is Interested in Is The
Availability of the

Information, and Tiering Would Not Be the Correct Tool, but You
Certainly May Supplement ‑‑

Incorporate ‑‑ Not Supplement, But Incorporate by Reference Information
from a Draft

Document, and We Need to Make Sure That If That\'s What You\'re
Interested in Doing, Yes, You

Can Do That out of a Draft Document.

Now, You Can Also Adopt Somebody Else\'s Draft Document, Draft Eis. You
Can Adopt a

Draft Eis. You Just Simply Need to Recirculate That as Your Draft And
Put it out for Public

Review And Comment.

Okay. Gentlemen, When Would a Draft EIS Require Revision as Opposed To
Supplementation?

Boy, That\'s Always a Very, Very Tough Question to Answer, To Respond
To. I Can Tell You

That it Really Depends and the Responsible Official Is Going to Have to
Be The One to Make

That Call. I Can Tell You from Personal Experience That When Some of the
First Environmental

Impact Statements I Was Ever Involved In as a Team Member, We Went From
like Eight or Ten

Alternatives in the Draft EIS to 14 ‑‑ the Identification and
Presentation of 14 Alternatives In the

Final Without Putting a Supplement Between the Two. I Think it Relates
More to New

Information That Comes along and The Length of Time Between the Time the
Notice of Intent

Was Issued and Where You Are in Completing the Process. For Instance, If
Some Years Ago

You Initiated, Sent out a Notice Of Intent, and Your Draft EIS Went out
a Year or So Ago, and

Then All of a Sudden There\'s New Scientific Information That Has A
Significant Bearing on the

Decision to Be Made That Has Just Become Available That Did Not Come in
During the Public

Review and Comment Period, it May Be Appropriate to Supplement That ‑‑
Put out a

Supplement to That Draft EIS at That Time Before You Move onto the
Final. However, If You

Are Taking Information That Has Been Submitted for the Record During The
Public Review and

Comment Period and You Are Making Adjustments to Your Draft Eis, And
Because of That

Public Comment, That\'s What the Process Was Laid out for. Move Ahead
and Prepare a Final

Eis.

Okay. Very Good. We Have a Call from Ann, Who Has Been Waiting Very
Patiently. Ann, Are

You There.

Caller: Yes, I\'m Here.

Thanks for Calling. What Is the Question?

Caller: My Question Is, When Can Tribes and Counties Be Cooperating
Agencies?

When Can Tribes and Agencies Be Cooperating Agencies? The Ceq Regs
Intended That

Cooperating Agencies, That Status, Be Afforded to Agencies Who Have
Jurisdictional or

Resource Management Responsibilities That the Proposal Itself Would
Address. If They Have a

Decision to Make With Respect to ‑‑ That Applies To Their Own
Jurisdictional Land Base or

Resources, Then it Is Appropriate That They Should Be A Cooperating
Agency. To Give You a

‑‑ Probably a Good Example Is Here in Arizona We Have Some Land Exchange
Eiss and Some

Mining Plan of Operation Eiss That Are Underway. This Doesn\'t Apply to
Indian Tribes and

Counties and So On, But it Certainly Applies to the Army Corps of
Engineers. They Have

Permitting Authority, And it Is Appropriate for Them To Be Included as a
Cooperating Agency

Because They Have a Decision to Make with Respect to The Analysis That
Is Being Done. If No

Such Decision ‑‑ Authority Is There, Then It\'s Best to Treat Those
Folks as ‑‑ in a Consultation

or Coordination Capacity.

Did That Answer Your Question, Ann?

Caller: Yes, it Did. Thanks a Lot.

Thanks for Calling. We Appreciate It. Gregg I Have One Question Just To
Ask You Real Quick

from Idaho Falls. What Did You Mean by Including Management
Representation on I.d. Teams?

And You Can Say ‑‑ Answer Honestly. You Have a Manager next to You.

this Better Be Good, Buddy!

I Think it Would Be a Good IdEA to Hear from a Manager\'s Perspective.
I\'ve Dealt with

Managers All Over the Agency, Dms, ArEA Managers, State Directors and So
On, and the Thing

You Want to Avoid Is a Manager ‑‑ Is for an I.d. Team to Go There a
Complete Lengthy, Maybe

Even Costly Process, and Arriving at a Conclusion That the Manager
Can\'t Live with. I Think

That Involvement of Management During Early Ongoing I.d. Team Meetings
and Getting

Management up to Speed and Getting Their Perspective and Highly
Recommend That. I Would

like to Hear What Glenn Has to Say about It.

I Will Buy All of and That in Addition We Need to Close off Our Question
and Answer Session

And Prepare for the ‑‑ Our Presentation of the Case Study Videos and
Exercises.

Okay. Glenn, in a Few Minutes, We\'ll Be Showing the Case Study Video.
But First Let\'s Go

over Your Assignment for Today. Your On‑site Coordinator Will Set up
Small Working Groups

at Your Location Immediately Following Today\'s Broadcast. Each Work
Group Will Be Assigned

Two Case Studies. For Each Assigned Case Study, Turn to Page 19 of Your
Workbook, and

That\'s the White One, and Address the First Three Items, but Only Those
First Three Items.

Those First Three Items Are ‑‑ Let\'s Go to the Elmo Here and Take a
Quick Look at Them to

Make Sure You Understand this. For Each of the Case Studies Identify
What the Appropriate

NEPA Documentation Is Need to Do Approve the Proposed Action and Just
and Justify Your

Answer. In Other Words, Screen Your Screen Your Proposal, Use a
Screening Process, and

Justify Your Answer. What Appropriate Documentation Should Be Used?
Secondly, Which BLM

NEPA Administrative Procedures and Documentation Requirements Are
Applicable to the

Proposal? Lastly, this Is for Today, Discuss Which Tools You Will Use To
Achieve Efficiency,

Looking At Incorporation by Reference, Tiering, Adoption, Management
Considerations and in

Addition To the Management Considerations, Also Throw in Some Scheduling
Considerations

And So on for Managing the Process Effectively. Remember, These First
Three Questions Only

Today. You Will Address the Remaining Four Questions for the Same Case
Studies Tomorrow

Afternoon after Tomorrow\'s Broadcast. So Let\'s Run the Video Now.

Go Ahead and Start Your Vcr\'s, Folks.

Yes, Please Start Your Vcrs.

So like He Said Now, You All Should Start Your Picture Recordin\' Gizmos
for These Case

Studies and Come with Us to the Wild, Wild West Where Goings on Like Oil
and Gas Drilling,

Hard Rock Mining, Timber Harvesting, Varment Control and Recreating Are
Happening All the

Time. These Stories Are a Pack of Yarns We Made Up. Any Likeness or
Similarity to Critters

Dead or Alive Is Unintended, Unfortunate and down Right Accidental. You
Are Going to Do

Some Powerful Figuring So You Can Draw with Your Compadres, Do Some
Spitting and

Whittling So You Can Come up with Answers for Us, and You Want to Get
Them Right,

Because I Don\'t Want to Have to Come Looking for You, Hear? By the Way,
We\'ll Be Right

Back After the Picture Show to Talk With You over the Phone or See What
You Have Sent in on

That Paper‑sending Contraption. So Let\'s Roll \'Em There, Partner!

this Video Program Presents Five Case Studies Showing Typical
Decision‑making Activities on

the Public Lands. Case Study Number 1 Focuses a Pest Control Proposal.
Case Study Number 2

on a Fluid Minerals Proposal. Case Study Number 3 on a Hard Rock Mining
Proposal. Case

Study Number 4 on an Outdoor Recreation Proposal. And Case Study Number
5 on a Timber

Sale Proposal. These Five Case Studies Will Give You the Informational
Need For Exercises

Relating to the National Environmental Policy Act Process. Case Study
Number 1, Jackalope

Control. As the Local Manager You Have Proposed Controlling the Dreaded
Jackalope. By

Trapping, Poisoning and Clubbing Drives at the West End Of Hoppy Valley
Where These Beasts

Are Most Heavily Concentrated. A Native of Wyoming, the Jackalope Has
Spread Throughout

The West, Competing for Forge With Life Stock and Big Game. An Unusually
Warm Winter and

Dry Spring Have Allowed the Jackalope to Flourish Throughout Your Area.
Now That It\'s Fall,

and Another Warm Winter and Dry Spring Appear Likely, You must Act Fast
To Prevent the

Little Jackalopes From Reproducing in Great Numbers. And Defoliating
Critical Livestock and

Big Game Forage. The Jackalope Is an Important Food Source for Bald
Eagles, and You Have

Considered the Control Measures of Reintroducing Bobcats, Which Also
Relish Jackalopes.

Recognizing the Need to Control Jackalopes and Other Critters, The
Animal and Plant Health and

Inspection Service, Aphis, Has Prepared a Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement For

All Western States, Including Yours. BLM Was Named a Cooperating Agency.
The

Programmatic EIS Discusses In Detail the Vegetation Types In Your Area.
And Also the

Environmental Impacts of Poisons, Traps and Other Jackalope Control
Measures. After this EIS

Was Prepared, You Amended the Resource Management Plan to Allow Control
Measures

Approved by BLM and Aphis to Be Applied Within the Area. But the
Resource Management

Plan Amendment and Programmatic EIS Do Not Address How the Local
Environment Would Be

Affected Nor Do They Consider the Attitudes of Residents. Neither EIS
Addresses Site‑specific

Impacts of the Planned Control Measures. The Resource Management Plan
EIS Lacks

Site‑specific Detail and Relies on the Programmatic EIS To Cover
Regional and Interagency

Cumulative Impacts. You Understand Some of the More Vocal Local
Attitudes Toward the Issue

of Jackalope Control. The Protect the Jackalope Society, Pjs, Opposes
All Control Measures, and

Has an Active Local Chapter Headed by \"Wild Hair Arnie.\" In Other
States the Pjs Have

Generated Write‑in Campaigns to Protect the Jackalope, Symbol of All the
West. While the

Resource Management Plan Amendment Was Being Prepared, Concerns Were
Raised About

Impacts to Threatened and Nonthreatened Species. Possible Harm to Native
Habitat. And Forage

Competition. And Local Ranchers Support Jackalope Control and Would like
To See All

Jackalope Exported to The Planet Mars. Case Study Number 2,
Drill‑so‑right Environmentally

Bright Apd. As a BLM Manager You Have Received 10 Applications for
Permits to Drill for

Step‑out Wells to Determine the Size and Nature of a Recently Discovered
Oil and Gas

Production Field in Your Area. The Step‑out Wells Are to Be Drilled
about Half a Mile to a Mile

Apart. The Drill‑so‑right Company Has Leased 16,000 Acres in a Single
Block. Within this Block

BLM Manages 7,000 Acres. The Forest Service, 5,000 Acres. And the State,
4,000 Acres. A

Resource Management Plan/environmental Impact Statement Has Been
Prepared for The BLM

Portion. For Oil and Gas Leasing, the Rmp/EIS Contained a Reasonably
Foreseeable

Development Scenario Of a Field of 15 to 20 Wells Producing Somewhere in
a High Potential

ArEA of the Rmp Area. The Nearest Developed Field Is 50 Miles Away and
Contains 12

Producing Wells. Much of the Rmp ArEA Is in the Same Geologic Formation
as this Developed

Field. The Rmp/EIS Predicted a Field Development of 15 to 20 Wells Could
Partially Disrupt Elk

Caving, Depending on the Location and Timing of Development. Impacts
Were Discussed from a

Fairly Broad Perspective. The Forest Service Has Recently Completed a
Land Use Plan, an EIS

That Discusses Oil and Gas Leasing in about the Same Detail As the BLM
Documents. BLM Was

Listed as a Cooperating Agency in the Plan Because of Shared Minerals
Responsibility. Last Year

the Drill‑so‑right Company Applied for a Permit to Drill an Exploratory
Well on BLM Surfaces

near the Center of the Company\'s Blocked up Leases. An Environmental
Assessment Tiered to

the Rmp/EIS Also Contained a Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario
Of 15 to 20 Wells.

This Environmental Assessment Covered Potential Impacts at the Proposed
Site. BLM Prepared a

Finding of No Significant Impact and Allowed The Exploratory Well to Be
Drilled. Much to the

Sorrow of Local Elk Lovers, the Well Was Successful. Hearing about the
Discovery, the Wildlife

and Hunting Community Voiced Their Concern That a Large Oil and Gas
Development Could

Severely Disrupt Elk Calving since the Discovering a Lies Within a Major
Elk Calving Area. To

Confirm, Drill‑so‑right Applied for a Permit to Drill a Confirmation
Well on BLM Land. BLM

Prepared a Environmental Assessment Tiered to the Rmp/eis. This
Assessment Incorporated by

Reference Information from the Environmental Assessment for the
Exploratory Well. The

Confirmation Well Assessment Found That No Significant Impacts Would
Result If Protective

Stipulations Were Applied. You Signed a Finding of No Significant Impact
and Permitted The

Drilling of the Second Well. Which Confirmed the Presence of A
Producible Field. The

Drill‑so‑right Company Now Wants to Test the Size of the Field by
Drilling 10 Step‑out Wells.

The Producible Field Is Believed To Occupy about Six Sections. With One
Well for Every 160

Acres, the Field Would Eventually Consist of 24 Wells, And a Supporting
Network of Roads and

Pipelines. The ArEA Is Not Known to Have Special Status Species. The
Drill‑so‑right People Are

Aware of the Potential Conflict With Elk Calving and Are Willing To Pay
up to \$10,000 to

Modify Habitat Outside the Field to Help Mitigate the Disruption From
Developing the Field. The

BLM Staff Wildlife Biologist Said this IdEA Could Have Mayor And it Was
Thinking of

Suggesting a Similar Idea. The Small Community Where You Live Is Elated
at the Prospects Of a

Boost to its Economy. The Mayor Has Already Congratulated You on Your
Fine Cooperative

Spirit and Willingness to Support and Work With the Community on this
Matter. The Governor

and Certain Congressman and State Legislators Support the Project
Because the ArEA Is

Economically Depressed. News of the Discovery Is Widespread, and News
Clippings Speculate a

Field of 100 Wells Or More Could Be One of the Largest Fields in the
Region by The End of the

Year. Case Study Number 3, Gold and Emeralds Mining Corporation of
America. Gemco, the

Gold and Emeralds Mining Corporation of America Has Completed
Exploratory Work And

Wants to Begin Gold Mining In the Rmp ArEA Using the Heap Leach Method
of Extraction.

Gemco Has Submitted a Plan of Operations That Calls for an Open‑pit Mine
to Be Developed

Over the next Five Years and for Tight Ultimately Occupy 1,000 Acres and
Have a Depth of 650

Feet. 300 More Acres Would Be Disturbed by Operations, Access, Tailings
and Leach Pads. The

Resource Management Plan/environmental Impact Statement Did Not Discuss
Hard Rock Mining

Because the Rmp Team Believed That the 1872 Mining Law Does Not Allow
BLM to Regulate

the Location or Methods Of Such Mining. Moreover, When the Rmp Was
Written, No One

Considered the Possibility of a Large Mine in The Rmp Area. Gemco Holds
Claims on 5,000

Acres of BLM Land at and near The Proposed Mine. And on 15,000 Acres
Elsewhere in The

State. Exploratory Drilling Has Found An Estimated Reserve of 8,000
Ounces of Gold on the

Proposed ArEA to Be Mined. Gemco Expects to Mine 400,000 Tons of
Material, Placing

100,000 Tons on the Pad for Future Leaching. Gemco Has a Good Record of
Compliance with

BLM\'s Surface Management Rules. Your Rmp ArEA Already Has Two Open‑pit
Gold Mines,

but Both Are on Private Land. Each Is at Least 375 Feet Deep And Covers
Between 100 and 400

Acres. Because of New Technology, However, Any New Mines Developed Would
Likely Be

Larger and Deeper than the Existing Mines. Your Staff Geologist Says
That The Ore Body

Gemco Is Working on Extends for Several Miles and That Heap Leach
Technology Allows the

Use of Low‑grade Ore. Such Ore Is Widespread Throughout the Rmp ArEA and
the State. The

Geologist Also Notes That The Mine ArEA May Serve as a Recharge ArEA for
the Nearby

Valley Aquifer. When Fully Developed, the Open Pit Would Also Lie next
to but Outside a

Wilderness Study Area. Three Other Mining Companies Are Active Within
the Rmp ArEA

Studying the Feasibility of Using the Heap Leach Process for Surface
Mined Ore. These

Companies Are Fiercely Competitive and Not Friendly Towards Each Other.
Two of These

Companies Have Requested Permission to Start Drilling to Test the Ore
Body But Have Not

Started National Environmental Policy Act Documentation. All of These
Potential Mines Lie In a

Scenic Valley Known for its Brilliantly‑colored Rock Formations. The
Best of These Formations

Have Been Designated an ArEA of Critical Environmental Concern, Or Acec.
Although None of

the Potential Mining Areas Are Within this Acec, Hiking Groups Are
Concerned Because the

Proposed Gemco Mine Would Be Highly Visible from the Acec. And Ranchers
Are Concerned

That Mining Will Eventually Lower or Contaminate the Valley\'s Water
Table. Case Study

Number 4, Motorcycle Trail Ride. Four Years Ago Your Resource Management
Plan Authorized

Motorcycle Use on Existing Roads Unless Specifically Banned by an
Activity Plan or

Specifications For a Particular Area. Since Then, the American
Motorcyclist Association Has

Requested a Recreation Use Permit for a Cross‑country Sports Bike Ride
on Existing Routes

Across Land Administered By BLM, the Forest Service and County and City
Agencies. 75% of

this Route Crosses BLM Land. Some of the Route Has Never Been Bladed but
Has Been Used

for Several Years. A Nonspeed and Untimed Event, This Ride Would Involve
Only Dirt Bikes.

Though it Would Be Held for the First Time, it Is Expected to Become an
Annual Event about

250 Cyclists Would Participate. 10 Miles of the Route Crosses a Scenic
ArEA Designated an

ArEA Of Critical Environmental Concern by Your Rmp. Some People Are
Concerned That

Riders Might Taken Authorized Side Trips off the Designated Route. For
12 Miles the Route

Follows The Border of Three Wilderness Study Areas. If Not Well
Supervised, Riders Could Also

Stray into These Protected Areas. The Route Is Also Used by Sightseers
and Others Who Have

No Interest in the Ride and Might Be Offended by the Noise And Dust and
Motorcycle

Environmental Groups Are Highly Interested in this Event. Case Study
Number 5, Tallwood

Timber Sale. You\'re a Field Manager in Western Oregon. One of Your
Staff Foresters Has

Proposed to Offer for Sale 6.5 Million Board Feet of Timber in Tallwood
Valley. 108 Acres and

Three Units Would Be Offered for Sale. 40 Acres in Unit Number 1. 32
Acres in Unit Number 2.

And 36 Acres in Unit Number 3. Unit Number 1 Would Need One Mile of New
Permanent Road

Construction Built to Sn‑16 Standards. Unit Number 2 Would Need Only a
50‑foot Spur from an

Existing Road Built to Sn‑14 Standards. And Unit Number 3 Would Need a
500‑foot Spur Built

to Sn‑14 Standards. To Log Unit Number 1, a Full Suspension Skyline
System Is Needed to

Protect a 200‑foot Vegetation Buffer along a Third‑order Fish‑bearing
Stream That Cuts Through

the Middle of The Unit. To Log Unit Number 2, a Typical High‑lead System
Will Suffice Since

Only a Front‑end Suspension of the Log Is Needed Over the First and
Second‑order Streams That

Cross the Unit. And to Log Unit Number 3, Where Slopes Do Not Exceed
25%, Ground

Skidding by Tractor or Even Horse Logging Could Be Used. Unit Number 3
Lies next to a Buffer

Zone along the Stoney River, and about a Half Mile Above the Proposed
Wild and Scenic Stretch

Which Has Heavy Sport Fishing During the Season. Soils in Unit Number 3
Are Susceptible to

Compaction During Periods of High Moisture Content. The Tallwood Valley
Has a Northern

Spotted Owl Nesting ArEA for Which the Resource Management Plan
Established a Protection

Zone. Completed in 1988, the Rmp Covers the Allowable Cut, Retained All
Three Units in the

Intensive Timber Base Available For Harvest, and Approved the Use of a
Full Range of Forest

Management Practices. All Three Units Lie Within Visual Resource
Management Class 3 View

Sheds. Residents Have Complained about Excessive Smoke in the Valley
During Burning on Bad

Days. The ArEA Does Not Consist Entirely of Virgin Forest, for It Was
Logged on a Small Scale

40 Years Ago. Throughout the Valley Our Primitive ‑‑ Are Primitive Skid
Trails from Small

Logging Operations but Most of These Scars Have Grown over. Few Use the
Valley for

Recreation Because of its Dense Forests and Limited Road Access. During
the Hunting Season,

Hunters Use Several Primitive Camps Accessible by Four‑wheel‑drive
Vehicles. The Rmp Has

Determined That the Stoney River at the Mouth of Tallwood Valley Is
Suitable for Designation as

a Wild River. The Plan Provides for the Protection of the River and Has
Prescribed Measures to

Assure That its Potential Wild River Status Is Not Destroyed. A Highway
That Parallels the

Potential Wild River Corridor Would Provide Logging Access to Tallwood
Valley. The Rmp

Proposes Three Other Timber Sales for the Resource Area, but These Would
Be Held in Adjacent

Valleys. You Look at Your Appointment Calendar and Notice That Tomorrow
Morning at 9:00

You Have an Appointment to Be Visited by the Tallwood Conservancy
Coalition to Discuss A

Possible Injunction Against Cutting Any Trees in Unit 3. You Look
Outside and Notice That All

the Holes Big Enough to Hide In Are Covered with Snow.

Welcome Back. How Is That My Evil Twin? Those Videos Were Fun, Weren\'t
They? We\'re

Going to Start this Segment with Questions and Answers, So Please Start
Placing Those Phone

Calls. Don\'t Hide by the Fax Machine. As You Can See, Glenn and Gregg
Are Here with Me to

Take Your Calls, So, Please, Let\'s Hear From You, and While We\'re
Waiting for Your Calls,

We\'ll Answer Some of These Unanswered Faxes. We Trust That None of You
Got Offended with

the Artificial Scenarios That We Did ‑‑ Jackalopes, Indeed! So Let\'s Go
to Glenn and Gregg.

Thank You, Doug. Since the Early Morning When We First Started Talking
about Screening

and We Got a Comment From One of the Field Offices Talking about Using
Scoping in Place of

Screening, That Generated Quite a Few Responses From Different People
Throughout The Field,

Throughout the Viewers out There. So We Thought We Would Address It
Specifically. First of

All, Screening Is a Process to Take a Proposal and Determine What Level
of Analysis Is Needed,

and We\'ve Offered up Six Critical Screening Questions To Help You
Screen a Proposal. Scoping

Is a Term That Is Defined in the Ceq Regulations Just like Incorporation
by Reference, Tiering,

Adoption and Supplementing and Environmental Assessment, Environmental
Impact Statement, a

Fonsi, a Notice of Intent, All These Terms Are Defined in the Ceq
Regulations, And They Have

Specific Procedural Requirements and There Is Additional Guidance With
Respect to Many of the

Things, Particularly the Subject Of Scoping. We Encourage You Not to Use
Scoping in Any

Other Format than As Ceq Intended It. When We Indicated Earlier That
There Were Other

Options for Screening, If You Call it Determining the Scope of the
Analysis or Whatever, That\'s

Okay, But, Again, the Term Scoping Is ‑‑ Has Legal Connotations, and it
Has Legal

Requirements, and it Refers to An Eis‑level Analysis Only and Is Done
Following the Issuance Of

a Notice of Intent. So I Hope That Clears up the Comment ‑‑ or the ‑‑

Gregg, We Have George on the Line from Price, Utah. George, Are You
There?

Caller: Yes, I\'m Here.

State Your Question, Please.

Caller: Earlier in the Program You Said That the NEPA Process, We Have
No Influence on

Private Surface, but Here in Our Leasing Program, and Also in Like
Approval of Exploration

Licenses and Plans Where It\'s Federal Minerals and Private Surface,
Through the NEPA Process

We Actually Dictate What They Can and Cannot Do on the Private Surface.
I Was Just

Wondering Your Comment as to ‑‑ Is That Correct Or Should We Not Be
Dictating What We

Can and Cannot Do on Those Private Surfaces?

Well, I Think to Some Extent What You\'re Probably Referencing, George,
Is a Jurisdictional

Issue, and What That Really Amounts to Is in Flpma We\'re Told That
Public Land Is That Where

We Have an Interest, And, in Fact, We Do Have an Interest in Split
Estate In the Scenario You

Have Identified. Inasmuch as We Do Have That Interest and Courts Have
Held That the

Reserved Minerals Are a Superior Interest in the Land, With Regard to
the Actions That Occur

Through Mineral Development We Can Certainly ‑‑ I\'m Not Sure That
\"Dictate\" Is The Best

Word, but We Can Ensure A Certain Amount of Mitigation Occurs, an
Appropriate Level of

Mitigation Occurs with Regard to Those Mineral Impacts, and since
You\'re Really Talking

Mineral Leasing, Split Estate Oil and Gas, It\'s Commonplace for Us to
Identify Those Kinds of

Actions That Are Allowed and the Amount Of Disturbance. Practically
Speaking, and Actually as

We Consider Our Direction, We Have an Obligation To Consider the Private
Land Owners, the

Surface Owners\' Wishes with Regard to the Actions That Occur. So I\'m
Glad You Brought this

Point up Because We Have to Make Sure That ‑‑ and I Think What Generated
Your Question

Was Probably My Response That If We Don\'t Have Jurisdiction, We\'re Not
Making the Decisions

There. In Areas Where We Have Split Estates, We Actually Do Have Some
Decisions, So We Do

Make Some Decisions, but We Do Have To Do it in Concert with Those
Interests That Are

Impacted. Did That Respond to Your Question Adequately, George In.

Caller: Yes.

Okay.

Thank You, George.

Caller: Bye.

Thanks. Let\'s ‑‑ We\'ve Got a Ton of Faxes Here, but I\'m Going to
Exercise a Little Management

Discretion, I Guess You Would Almost Say with Regard to the Issue That
Gregg Was Just

Addressing Relative to Scoping, And I Really Want to Put it More In a
Specific Context. Some of

the Faxes That We Have Received Appear to Me to Confuse The Issue
Between Planning and

NEPA. There\'s a Separation Between Those Two, Although There\'s a Clear
Relationship as Well,

and I\'ll Use as an Example One of The Faxes Addressed the Fact They
Have an Mfp, One of the

Few Offices Probably Where There Is A Management Framework Plan in Place
Instead of an

Rmp with its Associated NEPA Document, and it Was Referenced ‑‑ or the
Question Was

Brought Up, Can We Tier to Our Mfp? Well, the Mfp Is a Decision
Document. It\'s Not a NEPA

Document. So in Response to That, No, You\'re Not Going to Tier to an
Mfp Because It\'s Not a

NEPA Document. Actually, You\'re Not Even Going To Tier to an Rmp or
Reference An Rmp.

You Might Reference the EIS or Tier to the EIS That Was Associated with
That Planning

Document. I Think It\'s Also Important That With Regard to That Earlier
Question, If I Can Dig it

out Here, about Scoping. We Really Need to Be Sensitive To the
Definition of Scoping That

Gregg Identified, and Remember That ‑‑ this Is Really Difficult Because
I Don\'t Want To Point

Fingers at a Particular Inquirer Because That\'s Not the Purpose of this
Broadcast, but The

Comment Was Made, and I Hope I Didn\'t Hear it Incorrectly, But There
Was Reference to the

Categorical Exclusion List Is Guidance, or the Land Use Plan Is Guidance
and Will Respond to

The Specifics of a Proposal. Flpma Tells Us Very Clearly That We Have an
Obligation to Plan

Our Actions on Public Land, and We must as We Are Preparing Those Plans
Ensure That We

Have Analyzed Potential Actions, and We Do That Through the NEPA
Process, Which Is

Associated With the Planning Process. We Can\'t Take a Cavalier Case by
Case Approach for

Disregarding Those Decisions Which Have Come Out of the Land Use Plan.
That\'s Counter to

All of the Instruction That We Have Been Given. What We Can Do Is We Can
Consider on a

Case by Case Basis, as Proposals Occur, and Run Those Proposed Actions
Through the

Screening Processes To Determine Whether or Not Those Proposed Actions
Conform To the

Land Use Plan. It\'s Really Clear That We Understand That There Is That
Relationship Between

NEPA and Planning. So ‑‑ I Guess I\'ve Pontiff Indicated Enough.

I Would like Add a Couple Other Things, If You Don\'t Mind. Thigh
You\'re Really Right on the

Mark There. The Key Things ‑‑ I Think You\'re Really Right on the Mark
There. The Key Things

Are When You Have Terminology Defined in the Regulations, Use Them as
Defined In the

Regulations. If You Redefine Those or Use Them Differently, You\'re
Really At Risk. That\'s a Key

Point. And When as to Some of the Other Points You Were Making with
Regard to the Use of

the Scoping Or the Other Terms ‑‑ I\'m Sorry, I Lost My Thought.

I Think That it Follows ‑‑ Form Follows Function, and That\'s Basically
What You\'re Saying,

Gregg, Is That All These Definitions Are Provided and You Don\'t Want to
Begin Inventing

Something That Is Already Cast In Stone, but I Should Temper That by
Saying That Some of Our

Faxes Referred to Ongoing Work ‑‑ Working Relations with Other Federal
Agencies and We Also

Have Working Relations with Trying to Streamline the NEPA Process, and
We\'ll Get into That A

Little Bit More as the Broadcast Goes Forward.

and to Continue That Thought, The Comment about the Categorical
Exclusion List as Guidance,

It\'s More than Guidance. It Is a List. It Is a Tool That Can Be Used to
Streamline Your NEPA

Analysis. We Need to Look for Ways to Streamline Our NEPA Analysis. If
We\'ve Got Hundreds

of Environmental Assessments That All Say the Same Thing for the Same
Kind of Project, We

Probably Don\'t Need to Write Another One That Says Exactly The Same
Thing with Only a Few

Names Changed in It. That\'s What the Administrative Determination
Process Allows You To Do,

and the Cx Process, with The Existing List and Using the Existing List,
You Typically Don\'t Need

to Do an Environmental Assessment on Those as Long as None of the
Exceptions Apply, and

That Is a Ceq‑sanctioned Process and Departmental‑sanctioned Process
That Is Provided for Us

to Streamline and Save Time and Money. We Have Got to Stop Doing
Environmental

Assessments All The Time and ‑‑ in Place of Eiss Or in Place of Cxs or
Ads. We Need to Do the

Appropriate Level Analysis and Documentation Appropriate to Make the
Decision. That

Determination Is Made by The Responsible Official, Nobody Else. The
Responsible Official Is

Responsible for Making Those Determinations. Again, I Emphasize That.

Let Me Pick up on the Responsible Official in Respond To Go a Fax. This
Gets Back to Some of

the Screening Questions Regarding The Criteria and Guidelines to
Determine Consistency with

the Land Use Plan. I Think the Key Here Is with Regard to That Land Use
Plan it Has to Be ‑‑ a

Proposed Action Needs to Be Clearly Consistent With or Provided for in
the Land Use Plan with

Regard to the Terms and Conditions of That Approved Plan. If Not, Then
You\'re Going to Have

to Do Something Else. The Responsible Official Is the One Who Determines
Those Gray Areas, If

There Are Gray Areas, Whether or Not There Is Conformance.

If We Have Time, I\'d like to Go Back to Screening Situation 1 From
Early this Morning, and

We Got a Question from Washington, D.c. Office. We Got Some Folks There
That Are Viewing

This, and it Referred to Screening Situation 1. It Says ‑‑ the Question
‑‑ They Questioned the

Response an EA Might Be Appropriate and They\'re Questioning it Because
of a Couple of

Things, and Wondering If an EIS Should Be Done Instead Because of the
Contiguous

Relationship to the Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study Areas. You Got to
Remember That

Actions That Are Outside Wilderness Areas, You Can Still Do an
Environmental Assessment on

Those If ‑‑ as Long as the ‑‑ as Long as the Impacts Are Expected To Be
Significant Outside the

Wilderness Area. An Action Occurring Adjacent to A Wilderness ArEA Can
Occur. Open‑pit

Mine. Right up to the Border. It Can Occur. And So Keep That in Mind,
That An Environmental

Assessment ‑‑ If There\'s New Information, If ‑‑ That Has Not Been
Previously Addressed, Then it

Would Be Appropriate, and Some of Those Things That Were Important Here,
And I Think That

the Instructors Felt That Probably in this in This Scenario That Sense
the it Was 10 Years Old,

the Studies Were Not Addressed Previously, That Probable Probably the
Most Appropriate

Analysis and Documentation Process Was Probably the Eis Level Analysis
Route.

Thank You Very Much. We Do Have Still Some Unanswered Faxes, and We\'ll
Be Consolidating

Those and Answering Those in the next Two Days. That Concludes Our
Presentation Today.

We\'ll See You Again Tomorrow Here on Galaxy 9, but Remember We Will Be
on Transponder

22\. So Be Sure to Adjust Your Receiver for That Channel. When We Go on
the Air, Be Ready

To Present Your Answers to Questions 1, 2 and 3 for Your Assigned Case
Studies. We Will Start

Our Session by Opening the Phone Lines and Reviewing the Case Studies
Exercises with a

Number of Downlink Sites. We Have Planned Three Interactive Sessions
Tomorrow. So There

Will Be Time for Us to Answer These Unanswered Faxes And Other Questions
That Will Be

Coming In. Thanks for Your Attention and Participation. We Appreciate
Your Involvement.

From All of Us Here at the BLM National Training Center, Thanks For
Tuning In. See You

Tomorrow, and Have Fun With Your Assignments.

This is a transcript of day 2 (September 19, 1996)

Good Morning. Welcome Back to Our NEPA Course. Today We\'ll Be
Discussing Questions 1

Through 3 Covering The Five Case Studies We Broadcast Yesterday. We
Already Have a

Number of Downlink Sites on the Phone. As We Go Along, If You Have a
Comment on the

Exercise, Please Give Us a Call or Send Us a Fax. Later in Today\'s
Broadcast, We Have Planned

Nearly an Hour of Interactive Air Time Where We\'ll Take Your Calls and
Discuss Your Faxes.

Joining Me Again Today Is Our Team of NEPA Specialists. Francis Berg,
Welcome.

Thanks a Lot, Doug. I Notice Yesterday Was Pretty Cloudy, but it Really
Cleared up And I

Think Things Are Going Better.

Bob Armstrong, Welcome.

Glad to Be Here, Doug. Thank You. We\'re Ready for Today\'s Exercises.

and Glenn Carpenter, Welcome.

Thank You, Doug. Good to Be Back. Looking Forward to Good Interchange
with Our Viewers

Today.

and Gregg Simmons, Good Morning.

Thank You, Doug of the It\'s Good to Be Here. Hope All of You Are
Enjoying the Session.

We\'re Looking Forward to Having A Good Day Today.

Okay, Gentlemen, Let\'s Go to The Phones.

We Have in Dixie Lauren about Case Study Number 1.

Lauren, Are You There?

Caller: Hi, I\'m Here.

How Are Things in St. George?

Caller: Absolutely Beautiful! Absolutely Beautiful!

That\'s Good. We Were Asking That You Give Us What You Guys Came up with
in Response to

the Jackalope Case Study. What Appropriate NEPA Documentation Did You
Come up With?

Caller: First Off, Let\'s Look at Question Number 1, What Is the
Appropriate NEPA

Documentation Need to Do Approve The Proposed Action. Do We Do NEPA to
Approve a

Proposed Action? I Don\'t Think That\'s Written Right. I Think We Do it
to Analyze the Proposed

Action.

Okay.

Caller: Will You Agree with Me?

You\'re Absolutely Right. About How about ‑‑ What Did You Come up with?
You Caught Us.

Caller: Okay. Good. Otherwise the ‑‑ What We Would Need to Do to Approve
the Proposed

Action Is Write a Decision Record Because We Would Be Doing an
Environmental Assessment. I

Think We Would.

Site Specific Ea?

Caller: Right. I Think If the Public Controversy Was Not Involved We
Could Get Away with an

Administrative Determination. But Because of the Public Controversy We
Went Ahead and Went

Through the Screening Processes and Decided to Do an Environmental
Assessment.

Okay. An Environmental Assessment. How about the Administrative
Procedures and

Documentation Requirements, What Did You Come Up with There?

Caller: Again Because of Public Controversy, We Would Have a Review
Period. We Would

Probably Send out an Unsigned FONSI. I Personally Don\'t Believe a
30‑day Review Period Is

Necessary, Probably a Two‑week Review Period. I Don\'t Think Public
Meetings Would Be

Necessary Because All It Would Be Is a Screaming, Yelling Match Because
of the Type of

Controversy Involved.

the Dreaded Jackalope.

Caller: Call We Would Probably Allow a Two‑week Review Period and Then
Revise If We

Need to Do Revise the EA or Go Ahead and Sign the Decision Record.

Okay. What about the Tools for Efficiency and Management and Scheduling
Considerations?

What Did You Come up with There?

Caller: Incorporation by Reference for the Aphis Document Because That
Would Have Your

Scientific Information That\'s in There and We\'d Probably Have to
Summarize, You Know, a

Paragraph Or Two Summary, and Then We Would, of Course, Tier to Our Rmp
Amendments.

Okay. Anything Else?

Caller: Yeah, We Would Make Our Life Really Easy and Have a Third‑party
Consultant Write

the Rest of It.

Okay.

Caller: Actually it Makes Our Life Much Harder, I Think.

So Contracting, Then? Is That What I\'m Hearing?

Caller: Yeah! And I Have a Question for You Guys.

Okay.

Caller: Ooh. Why Aren\'t There Any Women NEPA Specialists on That Panel
up There?

Can We Talk to You Later About That?

Actually I Think I Know of a Really Good Candidate Right Now.

We Have Lauren in Dixie Volunteering for the EA Analysis.

the Truth Be Known, There Was A Mistake. Gregg Didn\'t Know I Was a
Male. He Saw

\"Francis\" and He Thought\... There You Go.

Caller: That Was an Easy Answer.

Thank You, Lauren. We\'re Going to Move on to Palm Springs.

Lucy in Palm Springs. Lucy, Are You There?

Caller: Hi.

How Is the Weather over There?

Caller: Gorgeous.

it must Be Gorgeous All over The Southwest this Week.

Caller: Sure Is.

Okay.

Caller: Cooled down Quite a Bit.

What\'s the Temperature? 105?

Caller: I Would Say in the 70s.

Whoa, That\'s Better than Here. You Also Looked at Case Study Number 1,
the Dreaded

Jackalope Control, and What Did You Come Up with for the Appropriate
NEPA

Documentation?

Caller: We Also Came up with The Ea‑level Analysis.

Okay. And What about Administrative Procedures and Documentation
Requirements? Did You

Come up with Anything Different than What Lauren Did?

Caller: We Disagree with What Was Said Earlier. We Think That We Need
Some Public

Participation Because of The Controversy, and That\'s One Reason We
Decided to Do the

Ea‑level Analysis. And We Would Also after That Publish a Notice of
Availability With the

FONSI and for the Decision Record.

Okay.

Caller: and We Agree with The Tiering off of the Existing Documents, and
There\'s Already a

Programmatic EIS. The Rmp Amendment and with the EIS. And We Said We
Would Do it in

House. We Thought it Would Be Quicker To Get it Done.

Okay. That Sounds Good. Anything Else on Scheduling Considerations or
Management

Considerations?

Caller: Just the Fact That We Thought Public Involvement And Getting
People\'s Participation in

the Process Would Make it Easier to Go Ahead And Approve the Decision.

Okay. Thank You.

Did You Want to Do Any Wrap‑up on That.

Yes, I Think I\'ll Go over a Few Things. We the Instructors Worked on
This Case Study, and We

Came up With an Ea‑level Analysis Tiered To Both the Rmp/EIS and the
Programmatic EIS Was

Appropriate. We Thought That During ‑‑ When Determining the Scope of
this Analysis That

Most of the Controversy ‑‑ Controversial Issues Centered Around the
Protected Jackalope

Society or Pjs, So We Thought Possibly a Coordination Meeting with Them
Might Solve Most of

the Problems And That Possibly We Could Get By with Just a Straight
Ea‑level Analysis Without

a Public Review And Comment Period. That Does Not Mean to Say That In
Any Particular

District When You\'re Dealing with Pesticides Or Pest Control Measures,
We\'re Very Much

Aware Those Are Almost Always Controversial, and If You Do Feel That
Public Review and

Comment Period Is Appropriate, Then I Would Say Definitely Go Ahead and
Do One. Tools for

Efficiency\... Management Considerations, I Think You Did a Pretty Good
Job At Identifying All

of Those. Let\'s See\... I Think You Hit All of Those. So That Looks ‑‑
Sounds Good. Let\'s Move

onto Case Study Number 2.

We\'re Going to Jackson and Will Be Talking to Sid. Sid, Are You There?

Caller: Hello, this Is Sid.

Great! Have You Been Working on Case Study Number 2?

Caller: Yes, I\'m Hearing You Very Faint at this Point, but I\'ll Go
Ahead and Proceed.

Go Right Ahead. We Hear You Fine.

Caller: First Here in Jackson We Are Really Enjoying The Transmission
and Seems to Be

Working Fantastic from Our End And We Appreciate the Opportunity for the
Training. As Far as

Case Study Number 2 Is Concerned, it Relates to a Company Called
Drill‑so‑right

Environmentally Bright Who Have 16,000 Acres Leased in Forest Service,
BLM and Also State

Land. To Put the Scenario in Perspective Just a Bit, the BLM Did Prepare
an Rmp/EIS at Some

Point in the past and That Rmp/EIS Included an Rfd That Suggested
Between 15 and 20

Producing Wells. A Well Was Proposed and Drilled Last Year by the
Company Drill‑so‑right.

The Well Was Successful. That Well Was on the BLM Land And an EA Was
Prepared for BLM

But Also Included an Rfd for 15 To 20 Wells. A Second Confirmation Well
Was Drilled on BLM

Land and Again an Environmental Analysis Was Done. So the Question in
Front of Us At this

Time Is, Would this Company Proposing 10 Step‑up Wells and Again on BLM
Surface, What

Process, What Procedures Should We Follow? Considering That the Rmp ‑‑
Let Me Back up One

‑‑ There\'s One Point That Might Not Have Been Too Clear as How That
Affected The Scenario.

It Mentioned There Were 12 Producing Wells 50 Miles Away And It\'s Not
Clear If That\'s in Or

Outside the Planning Area, But That Doesn\'t Really Impact The Bottom
Line as Far as Our

Conclusion. As Far as What We Concluded Considering That the Rmp/EIS Did
Address this Size

of Development And Also the ‑‑ a Previous EA Had an Rfd for the Same
Projected Number of

Wells That The Appropriate Thing to Do Is Another Ea, Which Would Tier
off Of the Previous

Ea, Which Also Tiered off the Rmp/EIS, and on That EA We Would Suggest
Going With the ‑‑

with the Route That Allows for Public Input. The Reason Being There Is
Some Concern for

Development in the Area Due to Elk Calving and Also Concern among the
Public That, Indeed,

the Impacts of Development as Far as Number of Wells Are Tremendously
Larger Than

Envisioned by the Company Or the Agencies and We Would Suggest Doing the
EA Through the

Public Process to Try to Get the Public in Line. So in ‑‑

Okay.

Caller: an EA Tiered Offer The Previous EA with Public Review.

What Tools for Efficiency in Management Considerations Would You Use?
You Hit a Few

Already.

Caller: Primarily Tiering And the Public Review.

I\'m Sorry. I Missed That. All Right. Thank You. We Also Need to Visit
with ‑‑

Appreciate Your Time There, Sid.

We Also Need to Visit with Dennis.

We\'re Going to Idaho Falls, Dennis in Idaho Falls. Can You Hear Us
Okay, Dennis?

Caller: I Can Hear You Just Fine.

That\'s Great. Go Right Ahead.

Caller: Okay. With Respect to Question Number 1, after Going Through the
Several Steps of

the Screening Process and Making One Assumption, We Felt That the
Ea‑level Analysis Would

Be the Appropriate Document Here. The Assumption We Made Was That Most
of the

Controversy in this Case Was Related to Positions Taken Either for or
Against a Proposal and

Not So Much to the Adequacy of the past NEPA Documentation or the NEPA
Documentation

That We Would Propose. That Is with Respect to Alternatives and the
Issues. Beyond That, it

Was Pretty Straightforward Going Through The Screening Process. On the
Sufficiency of the

Existing Analyses, However, We Felt That They Were Somewhat Lacking in
the EISs Lacked

Sufficient Detail and the Proposal Exceeds the Range of Reasonable,
Foreseeable Developments

Covered in Any of The Existing Documents. Also, We Think That There\'s
Enough New

Information in the Extent to Which the Field Apparently Overlaps a Major
Elk Calving Air Area

Was Not Known Earlier. The Other Things Not Listed Was The Cx. And
Because of That

Assumption Related to Controversy Primarily We Felt That There Would Be
No Significant

Impacts Here.

All Right. What Did You Figure out for the Administrative Procedures and
Documentation

Requirements?

Caller: Okay, Basically There Again, it Would ‑‑ All of The Requirements
for the Ea‑level

Analysis Appearing in The Desktop Reference as Well as We Felt the ‑‑
the Optional Description

of the Affected Environment and Also it Would Be Important to Include
the Option Of Joining

Relationship to the Other NEPA Documents, Those Documents We Would Tier
to or Incorporate

Information by Reference. And in this Case, We Felt That It Would Be
Appropriate to Have A

Public Review Period Where We Would Send out Unsigned FONSI And
Supporting EA and Give

Them Initial 30‑day Review Comment Period.

Okay. Any Other Tools for Efficiency, Management or Scheduling
Considerations That You

Came up With?

Caller: Well, We Would Tier In General to Both of the EISs That BLM and
Forest Service

Used For Their Land Use Plans and Then Incorporate by Reference
Appropriate Information

from the Eas Done for the Exploratory and Confirmation Wells and this
Would Include the

Affected Environment, If They Addressed That. Any Information on
Location and Timing, and

the Information They Did Have on Reasonably Foreseeable Development
Scenarios. This Is a

Case Where We Felt That Management Should Stay Close to the I.d. Team
but it Wouldn\'t

Necessarily Make it the Highest Possible Priority They\'ve Got Going.
Limit the Issues Only to the

Critical Elements and Incorporate by Reference Their Analyses to the
Extent Possible And Just

Emphasize Good Writer Editing.

Sure. You\'ve Obviously Put a Lot of Analysis into this and We\'ve Had
Some Good Comments

from Both. Do You Have Anything to Wrap Up, Bob.

Just Quickly. The EA Process Is Correct. The next Thing to Take into
Consideration Is If We

Go Beyond The 20 Wells That Are in the Rfd, Then You Want to Have to
Consider Preparing a

New EIS to Get to the Expanded Potential of 24 Wells. And You Both Hit
Administrative

Procedures If You Go the EIS Process, That\'s Correct ‑‑ or The EA
Process. If You Fall into the

EIS Process, You Just Follow What\'s In the Desktop Reference. Tools for
Efficiency, Both

Tiering and Incorporation by Reference, and You Hit Those. A Great Job.

Okay. Appreciate That. We\'re Going to Go to Vegas Now.

Thank You, Dennis. We Have Jeff in Vegas, Las Vegas And We\'re Dealing
with Case Study

Number 3, the Gemco. Good Morning, Hour Things in Las Vegas?

Caller: It\'s Pretty Nice. It\'s Actually Cool, 67 Degrees This Morning.

Ah, That\'s Even Better.

He Beat Palm Springs.

Go Ahead.

Caller: Okay. We Went over this for Some Time, Probably Spent More Time
on this Particular

Case than Any of the Other Four. We Decided We Would Need to Do An
EIS‑level Plan

Amendment and A Mining Plan of Operation Done Simultaneously, Which Is
Allowed Under 43

Cfr 1610.5‑5. Our Rationale for That Was We Couldn\'t ‑‑ Didn\'t Really
Feel That the Proposed

Action Was in Conformance with the Rmp, and We Looked at the Conditions
for That. Under

Conformance It\'s Not Specifically Provided for in the Plan, or It\'s
Not Clearly Consistent with

Terms, Conditions and Decisions of the Approved Plan. And We Determined
That Wasn\'t The

Case. It Wasn\'t Consistent with Either. So it Wasn\'t in Conformance.
One of the Key Points We

Looked At Was down at the Bottom of the First Page. It Talked about New
Technology Permits

Could Utilize a Fairly Weak Deposit, and There Was a Wide ‑‑ These Weak
Deposits Were

Widespread Throughout the Rmp Area. So We Had a Good Opportunity to
Solve Two Problems

We Felt, Identify Areas ‑‑ We Could Identify Areas Open or Closed to
Mineral Entry, and Based

on Other Resource Concerns.

I Think That\'s Really Great They Were Piggybacking Stuff Like That.

That\'s Good. What about Administrative Procedures and Documentation
Requirements, Then?

Caller: Okay. On the Administrative Procedures We Would Follow Amendment
Process with

Notice of Intent And 30‑day Public Review Period, Notice of Availability
and a Draft Plan

Amendment/draft EIS With the 90‑day Public Review And Comment Period,
Issue a Proposed

Plan Amendment, Final EIS, Include the Governor\'s 60‑day Review, 30‑day
Protest Period and

Then Approve a Plan Amendment and Record of Decision.

Good.

Excellent.

Wow!

Caller: Some of the Documents We Would Try and Reference at this Point,
We Didn\'t Feel We

Had Anything We Could Tier to Based on the Information Given to Us, but
We Would Want to

Check with the State to See If They Had Any Impact Analysis on the Two
Existing Mine

Operations or Open Pit. We Would Look in the Wilderness EIS to See If
There Is Any

Information Around the Surrounding Areas We Could Reference, See If an
Acec Plan Was

Completed for Possible Reference and Then Maybe If There Was Enough
Information in The

Rmp/EIS We Could Reference That since this Issue Wasn\'t Specifically
Identified in There.

Wow\...

Very Good.

So You Had Reference and We Had Tiering ‑‑

Caller: Right.

You\'ve Obviously Spent a Lot Of Time on this. We Appreciate Your Time,
Jeff.

Caller: We Have More. On Management Considerations the Issues Were Water
Quality, Acec,

Visual Resource Management, Proximity to a Wsa, Although We Realize
That\'s Not a Factor

That Could Eliminate this Proposal And That There Are Larger and Deeper
Mines in the Area

than The Ones on the Private Land.

Good. Anything Else?

Caller: That\'s It.

Appreciate Your Time.

Thank You Very Much, Jeff. Now We\'re Going to Be Move to Go Brad in
Butte. Brad, How

Are Things up in Butte, Montana?

Caller: Very Good! Could You Hear Me?

Yes.

Caller: It\'s 39 Degrees Here Right Now, and We Just Had a Frost this
Morning, and Our Elk

Are Bugelling.

I Glen Bet Glenn Can Hardly Wait to Get Home.

Yeah, I Think I\'ll Leave Now. What Did You Come up with the For the
Appropriate NEPA

Documentation? Was it the Same or Different?

Caller: Well, Basically it Was Pretty Much the Same Although We Did Not
Feel an Amendment

Was Required Because We Assumed in the Rmp That All Lands Would Be
Available for Mining

Entry. Based on That, Then We ‑‑ Actually, We Had One Wise Guy in The
Group That Said

Because it Didn\'t Meet Screening Criteria Number 1 We Would Simply Deny
It.

Don\'t Feel Too Bad.

Caller: That Didn\'t Go Anywhere Because We Received a Call from the
Governor. So We Are

Doing an EIS.

Okay.

Just to Set the Record Straight, We Have Four Wise Guys Sitting up Here.

Caller: You\'re Doing Great. We Appreciate the Opportunity to
Participate, and Thanks Again

For Everything.

Okay.

What Else ‑‑

Caller: So, Moving On, We Decided Just to Do an EIS, No Plan Amendment.
We Then, as Far

as Our Requirements for the Document And the BLM NEPA Procedures, We Say
We Would

Meet All the Requirements on Page 15 of the Green Book, Which Goes
Through The Content

Requirements for the EIS. That\'s 5‑5‑a. And We Would Do a Record of
Decision. We Would Do

the Four Federal Register Notice Requirements. That\'s the Notice of
Intent with The Scoping

Period. A Draft EIS. Notice of Availability, 60‑day Review. Final EIS.
Notice of Availability. And

Then the R.o.d. Notice of Availability. We Would Also Have Two Localized
Public Involvement

Periods. They Would Probably Be Open Houses. First One Would Be
Involving the Scoping, and

the Second Would Be Comments and Input on the Draft.

Okay.

Good.

Excellent.

Very Good. That Wraps up Your Comments on That?

Caller: and Then on Number 3 ‑‑ or Am I Moving Too Fast?

No, You\'re Doing Great. Go Right Ahead.

Caller: Okay. We Would Ask, Essentially, That The Mining Company Prepare
the EIS ‑‑

Oh, Contracting.

Caller: ‑‑ and Then Basing on Our Existing Mou with the State We Would
‑‑ BLM and the State

Would Jointly Do the Contract Administration. We Would Ask That the
Mining Company

Incorporate by Reference Appropriate Materials or Documents of the
Analysis Done, Hopefully

for the Two Private Existing Open Pit Mines in the Resource Area, and
That They Would Consult

the Wsa and Acec Plans.

Okay.

That\'s Good.

Very Good. Anything Else?

Caller: I Think That\'s about All We Had.

That\'s Terrific. Excellent Job, Brad.

Sounds to Me We Have a Couple Good Guys for Instructors.

They\'ll Never Call Us Again Now. Well, That ‑‑ Did You Have Any Wrap‑up
on ‑‑

Just Real Briefly, to Make You Feel a Little Bit Better About the One
Wise Guy in Your Group,

There Was Consideration And Discussion about the Potential for Rejection
of the Proposal. One

of the Concerns, Besides the Fact That the Governor Might Call, Would
Also Be Valid Existing

Rights, Which Were Apparently in Effect Here as Well. Other than That, I
Think, Between the

Two of You, You Covered Everything Very Well. There Were Lots of
Innovative Thoughts,

Including the Third‑party Contract. I\'m Assuming When You Said That The
Company Would Pay

‑‑ Conduct The EIS, That You Were Actually Talking about Them
Contracting, And There Is the

Process That You\'re Aware of for That Third‑party Contracting. Other
than That, Thank You

Very Much. Appreciate It.

Let\'s Go to Line Number 5, Dave in Carson. I\'m Sorry, Dave in Carson
City. All Right. Getting

a Little Confused on Our Lines up Here.

Just Can\'t Read. That\'s All.

Caller: Just Wanted to Say Welcome from the Capital City of The Silver
State of Nevada.

Thank You, Dave. How Are Things up There?

Caller: Oh, It\'s 62 Degrees. We Have a Slight Breeze from the
Southwest. A Slight Cloud

Cover.

No Snow, Though?

Caller: No Snow.

You Sound So Good. Have You Considered an Occupation Shift to an Air
Traffic Controller

Or\...

All Right, Dave, How about The Appropriate NEPA Documentation for Case
Study 4, The

Motorcycle Trail Ride?

Caller: We Felt That this Warranted an Environmental Impact Statement.
We Felt That There

Were Potentials for Significant Impacts to the Acec and to the
Wilderness Study Areas.

Okay. Anything Else?

Caller: We Were Not Fooled By the Plan to Have a Non‑speed, Non‑timed
Recreation Event.

Ohhhh\...

Caller: We\'ve Heard That Before, and We Know That Does Not Involve
Non‑speed

Motorcycles out There.

the Voice of Experience. Good. That\'s Good. How about Administrative
Procedures and

Documentation Requirements, Then?

Caller: We Felt That the EIS Procedures, We Would Follow, There Would Be
a 30‑day

Scoping Period with a Notice of Intent, Notice of Availability, Draft
EIS Published for 60‑day

Review Period, Notice of Intent on the Final EIS, 30‑day Protest Period,
Record of Decision.

Okay. Anything Else on Those? How about Tools for Efficiency, Management
and Scheduling

Considerations?

Caller: I Guess Our Primary Thing We Would Do Here Is Try And Pull in
the Forest Service

And the County and City Agencies Into this EIS as Cooperators and As
Members on the

Interdisciplinary Team, and We Would Also Tier to the Existing Rmp.

Okay. Any Other Thoughts?

Caller: That\'s about All We Had.

Okay. All Right, Great. Thank You, Dave. Let\'s Check with Bill in
Phoenix.

We\'ll Be Going to Phoenix.

Bill, Are You with Us?

Caller: I\'m with You.

I Suppose it Won\'t Do You Any Good to Ask How the Weather Was Here.

Caller: I Was Just about to Ask You If You Were Going to Ask Me. Anyway,
We Approached

this One a Little Differently than the Folks in Nevada. This Is a
Typical ‑‑ One of Your Typical

Weekend Motorcycle Events We Get in the Desert Quite a Bit. Since BLM
Administers 75% of

the Land Involved Here, We Felt like BLM Would Probably Be the Lead
Agency in a

Collaborative EA Effort. We Figured That Through Public Scoping and
Meeting with the Parties

Involved and Actually Going Through the EA Process at That Point We\'ll
Determine Whether the

Impacts Are Significant and the Public Controversy Is Enough to Where We
Would Step it up to

the next Level of EIS.

So You Would Go Through the EA Process.

Caller: Correct. We Would Go Through the EA Process to Begin with and
Use That Process to

Determine Whether an EIS Is Appropriate Here. This Particular Action
Complies With the Letter

of the Rmp. So an EIS Was Done for the Project Area. Amazingly Enough,
this Type of An

Action Does List out as a Categorical Exclusion under Special Recreation
Permits. As a Matter of

Fact, Here in Phoenix I Had a Similar Case of This That I Worked with a
Couple Weeks Ago and

We Determined That A Cx Was Not Appropriate Because Of the Impacts
Involved, Very Similar

to this Project We Have Here. Because Our Particular Action Involved a
Route That Was Going

To Go by an Existing Wilderness Area. We Felt Carrying out the EA
Process to the Logical

Conclusion with a Good Cooperation Amongst the Agencies, the City, the
State And the County,

I Believe That\'s Involved Here, and the Forest Service, with
Multi‑agency Cooperation with

Good Monitoring, We Could Minimize Impacts. No Acec Plan Was Mentioned,
Even Though the

12 Miles of this Goes Through a Designated Acec. So We\'re Assuming That
Any Acec Plan That

Exists Would Also Address the Impacts of Such an Event since the Rmp
Dealt with It as Well.

All Right.

Caller: Okay. For the Administrative ‑‑ the Question Number 2 ‑‑

Yes, Administrative Procedures.

Caller: Administrative Procedures, of Course, We Mentioned We Would Hold
a Public Scoping

Meeting and Get All the Parties Involved Together and Go Ahead and
Prepare an EA and an

Unsigned FONSI and Send That out For Public Review in 30 Days. And We
Felt Again Through

this Process Through Analyzing the Impacts and Getting Everybody\'s
Opinions We Could

Determine Whether or Not an EIS Was Going To Be Necessary If We Wanted
to Step it up to

That next Level. And If EA Was Appropriate, We Would Sign the FONSI and
EA ‑‑ a FONSI

and Decision Record and Initiate the 30‑day Appeal Period.

Okay.

Caller: for the ‑‑ Question Number 3, Obviously We Would Tier to the Rmp
as the Previous

Group Mentioned. We Felt Also There Would Be Plenty of Information
Already Available That

We Could Incorporate by Reference Through The Three Wsa Effort and Any
Acec Plan That

Would Exist.

So You Assumed an Acec Plan Did Exist?

Caller: We Didn\'t Really Assume That, but If One Did Exist, We Felt
like an Action Like this

Would Be Addressed in It.

Okay.

All Right. Any Other Tools for Efficiency, Management or Scheduling
Considerations?

Caller: No. We Didn\'t Come up with Any More.

Okay.

Caller: We Were Wondering If We Were Going to Get a Lunch Break Today?

We\'ll End at 12:00.

Caller: Good. Thank You. It\'s Been a Good Training Session.

Appreciate That Very Much.

Thanks for Your Participation.

Did You Have Any Quick Wrap‑up?

Yes, a Quick Summary Here. Dave and Bill, Both Groups Did An Excellent
Job. The EA

Process Is, According to The Textbook Answer, If You Find That the
Thresholds Are Exceeded

For the Impacts Then You Want to Go into the EIS Process. You Both
Incorporated by

Reference. You Conclude with Public Review And Participation Because
There Is Controversy,

and You Worked Well with Other Agencies and Other Organizations. So
That\'s Very Good. One

of the Things I Did Like, Both of You Stated and It\'s a Good Point, You
Stated Your

Assumptions up Front. That\'s Important.

One of the Things That Was Kind of Brought up Is the Coordination and
Sharing of

Information. I Believe the Word \"Collaborative\" Was Used. That Kind of
Brings up Faca and

Gregg\'s Got a Lot Piece on That As We Move Farther On. So Let\'s Go to
Don in Casper.

Don, Are You There?

Caller: Yes.

How Are Things up in Casper Today?

Caller: Fall.

It\'s Fall? Okay. Now, You Guys Had the Case Study Of the Tallwood
Timber Sale. What Did

You Come up with for The Appropriate NEPA Documentation? I Understand
You Have a Lot of

Timber up There to Get Rid Of.

Caller: We Think the Appropriate NEPA Documentation After Doing the
Screening Process Is

an Environmental Assessment and Our Reasoning for That Is the Three
Units Were Contained in

the Rmp and its Associated Environmental Impact Statement. It\'s
Consistent with the Forest Plan.

We Feel That the Air Quality and The Recreation Issues Perhaps Can Be
Mitigated. The Wild and

Scenic ‑‑ or the ‑‑ Yeah, the River Has a Buffer Zone Already Included
with It. The Timbering

Will Use Existing Roads and the Spotted Owl Has Already Got a Protection
Zone For That, and

We Think That an Ea‑level Analysis Would Be Appropriate.

Thank You. What about Administrative Procedures and Documentation
Requirements?

Caller: for the Administrative Procedures We Would Do the Requirements
for an Ea‑level

Analysis, Incorporate Information by Reference, Tier If We Could, and We
Would Do the

Assessment in House. For the Requirements, We Would Do the Environmental
Assessment, A

FONSI, a Notice of Availability and a 30‑day Review, Followed by Record
of Decision and

Document Consultation with the Fish & Wildlife Service for the Spotted
Owl and Consult with

the Various Groups of Interest.

Wow! Okay. You Had an Ea, an Unsigned FONSI, We Had a ‑‑ Then We Had ‑‑
after the

Unsigned FONSI You Had\...

You Had Section 7 Consultation; Is That Right?

Yes.

Okay. Had Section 7. But Also Then You Had an No ‑‑

Caller: Notice of Availability for the Document And the 30‑day Review.

Right.

Caller: and Then a Record of Decision.

and a Decision Record.

Caller: Yeah.

Okay. Any Other Comments?

Caller: Not on That Particular One.

Okay. Well, Thank You, Don. Let\'s Move on ‑‑

Caller: Do I Get to Answer Question 3?

Sue I\'m Sorry.

You Have Won the Right, Indeed, Sir?

Caller: My Folks Here Are Very Miffed Because They Spent a Lot of Time
on It.

Go to Question 3. We Don\'t Want Miffed ‑‑

Caller: Question 3, We Would Tier, of Course, to the Resource Management
Plan and its

Associated Analysis in the EIS. We Would Reference and Incorporate
Information from the Wild

and Scenic River Study. We Would Incorporate Spotted Owl Information
from the Fish &

Wildlife Service. And Some Have Presumed That the Spotted Owl
Environmental Impact

Statement Would Be Available, And If So, We Would Tier to That. We
Would, of Course,

Reference And Tier to the Timber Management Plan. And We Would Take a
Look at Any

Appropriate Prior Forest Service Or BLM Documents That Dealt with This
Kind of Issue.

Great.

Sounds Very Thorough. We Don\'t Want to Miff Folks. We Appreciate All
Your Efforts.

You Bet. Absolutely.

Any Other Comments?

Caller: Not from Me, No.

Thank You, Don.

Caller: You\'re Welcome.

We\'re Going to Cedar City Now. Jet‑setting Around. Gina?

Caller: Hi. It\'s about 15 Degrees Colder Than St. George, as Usual.
It\'s about the Time

Everyone in Cedar Migrates That Way If Possible. We Would Do All the
Wonderful Things That

the Last Group Just Talked About, of Course, but One Thing We Would Do
up Front Is I Can

State this as a Geologist, Wildlife Has Very Uncomfortable Habit of
Moving about. So the First

Thing We Would Do Is to Check to See If the Rmp Is Still up to Date in
Terms of Where These

Species Are, Specifically the Spotted Owl. That Brings up a Good
Question That We\'ve Often

Had Here in Our Field Office Now, and That Is, Do You Go by Your Rmp as
Stated, Or

Especially on Something like Wildlife, If Habitat Has Changed, Really,
You Should Be Amending

the Rmps Before You Say That Action Is in Conformance With It. Is That
Not the Case?

Yeah. Wouldn\'t it Be?

I Apologize. I Was ‑‑

I Think So. I Think She Has a Really Good Point.

Gina, One of the Things to Look at When You\'re Using Your Referencing
to Your Rmp, You

Want to Be Sure Your Rmp Information Is up to Date. If It\'s Not
Consistent with What\'s on the

Ground, Then, Yes, You Want to Do Either an Amendment to the Rmp or Some
Other

Documentation to Show That You Have Additional Information To Consider.

Caller: Right. Or Modify the Cutting Units to Go Around the New Nesting
Areas. But That Is

Something I Think That Would Need to Be Addressed Up Front Because the
Rmp Was Done

Eight Years Ago.

Yes. You Want to Include Any Updated Information, Explain That to the
Public So They Will

Be Aware of What You\'re Doing.

Caller: Right. And You May Have to Modify Your Timber Units If Your
Species Areas Have

Changed. But Besides That We Would Basically Follow the Same Process as
the Last Group. Do

an EA First and from That Determine Whether a FONSI or an EIS Was
Appropriate and Then

Just Follow with Others Have Said Before, the EA Would Have a Public
Comment Period and

Just Go Through Those Standard Methods.

Okay. And You Covered ‑‑ Did You Have Anything Else in Tools for
Efficiency?

Caller: No. You Know, We Would Just Tier to The EIS or the Rmp and I
Have No Idea What

Rfas Are, but I Assume If You Have NEPA Documents You Would Tier to
Those. And If I May,

as a Little Quick Rabbit Trail, Housekeeping Thing, a Suggestion for the
Course, Is Maybe to

Have Us Little Last People Maybe Call in During the Case Study Before So
We Don\'t Have a

40‑minute Phone Bill. Just an Idea for Future ‑‑

Appreciate It. Appreciate Your Comment. Thank You Very Much. Take Care.
Just Recapping

the Tallwood Timber Sale Questions 1, 2 and 3, We\'re in Total Agreement
with You. The

Appropriate Level of NEPA Analysis Would Be an EA Tiered To the Rmp/EIS.
One of the

Reasons Is ‑‑ Just For Your Information, an Rfs Is A Reasonable
Foreseeable Management

Action. Reasonable Foreseeable Action Scenario Is Much like an Rfd,
Reasonable Foreseeable

Development Scenario. But Those Had ‑‑ We Assume Those Had Already Been
Addressed in

The Rmp/EIS So There Would Be Ample Information to Tier To. You Raise a
Very Good Point.

If There Was New Information, If The Core Area for the Spotted Owl or
the Nesting Area or the

Area Needed to Provide the Protection Changed, That Would Be New
Information. Possibly Plan

Amendment Would Be Needed to Make a Change in the Land Use Plan. We Also
Felt That

30‑day Public Review and Comment Period on the EA Would Probably Be
Appropriate In this

Case. As for Some Other Management Considerations, We ‑‑ in Addition to
Ones Mentioned,

Site‑specific Clearances, I Think We Talked about Some of Those.
Possible Seasonal

Restrictions. Prework Conference for the Timber Sale Itself. And, of
Course, Some Monitoring

And Evaluation Following to See If We\'re Achieving Our Goals and
Objectives. Anybody Else

Have Any Other Comments?

No.

No.

There Was Some Excellent Work Done out There. I Really Appreciate the
Efforts They Went

Through. Not an Easy Task on Short Notice. Lots of Good Work.

and We Appreciate All of You For Spending the Time on the Air With Us
and Responding to

These Questions. Tomorrow We\'re Going to Give Another 10 Offices an
Opportunity to Respond

to the Remaining Four Questions to Each Of These Case Studies. So I
Think It\'s Time to Move

on To the next Segment. We Did Get Some Comments and Clarifications on
Some of the Case

Studies That Were Handed to Me During the Session. If You Would Permit
Us, We\'ll Try to

Address These Tomorrow Morning During Our Case Study Review. So Back to
You, Doug.

Thanks for Some Great Answers. At Least You Thought You Were Tuning into
the Weather

Channel, This Is the NEPA Course. Please Remember That this Course Is an
Overview, and It\'s a

Refresher for Many of You Perhaps, but it Includes Important Material to
Review and To

Revitalize All of Us. As I Mentioned Yesterday, this Coming Year NTC
Will Be Broadcasting

Two More NEPA Courses, One on Ea‑level Analysis and One on EIS‑level
Analysis. These

Courses Will Be Covering These Topics in Depth. We Will Conclude Our
Discussion On the

Remaining Case Study Questions Tomorrow Morning. Questions 4 Through 8
Are Drawn From

the Course Material We Will Deliver this Morning. We Will Keep ‑‑ Please
Keep Your Eyes and

Ears Open for the Correct Answers. Now Francis and Bob Will Present The
Components of the

Environmental Analysis Process Shown on Page 29 of Your Green Book.
These Components Are

Determining The Scope, Alternatives, Critical Elements of the Human
Environment, Assessing

Environmental Consequences and Determining Significance. Francis Will
Lead Our Discussion

And Present the First Two Process Components.

Thanks a Lot, Doug. First of All, We\'ve Got a Lot of Faxes Yesterday
and We Certainly Weren\'t

Able to Answer Them All, And We Hope to Get to Them by Tomorrow, If at
All Possible, But in

the Meantime, We\'ve Come Up with Some Preliminary Answers For Virtually
All of the 80 or

Plus Ones We Received. Our First Answer Is Yes to a Lot Of the Faxes. We
Also Had Some

Nos. We Also Had Some Depends, and Some, It\'s Our Understandings.
Hopefully That Will Keep

You Guys Happy until Tomorrow. As Doug Mentioned, We Are Going To Be
Covering the

Components of Analysis. This Would Be Both for Whether It\'s an EA or
EIS. It\'s Appropriate

Going Through An Analytical Procedure. What Are Those Components. Doug
Mentioned We\'re

Going to Be Determining the Scope. I Will Be Covering That. Defining the
Proposal and

Alternatives. I\'ll Also Cover That Little Section. Bob\'s Going to Be
Covering the Consideration of

the Elements of The Human Environment. Assessing the Environmental
Consequences. And

Determining Significance. Before We Start Getting into an Analytical
Process, Maybe It\'s Best If

We Try to Define What That Is. Well, an Analysis Definition Is An
Examination of a Complex, its

Elements and Their Relations; or In Our Case a Statement of Such An
Analysis. So It\'s Doing

Both. It\'s Both Coming up with That ‑‑ Going Through That Analytical
Procedure and Then

Documenting The Results of That. The First Thing We Want to Put In ‑‑ or
Do in Any Type of

Analysis Is Clearly State Our Need. An Ea, for Instance, must Have a
Statement of Need. There\'s

‑‑ this Is in 40 Cfr 1508.9. It Shall Include a Brief Discussion for the
Need for the Proposal. Very

Similar but a Different Term, Naturally, than an EIS, Where We Have a
Purpose and the Need,

And, Again, These Are Not Negotiable. They must Be in These Documents.
What Do We Mean

by Purpose and Need? They Kind of Sound Similar. We\'ve Mentioned it a
Little Bit Before. In

Simple Terms, Need Means \"What Is Needed?\" So the Need Is What. And
the Purpose Means

\"Why Is it Needed?\" Recently One of My Daughters Was Married, and
Everybody Understood

the Purpose of the Wedding, but I Think There Were Few People That
Really Related To the

Need for the Wedding. And If You State These Clearly, This Will Help You
Define the

Reasonable Range of Alternatives For ‑‑ Whether You Do an EA or EIS.
Determining the

Scope\... On an Ea‑level Analysis You Can Save Money and Time Because
the Complexity of the

EA Will Depend On Your Assessment of the Scope. So You Want to Make Sure
the Material

That You\'re Going to Be Covering ‑‑ the Issues That You\'re Going to
Cover Are Relevant to the

Decisions You Need to Make. Don\'t Go off on Rabbit Trails And Scooping
it up into Too Many

Things to Make it Inefficient. Similarly on an EIS‑level Analysis, You
Go Through That Same

Type of Scoping Type of Thinking, but You Also Have a Very Formal
Requirement. You Have a

30‑day Period after Issuance of the Notice of Intent In the Federal
Register. Typically What You

Want to Do in Both of These Is Go Ahead and Work with Your Local Groups,
and Certainly You

Folks Inside the Agency, to Get a Pretty Good Idea of What\'s Going on
Before You Do Your

Formal Work. We Show That in Our Scoping Considerations, Which Would
Include Right up

Front, Identify The Issues, Concerns and Resources, And, Again, Do this
Informally, First. Don\'t

Just Jump out There with Kind of a Blank Stare. You Want to Have a Good
Idea of What

Decisions You Need to Make And What Are the Concerns and The Issues That
You\'re Going to

Have to Deal with. We Heard Earlier One of the Folks That Phoned in Said
Can This Proposal

Piggyback, Is the Term I Use. In Other Words, Are There Other Decisions
That You Need to

Make That You Can Put Together with These as a Time‑saver? What Criteria
Are You Going to

Use to Assess the Significance Of the Impact? Do You Have a Significant
Impact Or Not? Have

You Left Any Unresolved Conflicts as They Relate, of Course, to the
Issues? There Are Some

Conflicts That Are Going to Be Beyond the Scope That You Can\'t Resolve.
But If They Have

Something to Do With the Issues You\'re Trying to Address, If You Have
Some Unresolved

Conflicts, Take a Look at Your Alternatives. You May Want to Modify One
of Them. You May

Want to Create a New Alternative to Make Sure the Unresolved Conflicts
Have Been Dealt with.

And this We Had Heard a Lot of Chatter from the Folks out There. What Is
the Appropriate

Level of Public Involvement? You Get a Little Bit of Guidance In the Ceq
Regs under 1501.4 and

1506.6, But, Again, There Is No Magic Formula out There Where You Just
Get, Well, I Think

We\'re up to Three Pounds of Public Involvement. You Are the Best Person
to Gauge What Is the

Level of Involvement You Need. Well, What Information Is Needed For You
to Conduct Your

Analysis? And Is it Available? We Have a Tendency to Go with Existing
Information Whenever

Possible, and That\'s Wise, but You May Need to Go out and Secure
Additional Information as It

Relates to the Issues. Again, as it Relates to the Issues. Not Just Go
out and Get Information. I

Think We\'ve Learned Not to Do That Anymore and Go out and Get Unrelated
Information. And

Who Do You Need for the Interdisciplinary Approach? Are Those People
Going to Be Part of the

Core Team? Are They All Going to Be BLM Employees? Are You Going to Have
Folks from

Outside the Organization Participating as Part of Your Interdisciplinary
Team? You Know, What

Is Going to Be The Role of Those People? Other Considerations for
Scoping That We like to

Recommend, Anyway, Is ‑‑ Goes Back to Your Getting Available Information
or Going out and

Getting Other Information for Your Analysis. Determine Your Data Needs
Early. You Don\'t

Want to Get Quite a Ways down the Pike and Find out You Need Additional
Data. So Really

Give this a Little Bit Of Consideration Right up Front. And, Remember,
You Want Appropriate

and Sufficient Information. Don\'t Just Go out and Get a Bunch of
Information. You Want to

Identify Your Cooperating Agencies. And If They Are Going to Be
Cooperating Agencies, You

Want To Develop a Memorandum of Understanding or an Interagency
Agreement, and You\'ll

Find Some Help ‑‑ or the Actually the Requirement for That in Ceq Is
1501.6. You Also Want to

Determine Your Contracting Needs. We\'ll Be Going over Contracting Needs
a Little Bit More

Later On, but You Want to Figure Out, Do You Want to Do it in House?
Well, it Might Be

Cheaper, but You May Not Have the Staff Available. And Which Leads to
Our Last One. You

Want to Determine the Scheduling and Staffing Needs And Try Your Best to
Stick to It. We

Know It\'s Really Difficult For Those Folks out There Sometimes, but If
You Have That Identified

up Front, the Process Won\'t Wander on You. You Manage the Process. It
Won\'t Manage You.

The Development of Alternatives\... We\'re Obligated Both in an EA and
an EIS to Study

Appropriate Alternatives. And the Alternatives Really Are The Heart of
the NEPA Process

Because You\'re Going to Develop Those to Resolve the Issues That
You\'ve Identified and Help

You Reach a Good Decision. There Is No Magic Number of Alternatives. You
May Have Just

the Proposed Action in an Environmental Assessment. You Don\'t Have to
Have a No‑action

Alternative in an EA If You Feel It\'s Not Viable. You Are Required to
Have a No‑action

Alternative in an EIS. So Develop the Amount of Alternatives That Are
Reasonable To Assess to

Come up with a Decisions You Need to Make. And If You Are Going to
Develop Them Fully,

Make Sure You Treat Them All Equally. I Might Note on Treating
Alternatives Equally, Just

Because There Is Somebody out There in the Public That Has a Problem
with What You Propose

to Do, You Don\'t Have to Develop an Alternative to Appease One
Individual. You Develop

Those Alternatives To Go Ahead and Try to Resolve The Issues That You
Need to Analyze. In

Developing Alternatives, You Want to Describe the Proposal in Detail. In
Alternatives to

Proposed Action, You Want to Make Sure They Are Still Related to the
Proposal, That They

Will Resolve Those Issues You\'ve Identified. You Want to ‑‑ Going Back
to What Greg

Mentioned Just a Minute Ago, You Want to Always Consider What\'s
Reasonably Foreseeable

Actions Going On. It Helps Set the Atmosphere, If You Will, or the
Environment for Developing

Those Alternatives. You Want to Identify Mitigation Measures. Also, When
You Detail the

Proposal, You\'ll Want to Make Sure That You Put down a Very Specific,
as You Can, the

Location of It, and this Should Be Kind of a No‑brainer Type of Stuff.
Describe the Size and

Shape. You Would Be Surprised How Many People Will Be Fairly Vague on
Some of These,

Particularly Those Proposals That Come from Outside the Agency and Those
Folks out There

That Don\'t Have As Much Experience. You Want to Make Sure That You Have
a Pretty Good

Consideration Of the Equipment and Materials, You Know. It Makes a
Difference If You\'re

Talking about a Rubber Tired Loader Versus a Cat Going into An Area,
Perhaps. And You Want

to Make Sure That You Take into Consideration the Standard Procedures or
Previous Decisions.

You Know, That\'s Part of Your Decision Space That You\'re Going To Have
to Deal with. If

Those Decisions Have Already Been Made for You, Unless Something Has
Changed, Because

Times Do Change, You Want to Go Ahead and Bring Those Forward And
Reference Those. In

Developing Alternatives to The Proposed Action, Because That Was
Developing the Proposal,

Again, Make Sure That They\'re Appropriate to Meet the Purpose and Need
of the Proposal.

Again, No Action Is a Requirement in an EIS. More Often than Not it
Makes Sense to Discuss it

in an Ea, But it Is Not Required. It\'s Okay to Consider Those
Alternatives That Are Not Wholly

Within BLM Jurisdiction. At Least You Can Discuss Them If You Can Get an
Appropriate

Information, Even If You Don\'t Select Them. But it Shows What Would Be
‑‑ What Would Be

Required. Perhaps a Change in Policy, Some Kind of Change in Regulation.
You Know, You

Don\'t Want to Become a Clarence Darrow near The Potomac or Something
like That and Discuss

Changes and a Lot of Legislation, but Within Reason You May Want to
Discuss Those

Alternatives That Are Outside Existing BLM Policy or The Wherewithal of
BLM. And it Really

Makes Sense to Discuss Those Features That Are Common to All the
Alternatives So You Don\'t

Have to Say Them Over and over Again. Say Them Once and Move On. And
Sometimes it

Makes Sense to Mention Those Alternatives That Are Dropped from Detailed
Analysis. Perhaps

Somebody Did Recommend An Alternative. You Took a Look at and it Said,
You Know, this

Really Is Kind of A Tweak on One of Our Existing Alternatives We\'re
Considering, Or it Is Not

Reasonable for Whatever Rationale You Have. Just Treat it up Front and
Dismiss It. Don\'t Go

into Full Detailed Analysis. Well, Now We\'re Going to Switch On over to
Bob, and He\'s Going

To Be Talking about the Critical Elements of the Human Environment.

Thank You, Francis. From Personal Experience, it Is Clear That
Determining the Scope And

Developing Reasonable Alternatives Are Key to Minimizing Unneeded Work
and Heartburn.

Addressing Data Needs, Identifying Agencies, Contracting, Staffing,
Budget And Scheduling Are

Some of the Primary Considerations You must Remember. Now Bob Will Cover
Critical

Elements of the Human Environment, Assessing Environmental Consequences,
and Determining

Significance. Then We\'ll Take a 15‑minute Break and Go to the Phones.
Bob, You Wired Up?

Yes, Doug. Thank You. We\'ll Start Right In. Looking at the Components
of the Human

Environment, There\'s Three Of Them. There\'s a Physical Environment,
There\'s a Natural or

Biological Environment and the Social Environment. With the Social
Environment Part We\'re

Talking about the Relationship Between People and Their Environment and
Also Including in this

Area, as Mentioned a Few Times this Morning, the Economic Environment.
Specifically to the

Critical Elements of the Human Environment There\'s Several of Them to
Go Through. These Are

Items That You Consider When You\'re Preparing An EA or EIS to See If
There\'s Any Impacts

on These Items. First One Is Air Quality. The next One Is the Areas of
Critical Environmental

Concern, Or Acec Program. Cultural Resources. The Environmental Justice.
Environmental

Justice Is a New One on the List. It\'s One Start to Go Show up Now. Be
Sure and Look at That

Idea. If You Have Questions on That, Call Your State Office with ‑‑ As
Far as ‑‑ for Additional

Information. Farmlands, Both Prime and Unique. Floodplains, Native
American Religious

Concerns, Threatened Or Endangered Species, Wastes, Both Hazardous and
Solid. Some Other

Items on the List Are Water Quality, Both Drinking and Groundwater,
Wetlands, Riparian Zones,

Wild and Scenic Rivers And Wilderness. Now, in Your Desktop Reference In
the Green

Document on Page 33 You\'ll Find More Details for Each One of These.
You\'ll Also Find a

Citation for The Law ‑‑ or the Executive Order Where These Things
Originated. Let\'s Move next

into Assessing The Environmental Consequences. This Is an Important Area
Dealing with Impact

Analysis. In Your Class Exercises this Morning There Was a Lot of
Comments That Started off

with The Assumptions That Were Made To Impact Analysis. That\'s a Good
Way. That\'s the First

Step You Do. Define Your Assumptions You\'re Making for Impact Analysis,
and As You Get

into Your Assessment Process, Explain the Guidelines That You Used to Do
Your Assessment.

To Help People Understand Impact Analysis, We\'ve Created a Graphic
That\'s an Impact Analysis

Triangle. You Can See on the Bottom Part It Talks about the Affected
Environment or a

Description of That. Then It\'s Modified and Adjusted By Specific
Management Concerns.

Management Concerns about the Proposed Action. The Other Item That\'s
Needed Is The

Analysis Data. All Three of These Components Are Needed to Do Impact
Analysis. The Most

Difficult One by Far Seems to Be the Analysis Data Process. Let\'s Go
into a Lot More Detail On

That One. As a Definition for Analysis Data, It\'s a Statement Drawn
From Research, Professional

Judgment or Other Sources Depicting the Environmental Effects That
Resulted When a Given

Action Was Applied to a Given Set of Environmental Conditions. This
Statement Serves as a

Basis For Predicting the Impacts He Can Second ‑‑ Expected and When
Action Being Considered

Is Applied to the Affected Environment. Now, Let\'s Look at Some Sources
Of Analysis Data.

There Are Several of Them. As We Go Through the List You Will Find That
You\'re Familiar

With this List Already for the Most Part. There\'s Technical Research
Reports, Professional

Judgment Calls, Monitoring Reports. In Addition There\'s Study Results,
Professional Judgment,

Computer Model Results, Textbooks. Professional Judgment, We Had Some ‑‑
Some of Those

Calls Were Made this Morning in the Classroom Exercises. There\'s
Professional Articles,

Inventory Data, Symposium Papers And Proceedings and Historical Records.
Let\'s Talk a Little

Bit about Using Available Research, and It\'s a Large Amount of Research
From the Scientific

Community Can Be and Should Be Used in the BLM\'s Environmental Analysis
Process, and

Using the Applicable Research Is the Basis For ‑‑ Is the Basic Premise
for Environmental Analysis

and Tools Of the NEPA Process. Now, Using the ‑‑ Continuing on With the
Available Research,

it Says Although BLM Tate You a and Personal Experiences May Be
Supportable, Scientific

Research Based on Data Collected by Currently Accepted Scientific
Methods Will Be Viewed as

less Partisan and less Biased. In the Absence of Scientific Research,
Documented BLM Data And

Personal Experience May Be Used. All That Is Required Is That the Best
Available Data Be

Used. Analysis Does Not Have to Wait Until Research Is Conducted or
Completed. Continuing

on with the Using Available Research, There Are Some Places Where You
Can Find Sources for

this Data. The Wesfornet. It\'s a Literature Search That\'s At the
National Applied Resources

Sciences Center Library. They Subscribe to That. I\'ve Talked to Some of
Our Specialists That

Have Called in And They\'ve Gotten Real Good Results by Calling into
this. For Some That May

Be Not Familiar, this Is What We Used To Call the Denver Service Center.
For Those of You

Fortunate Enough to Have Them Available, Local and State College
Universities Libraries.

Department of Agriculture Range And Experiment Stations, State Agencies,
Department of the

Interior Library, Local Libraries and Epa Documents. Right Now in Your
Green Books, In Your

Green Handout Books, There Is an Appendix 4. Please Turn to That
Appendix in Your Book. I

Wanted to Show You Some Examples of How Research Is Used In Impact
Analysis. If You\'ll

Look at That Right Quickly, There\'s Two Examples There in Using
Available Research. The First

One Is by Frederick Sun and Harr. You Will Notice There Is a Conclusion
Statement. There Is a

Small Table That Talks about Harvest Systems, Denuded Area, Compact
Soil. Tables Are Very

Good in Presenting Data That Comes out Of Research Papers or Research
Reports. There\'s Also

Some ‑‑ Following That There\'s Proposal That Talks About the Three ‑‑
33,000 Acres Expected

Annual Harvest. Then There\'s Another Table Relative to That and How the
Harvest Has Taken

Place. Out of this You Can Find Direct And Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts. Then You Can Get

Both Quantitative and Qualitative Terms for Those Impacts. Look at the
next Page on the

Document and You Will Find, Here Is the Second Example of How Data Is
Being Used and It\'s

Talking about Broadcast Burns After Timber Harvesting. Again Notice
There Is a Table Used to

Display Data. Produces a Lot of Information Quickly. Again, You Can Come
One Direct, Indirect

and Cumulative Impacts, Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Now,
Using Available Research,

Continuing On, There Are Some Specific Points to Consider When Using
Available Research.

Clarity of Expression, Logical Thought Are Important in Explanation and
Are More Important

than the Length or Format of the Discussion of the Impacts. Avoid
Subjective Terms and Vague

Generalized Impact Topics. The Analysis Should Lead to a Pointed
Conclusion about the Amount

and Degree of Change (Impacts) Caused by the Proposed Action and
Alternatives. To the Extent

Possible, Note the Level of Certainty Associated With the Conclusions.
The Impact Analysis May

Be Either Organized by Alternative Or by Resource. Let Me Give You Some
Detail About this

Particular Type of Organization. I\'ve Hand Sketched Here Two Ways. The
First Way Is by

Alternative. Notice That ‑‑ in the Alternative Part, in the Alternative
Area on this Column Here,

Alternative 1, under That You Would List Air Quality with The Impacts
Associated with That,

Wildlife, Impacts Associated with That, Water, Impacts Associated with
That. Alternative 2,

Again, Air Quality, Wildlife and Water. Alternative 3, Depending on How
Many Alternatives You

Have ‑‑ That\'s One Way to Organize the Data. The Other Way to Organize
Your Data and

Impact Analysis Is by Resource. In this Area You Would Have Air Quality
First, Then You

Would List Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, And Then Explain the Impacts to Each
of the Alternatives on

the Air Quality. The next You Would Do Wild Wife, Alternatives 1, 2 and
3 Again. You Would

Explain the Impacts That Go with Those. Continuing on with Alternative
3. This Process in the

EA Preparation Is Not Too Important. Because the Eas Generally for The
Most Part Are Small

and Don\'t Go into this Detail. Environmental Impact Statements, It\'s
an Important Decision You\'ll

Have to Make. What You\'ll Find out in Working With the Documents, the
Ones You Read,

Especially for the Decision‑maker, as They Read ‑‑ Their Usual Concern
Is, If I Decide to Take

the Proposed Action or One of the Alternatives, What Kind of Impacts Am
I Going to Have on

The Environment? When You List Your Impacts by Alternative, You Get That
Kind Of

Information. What I Would Do, If There\'s No Big Reason to Conduct Your
Papers by Resource

Listings, Always Use Alternative Methods When You\'re Displaying Your
Impact Analysis. Types

of Impacts. That\'s the next Session We\'ll Move Right onto. Three
Types, Direct, Indirect And

Cumulative. Let\'s Talk a Little about the Detail in this Overview
Course About These Types of

Impacts. The Direct Impacts Are Caused by The Action, and They Are at
the Same Time and

Place as the Proposed Action. Indirect Impacts Are Also Caused By the
Action but They Occur

Late Inner Time and Are Farther Removed in Distance from the Impact and
They Are Reasonably

Foreseeable. Let Me Give You an Example of an Indirect Impact. This
Spring I Was Driving

Around In Fort Collins, Colorado. I Came ‑‑ Those of You That Have Been
in Fort Collins Know

There Is a Railroad Track Going North And South Through the Town. I Was
Stopped at the

Railroad Track Waiting for a Train to Cross. Turns out this Train Was a
Coal Train and I

Describe Them as 100‑unit Coal Train, That Means 100 Cars in the Train,
Going Through

Downtown Fort Collins. This Took a Long Time for Me, Waiting There,
Because I Was the First

Car in Line. This Was an Indirect Impact on An Area That Was Removed
from The Actual Direct

Impact Which Was Coal Mining. I Made the Assumption That this Was a
Train out of One of the

Coal Mines in Wyoming. A Lot of People Have Trouble With Working with
the Cumulative

Impacts. Let\'s Talk in More Detail about Those. A Definition for
Cumulative Impacts Would Be

That the Results from the Incremental Impact of the Action When Added To
Other Past, Present,

and Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions Regardless of What Agency
(Federal or Nonfederal

or Person Undertakes the Action) Cumulative Impacts Can Result From
Individually Minor but

Collectively Significant Actions Taken over a Period of Time. They
Involve past Actions That

Are Both Federal and Nonfederal And from Other Persons. There Are
Present Actions. Take this

into Consideration Also. Federal, Nonfederal, Other Persons. This Would
Include the BLM

Proposed Action. The Reasonable Foreseeable Actions Also Include
Federal, Nonfederal and

Other Persons. Many People ‑‑ We Get a Lot of Questions on the
Reasonable Foreseeable

Actions Process. Let\'s Look at That Just a Little Bit. It Includes the
BLM Authorized Actions,

Related Actions of Others That Are in That Area, You Apply the Rule of
Reason. In the

Definition for this Rule Of Reason Is Basically Almost Like it Sounds.
Is: Does That Sound

Reasonable? Let Me Give You an Example of Something That Was Not. I Got
Faced with it Here

Several Years Ago. Someone Wanted Kind of an Alternative Developed That
Would Include

What Would Be the Additional Forage Production on BLM Land If We Could
Sprinkler Irrigate

All of the Area. Well, That Turned out to Be Not A Reasonable Proposal.
The Reason Is We

Didn\'t Have the Water and We Didn\'t Have the Money to Purchase the
Equipment For Something

like That. You Document the Reasonable, Foreseeable Actions and the
Cumulative Effects in

Your EA or EIS. Let\'s Move Now to the next Section, Mitigation
Measures. They Fall into

Several Categories. Avoiding Impacts. They Also Minimize Impacts. They
Can Rectify Impacts.

They Can Reduce or Eliminate Impacts over Time. They Can Have
Compensation for Impacts,

Off‑site Compensation Basically. There\'s Two Types of Design ‑‑
Mitigation Measures. One Is

the Design Features of The Proposal or Other Alternatives. Another Is
the Mitigation Measures

Adopted by Decision. Now, the Ones Adopted by Decisions Are the Ones
That Fall Out at the

End of the EA or EIS Process. Let\'s Look at Design Features Right
Quick. I Can Remember a

Project That Was a Pipeline ‑‑ by Name this Was a Mapco Pipeline. The
First One. It Went

Through Four BLM States, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Ended
up in North And

West Kimmerer Wyoming. As We Were Getting into the Design of That
Proposed Action, The

Company Had a Proposal ‑‑ it Went Through Moab, Utah. They Went North.
They Wanted to

Follow ‑‑ I Think It\'s the Western Pipeline That Goes Through Archer\'s
National Monument. The

Monument ‑‑ I Think it Was The Monument ‑‑ it Was a Monument at That
Time. We Checked

into the Field. Sure Enough There Was a Pipeline There. It Was Well
Marked like Any Other

Pipeline That Goes on BLM Land. We Discouraged the Company from Trying
to Keep That as

Part of Their ‑‑ as Part of Their Proposed Action. Mainly Because We
Knew There Would Be a

Lot of Opposition From the Park and We Didn\'t Want To Try to Have to
Analyze Those Impacts

in Our EIS. The Park Service Also Did Not Want the Pipeline Going
Through There. As We

Talked to the Company, They Agreed to Make a Change. They Agreed to
Change the Design

Feature of Their Proposal. They Decided to Go ‑‑ Went Ahead North of
Moab, Following a

Parallel up the Canyon, next to The Highway. In the Negotiations for
this Change, the Company

Asked That We Include in the Document a Paragraph That Said it Was Going
To Cost the

Company an Extra Million Dollars to Make this Change, and We Did That.
We Agreed to That

Part of It. In Your Interdisciplinary Teams, A Lot of Times You Come up
with A Discussion

about What Is Significant and What Is Not Significant. We\'re Going to
Give You a Method Of

Determining Significance and Resolving Those Discussions. In Ceq at
1508.27 There\'s Discussion

on Significance. It Includes Context and Intensity. Now, in the Context
Part, Let\'s Look at That.

It\'s Analyzed in Several Contexts Such as the Society as A Whole, the
Affected Region, The

Affected Interest, the Locality. It Varies with the at the Timing
Setting Every the Proposed

Action. It Could Be Site Specific, Regional, Resource Area Wide. When
You Do That, Take

Both the Short and Long‑term Effects. Be Sure That You Consider Those,
Because They\'re

Relevant. Regarding Intensity and Determining Significance, There\'s
Several Points Here to

Consider. The Impacts May Be Both Beneficial or Adverse. The Degree to
Which the Proposed

Action Affects the Public Health And Safety. Another Measure of
Intensity Is The Unique

Characteristics, the Geographic Areas Such as the Historical or Cultural
Resources, Parklands,

Prime Farmlands, et Cetera. The Degree to Which the Affects Are Likely
to Be Highly

Controversial. Additional Points to Look at in Determining Significance
and the Intensity Is the

Degree to Which The Possible Effects Are Highly Uncertain or Unique or
They\'re An Unknown

Risk. The Degree to Which an Action May Establish a Precedent for Future
Actions Which

Significantly Affect or Represent a Decision in Principle about a Future
Condition. A Few More

Items Here. Whether the Action Is Related to Other Actions with
Individually Insignificant but

Cumulatively Significant Impacts. The next One Is the Degree to Which
the Actions May Be

Adversely Affected ‑‑ Affect the Districts, the Sites Listed in Or
Eligible for the National Register

of Historic Places or May Cause Loss or Destruction of Significant
Scientific, Cultural Or

Historical Resources. The Last Two, the Degree to Which the Action May
Adversely Affect an

Endangered Species or Threatened Species or its Habitat That Has Been
Determined To Be

Critical under the Esa of 1973. And Whether the Action Threatens To
Violate Federal, State or

Local Laws or Requirement Imposed for the Protection of The Environment.
This List, by the

Way, Is in Your Desktop Reference. It\'s on Pages 36 and 37. Another
Item Is Using Thresholds.

Thresholds as a Definition, It\'s A Level or a Point or a Value Above
Which Something Will Take

Place and below Which it Will Not. There Are Some Characteristics To
Thresholds. These,

Usually Defined in Quantitative Terms. We\'re Talking about Very
Specific Numbers. As the

Thresholds must Be Supportable. You Need Data and Documentation For
this. Generally

Accepted by the Scientific Community. Keep These Characteristics in Mind
for Just a Second.

Key Consideration\... There\'s New Requirement to Identify Thresholds in
Your EA or Your EIS.

Thresholds Are Not Flexible. If You Do Them, Use Them, If You Exceed the
Threshold, Then

You Have to Change Your Proposed Action. So Those Do Not Take Place. You
Want to Be

Sure All the Characteristics We Previously Mentioned Apply. I Found a
New Twist Last Year on

The Use of Thresholds. This One Involved a Proposed Action for a Mine
Plan Amendment. The

Third Party Contractor Process. In Our First Meeting with the Contractor
after it Was Identified

and Selected, the Contractor Proposed That They Do Threshold Analysis,
Impact Analysis, in the

EIS That They Were Going to Prepare. In Talking with the Resource
Specialist in the District and

The Resource Area, We Found That This Data Did Not Exist. As a Result We
Denied the

Company the Opportunity to Do Threshold Analysis Because it Was a ‑‑
There Was a Lack of

Data. What Would Have Happened Is the Company Would Have Had to Collect
Data Before

They Could Do the Impact Analysis, and this Would Vastly Elevate the
Cost of The EIS and it

Would Also Increase the Scheduled Length of Time Considerably. We Wanted
to Avoid Both of

Those. A Final Thought\... When You Can, Be Sure and Tier To Significant
Impacts That Are

Already Discussed in Proposed Rmp/fEIS or Programmatic EISs. We All Know
What the

Rmp/EISs Are. Programmatic There Is Two We Can Think Of. One Is
Vegetative Treatment on

BLM Land You Can Refer To. The Other Is the Northwest Area Noxious Weeds
Control

Program EIS. Doug, That\'s All I Have.

Thanks, Bob. We Will Be Taking a Shorter Break than What We Advertised
When We Come

Back We Will Be Going to the Phones to Answer Your Questions. If You
Have Something

Would You Like to Discuss, Give Us a Call During the Break, and We Will
See You in 10

Minutes Rather Than 15. Okay? 10 Minutes. Thank You.

Welcome Back to Our NEPA Broadcast. We\'re Going Right to the Phones Now
to Hear from

You. So Start Dialing. Of Course, You May Send Us a Fax At Any Time.
Francis, We Don\'t

Have Any Callers on the Line Yet. Maybe They Didn\'t Listen to Our
Admonition That They Only

Take Five ‑‑ a 10‑minute Coffee Break And to Discuss this Course Amongst
Themselves While

They Were out Grabbing a Cup of Coffee. We Do Have a Couple Faxes We Got
In. Here One

from Casper. It Deals with Scoping and EA and EIS‑level. There Was Quite
a Bit of Discussion

on Scoping Yesterday. It Appeared That Scoping Is Only Applicable to an
EIS. Perhaps We

Should Distinguish Public Scoping as Depicted in The Green Book, Page
17, as a Formal Part of

an EIS Process From the Determination More Informal as Found at Page 15
of The Green Book

of the Scope of The Analysis for an Ea.

Well, I Think That\'s an Excellent Question. Scoping, with a Small \"S\"
Kind Of Generic Scoping,

Whatever, You Are Trying to Determine What The Scope Is of the
Environmental Analysis

You\'re Going to Do, Whether It\'s an EA Or EIS. So You Want to
Determine What That Scope

Is. Formal Scoping, You\'re Absolutely Right. I Call That Scoping with a
Capital \"S.\" As I

Showed on One of the Elmo Cards, There You Are Dealing With the Formal
Requirements of An

EIS That Specifically Mention The Ceq Regs. Does That Pretty Much Cover
it There, Bob?

Yeah, Also Keep in Mind There\'s Internal Scoping Which You Do Within
Your Agency. There

Is Scoping That Can Take Place with Other Agencies, Federal, State,
County, Local. Sometimes

Cities. Then There Is the Outside Scoping, Especially with the Publics
That We Do. So Basically

There Is Internal And External Scoping to Take Into Consideration.

Okay. A Fax in from Holly in Salt Lake. She Sends a Question In. Ceq
Regulations at 1508.27‑5

Specify Significance and Includes the Degree to Which Possible Effects
Are Controversial but

Not Public Controversy Involved. Public Controversy Is Often an
Emotional Response. What

Guidelines Exist, If Any, That Guide Managers in Determining When Public
Controversy Should

Trigger an EIS?

That\'s Excellent. Did You Want to Say Something?

Let Me Try Some of That for Holly. In Reviewing One of the Things We
Discussed Yesterday

Was the Fact That If a Proposed Action Is Highly Controversial, That\'s
One of the Areas That

Can Trigger an EIS. What We Found in Some of Our Projects Where We\'ve
Gone EA First and

Then Turned Around and After We Have Gone Through an Ea, Went to Ibla,
Came Back and

Then Do an EIS. This Has Happened to Us a Couple Of Times. If We Are ‑‑
What I Call the

Gray Zone, If There Is a Lot of Discussion, Especially about the Public
Controversy Part of It,

We Usually Let the Resource Area Make the Call on Whether They Want to
Do an EIS to Start

out With or Just Do a Regular Ea If They Think They Can Use an EA And
Get by Sufficiently

with That. The Call Is a Judgment Call. It\'s Made Normally by Your
Experienced Personnel

Within the Office. I Guess That\'s about the Closest Explanation We Can
Give for You.

Well, Gentlemen, We Have a Call from Greg in Salt Lake. Let\'s Go to
That. Greg, Are You with

Us?

Caller: Hello?

Hi, Greg.

Caller: Hi. I Just Wanted to Call and Ask a Question about Determining
Significance.

Yes, Sir?

Caller: We Have All These Criteria for Determining Significance and I
Would like to Know

Whether That\'s up to Management to Use Those Criteria In the Record of
Decision or Whether

That\'s the Analyst That Will Use That Criteria and Make Statements on
Significance in The Body

of Documents.

If You Don\'t Mind Me Clarifying Your Question, Greg, When You Say
Significance, You\'re

Talking about Determination like in a FONSI?

Caller: Well, on Page 36 of The Green Book Are Listed Several
Suggestions on Identifying

Whether or Not Something Is Significant.

Okay. Got You.

Caller: Now, Is it up to the Analyst in Doing the Analysis to Say That
an Impact Is Significant

Because of One of These Reasons? Or Do We Leave That to the Manager to
Use These Criteria

as He Writes the Record of Decision Or Decision Record and Make the
Determination on

Significance? I Guess Basic Question Is: Sit Up to the Manager or the
Analyst To Determine

Significance?

I Think the Answer to Both Questions Is Yes. You Want Your Analyst and
Resource Specialist

to Look at The Data That They Have, the Impact and the Proposed Action,
And Then Using the

Definition in The Ceq There, Determine If There Is Any Significant
Impacts. Also You Want to

Discuss this With Your Managers in the Process and this Is the Normal
Evolution of Impact

Analysis to Show What\'s Going on in the EIS As You\'re Doing Your
Impact Analysis.

Well, Yesterday Gregg Simmons Said We Shouldn\'t Use These Kinds of
Words Surrounding the

Impact, Just Describe the Impact And Let the Managers Decide What Is
Significant.

Absolutely. That\'s Why I Asked the Question, Greg, If We\'re Talking
about a FONSI. Because

That Is, Again, Something That\'s Signed. If We\'re Talking about Doing
an Ea‑level Analysis, a

FONSI Is Signed by the Responsible Official and That Typically Is The
Field Manager, and So

That Person Is Going to Be Making That Determination Based on Your
Recommendation. So If

There Is a Finding of Significance, of Significant Impact, Then an EIS
Is Going to Be Required. I

Think ‑‑ Bob Was Absolutely Right When He Said, I Think ‑‑ Yes to Both.
An Analyst, a

Resource Specialist, Will Take a Look at Something, and He\'ll Say,
Well, You Know, this Is

Going to Be Impacting My Resource Concern This Way, and I Feel, Based on
The Analysis I

Have Gone Through, My Assumptions for the Analysis, Have Gone Through
All The Scoping

and Taken a Look at A Lot of Concerns, this Is Going To Be a Significant
Impact. Well, Sure,

You Don\'t Want to Discuss it in the Text as Saying, \"And this Will Be
a Significant Impact\"

Without Getting That Manager on Board. I Don\'t Know. Is There Anything
More about That,

Bob?

Yeah, That\'s Fine, Francis. Let Me Give You One Example of An Impact
That Twisted on Me in

An EIS. It Came out of this Mapco Pipeline Discussion. The Person Doing
the Impact Analysis

on Vegetative Treatment Came up after He Analyzed the Pipeline and All
the Ancillary Facilities,

and He Came up with Over 6,000 Acres of Total Surface Disturbance for
That Pipeline. His

Immediate Reaction Was That Was a Significant Impact to the Environment.
As We Analyzed the

Impacts on Other Resources from the Removal Of That Vegetation During
the Pipeline

Construction, We Found Out That in No Cases Were There Any ‑‑ Were Any
of the Impacts Big

Enough to Cause Any Change In Actions. For Example, We Asked Ourselves
The Question,

Well, as this Pipeline Goes Through Each Grazing Allotment, If There Is
Loss of Vegetation,

How Many Aums Are Going to Be Taken off The Grazing Permit for That
Allotment. The

Responses We Got from Test Samples with Area Managers Was None. So We
Concluded There

Were No Impacts Significant. What Appeared at First Significant, after
Analysis Turned out to Be

Not Significant.

Right. Again.

Again, These Statements of Significance of Impacts Are Going to Be the
Position of the Agency,

and Impact, I Guess, Is What You See Depends on Where You Sit. So Try to
Stay Away from

Those Kind of Qualitative Types of Adjectives like a Moderate, Slight,
Significant Impact That\'s

Beneficial or Adverse. That Is a Personal Judgment, and You Certainly
Should Have Personal

Judgments, but You Probably Don\'t Want to Put Those In the Document,
Because It\'s Going to

Be the Position of the Agency ‑‑ after All, If Bob and I, for Instance,
Are Working on Something

and We Want to Cut Down a Couple of Trees and I Say, Oh, but Those
Trees, You Know, like

Those Are like an Embodiment of the Wholly Spirit As Far as I\'m
Concerned, and He Says, Well

‑‑ So That\'s a Bad Impact as Far as I\'m Concerned, And He Says Money
in Them, and He Says,

Well, I Don\'t Think That\'s Spit. You Know, What You See Depends On
Where You Sit. So Try

to Keep Away from Those Adjectives and Just Say There Is An Impact.
It\'s an Economic Impact.

It\'s ‑‑ You Know, Whatever Those Factors of the Human Environment Are.
Try to Stay Away

from Qualifiers, at Least in the Document. You Certainly Entitled to
Your Own Personal Opinion

and You Should Bring That Forward to the Decision Maker, but Remember
You Are

Representing the Agency\'s Position. Does That Help, Greg, or Have We
Completely Confused

You?

Caller: I Think What You Are Saying Is Probably Correct for Ea‑level
Analysis but it Seems To

Me There Is No Need to Even Put These Determining Significance
Guidelines in Here If We\'re

Not Going to Use Them In the Analysis in an EIS, and I Think It\'s All
Right to Say Significant as

Long as We Follow That with Because it Would Violate Federal Law,
Because This Would Be a

Very Large Area That\'s Important Scientifically, Or at Least Qualify
Why It\'s Significant as Part

of the Analysis Itself in an EIS Where Significant Impacts Can Be Found.

That\'s Right. There Are Some Impacts That Are Automatically ‑‑ They
Automatically Conclude

They\'re Significant Impacts.

Thanks for Joining Us, Greg. We Appreciate It. There\'s a Follow‑up Fax
Here That Came in

That I Think Lends Itself to Just the Discussion That We Just Had. It
Comes in from Oregon.

This Is Directed to You, Bob. It Says: I Feel It\'s Important To Stress
Warning What I Call a

\"Fonasi.\" Most of Our Actions Are Now Implemented under the Umbrella
Of a Land Use Plan

EIS and Possibly a Programmatic EIS. It\'s Important to Phrase Our FONSI
Determinations in a

Way That Recognizes this. Then We Won\'t Say That a Timber Sale Has No
Significant Impacts.

We\'re Saying That it Has No Additional Significant Impacts, Or
\"Fonasi.\" Okay? From Those

Impacts That Are Already Analyzed in an Umbrella EIS, He Contends That
this Would Reduce

Confusion Internally and With the Publics. And We Couldn\'t Read the
Bottom Of the Fax. It

Didn\'t Come In. But I Think We Might Have a Little Discussion on That.

Okay. Thanks, Jerry. The Word FONSI Comes out of the Legislation, If I
Remember Right, and

it Is a Term That We Use Consistently Throughout Our Material for NEPA
Compliance. In All

Cases, Though, If You Feel like You Need Additional Information or You
Want to Create

Additional Information to Pass onto the Public in Your Discussions,
It\'s Okay to Do That. Be

Sure and Explain it in Detail Of Why It\'s There and How You Expect to
Use it as Part of the

Process. If You Add an Additional Word in There as You Add the Word
\"Additional\" into the

FONSI Statement, That\'s Correct, Be Sure You Make That Explanation When
Preparing Your

Document.

plus the Ceq Guidelines under 1508.9 Call for a FONSI. You Have Made a
Determination There

Is No Additional Impact.

We Have Another Fax in from The Milwaukee District Office, And this
Addressed Again to

Bob. How Can the Level or Intensity Of Significance Be Determined
Without Doing Threshold

Analysis, and Is Threshold Data Optional ‑‑ this Is Very Confusing.
Could You Clarify That?

Yes, Threshold Data, There Is No Requirement for it in the NEPA
Documents. In the Early

History of Our NEPA Documents, There Was a Requirement for Threshold
Documentation.

We\'ve Gotten Away from That, Mainly Because of the Expense of
Determining Numbers and the

Quantification for It, it Was Very Difficult to Do That. In Dealing with
It, Most Often You\'ll Find

That in Your Resource Areas, You Do Not Have Enough Data to Do Threshold
Analysis. You

Do Not Have the Money to Go Out and Do the Research and Appropriation of
Field Reviews To

Collect Data That You Need to Determine What Threshold Numbers Would Be.
One Easy

Example We Used to Use Is Deer Winter Herd Acreage and Deer Winter Herd
Numbers, Using

Thresholds to Define What Those Are, and You Find When the Deer Herd Has
Been Hunted Too

Much, The Numbers Are Down, the Idea That Now We Have Surpassed the
Threshold, We\'ve

Killed Too Many Deer, the Hard Winters Have Been Bad on Them, Therefore,
We Need To Quit

Hunting this ‑‑ the Deer Herd. We Also Need to Start Expanding The Deer
Winter Range, Which

Is Normally a Limiting Criteria for Deer Winter Herds. The Use of
Thresholds Is Not Normally

Done ‑‑ in Fact, I Have Seen Very Few Documents Now That Have Any
Reference to

Thresholds. So That\'s a Judgment Call in Your Preparation of Your
Documents. If You Have the

Data and You Feel Comfortable Using Them and Can Document Appropriately,
We Suggest You

Do That. If You Don\'t Have That Kind of Data, It\'s Not Required That
You Do It.

Thank You. We Have a Clarification from Yesterday. This Fax Comes in
from Carolyn In

Casper, and it Reads: Yesterday it Was Said That BLM Does Not Make
Decisions on Private

Land and Perhaps Not on State Land. She Points out That Because of The
Mineral Estate under

Private And State Lands BLM Does Decide How Those Lands Are Utilized.
Would You Please

Expand?

Split Estate Stuff, Geo Thermal, Oil and Gas, Whatever.

in the Spirit Split Estate ‑‑ This Always Crops up in the Minerals
Program. The One Thing That

You Take into Consideration Is If the Proposed Action ‑‑ If There Is an
Authorization for BLM

to Sign, And That Authorization Is Going To Include, Say, Crossing a
Pipeline Across Surface

That\'s Nonfederal Surface, Then You Have to Include in Your Impact
Analysis a Discussion of

What Those Impacts Are, Even Though It\'s Nonfederal Surface. We Cannot
Grant Any

Rights‑of‑ways Across Private Land and We\'re Not Anticipating Ever
Approaching That. It\'s Not

the Policy of the BLM. We Can Identify the Impacts That Would Occur,
That Would Be

Expected to Occur, and in Discussions, We Can Help with The
Understanding by the Person That

Has Control of That Land. Now, Let Me Give You an Example. 345 Kv Power
Line I Was

Working With One Time Crossed a Lot of BLM Land. We Had a Laundry List
of Stipulation Oz

These Folks During Their Construction and During Their Maintenance after
Construction Was

Completed. We Talked it over. This Was in Southern Utah. At That Time
the Rancher That Had

the Grazing Lease, the State Land Office Deferred to Him for Any Kind of
Stipulations That

Would Occur on the State Lands, Which this Same Power Line Crossed.
Well, We Talked to the

Rancher And Asked Him What He Was Going To Require. His Response
Immediately Was, I

Don\'t Know, What Are You Going To Require, Basically, from the BLM? And
We Explained to

Him What These Were. He Said, Those Sound Good to Me. I\'ll Just Require
the Same Things.

And He Got a Copy of Our Stipulations, and the Company Just Proceeded
Right along. It Was

the Same ‑‑ Same Basic Characteristics. The Company Was Happy. They
Didn\'t Have to Change

with Different Land Owners. But You Have to Take Those into
Consideration When You Do

Impact Analysis.

Thanks, Bob. We Have Time Just for One More Fax. Another One from
Milwaukee. For a

Controversial Proposal, Francis, Should the Interdisciplinary Team
Attempt To Involve the Public

During the Alternative Formulization Process or Would it Be Best to Wait
for Comments During

the Public Review Period? Again, That\'s Going to Be a Judgment Call. I
Wish I Could Give You

a Straightforward Answer. I Guess Going Back to That Blue Sheet, It\'s
Not Yes or No, but It\'s a

\"Depends.\" You Want to Make Sure That You Get Them Involved. If You
Feel There Are Folks

That Have Been Involved with You on Similar Discussions in the past Or
Actions and They Can

Offer Reasonable Input to Develop Alternatives, Sure, Go Ahead and
Involve Them as Part of the

I.d. Team, If You\'re Not ‑‑ If You\'re Feel They\'re Really Not up to
Speed Working with BLM,

You Probably Only Want to Give Them An Opportunity ‑‑ Maybe Chat With
Some of the Folks

as Part Of the Scoping and Get Them Involved That Way and Not Make Them
Part of the I.d.

Team. So You Will Have to Make That Judgment Based on Your Experience
with That

Particular Organization or Individual and Plus Their Experience with BLM
In Similar Proposed

Actions or Proposals.

Thank You Very Much for Your Participation. It Really Makes this Job a
Lot Easier When

You\'re Tuned In. We\'ll Now Move into a Session on Exploring the Key
Aspects of Informed

Decision‑making. Remember That the National Environmental Policy Act of
1970 Has Proven to

Be the Most Important and Far‑reaching Environmental and Conservation
Measure over ‑‑ Ever

Enacted by Congress. This Landmark Legislation Has Been Replicated by 25
States Here in

America and 80 Countries Around the World. Perhaps NEPA\'s Most
Important Contribution Is

Opening Government Decision‑making to Its Citizens, Involving the Public
in the Scoping

Process And the Review and Comment Periods Is Central to Informed
Decision‑making. This Is a

Process That Works Both Ways. This Jeffersonian Idea That Citizens
Should Be Active in

Shaping Their Government Is Ever Important and Critical to Important to
the Process. The

NEPA Process Is Intended to Help Officials Make Decisions Based on
Environmental

Consequences and Take Actions That Protect, Restore and Enhance the
Environment. We\'ll Now

Turn Our Attention to The Issues of Consultation, Coordination and
Public Involvement. These

Principles Are Based on Good Communication, Writing, Talking and
Listening to Others Are Key

to Informed Decision Making. I Might Point out That One of Our Speakers,
Instructors, Glenn

Carpenter, Was an Area Manage Inner Bakersfield. He and Other BLM
Specialists Developed a

Public‑private Partnership with Industry, Environmental Groups and the
Public to Establish a

World Class Conservation Laboratory on The Carizo Plains. Take it Away,
Glenn.

Thanks a Lot, Doug. I Appreciate It. Appreciate the Plug for Carizo
Plains and All of Those

Folks Out There in the Caliente Resource Area or Bakersfield Resource
Office Are Doing a Great

Job with Their Efforts. Informed Decision Making Is Kind Of a Cute
Phrase. An Important

Phrase. What it Amounts to Is Anyone Who Doesn\'t Try to Understand All
of The Information

Available from All Sources Is Taking a Risk, And a Prudent Manager and
Prudent Resource

Specialist Shouldn\'t Be Taking That Risk. There\'s a Great Deal of
Information Not Available to

BLM, and the Information That We Can Derive from as Many Sources As
Possible Will Certainly

Help Us with Our Decision Making. I\'ll Be Covering Consultation,
Coordination and Public

Involvement in My Particular Part of this Presentation. Now, According
to Regulation, BLM

must Integrate its NEPA Requirements with Other Environmental Reviews
and Consultation

Requirements to Reduce Paper Work. That\'s Pretty Clear. That\'s Right
out of Ceq. As We Look

at the Term Consultation That You Can See on Your Screen Right Now,
These Are Three of the

Laws Actually That Are Important for Us to Consider As We Go Through the
NEPA Process.

With Regard to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, That\'s
Incredibly Important as Some of

Our Discussion Earlier Today Has Identified. We must Use High‑quality
Information in Any

NEPA Analysis. Scientific Analysis from BLM or Elsewhere, Expert Agency
Comments as Well

as Providing For the Public Information to Be Obtained Is a Big Part of
Our NEPA

Responsibility. Jurisdictional Considerations Also Require That We
Consult Appropriately with

Other Federal As Well as State Agencies. And with Regard to the Section
7 Consultation

Requirements, the Fish & Wildlife Service Is the Agency Which Has Been
Delegated

Responsibility for the Administration of That Particular Act. BLM Is
Directed to Ensure That Its

Actions Do Not Jeopardize The Continued Existence of Any
Federally‑listed Species. In

Addition, BLM must Determine Whether a Proposed Action May Affect, and
That\'s Kind of a

Key Phrase, May Affect a Listed or Proposed Species. If the Action May
Affect a Listed Species,

We must Begin The Consultation Process under Section 7 of the Act.
BLM\'s Policy Is Also to

Consider The Effects of Proposed Actions On Federal Candidate and State
Listed Species and

Their Habitats. I Know There Are Some States That Have Developed
Supplemental Guidance

and There Will Be Some Lack of Consistency or Uniformity, I Guess,
Throughout The Bureau

Because of That Localized Guidance in the States. It\'s Wise to
Coordinate with State Agencies on

Potential Impacts of the State Listed Species and Know There Are Some
Conservation

Organizations That Work Closely with States and Have Their Own Lists
They Have Developed

Which Generally Have Been Endorsed by the State Agencies That They\'re
Working With. Now,

Another Type of Consultation That You See on the Overhead Is the
Cultural Resources, with

Regard to the Section 106 Consultation. Any Actions Which Involve
Cultural Resources must

Pass Through the Scrutiny Given by Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.

Managers must Ensure That Information on Native American Religious and
Cultural Issues

Receives Good Faith Consideration During Decision‑making. BLM Decisions
must Not Unduly

or Unnecessarily Burden the Pursuit Of Traditional Religion or Life
Ways. BLM Should Consult

with Native Americans Whenever the Responsible Official Determines That
the Nature or

Location of a Proposed Action or Land Use Could Affect Native American
Interests or Concerns.

Such Consultation Should Be Initiated by BLM. Don\'t Rely on Public
Notices in The Federal

Register. Don\'t Rely on Local Newspapers To Initiate Such Consultation.
The Best Way to

Conduct this Consultation Is in Person. With Regard to Coordination,
Coordination Is a

Requirement to Make Sure That We Don\'t Conduct Our Activities in the
Dark or in A Vacuum or

Anything Else You Want to Call it like That Without Giving Appropriate
Consideration to the

Concerns of Other Governmental Entities, Whether That\'s Other State or
Local Interests. The

Type and Level of Coordination Needed or Desired Is Determined During
the Scoping Process

for the EIS and When Determining the Scope of the Ea. Just a Little Bit
of an Aside There, You

Talked about the Carizo Plain. That Was an Outstanding Effort With
Consultation and

Coordination Both, as Well as Public Involvement in General. What We
Were Able to Do with

That Was Bring Together a Coalition, You Could Almost Say, Which
Considered All of the

Interests of All of the Parties Involved and Came up with a Win‑win
Situation Where There Was

Endangered Species Habitat Protected and the Fish and Wildlife Service
Did a Number of

Innovative Things During this Period of Time in Changing the Regulations
and Working with All

Of the Affected Interests. There Were Mineral Interests Involved as Well
as the Endangered

Species, and the Consultation Process Was Excellent. We Were Able to
Acquire a Very

Significant Cultural Resource Which Was Important to the Native
Americans. So You Want to

Talk Win‑win. It\'s More than Just Win‑win. There Were Lots of Wins
Involved In That. And the

Public Was a Gigantic Winner Because of the Additional Protection
Afforded Some Very

Significant and Very Unique Resources. But it Was All Through this
Particular Process That

We\'re Talking about Right Now, and That Is Consultation, Coordination
and Public Involvement.

The Guidance That We Have from The Bureau as Well as Those ‑‑ Or That
Which We Generate

in Rmps as Well as Our Plan Amendment Shall Be Consistent With
Officially Approved or

Adopted Resource Related Plans And Policies of Other Federal, State and
Local Agencies and

Indian Tribes So Long as Such Plans and Policies Are Also Consistent
with the Purposes, Policies

and Programs of Federal Laws and Regulations That Apply To Federal
Lands, Public Lands That

BLM Administers. Now, You Can Probably Think of Several Instances Where
Coordination Is

Essential, and Some Examples I\'d Toss out Would Include Situations
Which Involved Split

Estate. I Know There Was a Question Just Before this Segment That
Addressed Split Estate.

Enter Mingled Ownership. Checkerboard Is a Great Example Of That. Shared
Resources and

Habitat. And a Prime Example of That Is The State Agencies Which Are
Responsible for the

Wildlife and BLM, Which Is Responsible for The Habitat. It Doesn\'t Work
Well If We\'re Not

Coordinating Well. And Valid Existing Right Issues Such as Those Which
Exist with Minerals.

Now, BLM must Also Closely Coordinate with Applicants of
Externally‑initiated Actions to

Develop a Well Thought out Proposed Action or a Preferred Alternative.
BLM Needs to

Coordinate with Other Affected People and Organizations. The Best Way to
Think of this Is To

Consider the Courtesy That You Would Expect If You Were an Adjacent Land
Owner and Then

Expect That Courtesy That You\'d Want Your Neighbor to Extend to You
Expect an Obligation

to Extend That to Our Neighbor. After the NEPA Process Is Completed,
Some Level of

Coordination Will Often Continue Throughout the Project Design,
Implementation, Monitoring

and Evaluation Phases of ‑‑ I Guess We Could Almost Call it an Adaptive
Management Cycle.

But this Will Be Discussed a Little Bit More Later. With Regard to
Public Involvement, I Simply

Have to Say That the Importance of Involving the Public Cannot Be
Overstated. We\'re Public

Servants. We Work for the Public. I Know That from Time to Time There
Are Some of Us Who

Feel a Particular Ownership or a Personal Stake in Those Resources That
We Manage, but I

Think It\'s Really Important That We Recognize Who We Do Work For, And
That We Manage

the Resources In the Public Interest. And Managing in the Public
Interest Is Our Responsibility

And We Can\'t Really Determine What That Interest Is Without Getting the
Public Involved.

There Was a Statement Yesterday About Resource Specialists and Their
Ability to Represent the

Public. Well, That\'s an Excellent Comment and an Excellent Suggestion.
Our Resource Specialists

Should Be in Tune with That Spectrum of Interests That ‑‑ with Which
They Coordinate in Their

Daily Activities. But We Can\'t Really Expect a Resource Specialist to
Know All Of the Interests

Everywhere. That Would Kind of Detract from Their Day‑to‑day
Responsibilities as Well. We

Have to Involve the Public as Well, Not Just Vicariously Through Our
Specialists. The Request

for and Use of Public Input and Comments Are Essential to Achieving
Public Scrutiny Through

the NEPA Process. And Public Scrutiny Is a Good Term, I Believe. We Are
Subject to Scrutiny

and Should Welcome It. There Is Nothing That We Do That Should Be in a
Vacuum or That We

Should Be Ashamed Of. All Written and Oral Input Received During a
Public Meeting Or

Hearing Should Be Documented As Part of the Supporting Record. But I
Would Personally

Suggest, Based on Experience, That Unless The Testimony Is Being
Mechanically Recorded That

If There Is an Individual or a Group of Individuals Providing Comments
That You Have Those

Individuals Document Their Comments. That Relieves Us from the Charge
That We Have Altered

Comments, And I Think It\'s Just Simply Wise Practice. Now, There May Be
Some Exceptions to

That Due to Certain Circumstances, but I Think as One of the Rules of
Thumb, That this Is

Something That We Really Need to Consider. There\'s a Great Opportunity
for People to Change

Their Minds If We Are Recording What We Think They Said and They May
Change Their Minds

or We May Not Capture What They Had to Say. Principles Which Guide the
Public Involvement

Process Are Shown on Your Overhead. We Need to Make Sure We Allow Enough
Time for the

Public to Participate. We must Be Fair in Fully Understanding All Views
That Are Offered. And

We Should Be Open in Our Process So That Anyone Who Wishes to Can,
Indeed, Participate,

and the Public Should Be Involved from the Beginning Through the End of
the Process and for a

Lot of Good Reasons, but One That Is Shown Here Is to Build Good
Relationships over the

Long‑term. And as Public Servants, as Stewards of the Public Land, That
Certainly Is One of Our

Mandates and Responsibilities. Additional Principles Are That Our
Process Should Allow Enough

Time for the Public to Participate. We Should Be Fair in Our
Consideration. The Process Should

Be Open for Anyone, and That Just a Little Bit of a Restatement of What
I Provided You Before.

Again, We Work for the Public. There\'s No Short‑circuiting That, Just a
Reinforcement of That

Responsibility.

Well, Thanks, Glenn. Now Gregg Will Address Additional Information We
Need To Know

about Involving the Public. The Federal Advisory Committee Act Better
Known as Faca and the

Shared Decision‑making Concept. Current Trends Indicate That a Key to
Our Future Success

Relies On Increasing Public Involvement And Partnerships in Our
Activities on Public Lands. It Is

an Ongoing Challenge to Work with All Interested Parties While Complying
with Existing

Regulations and Guidelines. For Those of You Who Are Encountering
Justice Issues, Additional

Guidance Is for the Coming from Ceq, the Department And BLM
Headquarters. Okay, Gregg,

We\'re Ready to Hear More about Public Involvement. Are You All Plugged
in over There?

I Think So. A Little Bit of a Quick Change There. Sure Thing\... Let\'s
Go to It. In this Segment

We\'ll Discuss Ways That BLM Can Transform from Just Inviting Simple
Public Involvement and

Public Participation into a Community‑based or Shared Decision‑making
Concept. We\'ll Also

Discuss How BLM Needs To Pay a Special Attention to Particular
Audiences, Namely Advisory

Committees, Minority And Low‑income Populations. So Let\'s Start by
Briefly Reviewing the

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Often Referred to as Faca. I
Have a Couple of Elmo

Cards Here to Take a Look At. Falk You a We Think It\'s Important ‑‑
Let\'s Go Back and Review

What the Federal Advisory Committee Act Says. First of All, the Purpose
Is to Ensure That

Advisory Committees Are Used Solely for Advisory Functions. This Is What
We\'re Talking

About, Advisory Functions. Remember That Only BLM Responsible Official
Can Make The Final

Determination or Decisions. Faca Also States That Faca Applies to All
Formal Groups of Private

Citizens Brought Together to Obtain Consensus Advice or Recommendations,
and These Are

Some Key Words Right Here, Consensus Advice and Recommendations, That
the Courts Pay

Particular Attention To. Faca Does Not Generally Apply to Unstructured
Collections of People

Who Do Not Significantly Interact but Who Give Advice to The Agency. And
in this Category,

this Is Where NEPA Usually Fits. Okay? Some Factors for Assessing
Whether a Group

Constitutes a Federal Advisory Committee or an Advisory Committee Which
Had Been

Recognized by the Courts Are Provided at the Top of Page 42 in Your
Green Booklets. So You

Can Take a Look at Those And See How the Courts Have Interpreted It.
Let\'s Turn Our

Attention Now to Shared Decision‑making Concepts. You Hear this Term
Quite a Bit

Throughout the Bureau. Shared Decision‑make Something a Common Sense
Approach Which

Emphasizes the Following Things: Ensuring That All Relevant Ecological
and Economic

Consequences Are Considered. Improving Coordination among Federal
Agencies. Forming

Partnerships among Federal, State, Local Governments, Indian Tribes,
Private Land Owners and

Other Stake Holders. Improving Communication with the Public. Carrying
out the Federal

Responsibilities More Effectively and Cost Effectively. By the Way, Each
of These Items Are

Discussed in a Little More Detail in Your Booklets. Using the Best
Science. Improving

Information and Data Management. Adjusting Management Direction As New
Information Is

Obtained. Under this Approach, BLM Decision Making Is Open to the Public
to Assure All

Decisions With Address Concerns of Local Communities. Remember, However,
That the

Responsible Official May Not Abdicate Final Decision Making Authority to
Anyone. Now, Let\'s

Look at the Subject Of Environmental Justice. We Have Gotten a Couple of
Faxes On ‑‑ Wanting

Us to Discuss Environmental Justice a Little Bit More. What Is
Environmental Justice in

Environmental Justice Really Became Highlighted with the Signing of
Executive Order 12898

Which Directs Federal Agencies To Assess Whether Their Actions Have
Disproportionately High

and Adverse Human Health or Environmental Effects on Minority and
Low‑income Populations.

The Executive Order States That Each Federal Agency Shall Analyze the
Environmental Effects,

Including Human Health, Economic and Social Effects, of Federal Actions,
Including Effects on

Minority Communities And Low Income Communities When Analyzed in a NEPA
Document or

Required by NEPA Itself. The Extent to Which a Proposed Action or
Alternative May

Disproportionately Harm Low‑income and Minority Communities Will Be
Determined By the

Responsible Official Through the Public Involvement Process. Now, since
Scoping Is the First

Opportunity for the Communities To Provide Input to the Public Decision
Making, BLM Should

Contact and Work with Local Communities and Local People, Institutions,
Pursuant to Section

1506.6 of the Ceq Regulations. Now, There Are Ways to Initiate This Type
of Contact with

Local‑income and Minority Populations, and Let Just Highlight a Few of
Them Here. Ways You

Can Make Contact Are Through Ethnic Radio Stations, Churches, Always
Through Newspapers,

Civic Associations, Minority Business Associations, Of Course, Our
Environmental Groups That

We Work with All the Time. Additional Ways Include Homeowners and
Neighborhood Groups,

Federal, State, Local And Tribal Governments, Rural Co‑operatives.
Don\'t Forget Senior Citizen

Groups or Associations. And, of Course, Health Agencies. It Is Also
Recommended That When

Going out to Solicit Input from This Part of Our Public Community That
You May ‑‑ it May Be

Desirable for You to Put Together a Packet of Information To Kind of
Help Bring Them along

With the Kind of Input, Involvement and Kind of Describe What You\'re
Planning to Do. This

Information Packet Could Include Such Things ‑‑ or Should Include Such
Things as a Description

of the Proposal, Maybe a Work Plan or Schedule With Some Milestones on
It, Giving Them

Some Deadlines. This Will Help You Keep Your Schedules Maintained, Which
Is Important to

Managing the Process Overall. Initial List of Potential Issues,
Alternatives and Impacts, Just like

When You Go Out to Do Formal Scoping or Determine a Scope of an Ea‑level
Analysis. Should

Indicate Other Federal And Nonfederal Actions That May Result in a
Cumulative Effect.

Remember When We\'re Assessing Cumulative Impacts That We Look At the
Actions of Not Only

Our Own but Other Agencies ‑‑ the Actions of Others Within the Immediate
Area. Here Are

Some Additional Things That the Impacts ‑‑ the Packets Could Include:
Some Maps, Drawings

and Other Materials for Reference. Agency Point of Contact. Or Possibly
a Hotline Phone

Number If You Can Set up Something of That Nature. There Isn\'t an Awful
Lot of Guidance at

this Time out on Environmental Justice, but I Can Assure You That
Additional Guidance on the

Subject Is Forthcoming from Ceq, the Department and the BLM. Doug, Are
We about Ready to

Go To a Break?

Yes, We Are, but We Would Like to Point out to You That If You Send in a
Fax, If You Would

Kindly Put Both the Fax Number And Your Phone Number So We Can Get Back
to You If

There Is Clarification. We Had a Few Faxes That Weren\'t As Legible as
They Might Be. And

Also We Would like to Have Some Follow‑up Questions on Some Of Them So
That We Get

Your Points Specifically on the Air. We Will Take a 15‑minute Break At
this Point. So Be Back

Exactly in 15 Minutes, at Which Time We Will Discuss Appeals and Plan
Protests. See You in 15.

Thanks!

Hello, Again. At this Point We\'re Going to Go Over a Couple Faxes That
We Received Just on

the Section We Just Covered. Coming in from Idaho Falls Concerning
Consistency Reviews: Is it

Advisable to Send Pertinent Lup to American Native Tribes for a 60‑day
Consistency Review to

Occur Simultaneously With the Governor\'s Review.

I Think That Question You Can Look at in a Couple Parts. One of Them
Being Sending

Information to Native American Tribes. My Suggestion Would Be That a
Land Use Plan

Amendment Not Just Be Sent to a Tribe. We Really Need to Provide Some
Outreach Here and

Some Personal Contact. That\'s a Real Key Point, I Believe, in Dealing
with the Tribes. As Far as a

60‑day Consistency Review for the Tribes, I\'m Not Aware of Any
Requirement for That. I Don\'t

Believe There Is Any Requirement at All for a 60‑day Consistency Review
for Tribes.

the Planning Regulations Only Provide for a 60‑day Governor Consistency
Review, Not for One

With the Tribes. However, the Question Definitely Is it Advisable or a
Good Idea? I Think I

Would Tend to Agree With Glenn, and That Is Rather To Wait until That
Point in Time, We

Should Be Working with Them Continually Throughout the Process and
Documenting All the

Hours of Coordination That We Have Ongoing with the Indian Tribes and So
On, and Not Just

Leave it to Governor Consistency Review. I Think You Are Going to
Achieve The Same

Objectives by Continual, Ongoing Coordination And Consultation as You
Would by Waiting for

Some 60‑day Consistency Review Period. Again, it Is Not Required.

I Suspect What That Question Might Have Been Getting to Is The
Government to Government

Relationship That Exists with The Tribes and Drawing a Parallel Between
That and the

Governor\'s Consistency Review. But While We Do Have Some Concerned
Government to

Government ‑‑ at this Point We Don\'t Have Any Requirement of That Type.

it May Be Just a Good Idea to Pass this Request or this Question along
to Our Planning Folks

Back in Washington Who Are Currently Working on the Planning Guidance
and Seeing What

They Think of It. We\'ll Do That. Thank You for Your Input and Your
Inquiry.

Now, this Fax Coming in from The Medford District Pertains to Faca and
Public Participation

And I.d. Teams. The Fax Reads: Please Clarify The Relationship of Having
Members of the

Public, Nonfederal Agency, Either Individuals or Groups, Actively
Participate on I.d. Teams and

The Restrictions Placed on Us by Faca.

Well, this Is Really a Loaded Question, and ‑‑ There\'s a Lot Of Key
Parts to It. I Think That ‑‑

and I Got to Say That Different Agencies Handle Things Differently. When
You\'re Talking about

Inviting the Public to Participate or Members of the Public to
Participate N I.d. Team You Are

Going to Have to Make a Determination If ‑‑ Let\'s Go Pack to this Elmo
Card and Take a Real

Close Look at What Faca Says. Faca Applies to Any Formal Group Or
Private Citizens That

Together ‑‑ That Are Brought Together to Obtain Consensus, Advice or
Recommendations.

Now, If You\'re Bringing Together The Same Group, I Think it Also Has to
Do with Excluding

Others, Bringing in Some and Excluding Others. I Don\'t Think You Want
to Put Yourself into

That Position. Just Remember That Faca Generally Does Not Apply Again
Here on the Elmo

Card to Unstructured Collections of People Who Significantly Interact
but Give Advice to the

Agency. Most of Our NEPA Analysis Processes Involve Working with The
Publics One‑on‑one,

Holding Public Meetings, Inviting Them Into I.d. Team Meetings on a Case
by Case Basis in

Order to Get Clarifications of Issues, Concerns to Work out Mitigative
Types of Actions That

Could Be Incorporated into the Design of The Proposal or One of the
Alternatives. I Think That

as Long as You Are Working with All the Members of The Public That Are
Interested And

Getting Their Participation As ‑‑ as We Talked about Here, And You Are
Not Trying to Build

Consensus or You\'re Not Trying To Get Recommendations Within a Group as
a Whole, You\'re

Probably Not Going to Invoke Faca Requirements. There Is Considerable
Case Law On this

Subject, and I Would Encourage You to Go and Look at That and Make the
Determination For

Yourself How Closer. Faca Applies to Forming Federal Advisory Committees
and There Are All

Sorts of Requirements, Rules, Regulations and So on That Are Provided
There for You To

Follow in the Event That You Want to Do So. I Might Also Mention That
Our Year‑old Racks ‑‑

Year and a Half, Whatever They Are, Are Such Advisory Committees, and
It\'s Important to

Recognize How They Were Set up and What Those Processes Are and
Procedures Are. Just

Remember the BLM Responsible Official Can\'t Abdicate the
Decision‑making Role, and That

must Be ‑‑ I Think It\'s Appropriate for That To Be Said Upfront When
You\'re Working with

Your Publics.

Gregg, There Is a Follow‑up At the Bottom of That Fax That You Might
Read. I Think You

May Have Covered Some of It, but it Does Pertain To Those Participants
on Those Advisory

Boards. Perhaps You Want to Address Many.

it Says: We Are under the Impression That I.d. Team Meetings Are Where
Recommendations

Are Hammered out And Inclusion of Certain Limited Publics in These
Meetings Would Put Them

in a Position of Making Recommendations. I Could Certainly Agree That
That Could Be ‑‑

What\'s a Good Term I\'m Looking for? That Could Certainly Be the
Impression That it Gives, and

You May Not Be Able to Get past That Impression If Someone Feels That
They\'re Being

Excluded and You\'re Seeking Recommendations From a Few. I Don\'t Want
to Speak for Any

Other Agencies, but I Know of at Least One Other, Without Identifying
Them, That Restricts

Their I.d. Team Meetings Only to Certain Individuals. I Think That the
Call Should Be Yours.

The Manager\'s. And to Deal with the Situations That They Need to Deal
with.

Okay. We Have Time for One More Fax. This Is Coming from Utah State
Office, and it Reads:

Can Epa Be a Cooperating Agency for Preparation of an EIS? Or Is it a
Conflict of Interest

Because They Evaluate and Rate All EISs?

That\'s a Very Interesting Question. Epa Is a ‑‑ Epa as a Cooperating
Agency. Yesterday When

We Talked about Cooperating Agencies, We Talked About it Was Appropriate
to Invite Agencies

to Become Cooperating Agencies and EIS‑level Analyses Where There Is
Some Jurisdictional

Land Base Or Some Decision‑making That Needs to Be Done on Their Part,
And I Know I\'m

Only Addressing The First Part of this Question, So Don\'t Let Me Forget
the Second Part of It,

Doug. I Think ‑‑ I Can\'t Think of a Situation, I May Be Wrong, and I
Would Be Glad to Hear

from Anybody Who Thinks So, but I Can\'t Think of a Situation Where Epa
Would Necessarily

Become a Cooperating Agency, and I Can\'t Recall Any Situation Where
That\'s Occurred. Can

You Think of Any Such ‑‑

I Certainly Can\'t. I Know We\'ve Worked with Epa a Number of Times on
Different Project, but

Not in the Capacity Of a Cooperating Agency.

as for the Question Regarding Would it Be a Conflict of Interest,
There\'s Many Components to

Many Different Organizations in Epa and I Recall Back When We Were Doing
All the Pesticide

Uciss, Specifically Herbicide, in the Vegetation Management
Environmental Impact Statements

That We Consulted Quite Heavily With Certain Offices Within Epa, Both in
the Regional Offices

and Also Back in Washington, and I Think Keeping Our Coordination With
Epa at That Level Is

an Appropriate Level of Participation. I Would Look at the Need to Have
Them as a Cooperating

Agency on A Case by Case Basis.

Thanks, Gregg. At this Point Both Gregg and Glenn Will Start with a
Segment On Examination

of Appeals and Plan Protests. After this Segment, We Once Again Will Be
Taking Your Calls To

Discuss Anything Related to This Morning\'s Session. Gregg?

Thank You, Doug. The Topics of Appeals and Plan Protests Are Being
Presented in An Attempt

to Clear up Some of The Confusion Regarding These Two Subjects. The
Material Presented on

Pages 45 Through 48 in Your Green Booklets and in Appendix 5 of The Same
Green Booklet

Should Be Considered Hand Reference Material Only. The Material Is Not
Intended to Take the

Place of the Cfrs or The Information and Requirements In Them. So When
You Are Dealing with

an Appeal or a Plan Protest, Please Refer to the Appropriate Section In
the Regulations. As I Go

Through this Set of Elmo Cards, I\'ll Make Reference to Some Key
Phrases. We\'ll Start with

Appeals under 43 Cfr Part 4. What Is an Appeal? An Appeal Provides the
Following Information

‑‑ or 43 Cfr Part 4 Provides the Following Information on Appeals to the
Secretary of the

Interior, Namely, to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Ibla, Which Is
the ‑‑ Where They

Usually End Up. They Make the Decision for the Secretary. Now, What Is
an Appeal? It\'s an

Opportunity Provided by The Secretary of the Interior For a Qualified
Person to Obtain A Legal

Review, Quasi‑legal Review by an Independent Board Of the Procedures
Followed of The ‑‑ of

the Procedures Followed ‑‑ by an Interior Agency or Responsible Official
In Making a Decision.

Okay. It\'s the Decision That\'s Appealable. But It\'s a Review of the
Procedures Followed in

Arriving At That Decision. What\'s Appealable? This Is Important. Any
Decision by an Officer of

The BLM Except Classification Decisions, Planning Decisions ‑‑ Planning
Decisions under 43 Cfr

1600 Are Not Appealable to Ibla ‑‑ Secretarial Level Decisions. We Have
Used this from Time to

Time Where We Did this on the Vegetation EISs Where We Got Secretarial
Concurrence in the

Record of Decisions That Were Based upon the Northwest Area Noxious Weed
EIS and

Therefore The Decisions as Documented in Those Records of Decision Were
Not Appealable to

the Secretary. We Already Had Secretarial Concurrence. Once That Is
Done, Ibla Has No Review

Authority. And Also Certain Decisions That Are First Made by Certain
Administrative Law

Judges under These Appropriate Citations. Who Can Appeal? Any Party to a
Case Who Is

Adversely Affected by the Decision of the Officer of the BLM. Let\'s
Look at How to Appeal.

First, a Notice of Appeal must Be Filed with the Officer Who Made the
Decision Within 30 Days

After the Date of Publication or The Date of Service. And You See the
Appropriate Citation in

the Regulations There. A Key Point to Make Here, and I Think this Came
up During the

Self‑assessment and a Couple Other Discussion Items Yesterday, What
Constitutes Notice of the

Appeal? And We Started Talking about Providing Notice of the Decision
Record, FONSI and the

Ea, and That Does Make That Appealable? First of All, Only the Decision
Is Appealable. The

Adequacy of the Decision or Appropriateness of the Decision Will Be
Reviewed Based upon the

Procedures Followed. But What We\'re Talking about Here Is That the
Notice of Appeal Has to

Be Filed with the Officer Who Made the Decision Within 30 Days of That
Date of Publication.

Now, What Constitutes Date of Publication or Date of Service? Date of
Service Is If You\'ve

Made No Attempt to Publicly Notify ‑‑ or to Notify Your Publics That
You\'ve Made a Decision,

Then ‑‑ and Somebody Comes in and Asks for a Copy of The Decision
Record, That Constitutes

the Date of Service, And That Initiates Their 30‑day Appeal Period. If,
However, You Take the ‑‑

and Make a Definite Valid Effort to Notify All Your Publics That You\'ve
Made a Decision on a

Certain Time Frame, Some Examples How You Might Be Able To Do That Is
Pay for a News

Release in a Local News Paper, Inform Your Publics by Mail, at Least
Inform All of Those That

Have Indicated Interest in the Project, Affected Interests, Applicants,
Permittees and So On.

When You Make Public Notice of That Decision, Then That Initiates That
30‑day Appeal Period.

What\'s Key about it Is Looking At Item Number 2 That No Extension of
Time Will Be Granted

for Filing the Notice of Appeal. Ibla Is Not Waived on this. Okay? So
What Always ‑‑ this Is

Always Tied to One of These Dates. How to Appeal\... We\'re Still
Continuing with This. A

Statement of Reasons, Standing, Written Arguments, Briefs, et Cetera,
must Be Filed With the

Decision‑maker Within 30 Days of the Notice of Appeal. If Someone Files
a Notice of Appeal

with the Decision‑maker On the 30th Day, They Have an Additional 30 Days
to Get in the

Statement of Reasons and So On. If They Filed the Notice of Appeal on
the Fifth Day of the

Appeal Period, They Still Only Have Another 30 Days. So it Would Be 35
Days Overall. Once

the Appeal Is Received by The Decision‑maker, He or She Must Forward the
Appeal Through

The Proper Channels to Ibla. One Thing That We Have ‑‑ Let Me Go on
Because I\'m Getting a

Little Bit Ahead of Myself. These Proper Channels for Processing Appeals
May Vary According

to the Program‑specific Appeals Procedures Set Forth in 43 Cfr Part 4.
And Other Regulation ‑‑

I\'m Now Speaking about Fluid Mineral Regulation There. We Recommend
That You Go Back

And Take a Look at Appendix 5, And in Appendix 5 You Will See a Few
Sections in There

Dealing With the Procedures for Handling Grazing Decisions, Some Lands
Decisions and I Think

That There\'s ‑‑ and Some General Appeal Procedure Processes Are Laid
out Within the ‑‑ Back

There in That Section, in That Appendix. We Did That ‑‑ We Did Not Get
All the Program Areas

Covered. We Apologize about That. We\'re Still Missing Some on Forestry
and Both Fluid and

Hard Rock ‑‑ or Solid Minerals. But We Will Try to Get Those Prepared
Sometime in the Future

And Get Those out to the State Offices for Distribution as Long As These
Regulations Are in

Effect. Appeals Are Reviewed and Decided According To, First, the
Standing of the Appellant,

And, Second, the Merits of the Appeal. So Let\'s Take a Look at What\'s
Considered in

Determining the Standing of the Appellant. Ibla Looks At, Is it Truly a
Decision Being Appealed?

Has it Been Shown That the Appellant Will Be Adversely Affected
Personally? The Reason I\'m

Underlining These Things Is Because When We Start Talking about Plan
Protests, There Are

Some Differences at These Key Points, All of These Things That I\'m
Marking. Were the Notice of

Appeal and Statement of Reasons Filed Timely? That Is Important. Ibla
Has Been Known on

Occasion To Request Additional Information and Give Additional Time, but
the Original Notice

of Appeal and the Original Statement of Reasons must Be Filed Timely in
Order for Standing to

Be Allowed. If the Public Involvement Type ‑‑ Decision‑making Process
Was Followed, Did the

Appellant Participate? Ibla Will Look at Lack of Participation by the
Publics Who Are Appealing.

If They\'ve Had an Opportunity, They\'ll Look at That, Probably
Nonfavorably. I May Have Said

That Wrong or it Might Have Come out Wrong to You Folks, but What I
Meant to Say Was

That If We ‑‑ If We Have Allowed Ample Opportunity for Public
Involvement and the Public

Refuses to Get Involved Until the Appeal Stage, That Will Carry Some
Weight with Ibla, and

That Was What I Intended to Say.

I Don\'t Want to Derail You at This Point but We Had a Fax Question
During That Flurry We

Got Yesterday Addressing FONSIs, And I Believe Someone ‑‑ FONSIs And I
Believe Someone

Said They Heard a FONSI Could Be Appealed. With Regard to the Standing
Every the Appellant

You Identified There Was a Decision Required to Be Made. Would You like
to Amplify on That?

That Might Help Answer That Fax At this Point.

the Only Thing That I Could Say Additionally Is That a FONSI Again Is
Defined by Ceq as a

NEPA Document, and a NEPA Document Is an Analytical Document. The FONSI
Is a NEPA

Determination. It Is Not a Decision. The ‑‑ That\'s the Reason Why for
An Ea‑level Analysis BLM

Instituted the Concept of Requiring ‑‑ of Decision Record Following the
‑‑ a Finding of No

Significant Impact on an Ea‑level Analysis So That That Decision Record
and the Decisions per ‑‑

Contained Within That Decision Record Were Then Appealable, and That
Separated ‑‑ That Was

in an Attempt to Separate the FONSI, a NEPA Document, from a Decision
Document and to

Clarify the What Is Appealable and What Isn\'t.

Good. Thanks.

Okay. Now Let\'s See Where I\'m At. Now We Want to Talk about the Merits
of the Appeal. The

Merit of the Appeal Once Standing Has Been Established, The Merits of
the Appeal Deal With

Whether BLM Followed Established Procedures and Considered Relevant
Information In

Reaching the Decision. Okay? Let\'s Spend a Couple of Minutes Talking
about the Effect of

Decision Pending Appeal. I Don\'t Recall the Exact Time That the New 43
Cfr Shall the Current

43 Cfr, Went into Effect, but in it Things Changed For Most of Our
Programs with Regard to

Effects of Decision Pending Appeal, and Here Is What 43 Cfr 4.21 States.
The Only Exception I

Am Aware of To this Information Is the ‑‑ Is The Adp Question That Came
up Yesterday ‑‑

Apd.

Did I Mix That up Again? Sorry about That. Sorry, Guys. Apd Decisions
Remain in Full Force

and Effect until a Stay Is Granted by Ibla from the Date That the
Decision Is Made. But I\'m ‑‑ to

My Knowledge, and If Anybody Has Any Other Situations, Please Call Us in
or Let Us Know and

We\'ll Make That Clarification for You. To My Knowledge, That\'s the
Only Type of Decision That

Still Has A Full Force and Effect Ruling. All of the Decisions That We
Make with Regard to ‑‑

Except Those ‑‑ Except the Decisions We Mentioned Earlier, Fall under
These Rules Referring to

the Effect of the Decision Pending Appeal. First of All, the Decision
Will Not Be Effective or

Implementable During the Time in Which a Person Adversely Affected May
File the Notice of

Appeal. So That 30 Days Following Public Notice of the Decision or
Service of the Decision for

That 30‑day Appeal Period, You Cannot Implement the Decision. Another
Good Reason to

Figure Out Some Methodology Similar to What Utah Uses with Their
Environmental Notification

Bulletin Board to Notify Your Publics of a Decision. Second, a Decision
Will Become Effective

on the Day after the Expiration of the Appeal Period. Okay? Unless the
Affected ‑‑ Adversely

Affected Party Files a Notice ‑‑ Files a Petition for Stay Pending
Appeal, and That must Be Filed

Together with a Timely Notice of Appeal. A Decision or That Portion of a
Decision for Which a

Stay Is Not Granted Will Become Effective Immediately after the Director
Or an Appeals Board

Denies or Partially Denies the Petition For Stay or Fails to Act on a
Petition Within 45 Calendar

Days Of the Expiration of the Notice Of Appeal Date. That 30‑day Appeal
Period. Now, First of

All, a Couple Things. It Says a Decision over That Portion\... If You
Are Doing a Huge Project

EIS and You\'ve Got a Record of Decision That Has Many Decisions In it
and Only One or Two

Decisions out of That Record of Decision Are Appealed, What this Says,
Basically, Is That You

May Be Able to Implement an Issue And Issue a Decision Document ‑‑ I\'m
Sorry ‑‑ You May Be

Able to Implement Those Decisions Not Under Appeal, Not Pending Appeal.
But Then down

Here What We\'re Talking about Is That Action Is Stayed for up to a
Maximum of 45 Days If We

Hear Nothing Back From Ibla, Which Would Be 75 Days Basically from the
Date of The

Decision. Now Let\'s Look at Plan Protests. The Protest Procedures
Prescribed in 43 Cfr 1610.5‑2

Give the Public an Opportunity To Initiate Administrative Review of
Perceived Oversights Or

Inadequacy Ins a Proposed Plan. ‑‑ Inadequacies in a Proposed Plan or
Proposed Plan

Amendment. Those Are Key Words. What Is a Plan Protest? It\'s an
Opportunity for ‑‑ Again For

a Qualified Person to Seek Administrative Review, but this Time by the
Director of the BLM Of

Either a Proposed Decision in An Rmp or a Proposed Decision in An
Rmp‑level Plan

Amendment. The Plan Amendment Could Be Either for an Rmp or an Mfp. For
Those of You

Who Are ‑‑ I\'m Speaking Greek To, a Resource Management Plan Is an Rmp
and a Management

Framework Plan Is an Mfp. We Have Both Still in Existence Within BLM
Today in Different

Parts of the Country. So What Is Protestable? Did He Decision Play Be
Protested. However the

Protestor May Only Raise Issues That Were Submitted For the Record While
the Plan ‑‑ While

the Plan or Amendment Was Being Prepared. Now, I Have Heard Quite a Bit
of Discussion over

this Point: Does the Protestor Have to Have Raised the Issue Themselves?
And the Answer to

That Is, No, The Protestor Does Not. An Example of this Would Be Where
‑‑ Let Me Give You

an Example That Is Very Close to Something That Actually Did Occur. Say
That You\'ve Got 13

or Acecs Being Proposed During the Development of Your Management
Resource Plan or Say a

Plan Amendment. When You Go Through the Process In Your Draft Rmp Draft
EIS Your

Position Is That All 14 Acecs Would Be Designated. So You Invite Public
Review and Comment

on That. There Could Be Quite a Few Folks Out There That Are Very
Satisfied with Your

Proposal and Your Preferred Alternative in The Draft. So They to Not
Comment on the Acec, but

They Have Been Involved in It. In Developing the Goals and Objectives
That You\'re Trying to

Achieve out There. But They Don\'t Send Anything Back. But You Get
Another Segment of The

Public Who Does Not like One Or Two of Those. So They Comment on the
Draft, And as a

Result of the Comments, Management Decides That, Well, We\'ll Eliminate
Two of These Acecs

from the Resource Management ‑‑ Their Proposed Rmp And We\'ll Make That
Change. So the

Proposed Rmp Comes out With Only 12 Acecs Recommended For Designation ‑‑
Acecs

Recommended for Designation. Anyone Who Has Participated in The Process
‑‑ Participated Can

Protest That Change Between the Draft and Proposed, Not Just the People
Who Commented

That They Didn\'t like the Two and They Wanted Them Eliminated. So I
Hope That That Gives

Some Clarification. Did You Have a Comment?

Well, Not Actually a Comment On That. We Just Received a Phone Call And
as Scarce as

They\'ve Been, It\'s Been Suggested We Go Ahead And Take this. This Is
with Regard to the Full

Force and Effect. I Think We\'ve Also Received a Fax about this. This Is
Mike in Glasgow. How

You Doing, Mike?

Caller: I\'m Doing Just Fine, Glenn. I Wanted to Mention That Gregg Made
the Point He Was

Only Aware Of Apds Associated with Full Force and Effect, the Decisions
On Those. I Believe

Also with the Issuance Of a Rights‑of‑way Grant Are Also under Full
Force and Effect. I\'ve Got

One of Those in Effect Right Now. So I Just Wanted to Pass That Along.

We Appreciate That Experience, Mike. I Think What this Does Is Reinforce
Your Earlier

Comment, Gregg, That What We Probably Need to Do Is Gather the
Information on All of Those

‑‑ The ‑‑ That Do Become Full Force And Effect So That That Can Be
Provided. We Want to

Make Sure We Don\'t Mislead Anyone as We\'re Going Through this Process.
Again, this Is Be a

over ‑‑ this Is an Overview and There Are Specifics That Weren\'t
Intended To Be a Part of this

Course, but This Particular One Is Probably Pretty Important, I Think.

Mike, Without Putting You on The Spot, I Think I\'d like to Contact You
Following this

Telecast to Visit with You about This. I\'d Really Thought the
Information We Had Was Pretty

Accurate, but I Think You\'re Telling Me Something That Might Be in
Error, and I Would like to

Get That Information Corrected. So with Your Permission, I\'ll Just
Figure on Talking to You

Later On, Probably next Week or Something, and We\'ll Try and Get A
Correction on this.

Caller: I Guess What I\'d Ask Is If You Think That Is an Error, and I
Would Kind of like To

Talk to You after the Telecast Today.

That Would Be Fine. I\'ll Give You a Call a Little Later On.

Sounds like Something Pending, Mike. Take Care, Partner.

Thank You Very Much. We Got Another Question Here?

That\'s about the Same Topic. Just with Regard to Full Force And Effect.
And It\'s Right Now

Where We Are With Regard to this Particular Topic of Appeals.

and I ‑‑ I Meant to ‑‑ I Think I Tried to Apologize for That. I Have
Been Working with

Different Folks and Different of The Resource Disciplines Trying To Get
the ‑‑ Get the

Information Back in Appendix 5 Up to Date, and That\'s Where You Would
Find That

Information Regarding Full Force and Effect On Fluid Mineral Leasing ‑‑
Fluid Mineral Activities

and Decisions. Right at this Point, However, We Don\'t Have All of That
Information Compiled,

but We Are In the Process of Getting it and We Will Get it out to the
Offices Once It\'s Done. All

Right. Let\'s Move On. Who Can Protest? Getting Back to Plan Protests
Under 43 Cfr 1600 Regs.

Any Party Who Has Participated In the Planning Process May File A Letter
of Protest.

Traditionally the Director Has Taken a Very Liberal View When It Comes
to Participation. It

Does Not Take Much in the Form of Participation, Requesting a Copy of
the Document Is Often

Deemed Adequate. How to Proceed Shall ‑‑ How to Protest. For Proposed
Decisions in an Rmp

Or EIS‑level Plan Amendment Right Here, a Letter of Protest Must Be
Filed with the Director Of

the BLM Within 30 Days of Epa\'s Published Noa of the Proposed Rmp/final
EIS or Proposed

Amendment/final EIS And. Again for Ea‑level Plan Amendments a Letter of
Protest To the

Director must Be Filed Within 30 Days of BLM\'s Published Noa of the
Proposed

Amendment/ea/FONSI. For this Reason We Highly Recommend That this BLM
Published Noa or

this Ea‑level Plan Amendment Be in a ‑‑ Be a Federal Register Notice,
and That Would Initiate

the 30‑day Protest Period. How to Protest, Again. Letters of Protest
must Be Complete. This Is a

Difference Between Plan Protests and Appeals. Remember under Appeals
They Could File the

Notice of Appeal Followed 30 Days by a Statement Of Reasons and So On.
This Is Not the Case.

If the Letter of Protest Is Not Complete, the Director Will Dismiss the
Protest. We Have Had a

Couple Come in Saying Statement of Reasons Will Follow. We Send Them
Back a Letter. If That

Statement of Reasons Does Not Come in Within the 30 Days, Then the
Protest Is Dismissed. No

Extension of Time Will Be Granted by the Director of the BLM. Keep in
Mind Here That Only

the Director Could Extend the Time Of the Protest Period. And the
Director Has Been Requested

to Do So Many Times in The Past, and the Director Has Always Refused to
Do So. Don\'t Expect

That the Protest Period Will Be Extended. About the Only Way to Handle a
Situation like That

Would Be to Possibly Withdraw Your Proposed, REISsue It, and Reinitiate
a New 30‑day

Protest Period. Not Too Many of Our Offices or Managers Want to Do That.
The Last Item.

Once the Protest Is Received, The Director Then Asks the State Director
to Prepare and Submit a

Response File, and Then the Director Will Decide How to Resolve the
Protest. When the Director

Makes a Decision on the Protest, That Becomes the Final Decision for The
Department, as it

States in The Regulations. That Decision Is Not Reviewable By Ibla. If
Someone Appeals the

Decision That the Director Makes on a Protest to Ibla and That Has Been
Done Before, Ibla

Sends Them Back a Letter Saying \"We Have No Standing\" or I Don\'t Know
the Exact Language,

but They Basically Dismiss That. If There Are ‑‑ I Think ‑‑ Protests,
like Appeals, Are ‑‑ Protests,

like Appeals, Are Decided First According to Standing of the Protestor
and Then the Merits. Let\'s

Cover a Few of the Key Points with Regard to Standing. The Protestor
must Show That They

Have Participated in the Planning Process. This Is Important. The
Supporting Record Is the Basis

for Making this Determination of Standing. I Have Been Involved in
Resolving Planning Protests,

and We Always Go Back and Ask for Documented Proof of Who Has
Participated and Right

from the Very Beginning, from Scoping to Comment on the Draft and So On.
Okay? So That\'s

Important. A Protest May Raise Only Issues Submitted for the Record
During The Planning

Process, and We Did Talk about That. Now, Merits of the Appeal\... The
Merits, Just like the

Merits Of the Protest ‑‑ Merits of the Protest. Sorry. The Merits Are
Dealt with Much The Same

Way as Appeals. We\'re Looking at Did the BLM Official Follow the
Established Procedures and

Consider the Relevant Information in Reaching A Proposed Decision?
Implementation of a

Decision Under Protest. Approval and Implementation Shall Be Withheld on
Any Portion Of the

Rmp or Plan Amendment Being Protested until Final Action Has Been
Completed on Such

Protests. Oftentimes Protests on Rmp‑level Documents or Rmp Documents
Themselves,

Proposed Rmps, Are Sometimes Very Decision‑specific, Which Means That
Many of the Other

Decisions Could Be Documented in a Record Of Decision, an Approved Rmp,
And Implemented

However Those Decisions Protested Would Have To Be Stayed ‑‑ Action
Would Have to Be

Stayed on Those. Before Such Approval Is Given There Shall Be a Public
Notice Of Opportunity

for Public Comment on Any Significant Change in the Proposed Plan, and
This Determination Is

Made by The Responsible Official. If We Carried the Example I Gave A
Little Bit Ago with

Respect to The Acec, Say You Carried Through an Acec Designation Right
Through Your

Proposed, and Then as a Result of Resolving The Protest a Decision Was
Made Not to Designate

the Acec, but In the Proposed Rmp it Says You Intended To, it Would Be
Appropriate to Issue a

Notice of Significant Change at the Time That You Changed Your Decision,
Allowing about a

30‑day Period Before Your ‑‑ I Think That\'s What the Regulations Say,
Before Your Decision

Became Final and You Issued Your Approved Rmp Record of Decision.

Let Me Jump in There Real Quick While You\'re Changing That, Gregg, and
Remind Folks

We\'re about to the Point Where We\'re Going to Have Some Interactive
Air Time and Suggest

That Now\'s a Good Time to Jump On That Telephone. We Have a Few Faxes,
but I Think We\'ve

Already Demonstrated That If You Call on the Phone That You\'ll Get Some
Quick Response.

the Last Point Here Is That All Other Portions of the Rmp or Plan
Amendment Not Being

Protested May Be Approved or Implemented. I Think I Said That. Doug,
That Concludes the

Presentation on Appeals and Plan Protests and I Hope It\'s Done
Something to Kind of Clarify

Some of the Misunderstandings And So on Regarding Those Two Subjects.

Yeah, as Gregg Said, Get on The Phones to Us. In the Interim Waiting for
Your Calls, We\'ll

Handle Some of These Faxes We\'ve Received Here. Quite a Few, Gregg, on
Appeals, Full Force

and Effect, and I\'ll Try to Handle These Quickly. From Lewistown,
Montana, Some Other Full

Force and Effects. Rights‑of‑way, Decisions under 3809 Regulations,
Geothermal Operations,

On‑shore Oil and Gas, Geophysical Exploration. Any Comment?

All I Can Say Is That We\'ll Certainly Verify These Things And We\'ll
Have to Get Back to You.

Maybe We Can Do That this Afternoon and Get Back to You Tomorrow During
One of Our

Interactive ‑‑ During Our Interactive Period.

this One from Idaho, Also Includes Decisions Relating to Grazing
Decisions. So We\'ll Have to

Look at That as Well.

Full Force and Effect for Grazing.

If You Take a Look at the ‑‑ Go Back into Your Appendix and Look at the
Procedures as

Stated In this Information, I Have Been Assured by One of Our Real
Expert Range Cons Who

Has Now Moved on to Bigger and Better Jobs, I Won\'t Give a Name, I
Wouldn\'t Want to

Embarrass the Person, but He\'s out There, He May Even Be Listening to
this Broadcast, but I

Understand That These Grazing Decision Appeal Procedures That You Find
on Page 5‑3 of Your

Green Booklet Back In Appendix 5 Are Consistent With the New
Regulations, and Basically a

Stay must Be Requested. Full Force and Effect Does Not Apply to Grazing
Decisions under The

New Regs.

Speaking of Staying from the Montana State Office, a Question:
Rights‑of‑way Decisions Are

Full Force and Effect as We Know until a Stay Is Granted. Has Anyone Had
Experience with a

Stay Yet, and Are Those Cases Handled More Quickly Through Ibla?

Good Question. We Would like to Hear from Anybody out There That Has Had
That Situation.

Please Call in and Give Us the Benefit of Your Experience. Before You Go
On, I Guess I Didn\'t

Hear Everything You Said. I Asked for Someone to Call in And Let Us Know
If There Are

Others That Were in Full Force And Effect with Regard to Fluid Minerals,
and We Did Get That

Response from Lewistown. We Should Be More Positive about This. The
Response We Got Was

Decisions under 3809 Regulations, Geothermal Operations and On‑shore Oil
and Gas

Geophysical Operations. As for the Rights‑of‑way, I Still Feel like We
Need to Check That One

out Because I Had ‑‑ I Thought That I Had Checked That One out Pretty
Carefully with Our

Experts on That Subject.

Okay. Another One Relating to the Staying Decisions in Prineville. We
Have a Decision That

Has Been Appealed and Requested to Be Stayed. Ibla Did Not Grant the
Stay. We Are in the

Process of Implementing the Decision. The Appellant Has Continued to
Send Additional

Information Supporting Their Statement of Reasons to BLM and Ibla. This
Is Well Beyond the

30‑day Period for Submitting Statement Of Reasons. Will Ibla Consider
this Late Information and

Should BLM Send Rebuttal Information to Ibla?

Boy, That\'s a Good Question. If ‑‑ My Understanding Is, and Maybe We
Should Check and Get

The Folks up in Prineville a Definite Response on this. My Understanding
Is That Ibla Has Asked

for the Additional Information, They\'ve Also Granted Additional Time,
and in That Kind of a

Situation, I Couldn\'t Tell You Personally If We\'ll Get a Chance to
Rebut it Or Not, but it Seems ‑‑

it Seems Logical That We Would Get the Opportunity to Provide Some
Additional Information.

We\'ve Got Greg in the Utah State Office Who May Have Some Information
on Ibla Decisions

Regarding Rights‑of‑way Stays. Go Ahead, Greg.

Caller: Yeah, Our Experience Has Been That Ibla, Even after Granting the
Stay, Has Not

Expedited Those Particular Decisions. So They Will Oftentimes Grant The
Stay and We Won\'t

See Any Action for a Year or Two after The Stay Is Granted. That\'s in
Response to an Earlier

Question on Whether They Would Consider Actions Faster than Stayed.

Good. Appreciate That Info and That Experience.

Caller: Also on the Timing, We\'ve Had at Least One Instance Where a
Group Was Timely on

Submitting Their Notice. Another Group Came in a Couple Of Days Later,
and Because the

Reasons Were Similar, Both Groups Were Allowed Standing in The Case Even
Though the

Second Group Came in after the Deadline. The Group That Made a Timely
Notice Did Not

Request a Stay. The Second Group Did Request a Stay. And Ibla Recognized
the Request For the

Stay on the Untimely Notice.

That\'s Interesting.

That\'s the First I Had Heard Of That.

That\'s Interesting and ‑‑ I Don\'t Know That I Can Respond to That or
Anybody Else Can.

Caller: That\'s Just Some Information.

I Think That\'s Great Information.

Caller: They Look at Each Case Individually, and So These Are Rules, but
They Find Ways to

Be Pretty Liberal in Accepting The Appeals and Granting the Stays.

I Think You\'re Right, Yes. Anything Else?

Experience Is a Valuable Teacher. As Thanks, Greg.

We\'ve ‑‑

We Have Another Phone Call. This Is Vicki in Cheyenne. More on Stays. Go
Ahead, Vicki.

Caller: We Have a Lot of Experience with Stays Here in Wyoming, and with
the Exception Of

the Express Pipeline, Most of Our Stays Have Been Answered Within the
45‑daytime Period.

That Doesn\'t Mean We\'ve Been Granted a Decision on the Appeal, but the
Stays Have Been

Taken Care Of.

Okay. Vicki Just in Case You Feel Left Out, What\'s the Weather like in
Cheyenne?

Caller: We Have Our Winter Winds Blowing. It\'s Probably 40 Degrees.

We Appreciate Your Call.

Are They Blowing from My Country to the North?

Caller: Yes, It\'s from the Northwest.

Thanks, Vicki.

We Can\'t Blame it on Glenn Since He\'s Not up There.

No, the Hot Air Is Right Here. We Have Another Call from Cedar City.
This Is Gina.

Caller: Hi, Again. I Just Can\'t Seem to Stay Away.

That\'s Okay.

Caller: Just to Tell You an Experience We Had in Our District, We Had
Some People Appeal

and Request Petition for Stay. It Was Several Months Later That Ibla
Granted the Petition, Well

Beyond the 45 Days, at Which Time We Decided to Go Ahead and Hold off on
the Action Even

Though it Had Gone Beyond the 45 Days. I Sent a Letter to Oha Asking
What Is Going on Here.

They Sent it Back to Ibla Asking Them to Hurry Up, and Nine Months Later
They Upheld Our

Decision. Just So You Know, at Least One Case Where Ibla Went Beyond the
45 Days and Still

Granted the Stay.

Again, Experience Is a Heck Of a Teacher.

But, Tell Me, Immediately Following the 45‑day Period Did The Decision
Become Effective or

Did You Guys Just Hold off on Implementing it until You Got a Decision
out of Ibla?

Caller: We Waited about Two Weeks, and Then We Went Ahead And
Implemented It, after the

45 Days, and Then Once We Heard From ‑‑

Ibla, You Stopped Action?

Caller: Correct.

All Right. Thank You Very Much.

Appreciate That, Gina. Appreciate You Calling.

Is There Anything Else?

Caller: Actually Our Real Tie Guy Has Something to Say. Hold On.

Sure.

My Question Has to Do Not With Stays and Appeals but Something Else. Do
You Mind If I

Ask That at This Time?

Yeah, but Would You Identify Yourself, Please?

Caller: this Is Evan Larson In Cedar City.

Welcome.

Caller: Thank You. We Have a Situation Where with a Right‑of‑way
Application for

Communication Sites. Some Staff Members Have Been Persistently
Suggesting That We Force

Them to Go to Private Land And Check That out and If They Can\'t Find
Anything in There Then

Come to Us, and Only Then Should They Apply to BLM. And Then They Should
Provide Us

With a Proof That They Have Exhausted All Opportunities on Private Land.
I Wonder If You

Would Respond to Your Feelings on That. Is That Our Position to Force
Them to Go to Private

Land Before We Consider the Application on Public Lands?

Mr. Manager?

this Is Kind of a Loaded Question, and a Interesting One At That. I
Guess the First Thing That I

Would Do Is Simply Say That What You\'re Addressing Right Now Is Really
Kind of a

Management Issue, Which the Manager Is Responsible for Making the
Determination on this

Particular Subject. Now That I Have Exhausted That Little Bit of
Weaseling, What I Also Need

to Say Is That ‑‑ We\'re Really Talking about a NEPA Process Here, and
NEPA Does Require

That We Consider All Alternatives. If Communication Sites ‑‑ If You Take
That Proposed Action

Through the Screening Process And If it Passes Through the Screening
Process, at Least Farther

than Being Rejected, Then I Think We Probably ‑‑ and I Don\'t Want to
Force Anything Down

Anyone\'s Throat, but I Think We Probably Have an Obligation to the
Public to at Least Respond

in a Manner Perhaps a Little Different than What You\'re Saying Has Been
Done In Some

Instances, and Considering the Private Com Sites Certainly May Be an
Alternative, but If We\'ve

Screened It, If it Conforms to The Land Use Plan, et Cetera, If It\'s in
the Public Interest, Then

Away We Go. I Believe at Least as Far as Putting it into the System and
Decision to Follow.

I Would like to Add One Thing If That\'s All Right.

Go Right Ahead.

with Respect to That. I\'d Go So Far as to Suggest That This Is One Good
Area or Good

Situation, an Excellent Situation, to Let the NEPA Process Work for You.
If BLM and BLM

Management Feels That There Is a Better Site, Go Ahead and Prepare a
NEPA Document and

Make Your Decision Based upon That NEPA Document, Considering All the
Alternatives Of

Different Locations and So O You Can Use That ‑‑ You Can Use The NEPA
Process to Make a

Decision Not To, Say, Take the No Action Alternative and Not Grant the
Permit. What Do You

Think of Those Responses?

I Think We Agreed.

Caller: I Appreciate Those. Like You Said, I Guess It\'s a Management
Decision Here That

We\'re Going to Have to Iron out Internally, Perhaps.

Yes.

That Could Be a Tough One.

We Appreciate Your Call and Your Participation. Let\'s Handle this Fax
Coming in From Casper.

This Is a Hypothetical and I Think it Could Have Been One of Our Case
Studies. Let\'s Say a

Company Came in for A Mineral Material Sale for Gravel. The Company Has
Obtained

Permission from the Private Land Owner. A Cx Was Done as the Pit Was on
Top of a re Hand

Gravel Pit Under a State 10 Acre Exception. The Pit Is on Federal
Minerals And Federal Surface.

Another Company Has Come in for Half a Million Tons of Rock Nearby and
Wants to Do an EA

on 40 Acres. A Contract Was Given to the First Party. Now the Rancher
Wants All Action

Stopped. Can the Rancher Appeal the First Action?

it Wouldn\'t Hurt to Look at That One.

it Would ‑‑ it Would Depend Upon When the Rancher Received Notice of the
Decision, and

Going Back to That Date That the Rancher Received Notice of the Decision
Is a Key Thing for

the First Decision That Was Made. If the Rancher Was Provided a Copy of
the Decision, FONSI

and The Ea, Made ‑‑ Was Made Aware Of it at the Time That That Action
Was Authorized, the

First Action Was Authorized, Then ‑‑ And 30 Days Has Hence Passed, Then
That Permittee or

That Rancher\'s Right of Appeal or Opportunity for Appeal Has since
Passed. Your Records

Would Be Vitally Important in Making That Determination, If That Rancher
Had Been Given

Notice of Appeal. However, If You Want to Look at It the Other Way, If
the Rancher Had Not

Known That You Allowed For That Previous Activity and Has Just Become
Aware of It,

Granted, That May Not Be a Realistic Situation in this Case, but If That
Had Been the Case, Just

Become Aware of It, Just Ask for a Copy of the Decision Document, That
Does Initiate That His

Appeal ‑‑ His Appeal Period and Then Could Appeal That Earlier Decision
Even Though it Was

Ongoing. So That\'s the Reason Why I Stress it Is Really Important to
Provide Public Notice of

the Decision or Make Sure You\'ve Got Documented Service of the
Decision, Because That Does

Initiate Your Appeal Period.

Okay. Gregg, We Got a Call from Jerry In Portland Pertaining to Full
Force and Effect of Forest

Related Activities. Jerry?

Caller: Howdy, Gregg. I\'m Surprised You Didn\'t Bring Up the Forest
Management Regulations

at 43 Cfr 5003 When You\'re Talking about Full Force And Effect after
the 15‑day Protest Period.

That Was One of Those Items, Jerry, We Haven\'t Gotten Around To
Finishing up Yet but We

Are Working on Them, but I Apologize.

Caller: That\'s All Right. I Wanted People to Be Sure Also With That
Case Study on the Timber

Sale Nobody Talked about That. But Any Forest Management Action Can Use
These

Regulations, Not Just Timber Sales.

Okay.

Caller: I Figured You Helped Write Those.

What, the Regulations?

Caller: Right.

No, I Was Not Involved in Writing the Forest Management Regulations.

Caller: Okay. It\'s Pronounced \"Fonasi,\" Not \"FONSI.\"

He\'s Not up on His Italian.

Before You Go, You Have to Tell Us What the Weather Is like Up There.

Caller: Oregon.

So You Had a Lot of Rain. That\'s Good.

Caller: We\'ve Had More Rain In September than Usual Septembers. We Had
More Rain this

Weekend Than Usual Septembers Get.

Thanks for Calling Jerry and Providing Your Input.

Once Again, Thanks for Your Participation. We Have a Few Faxes Stacking
up Here. We Will

Get to Those in a Bit. We Are Now Going to Shift Our Focus to the Topics
of Implementation

and NEPA Monitoring. To Help Improve BLM\'s Implementation in Decisions
About Our Land

Base it Is Important for Us to Have a Good Understanding of What the
Resources Are Doing

over Time. Whether We Call it Adaptive Management or Achieving Desired
Future Conditions or

Any Other Initiative, We must Operate in a Manner That Provides
Flexibility To Combine New

Information in Different Ways as Challenges Arise and Needs Change. Some
Level of Monitoring

Is Needed to Ensure That the Actions Taken Comply with the Terms and
Mitigation Measures

Identified in the Decision. It Is Also Necessary to Measure The
Effectiveness as Well as Validity

of BLM Decisions. Now Francis Berg and Bob Armstrong Will Kick off Our
Implementation and

NEPA Monitoring Discussion. As I Mentioned, We Will Get to These Faxes
That We Received

During Our Last On‑air Segment, And We\'ll Get to That Later Today. We
Have Some Real Good

Ones and We\'ll Follow Up. Now, Gentlemen, Are You Wired Up?

We\'re Ready.

You Bet. About as Wired as We Can Get, Doug. What We\'re Going to Be
Covering Now Is

Kind of I Think on Pages ‑‑ Starting with Pages 49 in Your Desktop
Reference of the Green

Booklet, Talking about Implementation and Monitoring. So We\'ll
Introduce the Section Here.

Again, the Skipper Is Going to Make Sure We\'re Going to Get the Job
Done, So to Speak. What

Do We Really Mean by Implementing the Decision or Just Doing It? Means
Specifically We Want

to Implement the Actions Noted in The Decision Record If It\'s an
Ea‑level Analysis or in the

Record of Decision If it Was an EIS‑level of Analysis. You Want to
Include the ‑‑ Any

Conditions You May Have If at All Possible in the Grants, Permits, et
Cetera. This Is Kind of the

Stick. And this Is a Little Bit of the Carrot. If You Have the Ability
to Condition the Availability

of Funds Based on Your ‑‑ on Mitigation and Monitoring, You May Want to
Go Ahead and Use

That. A Little Stick‑and‑carrot Activity Going on There. And You\'ll
Want to Inform the Agencies

Regarding Implementation and the Mitigation Measures Note in Your
Decision Document, and

You Also May Want to Consider Talking to Your ‑‑ or Letting Your
Affected Folks Know,

Perhaps Members of The Public, If You\'re Implementing Actions Related
to The Resource

Management Plan, You May Want to Give Them an Update Once in a While.
Let Them Know,

Hey, this Thing Didn\'t Just Die and Go Away. You\'re Actually out There
Doing Things, You

Know, Actions Continue. Well, Are We Obligated to Do Monitoring? Well,
Ceq Suggests That

We Are. Monitoring Enforcement Program Shall Be Adopted and Summarized
Where Applicable

for Any Mitigation. And the Proper Citation under The Ceq Is 1505.2 (C)
Agencies May Monitor

to Assure That Their Decisions Are Carried out and Should Do So in
Important Cases. And

Based on That Monitoring, You Want to Provide the Results Of That
Relevant Monitoring to

The Public. Well, We\'ve Heard a Lot about Monitoring in the Last Few
Years In BLM, and Try

Not to Get Plan Monitoring Confused with Resource Monitoring. Resource
Monitoring Is ‑‑ Can

Be A Component of Your NEPA Monitoring. Managers Should to the Extent
Possible Include

NEPA‑related Monitoring as a Part of the Ongoing Resource and Plan
Monitoring Efforts. In

Other Words, You Don\'t Want BLM Personnel out Monitoring Resources
Solely for Resource

Purposes If You Have the Opportunity to Do ‑‑ Kill Two Birds with One
Stone, to See That You

Are Meeting the Implementation of the Plan. Maybe You Can Bring Both
Those Concerns

Together, the Concerns Of the Resource Specialist and Meld Those with
Something You\'ve Got

to Do to Go Ahead and Ensure That We Are Implementing Properly the
Decisions of a NEPA

Document. So What Is the Purpose of Monitoring? First of All, It\'s Kind
of Truth In Monitoring

to Ensure That We Are Complying with Those Decisions We\'ve Made under
NEPA. And, of

Course, It\'s to Measure The Success of the NEPA Decisions to Make Sure
That There\'s ‑‑ That

We\'re Not Only Living up to Our Commitments, Is Really the First One,
but the Second One Is

That We\'re Achieving What We\'re Hoping to Achieve. And, Thirdly, Then
We Want to Evaluate

the Validity of Those NEPA Decisions. Now That We Got What We Wanted, Is
it What We

Really Do Want? So You Want to Take a Look and Say, Well, You Know,
It\'s Almost Fine, but

Perhaps We Want to Tweak it a Little Bit Somehow. And Lastly, You Do
Want to Evaluate the

Quality of the NEPA Documents to Make Sure That You\'re Doing ‑‑
Providing Relevant

Documents, You\'re Only Doing What\'s Necessary, You Know. We Learn from
Our Own

Experience. Glenn Mentioned That a Couple of Times. You Know, Experience
Is Perhaps The

Best Teacher. And Lest You Think Just Ceq Wants Folks to Do Stuff, You
Can Refer to the

BLM Manual Section 1734 That Provides Information Regarding Both
Inventory and Monitoring

Procedures for NEPA And, of Course, it Recommends That We Coordinate
with Other, And

Again It\'s Much like Developing an Environmental Document. If You Have
an Opportunity to

Work with Others and Get More Than One Job Done, it Only Makes Sense,
Particularly If Those

People Are Interested in the Decisions That You Made. Well, Without
Further Ado, I\'d Like to

Turn it over to My Erstwhile Companion, Bob, Who Will Continue on with
Monitoring.

Well, Let\'s ‑‑ Before You Guys Switch ‑‑ I Got You in Mid‑stride There.
Let\'s Handle a Couple

Faxes, and Then We\'ll Transition to You. You May Not Have Picked up on
This, Folks, but They

Do a Little Dance Here, and They Both Want to Lead. Let\'s Address These
Two Faxes, Because

this Would Be the Most Appropriate Time to Do So. This Is Coming from
Sacramento, And

What Is the Best Way to Handle Public Comment from Groups Using the
Process to Try To Kill

the Project by Inundating Us with Paper, Numerous Foias, Constant
Requests for Extensions of

Time, Et Cetera?

Good Question.

in Responding to That, about The Only Thing You Can Do Is Work Your Way
Through the

Process. You Want to Recognize Each One Of Those as They Come in and
Document Your

Files, Your Process Files, That this Information Has Been Received And
Recognize its Existence.

You\'re Right, it Is a Slow Process. They Do Sometimes Cause Delays In
the Schedules for

Preparation Of Our NEPA Document, but I Guess the Best Advice Is Just
Endure and Stay with

It, Wake Your Way Through It, Because If You Don\'t, Most Often Any
Appeal Process That

Follows You\'ll Have To Justify Why You Didn\'t.

Okay. Good. Here\'s a Question from Lorraine In the Dixie Resource Area.
It Pertains to I.d.

Teams. Third Party Contracting for an Outside Proposal. How Much
Involvement Should the

Proponent Have in Development of The DEIS above and Beyond the Proposed
Action?

Especially If There Are ‑‑ If They Are Paying for the EIS? Can They Be
Part of the I.d. Team?

Can They Review the Preliminary Internal Draft? Chapter 4, Impact
Analysis of The Chapter of

Concern for this Preliminary Draft, Especially Because of the Impact
Influence On the Contractor.

What\'s Your Experience with This, Gentlemen?

Doug, in the Third‑party Contracting Is a Unique Process. It All Depends
on the Manager And

the Team Leader and How They Want to Approach It. My Personal ‑‑
Personally the Way I Seem

to Approach Those Particular Situations Is Whenever I Have ‑‑ I Have
Usually a Core Team.

Then You Have Your Third‑party Contract Team, and Then You Have Your
Proponent of the

Proposed Action. Nowadays under Our Team Concept, I Consider All Those
People as Part of

the Team and Let Them Participate in the Preparation Of the Document. If
Using That Concept,

Things Go A Lot Smoother. It Requires That the Third Party Contract
People Come under the

Jurisdiction of the BLM People In One Respect, on One Side. If You Look
at the Other Side, The

Document That They Prepare Has to Meet BLM Standards Anyway. So
Basically You\'re All

Working Together to Produce the Most Usable Document That You Can.

Thank You, Gentlemen. And Thanks, Francis, for Your Segment You Just
Discussed, and We\'re

Moving on to Using Environmental Analysis and Applying Decisions Working
Through

Implementation, Continuing the Open and Frank Dialogue with Our
Partners, Cooperators,

Co‑workers and All Of Our Customers. Which All Help to Make NEPA Work.
The Last Aspect

of the NEPA Analysis We Want to Present Today Is NEPA Monitoring.
Remember this Is Not a

Discussion of Resource Monitoring Techniques, Rather, We Will Be Looking
at Monitoring As it

Relates to the Review of NEPA Documents, Authorizations, Field Reviews
and Preparing

Reports. This Is How BLM Gauges the Effectiveness of Implementing
Decisions. To Address this

Important Aspect Is Bob Armstrong, Who Will Focus On How to Conduct NEPA
Monitoring.

Bob? Thanks, Doug. Et Cetera Look at this NEPA Monitoring Process, and
on this Particular

Segment of Our Class, I Encourage You to Take Very Good Notes. I\'ll
Move the Elmos by

Slowly So You Can Do That. There Is Not Much Material Regarding this
Particular Section.

Let\'s Move by with the Establishing the NEPA Process. This Is a
Four‑part Process Which Could

Be Used for Successful Monitoring. We Will Go Through the Details Of the
Four Parts. The First

Step Is to Review of The NEPA Document Itself. The Second Part, Review
of the Authorization.

Third Part Is Field Review. And the Fourth Part Is Report Preparation.
We\'ll Look at Each One

of These Parts in Detail Now. In Part One, You Review the Plan ‑‑ Review
of the Plan

Conformance Decision. What You Look at Is, in Their Statement That this
Is in Compliance with

the Rmp, Was That Decision Accurate When They Made That Statement? Was
the Statement

Accurate? You Trace That Through the Document. You Also Review the
Decision on The

Document Type. Here You\'re Talking about Whether They Selected an EA or
EIS. Which

Process Did They Use That Made ‑‑ That the ‑‑ That They Followed.
Continuing with Part One,

Review Of the NEPA Document Itself. You Look at the Format and the
Content and Any

Documentation That They Attached to That, If There Is Any Appendices,
Things Like That,

Footnotes That Go With It. You Also Look for Violation of Resource or
Plan Objectives to See

If That Happened in Any of The Process. Continuing on with Part Two,
When We\'re Talking

about Review Of the Authorization Document, Here You Look for the Terms
and Conditions and

the Mitigation Measures That Were ‑‑ That Were Part of the Authorization
Document to Make

Sure That Those All Carry Forward Through the NEPA Document into the
Authorization

Document. What Types of Authorization Documents Are There? Let\'s Look
at a Couple of

Them. There\'s the Permits, Contracts, And as Part of the Permits and
Contracts, There\'s Also

Terms And Conditions or Mitigation Measures. Be Certain That Those Are
All Listed in ‑‑ and

Carried Forward Through the NEPA Document to Those Documents. One
Question to Ask

Yourself When You\'re Doing this Review of The Authorization Documents
Is Were All the

Recommendations of Those That Apply, and Sometimes There\'s Some
Recommendations That

Don\'t Apply, Were All Those Recommendations of Those That Apply Carried
Forward from the

NEPA Planning Document into the Authorization Document? The Third Part
Is the Field Review.

Let\'s Look at Some ‑‑ How That Takes Place. The Action, Once You
Examine It, The Action,

Was it Taken in Accordance with the Authorization Document? You Also
Review the Accuracy

of The Impact Prediction. In All Cases When We\'re Predicting Impacts in
Our Impact Statements

‑‑ in Our Eas, We Show What We Think Will Happen. This Is a Chance to
Review to See If That

Did Occur. You Also Evaluate the Success of Any Mitigation That
Occurred. Continuing on with

Step Three, You Look at the Achievement of The Environmental Objectives.
Were They

Achieved as They Moved Along Through Their Implementation? Is There a
Continued Need for

The Requirement? Again, You Look for Violations Of Resource or Plan
Objectives. And at the

Same Time, You Look For Any Additional Needed Actions That Should Take
Place. Now, in the

Field Review Part of It, One of the Things to Keep in Mind, It\'s One
That\'s Served Me Well Both

in the BLM and in My Personal Life, Taking Photographs of What\'s Going
on And What You\'re

Looking At. Including Those Photographs in The File. Quite Often in My
Resource Area Days, I

Would Pick up a File of A Project and out Would Fall These Photographs
of That Area That

Sometimes Are 15, 20 ‑‑ in Some Cases Almost 30 Years Old. We Went Back
and Documented

the Locations of These Files, Because They Had No Information On Them ‑‑
of the Photos.

Reshot the Photographs in this One Case over a 30‑year Sequence
Difference. Vast Change in

What Was in the Photos. One ‑‑ the Only Thick Remained Constant and We
Were Well Aware

Of, Was Power Lines and Fence Lines in the Background and We Were Able
to Find the Same

Locations. Those Are Important in Your Field ‑‑ in Your Field Reports.
One of the Things That

You Need To Do Is ‑‑ the Only Flaw I Found in the Photo Process Is The
Documentation of the

Photo. What You Should Do Once You Get The Photos Back Is Write on the
Back the Location

Where the Photo Occurs, What\'s in the Photo and the Date That it Was
Taken. If You Have

Enough Room, Go Ahead and Right down the Name of The Person That Took
the Photo.

Reporting\... Who Gets the Report after its Done? This Is Usually the
Responsible Official.

Anyone Else That Needs to Be Aware of What\'s Happening. For Report
Content and Format, If

You\'ll Look at Page 29 of Your White Workbook, You\'ll See A Page That
Looks Something like

This, and this Is ‑‑ this Is a Suggested Format for You to Use. It Talks
about the Environmental ‑‑

Okay. It\'s an Authorization. It\'s an Environmental Authorization
Monitoring Document Form. It

Talks about the Process. It Talks about the Environmental And
Authorization Documentation

Review. Then it Talks about the Monitoring and Field Review That Takes
Place. At the Bottom

of the Form There\'s a Place for the Signatures of the People That Did
the Inspection and for the

Manager to Sign. This Form Can Be Very Easily Automated into Our ‑‑ in
Our Pcs And Our Unix

Stations. You Can Modify this Form to Help You out So it Satisfies Your
Requirements. Doug,

That\'s All I Have for this Presentation.

Fine. We Are Going to Go to a Couple Faxes We Received Yesterday,
Gentlemen, and Cover

Some of the Clarifications There. I Think, Bob, You Have One on Case
Study Number 2.

Yes, Doug, It\'s Regarding the Drill‑so‑right. The Statement Is This:
It\'s From Medford. We

Were Wondering Why the Proposed Action Cannot Be Handled under an Ad
Using the Existing

Ea, Which We ‑‑ Which We Believe to Cover the Development of the 15 to
20 Wells. The

Proposed Action Covers 10 Exploratory Wells. Can You Comment? This Might
Be the ‑‑ a Way

to Work It. What We Suggest That You Do Is Follow the Procedures That We
Outlined for You

in Using an Ad Process, and Then Draw Your Conclusions at the End. That
Should Give You a

Strong Segment of What You Can Do and Can\'t Do. Another Statement ‑‑
Comment Here. This

Is from Casper on Case Study 4. It Says: Does the Frequency of An Action
Have a Bearing on

the Level of the NEPA Analysis? And the Answer Is Yes. For Case Study
Number 4, One of The

Times the Ohv Events ‑‑ One Time Oh Events May Have Far less Impact on
the Dedication of a

Route for a Permanent Use. The One‑time Use Is Definitely a Lot less
than an Annual Event or

Semi‑annually Vents. This Is Something You Always You Take into
Consideration When Doing

Your Impact Analysis and It\'s the Frequency of That Action and How
Often it Will Occur.

That\'s Absolutely True and I Think in the Case Example We Said That
Specifically That the

Trail Was Expected to Be Used on An Annual Basis. So it Wasn\'t Going to
Be Just a One‑time

Shot.

the next Question, Same Case Study, Number 4, Is from Jody, Friends of
James Watt ‑‑ it Says

Arizona Made Reference to a Cx That Applies to Special Recreation
Permits That Would Cover

the Event. The Cx Section That References Special Recreation Use Permits
Is H5, but We Do

Not Think That It Is a General Cx ‑‑ That a General Cx for Special
Recreation Use Permits ‑‑

Recreation Use Permits and Would Not Be Suitable for this Type of Event.
Our Comment for

That Is, it Sounds like You\'ve Done Some Excellent Approach, You\'ve
Followed the Procedures.

You Can Do the Conclusion, but You ‑‑ You Drew the Conclusion You Don\'t
Want to Do Any

Kind of Cx. This Is Standard Analysis Procedure in Following up in How
You Are Going to

Document Your Proposed Actions.

Thanks, Bob. Do You Have Any Unanswered Questions with You up Here from
Yesterday

That We Might Address.

We Have Some Here, Doug. Let Me Move over to Them.

These Will Be Going Beyond Our Preliminary Answers We Had This Morning,
No, Yes,

Depends And It\'s Our Understanding.

this First One Is from Casper, Carolyn. It Says When Bob Discussed the
Critical Elements of the

Human Environment He Mentioned the Social and Economic Aspects of That
Section, but There

Is Nothing on Page 33 or in His Discussion to Address What Socioeconomic
Means or How to

Address These Areas. That Part of Your Comment, Carolyn, What We Suggest
You Do Is You

Work and Consult with Your Socioeconomic Specialist. Most State Offices
Have One of These

Particular Individuals in Their Office. Work with Them on How to ‑‑
Especially on How to

Assess Impacts for Your Proposed Actions. The next Part of the Question
Here Says: BLM

Decisions Made In County That Have High Percents of BLM Land Has High
Impact. Does BLM

Has to Mitigate for Adverse Impacts to Counties? The Answer, Surely We
Do this Force Occur.

The Question Sometimes Comes up Can BLM Afford the Mitigation If ‑‑ and
It\'s ‑‑ Normally It\'s

an Economic Question. If the BLM Can\'t Afford the Mitigation, Then You
Have to Look Very

Hard at Whether or Not You Want to Implement the Proposed Action.
There\'s Another Part of

the Question down Here, Carolyn, the Last Line, It\'s Not ‑‑ it Didn\'t
Come Through on the Fax.

We Hope this Is Enough Information for You.

Well, Bob, If You Don\'t Mind Kind of a Question on this Question, If
We\'re Talking about

Great Economic Impact in Those Counties That Have a Lot of Public Lands,
I Mean, Is it

Obligatory That We Have to Mitigate Those Impacts or Is it More
Politically Savvy for Us to Do

That?

this Is a Judgment Call That\'s Always Made by the Managers That Are
Involved in The

Proposed Action, If It\'s a BLM Proposed Action, and it Will Always ‑‑ I
Guess it Will Always Be

That Way. So in Terms Before Implementing Decisions That Cause Impacts,
Yes, We Can Do

That, but Most Often We Don\'t.

Do You Have Any Other Ones That You Have There?

Yes.

Good. We Can Clear this Up.

We\'ll Continue Working Through Our Pile. Let\'s See.

Are These Pertaining to Faxes We Received Yesterday and Pertain to the
Subject Matter That

You Addressed on the Cx Process, Correct?

Cxs and Ads Principally.

this Question, Rawlins, Wyoming, a Cx Question. There Are Some
Introductory Material Here

Relative to Wild And Scenic Rivers. It Says Does this Say That the
National Historic and Scenic

Trails, When the Rmp Identified The National Scenic Trails but Deferred
to an Activity Level

Document for Designation, Will An EA Be Adequate to Analyze on The
Ground Designation? In

this Case If the ‑‑ If the ‑‑ If It\'s Not Designated, Go Through Your
Mental Thinking, The

Process for Impact and Analysis. Remember, There\'s Two Requirements
That Will Trigger An

EIS. One Is Public Controversy and The Other Is Significance of the
Impact. If You Have

Significant Impacts, You Could Be in an EIS Process. Another Categorical
Exclusion Question.

Gentlemen, I\'ll Read One of Them And the Second One Is Also from There.
Let\'s See. One Is

from ‑‑ Both Are from Bakersfield Resource Area.

Baker, Oregon.

Baker, Oregon.

Baker Field Office.

Categorical Exclusion Number 2 Is Vague. What Does a Small Group of
Trees Mean? This May

Be Interpreted as a Small Patch of Trees in a 100‑foot Radius or a
Million Board Feet Scattered

over Many Acres? The Categorical Exclusion Does Not Address the Means of
Forest Or Removal

of Those Trees Nor The Number of Other Cultural Issues. Without Having
to Look at It, I Would

Say this Is Probably Correct. What You Can Do to Help Yourself Out Is
Make an Assumption for

What ‑‑ What a Small Group of Trees Means as a Consensus Opinion in Your
Interdisciplinary

Team. This Will Help You Move Forward In Your Document. I Am Not Sure We
Will Find a

Definition for That Anywhere.

Well, Don\'t We Also Need to ‑‑ We Have the Obligation, Again, to ‑‑
Going Back to What You

Talked about Earlier Today, Bob, Is Look at Things in a Cumulative
Sense. I Mean, Those

Things That Have Happened in the Past, What We\'re Planning to Do and
What We\'ve Done in the

past and What Would Be Expected to Happen in the Future So That Actions
That May Be

Individually Insignificant May Be Cumulatively Significant. I\'m
Learning from this.

Go Ahead.

Another Cx Question. Forestry, Prineville, Oregon, Could Cx ‑‑ C
Forestry 3 Be Interpreted to

Mean That We Could Broadcast Seed, Grass and Herbs Following a Rangeland
Barren. It Does

Intend to Be the Intention of the Exclusion Reference but it Could Be
Interpreted as Such. Again,

Here We\'re Asking You to Go Through the Process of Evaluation That We
Mentioned Here

Today and We Presented to You Yesterday and Just Follow The Steps and
Come to Your Own

Conclusion. Be Sure and Define Your Assumptions as You Go Through The
Process.

Bob You Have about Three More Faxes There to Address?

Yes.

Let\'s Do That. Then I\'ve Got Two Faxes Here. Getting Close to Wrapping
this Up.

the Ones We Don\'t Get to Today We Will Work on Tomorrow. This from
Dillon Resource

Area. A Self‑assessment Number 7 Indicates That the Cxs ‑‑ Actually Has
Ces down Here ‑‑ Do

Not Need to Be Documented, Ceq Regs, on Page 4 of the Desktop Reference
a Key Point Is That

The Action That Is Ce must Be Documented in the Record. Who Requires
This, Interior or

BLM? Documentation of Any Ce or Cx That\'s Referred to in Here Is Just
‑‑ a Matter a Matter

You Need to Do for Your Office Records. If a Question Ever Comes up on
Why this Action Was

Authorized Under a Cx, If You Have That Document in Your Files, That
Will Be There for

Future Employees to Look at and Review. That\'s the Main Reason for
Documenting. Ceq Doesn\'t

Address the Documentation Require. It\'s Mostly for Information for Our
Own People, Our Own

BLM People.

it Looked like We Had a Call For a Moment. It Said L.a., and it Was a
Non‑NEPA Question. I

Don\'t Know, Did They Want Bob To Take over the Montel Williams Show or
Something? I

Don\'t Know What That Was All About. {Start Here}

the Last One Here Talks about Cx Usage. Again, the Question, this Is
From the Roseberg

District. Third Part of it ‑‑ We Have Answered the First Part ‑‑ It Says
\[ Inaudible \] a Fire Bud

Kill Be Exempted from NEPA, I.e., Emergency Actions to Prevent or Reduce
Serious Resource

Losses? This Is a Decision You Will Have To Make in Your Own District
Resource Area,

Whether or Not You Want to Use the Emergency Action Procedures. It\'s
One That\'s Just

Basically It\'s a Judgment Call. When You Do ‑‑ Whichever Way You
Follow, Be Sure and

Document the Records Appropriately What You Did and Why You Did It.

You Bet.

Doug, That\'s All of Them.

Speaking of Documentation, I Can Tell You Just as We Were on Furlough
Last Year, I Spent

Two Weeks on a Hard Bench in a Courtroom on a Case That I Worked on over
15 Years Ago,

and I Tell You, Trying to Deal with Old‑timers Disease and Recollect
What Your Team Did and

What Decisions Were Rendered and So Forth. So Documentation Is Key, and
Record‑keeping Is

Critical. Well, Folks, That Concludes Today\'s Show. Now It\'s Time for
to You Break Into Your

Groups at Your Site. Please Turn to Page 19 in Your Workbook and Answer
Questions 4

Through 8. You Should Continue with the Same Case Study That You Started
On Yesterday and

Work on Questions 1 Through 3 ‑‑ or You Worked on Questions 1 Through 3
Yesterday but

Work on 4 Through 8 Today. You May Wish to Review the Case Study Video
with That Mad

Dog Doug to Help You Work Through This Assignment. We\'ll Start Again
Tomorrow by

Reviewing Responses to Your Questions, Answer These Remaining Faxes and
Others We Will Be

Dealing with. Please Fax Your Responses to NTC Before We Go on the Air
for the Assignment.

We\'ll Be Back Again Tomorrow Here on Galaxy 9, Transponder Number 22.
As You Can See, in

Your Schedule For Tomorrow, We Will Be Starting One Hour Later, and From
All of Us Here at

the BLM National Training Center, Thanks For Your Active Participation,
And We Will See You

in the Morning. Good Night!

This is a transcript dat 3 (September 20, 1996)

This transcript is temporarily available at:
http://www.starlink.com/\~ntc/trnscrpt.html

(NTC is relocating to a new Internet address. If you cannot access NTC
at the above address,

call Wayne Winterton at 602‑906‑5561 for NTC Internet information.)

Good Morning. Welcome Back to the Last Day of Our NEPA Course. Today
We\'ll Begin

Discussing Questions 4 Through 8 Covering The Five Case Studies. We\'re
Already Have a

Number of Downlink Sites on the Phone as We Go along If You Have a
Comment on the

Exercise, Please Give Us a Call or Send Us a Fax. Later in Today\'s
Broadcast We Have Planned

Considerable Interactive Air Time Where We Will Take Your Calls and
Discuss Your Faxes. I\'d

like to Also Remind All Our Downlink Sites to Complete the Course Roster
and the Three‑page

Student Evaluation Form. Please Return Them to NTC as Soon as Possible.
Before We Get

Started, I Would Like to Mention Two Satellite Courses NTC Will Be
Broadcasting Next Week.

The Rehosted Automated Fleet Management Course 1525‑01 Will Be Telecast
on Tuesday,

September 24th and an Overview Of the National Oil and Gas Inspection
and Enforcement

Strategy Will Be Broadcast on September 26th. For More Information about
These Distance

Learning Courses Contact the Training Center at 602‑906‑5500. To Help
the Office Participate In

the Site Training Courses, See the BLM Satellite Downlink Guide or Visit
the NTC Home Page

On the Worldwide Web. Our Temporary Address Is www.starlink.com/\~ntc :
Transcripts of this

Course and Other NTC Broadcasts Are Available on the Home Page. Joining
Me Again Today Is

Our Team of NEPA Specialists. Francis Berg, Welcome, Francis.

Thanks, a Lot, Doug. There Is an Old Saying You Can\'t Make a Silk Purse
out of a Sow\'s Ear

but Can You See What the Miracle Workers Have Done for Us Here. We
Cleaned up Tolerably

Well.

Were You in Madrigal Outfit On That Picture.

Not Quite.

Would You Be So Kind to Give Us a Little Bit of Your Singing Abilities?

Indeed, I Would Not.

You Wouldn\'t Mind?

Bob, Armstrong, Welcome.

Still Glad to Be Here. The Forecasters Were Right. The Phoenix
Temperature Didn\'t Break 100.

We Enjoyed the Week.

I Wanted to Ask You a Question about the Bib Overalls. Did You Have
Chewing Tobacco or

Did You Give up That Nasty Habit.

I Gave up That Nasty Habit The First Time I Tried It.

Glenn Carpenter, Welcome.

Thanks a Lot. I\'m Waiting for the Insult.

Okay. It\'s Coming. You Had a Hat on in That Picture. Was That Before
You Got Your Hair

Permed or after?

Oh, Boy. That Was When I Still Had Hair. This Is\...

a Wig?

Actually ‑‑ No, It\'s Really Not, but it Feels Pretty Stiff.

and Gregg Simmons, Welcome.

Thank You, Doug.

and We Had a Fax Comment on Your Hair. Where Do You Get Your Hair Done?

I Do it Myself.

Good. I Wanted to Ask You a Question About the Photo. Were You Hunting
Jackalope or Just

Trying to Keep These Guy Ins Line.

Just Trying to Keep These Guys in Line. I Think They Look Bet Inner the
Picture than up Here.

Okay. Folks, Let\'s Go to the Phones. We Have a Few on Line.

We Will Go to Cheyenne First And See How Dave Is Doing. See What He Has
to Say. Dave,

You\'re on the Air.

Caller: How You Doing?

Pretty Good. How Are Things in Cheyenne Today?

Caller: Not Too Bad. We\'re Not Getting Snowed on Yet, Anyhow.

That\'s Good. Are We Going to Bum You out to Tell You the Temperatures
Are Going to Get

up in the Middle 90s Now?

Caller: No, That Would Be Great.

That\'s What\'s Happening Here. Looks Pretty Nice. Why Don\'t We Get
Going. You Notice We

Got Jackalope Cropping up All over Here.

Was That Cropping Up?

Popping Up?

and We Have to Do Something About These Guys Pretty Quick. Can We Get
Through this

NEPA Analysis?

Caller: Sure. Did You Want Us to Take Off, Then?

Yeah, Why Don\'t You Tell Us What Issues You Came up with out Of the
Case Study.

Okay. Well, First of All, One of the Things That We Hadn\'t Talked About
Yesterday ‑‑ We Had

to Talk about Yesterday Was That Question Number 1, and We Thought this
Might Be an

Exception under the Rejection Clause, Because under Our Agreement with
Aphis Right Now,

Why, They Do All the NEPA Documentation, And, Therefore, That Falls
under Their Authority

Rather than BLM\'s. However, I Understand That Isn\'t The Exercise Here.
So, We\'ll Go Ahead

and Take off With Number 4.

Okay.

Caller: We Were Supposed to List Some of the Major Issues That Should Be
Addressed in the

NEPA Document. We Thought Impacts of the Jackalopes on Vegetation and
Therefore Wildlife

Forage Might Be an Issue. We Thought the Impacts of Control on the Prey
Base for the Bald

Eagle Might Be an Issue. We Thought the Impacts of the Control Methods
on Other Species That

Might Be out There Could Be An Issue.

on Other Species. You Mentioned Wildlife. Besides Wildlife and Bald
Eagle, You Thinking of

Other Species.

Caller: If They Use Poisons For Example, There Might Be Some Secondary
Poisoning Issues

That Come up or Something.

All Righty. Thank You.

Caller: We Thought Another Possible Issue Would Be the Impacts of the
Reintroduction of Bob

Cats and How They Would Be Affected by this Jackalope Control Proposal.

That Sounds Good.

Caller: the Impacts of the Jackalopes on Vegetation and Other Species If
Not Controlled.

Okay.

Caller: and Maybe Some of The Economic Impacts of Not Conducting Control
Might Be an

Issue That Comes Up, Too.

Economics. Okay.

All Right. Any Other Issues That You Come Up with?

Caller: Well, Those Were the Main Issues. I\'m Sure That Each One of
Those Would Probably

Spin off Some Other Considerations and Discussions. In That Question We
Were Also Asked to

Identify Those Critical Elements That Needed to Be Addressed, and Our
Feeling Was That All of

the Critical Elements Should Be Addressed. However, There\'s Probably
Only Certain Ones That

Would Be Applicable, and in this Particular Case We Thought That There
Were Four of Them

That Might Be Applicable, the Farmlands Element, the T&e Species
Element, the Waste and

Haz‑mat Might Be an Issue If Poisons Were Used, and Also Water Quality
Might Be an Issue If

Poisons Were Used.

Okay.

Caller: Let\'s See.

Ready to Move onto Question Number 5 and Let Us Know about The
Reasonable, Foreseeable

Future Actions?

Caller: Sure. We Thought That If Control Was Continued into the Future
That That Might Be

Something That Would Need to Be Considered out Into the Future.

Okay. Future Actions. Okay?

Caller: We Also Thought If There Was Severe Damage Being Done by the
Jackalopes That

There Might Be Issues Such as Supplemental Feeding of Domestic Livestock
or Big Game, Might

Come up as an Issue at Some Point in the Future. There Might Be ‑‑ There
Might Also Be Some

Offsetting Economic Benefits That Fall on the Beneficial Side, Too. It
Could Be That Some Party

or Some Interest Might Be Able to Use These Jackalopes as Novelty Items,
You Know.

I Can\'t Imagine That.

Caller: No, No\... We Also Thought That Maybe We Could Have a One or
Two‑shot Jackalope

Hunt or Something That Could Be Generated out of this. And We Also
Thought That If You Got

These Jackalopes When Their Antlers Were in the Velvet, Maybe They Could
Be Harvested as

Aphrodisiacs.

I\'ll Put That One down. He Said It.

You Have to Understand, this Is from Wyoming.

We\'ll ‑‑ a Little Slow up There for You, Isn\'t It?

Caller: Okay. Did You Want Question 6?

Yes, Move on ‑‑ Please, Let\'s Move on to Question 6. How Are the Key
Factors in Determining

Significance?

Caller: Okay. We Viewed Significance from the Standpoint of Context and
Intensity, and We

Thought That Contextwise We Should Probably Look Beyond Just Hoppy
Valley. We Might

Want to Know Whether or Not this Control Effort Would Have Effects or
Impacts Throughout

the Region, and So We Needed to Look at Other Levels Than Just Right at
Hoppy Valley. And in

Terms of Intensity, We Went Through the List of Items That Needed to Be
Looked At, and We

Picked out about Five of Them That We Thought Might Play a Part in a
Significance

Determination. The Benefits to Be Derived Versus the Adverse Impacts
That Might Occur Was

One of Them. Public Health and Safety Might Be an Issue That
Significance Would Turn On. It\'s

Certainly a Highly Controversial Issue, and So That Might Be Another
Item of Significance That

Needed to Be Considered. This Could Be a Precedent‑setting Action, and
So We Thought That

That Would Also Be a Turning Point for Significance. And, of Course, the
T&e Species Issue

with the Bald Eagle Involved Would Be Another Point Of Turning on the
Significance Also.

Okay. Good.

Wow. Very Thorough.

What about Public Involvement?

Caller: That Comes in in Considering the Controversy of It ‑‑ Oh, Do You
Mean the next

Question?

Yes, I\'m Sorry. The next Question.

Caller: as Far as Question 7 Goes, We Thought That There Probably Would
Be Several Things

That Would Be Needed. We\'d Have to Have Someone to One Meetings with
the Various Interest

Groups, and We\'re Thinking at Least the Ranchers And the Pjs. These
Jackalopes Might Also

Have Some Great Significance to the Native American Population. So Maybe
We Should Have

Some Meetings There.

Okay.

Caller: Certainly We Would Need to Get Involved in the T&e Species
Section 7 Consultation

Process. We Would Want to Have Some Good Scoping at the Beginning of the
EA Development.

by \"Scoping\" in Addition to These One‑on‑one Type of Meetings You Are
Talking about?

Caller: Right. We Would Want to Have Some Kind Of a Scoping Meeting
Before We Started

on the Ea.

I\'ll Put it down as Kind of General Scoping So We Can ‑‑ Distinctly
Different from What We

Had up There Before.

Is That a Capital S or Small S?

Small S.

Caller: We Also Thought it Might Be Appropriate to Have Some Public
Review and Some

Meetings at the Unsigned FONSI Stage.

Okay. I Am Going to Put down Meetings, Slash, Unsigned FONSI.

Caller: Finally, We Thought It Might Be Appropriate with the High Level
of Public Interest to

Maybe Have Some News Releases And Some Public Information Spots When it
Was at

Implementation Time.

Let\'s Move on to Question Number 8. What Did You Come up with for
Monitoring Evaluation?

Caller: We Had Two or Three Main Things. First of All, We Felt We Might
Want to Do Some

Spot Checks on The Actual Control as it Was Being Conducted. We Thought
it Might Be

Appropriate to Have an after Action Report, If You Want to Call it That,
at the End. And Then

We Thought it Also Might Be Appropriate to Have Some Long‑term
Population Trend Studies

Done on These Jackalopes To See Whether or Not the Whole Effort Was
Effective.

Okay. That\'s Pretty Good. Hopefully There\'s Something Left For Jack in
Tucson to Talk to Us

About. Appreciate Your Time.

We Do Appreciate It. You Guys Did a Thorough Job.

Maybe We Ought to Kill Aphrodisiac. I Understand the Population Isn\'t
Really High.

Go Ahead, Jack.

Caller: Somehow We Missed That Idea. There Are Only Two of Us Here And
Neither Are He

Can Experienced at All, but What We Came up with on the Four Major
Issues Were Reduction

and Control of the Jackalope Population, What Methods Were Going to Be
Used. We Would

Have Different Alternatives Regarding Local Attitudes, the Pjs and the
Ranchers. The

Reintroduction of the Bobcat And T&es, Especially the Bald Eagle, but
Whether There Might Be

Other T&es Involved as Well. Critical Element Would Be the T&e, Water
Quality, Effects of The

Poison If Used. That Was it for 4. 5 Would Be Cumulative Impacts ‑‑ We
‑‑ When We Got this

Sheet Back from You Guys, We Thought, Oh, Man, We Really Blew 5 and 6,
But in Listening to

the Wyoming Group, Maybe We Didn\'t Do as Bad. Results of the Control of
Population of the

Growth of the Jackalope, Introduction of the Bobcat, Monitoring its
Population If Introduced as

an Alternative to Poise Un and Trapping, Effects on Wildlife And
Vegetation, Other T&es. That

Was 5. 6 Is Significance of Impact, Context and Intensity. Context Was
Analyzing Effects on

Ranchers, How the Pjs Felt about Things. Vegetation and Grazing.
Intensity. Beneficial Impacts

of Control Would Be to the Ranchers and Grazing and Wildlife Who Use the
Forage. And

Population Reduction in the Jackalopes, Adverse Impacts Might Be
Poisoning, Trapping Effects.

If We Used Traps on the Livestock and on the Other Animals, Poison, Too,
Which Might Include

Other T&e Species, And a Fix on Pjs\' Attitudes. Question 7 Would Be
Pursue Public

Partnerships. One of the Things We Came up With Is If We Used a
Jackalope Drive, Could We

Have a Wild Jackalope Adoption Project Going On Here? Maybe the Pjs, to
Keep from Losing

Their Jackalopes Would Adopt a Bunch of Them.

They Would Probably Only Need To Adopt Two to Start with.

Caller: Which Might Even Take Us to Faca. And Get Them the Different
Public Partners to

Share in the Decisionmaking, the ‑‑ Wyoming Mentioned Aphis, but Game &
Fish Department.

This Would Be in Their Realm. Fish & Wildlife Service, at Least Informal
Conferencing with Fish

& Wildlife Service, and If We Used Traps or Poison, We Might Want to Go
to Section 7

Consultation. We Would Hold Public Meetings That Would Include All
Interested Parties. Then

in 8, We Would Monitor Field Sites, Inspect Landscape, Take Photos,
Obtain Studies on

Jackalope Populations and Studies on the Effects of Traps And Poison on
Wildlife. Also Maintain

Contact with Interested Public Groups.

Oh, That\'s an Interesting One.

Anything Else?

Caller: That\'s It.

Okay. Thank You, Jack. That Was Pretty Thorough, Too. Let Me Just Kind
of Recap a Couple

of Things. Actually I Think Between Both The Callers We Covered about
Everything We Had on

the List up Here with Respect to Our Class Solutions. It Will Be
Interesting to See What Each of

You Came up with on Your Faxed‑in Responses and We\'ll Keep Updating Our
Class Solutions

with the Different Things That People Add. One Additional Issue, I Think
You Got it ‑‑ Maybe I

Just Missed It. Maybe Somebody Said It. But the Opposition to the
Reduction by Pjs Is ‑‑ Would

Definitely Be One of the Issues That You Would Want to Deal with
Somehow. As for

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions, I Think You Covered All Of Those Pretty
Well. Key Factors in

Determining Significance, I Think Here You Want to Really Tier to the
Programmatic EIS and

Your Rmp/EIS That Talks about Pest Control to the Greatest Extent
Possible. Hopefully All of

the Significant Impacts Had Been Addressed in Those Environmental Impact
Statements. So That

Would Be One of the Factors That You Would Really Want to Consider and
Tier to Those

Documents and Note Those In Your Finding of No Significant Impact.
Public Involvement, I

Think You Might Have Also Said This, but I Didn\'t Have it Checked Off,
and That Was Ask for

Recommendations On Project Design and Different Control Measures. You
Certainly Did ‑‑ Jack

in Tucson Gave a Really Good Suggestion There about Maybe Starting an
Adoption Program.

Monitoring the Record of Decision for the Programmatic EIS Would
Probably Have Some

Monitoring Requirements with Respect to the Mitigation Measures Adopted
Through That

Decision Document, and Monitoring the Jackalope Population Effect on
Vegetation From Year to

Year Is Another Thing That You Might Want to Do. Now, Also in Recap We
Had One Question

from Yesterday Regarding Case Study 1, and That Is ‑‑ and this One Came
in From, I Believe it

Was, Tucson. On Case Study On, Why Wouldn\'t The EIS and the Amendment
‑‑ Why Wouldn\'t

an EIS‑level Plan Amendment Be Considered? I Think When We Put this
Together We Put this

Together as Something That the ‑‑ Was Already in Conformance with the
Land Use Plan, and

since it Was Already in Conformance with the Land Use Plan, it Was
Provided For in the Rmp

That a Plan Amendment Was Not Necessary. Also, since the Programmatic
EIS Hopefully

Addressed All the Significant Impacts, the ‑‑ That Was the Reason for
Making the Determination

That an Ea‑level Analysis Would Be Appropriate Right up Front. And Just
Check Sites

Specifically to See If There Were Any Significant Impacts. I Think That
Concludes it for The

Jackalope Case Study. Let\'s Move on to Case Study Number 2 ‑‑

We Will Be Going to El Centro And Talking to Rhonda.

Rhonda, Are You with Us?

Caller: Yes, I Am.

How Are You Doing up There?

Caller: We\'re Doing Okay.

That\'s over There.

Sorry about That.

Caller: down There.

What Did You Come up with for Issues on the Oil and Gas?

Caller: Well, We Thought That If They Go Ahead and Put The Wells In, it
Could Be an

Economical Boost to a Very Depressed Area.

Could You Turn Your Volume Down a Little Bit? We\'re Getting a Little
Feedback. The Tv

Volume.

Caller: It\'s off.

Okay.

Caller: I\'m Using a Speakerphone.

a Hand Set Is Better, Actually, but Go Right Ahead.

Caller: Okay. Did You Hear My First Comment?

Yes, Economics.

Caller: an Economical Boost To a Depressed Area. Still Bad, Huh?

Yes, it Is.

Maybe We Can Move onto the Next Phone Call ‑‑

.

Is it Possible for You to Get A Hand Set and Give Us ‑‑

Caller: Not Really.

‑‑ I Used this the Other Day And it Was Fine.

it Seems to Be Working Reasonably Fine Now ‑‑

Caller: Are You Still Having Feedback? Better?

No. Maybe We Should Move to the next Caller and See If We Can ‑‑

Caller: I Can Go to My Desk And Call You.

Do That and We\'ll Go to the Other Caller.

Caller: Okay.

Let\'s Move to Howard in Milwaukee. Howard?

Caller: Yes.

How You Doing up There?

Caller: Pretty Good. It\'s Early Fall.

I Bet You It\'s Not Going to Be 90‑plus Degrees There Today?

Caller: No, Just about 70.

What Did You Come up with for Issues on this Case Study?

Caller: Well, Rhonda Covered One of Them, the Socioeconomic Impacts,
Local and Regional.

The Elk Population Impacts and How We Would the Elks Be Impacted,
Calving Areas Be

Impacted by the Scenario. Nonpoint Pollution Caused by Road
Construction, Pads and Also The

Use of the Roads Later on During Operations. Air Quality, Water Quality
Would Be Impacted

and Would Be Major Issues. Fugitive Dust. Ground and Surface Waters.
Noise Impacts to the

Elk Calving Grounds.

Fugitive Dust and Calving for Elk?

Caller: Yes, and Noise Impacts. You Know, There Could Be a Loss Of
Calving Grounds and a

Physical Loss as Well as the Noise Impacts to the Grounds.

Speaking of Noise Impacts, Are You Also on a Speakerphone?

Caller: No, I\'m Not, but I\'m Going to Tell My Guy to Turn Down the
Sound.

Okay.

Caller: Then There Would Be Hazardous Materials Involved in The Drilling
and Operations and

Human Health and Safety. We Have Our Safety Officer Here, So ‑‑

If He Wasn\'t There, You Wouldn\'t Have Mentioned It, Right?

Caller: Nobody Else Would Have Thought of It.

Okay. You Want to Move on to Question Number 5?

Caller: Sure.

How about Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions.

.

Caller: We Thought We Could Tier Partially a off the Previous Plan EIS
Because They Did

Have a Scenario There. It Just Was a Little Bit less Robust than the One
That We\'re Thinking of

or Thinking Might Happen Now. So in Addition to the 10 Step‑out Wells, I
Believe There Would

Be 24 Production Wells, And That Was a Greater Impact, Would Cause a
Greater Impact Than

the Previous Document Analyzed. We Would Then Add Those Extra Miles of
Roads, Extra Miles

of Pipeline and Possibly Extra Dollars to the Local Economy and How
Would That Impact the

Socioeconomics of the Region and The Local Town. We Would Deal with
Waste Management in

the Scenario, How Would We Deal with That? At Abandonment Time, We Have
a Fluids Person

Here and She Mentioned That These Wells Could Be Rehabbed at Different
Times, And So it

May Not Go off out of Production All at Once, So We May Be Able to Phase
in the

Rehabilitation. And Then We Would Add this Extra Mitigation That Was
Suggested of Some

Kind of New Calving Ground Somewhere Else.

Oh, Okay.

Caller: as Well as the Standard Steps.

Okay. How about Key Factors in Determining Significance?

Caller: Again, You Go to the Context and Intensity Section And Look at
the Context of this

Development, Local and Regional Fashion. Then We Would Look at the
Previous Documents

and See What Was Relevant, What We Would Need To Readdress, Because We
Have a New

Scenario Here. We Have a Larger Development. And We Would Look at the
Intensity Factors

and Simply Go Down the List of Those and Apply Those. I Won\'t Bore
Everybody with the

Details, but They\'re on Page 37 Of the Green Book, and Most If Not All
‑‑ I Would Say Most of

Them Would Apply.

All Right. How about Public Involvement?

Caller: Well, We Would Have Our Talks with Key Groups, Elk Protection
Groups, Hunting

Groups, Local Government. We Would Have Our Consultations, Even Though
There Weren\'t

Any Identified Special Species, We Would Talk with Fish & Wildlife
Service and Fish & Game.

I\'m Sure Fish & Game Would Be Very Interested. We Would Have an Open
House or a Series of

Open Houses to Discuss The Proposal and How it Would Be Possibly
Implemented. And We

Would Have Public Meetings. We Would Be Scoping it Pretty Intensely,
Because it Sounds Like

a Major Action.

Okay. How about Some Monitoring Evaluation?

Caller: Okay. In Addition to this I & E Program, We Would Have Specific
Resource

Monitoring to Test Our Assumptions That We Analyzed in The Document. We
Would Check for

Environmental And Socioeconomic Changes Because since We Were Wrong the
Last Time, We

Should Be Pretty Careful about Making Sure That We Weren\'t Wrong Again
and Underanalyzing

or Underestimating the Impacts.

Okay. Anything Else?

Caller: That\'s about from Milwaukee.

Okay, Howard. Thank You. Appreciate That.

Caller: You\'re Welcome.

We\'ve Got Rhonda Back on the Line from El Centro. So We Will Be Going
Back to Her.

Rhonda?

Caller: Yes.

Sounds Better.

Caller: I Hope That Sounds Better.

Much Better. Thanks for Helping Us, Rhonda.

Caller: No Problem. I Just Wanted All My Partners With Me So They Could
Help Me If I

Needed It. The Issues That We Came up With, Once Again, the Economical
Boost To a

Depressed Area. It Appeared There Would Be Political Support. We Had
Public Interest ‑‑

Actually Both for and Against Putting in the Wells. They Were for it
Because it Would Help

Boost the Economy, But They Were Against it Primarily Because of the
Hunters. They Were

Afraid That They Would Lose Elk Habitat and Eventually Lose Elk. I
Can\'t See the Tv, So If I

Go Too Fast, Say Something.

Caller: ‑‑

That\'s Fine.

Caller: We Would Have Agency Involvement from Other Agencies On Adjacent
Lands, the

Forest Service and the State.

this Is on Issues?

Caller: Uh‑huh. We Were Concerned, I Guess, About Their Issues That They
‑‑ The Concerns

They Would Have.

You Bet.

Caller: and an Issue about The Loss of Habitat for Elk and How it May
Affect Their Migration.

We Also Looked at the Critical Elements Found on Page 33, and I\'ll Just
Quickly Go Through

Those. We Were Concerned about Air Quality, Cultural Resources, the
Environmental Justice,

Native American Religious Concerns, Hazardous Wastes and Water Quality.

Okay. Are You Ready to Move on to Question Number 5, Reasonable
Foreseeable Future

Actions?

Caller: Sure, Future Actions, We Were Concerned with The Production of
the Oil Wells That

the Field Would Develop and We Would Now Have Pipelines, Roads,
Refineries, Maybe a

Transshipment Site, and More Wells. Again, There Might Be Loss of
Habitat for the Elk and the

Wells May Produce a Movement Barrier to Elk Migration.

Okay. Key Factors in Determining Significance in Question Number 6?

Caller: Okay. Again, Impact Another Elk Calving Area and Their
Migration. We Were

Concerned If the Wells Exceed the 20 Limit in the Rmp. Political
Support. Community Support

or Opposition. And Then We Also Looked at the Intensity Factors in the
Book. Primarily Water,

Some of the Unique Characteristics and Other Oil and Gas Fields on
Adjacent Land Owners.

Okay. How about Number ‑‑ Question Number 7, Public Involvement?

Caller: We Would Have Public Meetings and We Would Get Their
Recommendations and

Concerns. We Would Coordinate with Adjacent Land Owners, the Forest
Service and State

Lands. We Talked about Having Probably An Open House. And We Would Also
Coordinate

With Fish & Game.

All Right. Monitoring Evaluation?

Caller: We Would Do Field Monitoring Based on the Conditions of the Ea.
We Decided Just to

Write an Ea. And We Would Also Want to Monitor the Elk Populations. That
Does it for El

Centro.

Okay. Thank You Very Much.

Caller: Thank You.

Did You Have Anything You Wanted to Wrap up ‑‑

Yes, Both Groups, You Did Well in Your Responses. It Sounds like You
Paid Attention to the

Directions and You Followed Through and Went Down Through the Different
Lists For

Checking Various Areas and Various Compliance Checks. One Thing That
this Does Is it Does

Provide a Way for the Leaseholder to Develop the Lease On Issues ‑‑ the
Other Issues That Came

Up, You Hit Them All, About the Elk, the Economics Relative to the Jobs
and the Social

Disruption and Involvement of Other Agencies. Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Development,

Want to Be Sure and Include When You List ‑‑ Consider, in this Case
Exercise, The 24 Wells as a

Future Potential. Cumulative Impacts Are an Important Part of That.
Significant Factors, You

Covered Those Very Well. Public Involvement, You Went the Extra Mile on
That One. You Did

a Great Job on It. And Monitoring Evaluation, in a Situation like This,
You Want to Be Sure and

Include Multi‑year Evaluation, Not Just a One‑shot Process. That\'s It.

We Did Have Two Comments That Came in by Fax on Case Study Number 2. One
Was from

Deborah in the Washington Office, and it Said, Always Be Sure That We
Include Native

American Consultation in Our Analyses as One of the Things to Always
Consider, Take Into

Consideration. Also, Another Comment Was ‑‑ Came in from Casper
Regarding Question

Number 5, and this Says: Would the Extra Mitigation Be an On‑lease Type
Mitigation? If Not,

Any Off‑lease Mitigation Is Considered Compensation and Must Be
Voluntary. That\'s Probably a

Key Point to Remember as Well. Okay? We\'re Ready to Move onto Case
Study Number 3.

in Miles City, My Hometown, We Have Kathy, and It\'s Been Raining and
Cooled off. Have My

Tomatoes Frozen Yet?

Caller: We Have Hadn\'t a Frost Yet. Your Tomatoes Are Probably Safe.

Okay. Good. I\'ll Have Something to Eat When I Get Home.

Just like a Dm to Ask Questions like That.

Should I Put down \"Tomatoes\" As an Issue on this ‑‑

Only If it Freezes. Let\'s Charge Right into this Kathy, Unless You Have
Something Else You

Would like to Share With Us for this Small Talk?

Caller: Well, We Can Go Ahead and Get Started. Ours Was the Gemco
Example, and Question

Number 4, Starting with The Major Issues, and We Had Water Quality,
Visual Resources,

Economics, Air Quality, the Close Proximity to the Wilderness, Acec and
Hazardous Materials.

Okay, Wait, Wait, Wait.

Caller: I\'m Talking Too Fast, Aren\'t I?

He\'s Writing Too Slow.

Caller: We Faxed this to You. I Figured You Would Have it Right There.

Water, Scenic Quality, Air Quality, Acec, Haz‑mat and ‑‑ Did I Get Them
All?

Caller: I Think You Did. I Can Barely Hear You.

He Has Them on the Elmo on The Tv There.

He Writes as Well as He Sings.

Let\'s Go on with Question 5.

Caller: We\'re Not Really Done with 4 Yet.

Oh, Pardon Us.

Caller: Critical Elements Was Part of That, and We Pretty Much Are the
Same as Major Issues,

Air Quality, Acec, Water Quality, Hazardous Waste and Wilderness.

Okay. Ready to Go on to 5 Now?

Caller: Sure.

Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions.

Caller: We Wanted to Consider the Expansion of the Proposed Mine since
the Geologist Said

There Was Fairly Extensive Resource Available, Future Requests from
Other Mining Companies,

the Expansion Of Existing Mines on Private Lands Where There Are
Potential Closure and Then

Nonreclamation, And Indirect Impacts to Support The Mines, Being
Additional Roads, Power

Lines, et Cetera.

Okay. Infrastructure.

Did You Get All Those?

I\'m Lumping.

Anything Else on Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions?

Caller: No.

Okay. Let\'s Move on to Question 6, Key Factors in Determining
Significance.

We.

Caller: We Started with Context, and the Effects the Mine Will Have on
the Entire Region.

Intensity Was ‑‑ It\'s Already a Highly Controversial Issue. You\'re ‑‑
Your Unique Characteristics

with the Acec. There\'s a Potential for Establishing a Precedent.
Cumulative Significant Impacts.

And There\'s a Potential to Impact on Public Health and Safety.
Thresholds Were Air Quality,

Water Quality, Haz‑mat, Stuff That\'s Already Been Legally Designated
Thresholds. And Then

Tiering, If the Private ‑‑ Mines on Private Land Had State Mine Plans or
EISs or Whatever.

Okay. What about Question 7 for Your Public Involvement?

Section 7 Consultation, Section 106, Native American Religious ‑‑
Whatever That Was,

Numerous Public Key Meetings With Special Interest Groups and A Lot of
Scoping and ‑‑ and

Possibly Looking into Setting up An Advisory Council since We Are Doing
an EIS.

Advisory Council. Okay. What about Monitoring and Evaluation?

Caller: Water Quality, Air Quality and Wildlife We\'d Monitor and
Haz‑mat, to Ensure

Compliance with Our Decisions And Then to Evaluate and Make Sure
Everything Met Our R.o.d.

And Then to Ensure That mid Indication Was Doing its Thing.

Excellent. You Have Anything Else on That?

Caller: Nope, That\'s It.

Appreciate Your Efforts.

Caller: You Bet.

Take Care. We Will Be Going to Burley, Idaho Now, and Speaking with
Karen.

Caller: Good Morning!

Good Morning, Karen. How Is Burley?

Caller: Oh, It\'s Pretty Good. It\'s Cool and Clear.

Okay.

Caller: No Frost.

We\'d like to Ask You to Turn Your Tv Volume down Just a Little Bit.

Okay. Is That Better?

Yes.

Go Ahead. What Did You Come up with on Question Number 4, the Issues.

Caller: Our Major Issue Was Economic Feasibility of this Mine. We Felt
That Mining 8,000

Ounces Of Gold with a Thousand‑acre Open Pit Was ‑‑ Constituted Undue
and Unnecessary

Degradation Possibly and We Thought in the Screening Process Overall ‑‑
or First Off, We

Would Have a Validity Determination Done Before the NEPA Document Was
Even Instigated

Because We Didn\'t Feel That These Were Valid Mining Claims. We Then
Assumed That That

Might Be a Typo, 8,000 Ounces, and Added a Couple of Zeroes to it And
Proceeded Then with

Our Analysis.

That\'s Probably What the Company Did, Too, for the Shareholders, I\'m
Sure.

Caller: Our Major Issues Were Water Quality and Quantity. Then Scenic
Values, Recreation

Values. Pretty Much the Same as the Other Group. Haz‑mat. Public Health
and Safety. Effects on

Wildlife and Air Quality And, as Well, the Acec Integrity and Wilderness
Suitability. That\'s the

Other Group Had Mentioned That. Critical Elements, We Analyzed Each One,
but Felt That Air

Quality, Acec, Haz‑mat, Water Quality and Wilderness Were the Main
Critical Elements, and

Then Cultural T&e and Native American Religious Concerns Are Pending
Survey Results and

Public Involvement.

Okay.

How about Question Number 5, Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions and
So ‑‑

Caller: We Thought That There Was the Distinct Potential For a
Significant Mine Expansion

Since the Price of Gold Fluctuates, Areas That Might Not Be Considered
Feasible Might Become

More Feasible as the Price of Gold Goes Up. And the Potential for
Additional Mines Because of

Improved Technology and Exploratory Information in Other Areas of The
Resource Area.

Community ‑‑ Impacts to the Community Infrastructure, Whether or Not
There\'s a Challenge

There Could Be Positive or Negative. And Utility Systems,
Rights‑of‑ways, Those Kind of Things

Would Be Necessary.

All Right. How about Key Factors in Determining Significance?

Caller: Okay. As Far as Context, We Felt That There Was Both Local and
Regional

Significance There and Affected Interests, the Ranchers And Hikers, and
as Far as Intensity Goes,

There Were Both Beneficial and Adverse Impacts. Public Health and Safety
Is a Concerned. It

Sounds like There Are Unique Characteristics of the Landscape That Could
Be Impacted.

Whether or Not It\'s Highly Controversial, We Weren\'t Conclusive on
That. Some Felt That it

Was, Others Felt That it Wasn\'t. And Cumulative Impacts, They\'re
Definitely Potentials for

Cumulative Impacts.

Okay. Ready to Move on to the next Question?

Caller: Okay. First Off, We Would Develop a Mailing List of Affected
Interests and Other

Local, State And Federal Agencies. Then Publish Our Notice of Intent in
the Federal Register

And Local and Regional Papers, Television Stations. That Would Kick off
the 30‑day Scoping

Period. We Would Have Two Public Meetings ‑‑ Oh, We Would Also Put it on
the BLM Home

Page.

Oh!

Oh, Okay!

My Calm Pate Ruts Reminded Me Of That. Then We Would Do the Same for The
‑‑ When the

Draft EIS Came Out on the Notice of Availability. We Would Recontact
Those Same Groups.

Okay. Excellent. How about Monitoring Evaluation?

Caller: Okay. Monitoring and Evaluation, We Would Do the Four Parts to
NEPA Monitoring,

Review the NEPA Document, Review the Authorization Documents, Field
Review and Reporting

on Page 29 Of the White Pages. We Didn\'t Really Go into Specific
Stipulations.

That\'s Fine.

Caller: ‑‑ That We Might Impose on the\...

That\'s Fine. That Sounds Really Good. Anything Else to Add?

Caller: No, I Don\'t Think So.

Thank You, Karen, We Appreciate It. You Did a Thorough Job.

Caller: Thank You.

Do You Have a Recap?

I Think Our Little Brainstorming Session When We Discussed the Potential
Solutions for This, I

Think They\'ve Nailed Virtually Everything with the Possible Exception
‑‑ I Think the Implication

Was There, Although It Wasn\'t Specifically Stated, That with Regard to
Key Factors In

Determining Significance, the Extreme Large Size of That Mine, As Well
as Additional Mines,

May Have Been a Factor in Determining Significance. But I Think That\'s
Really the Only Thing

That We Discussed That Didn\'t Come out Extremely Clearly in the
Discussions. I Appreciate

Your Efforts. We\'ll next Be Going to Medford And Talking to Charlie
There.

Charlie, Case Study Number 4, Motorcycle Trail Ride. How Are You Doing
There?

Caller: We\'re Doing Just Great!

That\'s Good. What Did You Come up with for The Issues on this Case
Study?

Caller: Well, Actually What We Did Is We Took a Hard Look at This Entire
Scenario, and the

First Thing We Did Is We Went Back to Our Rmp and Looked at The
Application and Our Rmp

Said That We Were Really Going to Be Dealing with Existing Roads, and
There\'s Some Question

about the Ungraded Portions of this Route Through the Wilderness Study
Areas, and Then the

Conflicts With the Acec Area, and So Being Good Public Servants, We Went
Into the

Smoke‑filled Back Rooms Of the American Motorcyclists Meetings and Began
Negotiations To

Relocate this Entire Route And Seeing as How They Are Crossing Other BLM
Areas and the

Forest Service, We Began Negotiations, Had Them Reroute The Entire
Motorcycle Race onto

The \<P\> (Record Read.)Ing Field Office Territory, and We\'re out Of
the Loop and We Didn\'t

Have To Deal with Them Anymore. We Went Ahead with Our Analysis ‑‑

Redding Is Willing to Do Anything.

There Is Far Too Much Staff In Medford Putting These Problems down on
Their Southern

Neighbors.

Caller: Okay. If That Didn\'t Work, We Have Another Answer.

Good! Let\'s Capture That.

If You Were Stuck with this Proposal, How Would You Handle It?

Caller: Well, the Major Issues We Would Focus Our Analysis on Is We
Would Seriously Take a

Look at Our Rmp And the Unbladed Portions and Found out If That Did in
Fact Meet a

Definition as an Existing Road Because it Is Critical, and If it Isn\'t,
Then We Would Have To

Work Very Hard with These Folks to Reroute That. Or We Would Have to
Amend Our Rmp If

We Thought it Was Appropriate to Do So. We Would Also Look at the ‑‑ We
Would Also Look

at the Potential Effects on the Acec as a Major Issue Controlling the
Unauthorized Side Trips

During The Event Could Be an Issue. Affects on the Wilderness Values In
the Wilderness Study

Areas Because We Would Want to Protect Those until Our Analysis Was
Complete on the

Wilderness Issues. Look at the Conflicts with Other Recreationists and
Sightseers And

Considering Noise and Dust As Issues as Well as Safety Factors.
Potentials for Increased Erosion

And Sedimentation That Could Result from Just Running down These
Unmaintained Roads and

Back Country Byways. Critical Elements We Would Look At, We Would
Certainly Go Back And

Look at the Effects on the Acec and the Wilderness Study Areas.

Okay. How about ‑‑ You Ready to Move Onto Question Number 5 with
Reasonably

Foreseeable Future Actions?

Caller: You Bet!

Okay.

Caller: for Reasonably Foreseeable Actions We Would Look at the Fact
That They Want This

to Become an Annual Event, And Back Again to the Acec and The Wilderness
Issue, That\'s

Going to Be a Major, Major Concern in There. Then There Is the Potential
for This Type of

Event to Increase In Number of Participants and Just Get Larger. So We
Would Have to Look at

Potential Future Increases in Impacts. There\'s Also the Potential for
Increased Use by

Motorcyclists During the off Periods, Otherwise Once It\'s Discovered,
We Can Anticipate

Increased Use.

a Little Freestyle Use, Huh?

Caller: Right. And We Would Foresee Some Kind Of Increased Need for
Erosion Control,

Particularly on the Unbladed Portions of the Route, And Potential for
Continued Conflicts

Between Motorcycle Racers and the Freestyle Users After the Fact and
Other Recreationists and

Sightseers.

Okay. You Ready to Move onto Question 6, Key Factors in Determining
Significance?

Caller: Sure. First of All, in Context, Because this Is ‑‑ We Felt this
Was a Regional Issue

Because it Actually Involves More than Just A Little Site, and Other
Cooperating Agencies, and it

Just Has a High Profile. So We Just Felt That it Was Going to Be at
Least a Regional Issue.

Intensity, We Really Kind of Felt That There Was a Lot of the Issues
Except 9 Could Possibly Fit

in Our Determination. Of Course, Both the Context and Intensity Would
Actually Come up In

Our FONSI Description, and That\'s When We Would Really Come Down and
Deal with it as Far

as Answering All These Questions. But We Felt That the Potential Impacts
‑‑ There Are

Potentials For the Impacts on the Unique Resources. That\'s Why We Have
an Acec up There and

the Wilderness Area. We Felt this Is a Highly Controversial Issue. This
Action ‑‑ They Want it to

Be Precedent‑setting. So We\'re Going to Have to Deal With Precedent
Setting. It and it Could

Have Major Adverse Impacts on the Significance of the Scientific And
Cultural Resource Values

of The Acec Resource Area and Just A Second\... Somebody Here Pointed
out That You\'re Not

Sure What We Mean by All the Numbers ‑‑ What We\'re Talking about Is All
the Items That Are

Listed under Intensity.

Right.

Caller: under 1508.27.

Right, the Nine Things. Right. You Want Me to Put down the Nine Things.

Caller: but I Have Highlighted the Ones That We Know Are Pretty Much
Major.

Okay.

Caller: Except Number 9. So There\'s Eight of Them.

minus 9 ‑‑

Caller: You Got That, Francis?

Got It!

Caller: That\'s Close. Hey, We Work for the Government. Okay. We\'re
Done with ‑‑ That\'s All

We Got on That One.

Let\'s Move onto the next Question, Then.

Caller: What Actions Would We Assure ‑‑ First Thing We Would Do Is
Publish the Notice Of

the Proposal in Our District List of Planned Projects. So People Would
Be Aware That This

Project Is on the Books, And We Will Be Looking at it in The Future, and
We Send That out To

about a Thousand Folks Every Quarter.

Okay.

Caller: We Would Hold Public Scoping Meetings and Workshops Because of
the Public Interest

And Potential Conflicts, Just The Basic Interest. We Would Prepare an
Information Packet

Explaining the Proposed Action and Routes and Request Comments from ‑‑
for Alternate ‑‑

Alternative Development and Also Issue Identification, and We Would Pass
Those out to the ‑‑ at

Least All the Groups and Individuals That Have Shown Concern Trying to
Get Some Kind Of

Feedback So We Can Start Consolidation on What this Whole Thing Is Going
to Look like. Enter

into Mous with Other Federal and Local Agencies.

Okay. Very Good.

Caller: and Pass the Lead to Redding.

Nice Try!

He\'s Still Awake.

Caller: Meet with the Interest Groups and Any Interested Individuals on
a One‑on‑one Basis.

Go to the Smoke‑filled Room of The American Motorcyclist Association and
the in Sense Room

of the Environmental Groups.

Okay.

Caller: and When We Finally Got the Environmental Assessment Completed
and the Unsigned

FONSI, We Would Put That out for Comment, Review and Comment, on The
FONSI.

Okay.

Caller: and Eventually We Would Reach a Decision.

So It\'s an Unsigned FONSI If I Understood You Correctly?

Caller: Yes. That\'s All We Have for That.

Okay.

Good.

Appreciate It.

Thank You Very Much. We\'re Going to Move to Evelyn in Elko ‑‑ Sorry,
Did We Miss a

Question?

Number 8.

Let\'s Taking Monitoring Evaluation.

Caller: First Thing We Would Do Is Go out and Work with the Proponent on
the Route. We

Would Take Photos of All Sensitive Areas Before the Event. We Would Also
Come Back and Do

‑‑ Take Photos During the Event And after the Event. We Would Have
On‑site BLM Inspectors

to Assure Compliance With Permit Stipulations During The Event,
Particularly Any Deviations

from the Route. We Would Check Afterwards for The Effectiveness of Our
Mitigation Measures

for ‑‑ Particularly for Soil Erosion And Any Impacts That Might Be
Occurring to Those Routes

That Are Not Maintained and Don\'t Have Good Road Surfaces on Them, And
We Would Take a

Look at the Stipulations and Mitigating Measures and See If They Were
Effective. Then We

Would Use Those, the Results of All That to Test Our Basic Assumptions
That We Made To See

If Those Assumptions Achieved Our Environmental Objectives in Allowing
this Event to Take

Place.

Okay.

Great!

Anything Else to Add?

Caller: No.

Thank You, Charlie. Appreciate It.

We\'re Going to Be Going to He Will Co‑next. We\'ve ‑‑ We Have Both a
Telephone Call as Well

as a Fax From Elko and I Think What I Will Do Is Go Ahead and Cover The
Fax First. This Is

Really Directed to Francis. Question Is: Are There Polyphonic Musical
Forms That Predate the

Madrigal?

Yes, There Are, I\'m Sure. Certainly in European, Let Alone Elsewhere in
the World. I\'m Sure.

Is Cacophony Polyphonic?

No ‑‑ Let\'s Get Back to What We\'re Doing.

Evelyn, How Are Things up There in Elko?

Caller: Wait a Second, I Just Lost Our Channel Here.

That May Be a Blessing. I Don\'t Know.

Caller: Well, It\'s Cold. We Have Snow in the Rubies and The Gardens Are
Frozen.

Would You like to Tell Us What You Came up with for the Response to
Question Number 4 on

The Issues?

Caller: Question 4, Major Issues, We Had Acecs, Wsas, Public Concern,
Recreation, Air

Quality, and Methods of Compliance as in Sticking to the Marked Route.

That\'s Good. Anything Else? Call That\'s All We\'ve Got for That One.

How about Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions?

Caller: We Had the Potential For Increased Number of Riders Each Year in
this Event.

Okay.

Caller: the Fact It\'s an Annual Events and It\'s Proposed To Be Run in
‑‑ next ‑‑ in Additional

Years. Then We Also Thought Socioeconomic Impacts to the Area Would Also
Be Reasonable

Foreseeable Impact.

All Right. Anything Else on That Subject?

Caller: That\'s All We Had For That.

How about Question Number 6, Key Factors in Determining Significance?

Caller: Some of Our Key Factors Were the Location of the Ride, the
Sensitive Environment

With the Wsas and Acecs, the Timing of the Event, What Time Of Year Are
They Planning it For.

Interesting\...

Caller: and Then the Public Interest That\'s Already Been Voiced on the
Event.

Okay. Ready to Move on to Question Number 7, Public Involvement?

Caller: Okay. We Had a Number of Things Listed Here. One of Which Was Do
a Mailing to

The Interested Public. We Would Also Include it in Our Twice Yearly NEPA
Calendar Mailed

out to Several Hundred People. We Would Do an EA Which Had a 30‑day
Comment Period on

the Draft, Quote‑unquote, EA and the Unsigned FONSI. We\'d Do Meetings
with Interest

Groups. And We\'d Also Do Some Kind of Memorandum of Understanding or
Cooperative

Agreement with All The Other Agencies Involved.

Okay.

How about Monitoring Evaluation?

Caller: We Had Some Specific Things We Would Look At, Have Staff and
Volunteers on the

Ground During the Event to Make Sure They Stay on the Designated Route,
to Have a Pre‑event

Meeting with All the Participants, to Explain the Stipulations and the
Need to Stay on the

Existing Routes, Monitor the Condition of the Route, Both Pre and
Post‑event. Then We Would

Gather Feedback After the Event from the Interest Groups and the
Parties, Determine What They

Saw as Impacts or If They Felt There Were No Impacts.

All Right. Anything Else?

Caller: That\'s All We\'ve Got.

Well, Thank You Very Much, Evelyn. Good Job.

Gregg, as a Quick Summary on Those, Both Groups Did Very Well In Their
Responses in

Analyzing What Was Going On. And the Reasonable Foreseeable Development,
Be Sure to

Picture In Cumulative Impacts in Situations When You\'re Doing Your
Impact Analysis. Other

than That, Both Groups Hit Most the Major Items.

Good. Before We Go on to Case Study 5, We Did Get a Question Yesterday
‑‑ Actually it

Wasn\'t Much of a Question ‑‑ as Much a Question As it Was a Comment.
None of the Case

Studies Use Administrative Determinations. Please Provide One or Two
Examples of Situations

Where Ads Are Used. This Came from Mile City. This Is a Good Time to Do
it Because this

Particular Exercise Lends Itself Well to Using an Ad For Future Trail
Rides in Future Years

Providing There\'s Really No New Information, No New Controversy, No New
Data, Things

Haven\'t Changed Much. The Proposal Doesn\'t Change Much. In Other
Words, the EA Would

Basically Be Saying Exactly the Same Thing. So in this Particular Case,
Excess ‑‑ Successive

Years Providing All the Cumulative Impact Analysis Was Documented In
this Particular

Environmental Assessment, for Future Years, Like next Year Particularly
an Ad Process May

Work Very Well in That Case.

I Was Going to Say the Cumulative Impact Discussion Is Really Going to
Benefit Them. They

Can Turn Around and Say, \"Been There, Done That\" Type of Thing. Don\'t
Have to Do it Again.

That Is One of the Key Benefits to Doing Adequate and Good Cumulative
Impact Analysis On

Proposals, Even in Environmental Assessments, Being Sure You Tier to
Your Programmatic EIS

If Applicable, To Your Rmp/EISs, to Your Related NEPA Documents and So
On. If You Tier

and Incorporate by Reference and Work with All of Your Existing NEPA
Analysis Base, That\'s ‑‑

and Plan for That in the Future, Especially If You\'re ‑‑ Where These
Folks ‑‑ this Proponent

Came Forward And Said We Want to Do this Annually from Now, Take a Look
At That and Try

to Build Yourself a Base from Which to Work as Early as Possible and it
May Cut Your

Workload and Streamline Your Processes Later.

You Bet.

Let\'s Go to Vernal and Talk To Jerry There.

Caller: Hello.

Jerry, How\'s it Going?

Caller: Weather Is Starting To Clear out. Unfortunately Now I Don\'t
Have To Wear My Coat

Anymore.

Okay.

Jerry, We Might Need You to Turn Your Tv Volume down a Little Bit. I
Think We Heard a

Little Feedback.

Caller: Yeah, They\'re Doing That Now.

What Did You Come up with on The Issues on the Tallwood Timber Sale?

Caller: the Issues Our Group Came up with Was Check the Validity of the
Information in The

Rmp, Especially in Regard to The Spotted Owl Nesting Area. The Half‑mile
Buffer along the

Stoney River, Whether or Not That Was Enough or the Proposed Action
Would Compromise the

Wild And Scenic River Status. Whether or Not the Use Area Is Still a
Class 3. Roads Would Be

an Issue. Would They Be Left Open for Recreational Purposes Afterwards?
If So, Would the

Recreation Use Increase? Seasonal Issues Such as Heavy Sport Fishing,
Soil Compaction,

Clearing Indexes for Slash Burning. Were the Other Proposed Timber Sales
Covered by the

Allowable Cut in the Rmp? Logging Interests Versus Environmental
Interests. Socioeconomics,

et Cetera.

Okay.

Caller: the Critical Elements That We Considered ‑‑ Or That We Felt Were
More Applicable

than Just Everything Listed There Were the T&e, Air And Water Quality,
Riparian Floodplain

Zones, Wild and Scenic River, Environmental Justice.

Okay.

All Right. Ready to Move to Question Number 5, Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions.

Caller: Okay. ‑‑ What We Came up with Was Increased Recreation in the
Area Of the Roads ‑‑

If the Roads Were Left Open. We Should Account for All the Timber Sales,
Not Just These

Three. And If ‑‑ or Will Use on the Stoney River Increase If It\'s
Listed as Wild and Scenic River

And Would That Have an Impact on The Viewshed.

How about Question Number 6, Then, Key Factors in Determining
Significance? Call under

Context ‑‑ We Went to Context and Intensity Areas ‑‑ Under the Current
Rmp, Does it Analyze

the Effects That Stoney River Was Listed as Wild and Scenic? Does it
Analyze Increased

Recreation Use from Roads? Would Increased Recreational Use Have an
Impact on the Spotted

Owl? The Short and Long‑term Effects Of Past, Present and Future Logging
Activities. Under the

Intensity, the Ones That ‑‑ of Those Ones Listed on Page 37, Those 10,
the Ones That We Kind

of Highlighted Were Impacts That May Be Both Beneficial and Adverse, the
Degree to Which

Proposed Action Affects Public Health and Safety, Mainly in Regard to
the Burning Issues, the

Degree to Which Affects on the Quality of Human Environment Are Likely
to Be Highly

Controversial. Whether or Not the Action Is Related to Other Actions.
And Then T&e.

Okay. Anything Else?

Caller: Ready to Move onto Question Number 7, Public Involvement?

Caller: Yeah. We Started out with an Open House. Then Either Follow up
With, If Needed,

with Informal Meetings With Known Affected Parties Such As the Residents
Who Were

Complaining about the Burning, The Conservation Coalition, Which Could
Be Used to Clarify

The Issues, and Then Go Through The EA Process with the Unsigned FONSI,
the Noa, 30‑day

Public Review Comment Period, Then the Appeal Period. We Also Have at
Least in Our State a

NEPA Bulletin Board Which I Assume Will Get Back to A Home Page Sometime
Here in the

Future. Section 7 Consultation and the ‑‑ There Was the One Part Listed
In the Book on Fish &

Wildlife Coordination Act Where If You May Have an Action Impacting the
Stream, Where it

Would Be Modified. I Guess That\'s a Question on Whether or Not the
Logging Activities Would

Modify the Streams and Rivers to Where That Would Have to Occur or Not.

Okay.

All Right. Monitoring and Evaluation.

Caller: in Our Group We Had People Viewed it Differently. There Was Some
That Looked at it

From the NEPA Compliance That Was Talked about Yesterday and Also
Resource Compliance,

Even Though They Fit Together, the NEPA Compliance Would Basically Be
the Same Issues

That Was Discussed or Presented Yesterday, You Know, Get Back With That
Report Form.

Some of the Specifics from a Resource Compliance Would Be Monitoring
Road Construction,

The Harvesting of Logs, the Time Diagnose the Times When Burning Was to
Occur, Logging

Systems, Et Cetera.

Okay.

Anything Else?

Caller: That Was It.

All Right, Jerry. Good Job. We\'re Going to Be Going Back to The Land of
the Jackalope and

Speaking to Marianne in Worland.

Are You There?

Caller: You Bet You. I Have Not Been Kidnapped by Jackalopes Yet So I\'m
Okay.

We\'re about to Be Overrun With Them, as You Can See. What Did You Come
up with in Terms

of Issues on the Tallwood Timber Sale?

Caller: Some of the Issues We Talked about Were the Obvious Economic
Benefits from the

Logging and Then the Spotted Owl Issue Was Brought Up, but Luckily Our
Biologist Helped the

Forester Lay out All the Timber Sales and So There Were Several Surveys
Done in the past Three

Years in Those Direct Areas as Well as in the Buffer Zone Around Them.
The Wild and Scenic

River Potential Designation Is Also an Issue That Needs to Be Addressed.
Sport Fishing in the

Area and Hunting, Those Still Occur. The Air Quality, Especially If You
Decide to Intern and

Slash On Those Bad Days. The Soil Compaction, Some of That Soil in Unit
3com Packets Pretty

Badly When Wet. So We May Even Look at Doing Some Horse Logging Versus
the Tractor

Logging in That Area.

Interesting.

Caller: We\'re Also Concerned With Some Erosion. We Do Have Some Good
Buffer Zones

Around Our Riparian Areas But Still Want to Look at Erosion and Water
Quality. And in All of

Our Proposal We Tried to Incorporate the Best Conservation Practices in
Regard To That ‑‑ That

Project.

That\'s Good.

Ready to Move onto Question Number 5, Reasonably Foreseeable ‑‑

Caller: I\'ll Go over Some Critical Elements, Too, While I\'m Here. The
Air Quality, That\'s

Something in Terms with the Slash Burning. We Did Want ‑‑ Looked at Some
of The Culture,

Especially the Custom and Culture in the Area Since Logging Was Done 40
Years Ago. That

May Be Some Historic Something We Need to Look At. For Environmental
Justice, One Of the

Minority Populations That We Need to Address Are the Artesians in the
Area.

Are They Friends of the Jackalopes?

Caller: I Don\'t Think They Interbreed at All Because There\'s Quite a
Bit of Distance Between

the Tallwood Forest and The Jackalopes of Hoppy Valley.

Very Good. Artesians and Everything Else.

Caller: and We Would Have to Look at the T&e, Address We Have Looked at
the Spotted Owl

Habitat in the Area, and it Isn\'t There. There Are Some Wastes ‑‑
Hazardous Wastes That We

Might Need to Look at Such as Machinery Leaks and So Forth From the
Vehicles There, as Well

As the Solid Waste from the Horse Logging. Might Need to Deal with That
Somehow.

That\'s Part of the re ‑‑ Rehab. Fertilizer.

Caller: and We\'re Looking at Wetlands and Riparian Zones and There Are
Some Possible

Native American Concerns. We Are Not Aware of That at this Time but
Possibly Through Our

Number 7 Public Involvement We May Find out Something about That.

Okay. How about Question Number 5 Now?

Caller: Okay. We Do Need to Look at the Timber Sales in the Adjacent
Drainages Since Those

Are Going on at this Time. The Slash Burning and the Conditions That We
Would Do That In So

it Wouldn\'t Be Considered Bad. The Wild and Scenic Potential
Designation and the Action Plan

Associated with That. Potential Recreation Increase Because of the
Decreased Density Of Trees

and the Improved Nonvehicular Access along the Reclaimed Skidding
Trails.

Okay. Anything Else? Call Nope, That\'s it for That.

How about Key Factors in Determining Significance?

Caller: under Context, We Felt That the Local Custom and Culture Was a
Fairly Strong Factor

for the Logging. So it Was a Pretty Controversial Locally. And Then the
Owls, Which Is a

National Sort of Thing to Look At from That Perspective. And Then Also
We Looked at Wild

And Scenic Rivers, the Public Health Concerns with the Air Quality, and
Then We Also Looked

At the Spotted Owl Conservation Plan and the Associated EIS and The
Significant Impacts That

Were Addressed in That and How That Might Affect This, Even Though the
Owls Were Not in

These Areas.

Okay.

Very Good.

All Right. Anything Else?

Caller: That\'s it for That.

Public Involvement?

Caller: First Off, We Have To Meet with That Tallwood Conservancy
Coalition to Find Out

Their Concerns, and We Will Also Have Several Media Releases On the
Artesian Radio and

Other Rural Cooperatives to Try to Reach Our Minority Pop Legs out
There. And Then Other

Local Media as Well to ‑‑ Concerning the Proposal and Possible
Alternatives to the Proposal. We

Do Want to Let the County Commissioners and Any Consultants They Might
Have Know What

this Proposal Is. And Then Also for American Rivers or Other Wild and
Scenic River Groups

That Are Interested In Wild and Scenic River, Want To Make Sure They Are
Aware of This

Going On. It\'s above the Designated Area, But, Still, They Would like
to Know, I\'m Sure.

You Bet.

Caller: Also Want to Talk ‑‑ Make Sure That the Logging Companies Want
‑‑ Know about it

And the Conservation District. Would Be Terrible to Put These Sales up
and Have Nobody Want

Them.

Okay. Call We Would Do Some Informal Consultation with the U.s. Fish &
Wildlife Service So

They Don\'t Think We Are Sneaking Anything By Them. Same Thing with
State Game & Fish and

State Deq. Probably Have a Notice of Availability with an Unsigned FONSI
to Make Sure All the

Initial Public Involvement Met All ‑‑ or Had All the Issues Discussed.
And We Would Keep a

Very Good Public Comment Record in Case The Tallwood Conservation
Coalition Did, Indeed,

Take Us To Court We Could Have All of Our Ts Crossed and Is Dotted and
Be Able to Survive

That. And Then We Would Have Our Notice of Availability and the Decision
Record and We

Would Publish Those in the Federal Register.

Okay. Anything Else?

Caller: Nope, That\'s it for That One.

How about Monitoring Evaluation.

Caller: One Thing We Would Want to Do Is Monitor the Changes in the
Water Quality in The

Stoney River as Well as Other Creeks Involved, Especially the Stoney
River, Those. And Air

Quality in the Area. Might Put up Traffic Counters on The Roads to See
If Recreation Has

Increased or Not. We Would Have the Timber Specialists and Service
Compliance Specialists

Check to Make Sure All the Permit Requirement Are Being Met at That
Time. We Would

Monitor the Walter ‑‑ Water Quality and If the Water Quality Went above
What We Were

Expecting, We Would Keep That Information for Further Timber Sales So
That We Would Be

Able To Use That Information and Say, Wait, We Did Something Wrong,
Let\'s Mod Few Future

Proposals To Accommodating Water Quality Concerns.

Great.

Okay. Anything Else?

Caller: Well, If All Else Fails, by Now the Snow\'s Melted, So Now I Can
Find a Hole to Crawl

into.

Thank You Very Much, Marion. Did Job. Both Groups Did a Good Job as
Well. Everybody Has

a ‑‑ It\'s Not Surprising. I Think That in Recapping All of The Issues
That We Spotted, You Guys

Have Covered. In Terms of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions,
Hopefully Your Rmp/EIS

Addressed Some Reasonable Foreseeable Management Actions That Might
Include Things Such

as Timber Harvesting, Not Only Harvesting But Removal but Site
Preparation And Reforestation

and Other Stand Improvement Projects. Tier to Go Those Discussions in
The Rmp/EIS Would Be

Appropriate And I Would Encourage You Not to Forget to Do That Instead
of Just Developing

Additional Ones. Key Factors in Determining Significance\... Don\'t
Forget We Should

Concentrate on New Information Not Previously Analyzed in the Other
Documents And Also

Always Pay, and I Know This Has Been Mentioned Several Times, Pay
Specific Attention to

Site‑specific Clearances for T&e, Cultural and So On. I Think You
Covered the Public

Involvement Aspect Very Well. One Thing That Happens in Timber
Harvesting Areas,

Particularly In Western Oregon, Both Prelogging and Post‑logging ‑‑ We
Have Prelogging

Conferences, We Have Active Contract Administration Going on Actively
During the Actual

Timber Harvesting and Removal Itself. So Those Kinds of Things Happen. I
Don\'t Recall If

Anyone Said It, but We Would Certainly Want To Monitor the Potential
Impacts On the Owls

That Are in the Area To Make Sure They\'re Not Being Adversely Affected.
Now, I Did Have

One Question I Would like to Address with Respect to this Case Study
Which Was a Fax That

Came in Yesterday From Palm Springs, and That Is, It Says, If Public
Controversy Can Trigger

an EIS, Why Didn\'t The Threat of an Injunction from The Tallwood
Conservancy Coalition Do

So in Case Study Number 5? I Would Only Allow the Threat of An
Injunction Bother You If ‑‑

Or Bother Us If There Is New Information That Has Been Presented and
We\'ve Ignored It. If

There\'s a Procedural Flaw or Relevant Information Has Not Been
Considered by Us. As Long as

We Can Show That We Followed All the Appropriate Procedures, We\'ve
Considered All

Relevant Information, We\'ve Involved Our Publics Throughout, I
Wouldn\'t Get Concerned about

The Threat of an Injunction. That Was the Reason Why We Built This Case
Study this Way, Was

to Kind of Get the Message out. It\'s Still Okay to Go Ahead and Do the
Ea. Remember, It\'s Kind

of a Waste Of Time to Try to Make Everything Appeal‑proof. So We\'ll
Learn from Our Mistakes

And Keep Going. Any Other Comments on the Case Study, Guys?

None Here.

Nope.

We\'ll Turn it over to You, Doug.

at this Point We Are Going to Take a Short Break. When We Come Back,
We\'ll Be Hearing

from Gregg, Who Will Be Presenting Some Rules of Thumb Regarding NEPA.
After Gregg\'s

Presentation, We Open up the Phones Once Again to Hear from You. We\'ll
See You in 15

Minutes.

Welcome Back to Our Final Segment on Our NEPA Course. As Promised, First
Gregg Will

Present Some Rules of Thumb and Important Reminders on How to Make NEPA
Work

Effectively for You. Gregg?

Thank You, Doug. Let\'s Go Right to Some General Rules of Thumb and
Based upon The

Self‑assessment Right at the Very Beginning of the Telecast On
Wednesday, We Got a Couple of

Faxes in Asking Questions about This Particular Rule of Thumb. Never
Call an Impact Adverse

or Beneficial. Okay. And We Got One Question Saying: Why Not? And
Another One Saying: If

the I.d. Team Doesn\'t Determine Whether an Impact Is Adverse,
Beneficial or Whatever, Who

Does? I\'d like to Begin Answering That Question by Saying That Ceq in
Their Guidance Has

Counseled Us Not to Lead People to Conclusions. What We Should State Are
the Facts. And

What Impact, If an Impact Is Beneficial to Me or Adverse to Me, and Vice
Versa to You, Is a

Subjective Determination. Let Me Give You an Example. I\'m a Forester
from Western Oregon.

Worked out There for Several Years. Clear Cuts Didn\'t Look That Bad To
Me. But There May

Be Some of You Watching this Telecast That a Clear‑cut Is One of the
Most Terrible Looking

Things There Are. Same Goes for Open Pit Mines. So Is the Impact
Actually Beneficial or Is it

Adverse? And, You Know, Those Are Just a Couple of Examples Where If We
Put a Label on It,

We Invite Somebody to Comment on it or Challenge Us on That. We Don\'t
Have to Put a Label

on It. We\'re Not Required to Put a Label on It. And If It\'s Adverse or
Beneficial, it Really Doesn\'t

Matter. Should Be in the Eyes of the Beholder. As Far as Managers Are
Concerned, They Can

Make the Determination When They\'re Writing the FONSI If They So
Desire. Okay? Let\'s Move

on to the next General Rule of Thumb. Never Call an Impact Significant
Or Insignificant in Any

Document. I like to Present this as a Rule Of Thumb for a Couple of
Reasons. Number One, If

You Call an Impact Significant in an Environmental Assessment, and I
Have Seen That Many

Times, You Contradict Yourself If the Responsible Official Signs the
FONSI. I\'ve Seen Several

FONSIs Written On Eas Where the EA Actually Identifies a Significant
Impact. So You Should

Never Write Significant or Insignificant in A FONSI. That\'s a
Determination That Is Made at the

Finding of No Significant Impact Stage. As for Environmental Impact
Statements, by Definition,

an Environmental Impact Statement Considers All Significant Impacts.
There Is No Need to

Necessarily Identify an Impact Significant In an EIS. So, Therefore, If
You Just Get In the Habit

of Not Using the Terminology When Writing an Ea‑level Analysis or EIS
with The Exception of

When You Are Doing a Finding of No Significant Impact, That Will Help
You out and Clear up

Some Possible Conflicts for You Later On. Let\'s Look at the next One.
Where a Standard Exists,

a Finding must Be Made. Okay? This Is What We Were Referring To Earlier
on When We Talked

About the Critical Elements, a List of the Critical Elements, And We
Often Get the Question as A

Negative Declaration That These Resources Would Not Be Impacted, Really
Necessary. Counsel

Tells Us, Told Me a Long Time Ago, When I First Got into Doing a Lot of
NEPA Analysis, If

There\'s a Standard That Exists, You Should Be Making a Finding In Your
NEPA Document. So

It\'s Worthwhile to Make That Negative Declaration Somewhere In Your
Record. Let\'s Take a

Look at Some Additional General Rules of Thumb. An EA or an EIS Should
Include Only

Information That\'s Essential to Making a Reasoned Choice among
Alternatives. This Is Where

We Often ‑‑ If We Ignore this One, We\'re Going to End up with EISs That
Far Exceed The

Recommended Page Limitations, That Ceq Has, 150 Pages in an EIS. Ceq
Recommends ‑‑ or Has

‑‑ Recommends That We Keep Eas to About 15 Pages. A Lot of Us Produce
Environmental

Impact Statements And Environmental Assessments That Are Much Larger
than Those, And If

You Concentrate on Only Documenting in the Environmental Assessment or
the Environmental

Impact Statement That Information Essential to Making A Reasoned Choice
among Alternatives,

Then You Can Limit The Amount of Paper Work That You Reproduce and Send
out to The

Public. I\'m Not Saying Don\'t Consider It, but Keep it in the
Supporting Record. Let\'s Look at the

next One. Always Have a Supporting Record That Documents a Process
Followed and All the

Data and Factors Considered During the Analysis. As You Can See, These
Two Really Work

Together. So ‑‑ Also Remember That the Responsible Official Is the
Person Responsible for

Assuring Adequate NEPA Analysis. And NEPA Adequacy. No One Else Is. And
the Responsible

Official Cannot Abdicate That Role to Anyone Else. Here Are a Couple of
Other General Rules of

Thumb. Never Write a NEPA Document or Follow an Environmental Process
That Is Not

Provided for in the Ceq Regulations or BLM\'s NEPA Manual and Handbook.
We Shouldn\'t Be

Developing Our Own Documents or Processes. Upon Judicial Review, If
It\'s by Federal Court, or

by Ibla, They Are Bound by NEPA\'s Interpretation of the Regulations,
Not Our Own. If it Is ‑‑ If

the Process Is Provided for in Either the Ceq Regulations or BLM\'s NEPA
Manual And

Handbook, That Process Would Be Something That the Judicial Review Would
Have to Provide

Deference To. Another Rule of Thumb, General Rule of Thumb, Is
Incorporate Mitigation in the

Description of The Proposed Action Whenever Possible. We Recommend this
Highly to Deal

With All of the Impacts That You Think Might Occur out There in The
Field. Design Your

Proposal, Mod Fight It as You Go along. ‑‑ Modify it as You Go along.
That\'s What NEPA

Intended. That\'s the Spirit of the Law. Continue to Take Actions to
Restore and Enhance the

Environment. Let\'s Look at a Couple Rules of Thumb That Are Specific to
the Ea‑level Analysis.

First of All, and We\'ve Covered This Before, So I Don\'t Think I\'ll
Spend Too Much Time, There

Are No Such Things as Draft Supplemental or Revised Eas. Again, Ceq
Advises That the EA

Text Not Exceed ‑‑ We Said 25 Pages Here. We Have Extended Their 15 Page
a Little Bit, but

15 to 25 Pages. Another One Is That Sometimes We Spend Quite a Bit of
Time Doing

Environmental Assessments, and Although an EA Could Be Prepared In as
Little as a Few Days,

the Typical Time Frame Generally Seems to Be Between 60 and 180 Days. If
You\'re Needing to

Spend More Time than 180 Days to Do an Ea‑level Analysis, Just Remember
One Thing, You

Can Do an EIS in Nine Months to 14 Months. So You ‑‑ You Might Be More
Prudent to Move

in That Direction. Another Rule of Thumb\... Never Sign Environmental
Assessment. We Say

this. There Used to Be a Time, and I Know That We Used to Do it When I
Was an

Environmental Coordinator in Oregon and Some Of Our Offices Did It, We
Would Always Have

Our Resource Specialist Sign the Environmental Assessments. Some of Them
Did Not Agree

with The Overall Analysis and Felt That That Was Inappropriate for Them
to Sign or They Didn\'t

Want To. Eas Don\'t Need to Be Signed. Only the Finding of No
Significant Impact and the

Decision Record Need to Be Signed. So Our Recommendation Is Don\'t Sign
the Ea. It Is

Appropriate, However, to List Your I.d. Team in Your Document Somewhere.
Only the

Responsible Official Should Sign the FONSI. We Need No Other Signatures.
It Is the

Responsible Official\'s Position to Make That Finding of No Significant
Impact. So It\'s Not

Necessary for Anybody Else to Sign. A Significance Determination Is Made
Only in a FONSI,

Never in An Ea. We Certainly Talked about That a Few Minutes Ago. Some
More Rules of

Thumb Specific to an Ea‑level Analysis. The FONSI and Supporting EA Are
Separate NEPA

Documents with Different Documentation Requirements. Keep That in Mind.
An EA Is Defined

as an Environmental Assessment and it Requires the Discussion of the
Need for Proposal,

Alternatives Included in the Proposed Action, Environmental Consequences
and a Listing of

Agencies and Individuals Consulted. That\'s 1508.9. The FONSI, on the
Other Hand, Is To Either

Incorporate by Reference or Have the EA Attached to It. That\'s a
Documentation Requirement.

You Are to Identify Other Related Environmental Documents, Provide
Substantive Reasons for

Finding No Significant Impact And Make a Determination of No Significant
Impact or a Potential

and Move on to a Notice of Intent. Those Are Two Different Documents,
Two Different

Processes, and They Should Be ‑‑ Continue to Remain That Way. Remember
That the FONSI

and the EA Are Analytical Documents, Not The Decision Documents.
Therefore, They\'re Not

Appealable. The List of Individuals and Agencies Consulted Is for
External Contacts. List Your

I.d. Team Separately, But it Could Be Listed in the Same Section. At
this Time Before We Go on

With Our Rules of Thumb, and We Only Have a Few More Left, I\'d Like to
Remind You That in

a Few Moments We\'re Going to Be Taking Phone Calls over the Air. We
Would like to

Encourage You To Phone in and Talk with Us on The Air. All of Us Will Be
up Here Talking.

You Can Ask Us Any Question. It Will Certainly Work Quicker Than Faxes
That Have to Be

Brought in and So on from the Outside. Let\'s Move onto the Rules of
Thumb Specific to an EIS.

Remember the Ceq Advises That The Body of an EIS Normally Not Exceed 150
Pages. This

Excludes Appendices. And in Certain Complex Cases Should Not Exceed 300.
If We Are

Producing Environmental Impact Statements That Exceed These
Recommendations, We\'re

Probably Putting in Information That\'s Not Essential to Making a
Reasoned Choice among

Alternatives. An EIS ‑‑ Here Is Another One And this One I Got to Tell
You Right off the Top,

Bothers the Department Oepc, Office of Environmental Policy and
Compliance. The Point I Am

Trying to Make Here Is an EIS Can Be as Short As 25 Pages. It Doesn\'t
Have to Be 100 Pages

Or 200 or 300 Pages in Length. Or like the Earlier Ones That Were Six
Volumes and Took up a

Whole Filing Cabinet. An EIS Can Be Short, and it Can Take Minimal Time
Frame and Then You

Don\'t Have to Argue with Somebody or Deal with the Issue Over Why You
Didn\'t Do an

Environmental Impact Statement. Okay? The Typical Time Frame for
Preparing an EIS Should

Be 9 to 18 Months. I like 9 to 14 Better Personally. And We Have
Produced Adequate

Environmental Impact Statements In Shorter Time Periods, and I\'ll Give
You an Example of One.

When We Did the Northwest Area Noxious Weed EIS That That Covered
Oregon, Washington,

Idaho, Montana and Wyoming Back In the Middle \'80s, the Notice Of
Intent to Prepare That EIS

Covering Those Five States and Covering Four State Directors And All the
Districts and

Resource Areas Within Those ‑‑ Within That EIS Area, the Notice Of
Intent Was Issued in

February, and the Final EIS Was Published the Same Year. It Is Possible
to Produce Adequate

NEPA Documents in That Time Frame. Now, Let\'s Go on to Another One.
Here Is One Thing to

Keep in Mind. I\'ve Heard People Talk about Doing Quick and Dirty EISs,
and I Want to Tell You

There Is No Such Thing. No Matter How Much You\'ve Done For ‑‑ in Terms
of an Ea‑level

Analysis, If You Take a Couple Years to Do an EA Analysis and Have a Lot
of Documentation

the Minimum Time Frame Requirements Required in the Ceq Are Stipulated
in the Ceq

Regulations Should Never Be less Than 7 Months to Allow for All Of Those
Things. So Never

Come up with an EIS Schedule That Is less than 7 Months Is the Idea
There. Again, the EIS Is an

Analytical Dock Ment and It\'s Not a Decision Document. The EIS Is Not
Appealable. And Ceq

Specifically Mentions This in the Regulations Themselves. If You Would
like the Citation, Give

Me a Call next Week. My Phone Number Is in the Workbook. Let\'s Go to
Francis for a Response

to a Question.

Okay. Well, You See These Jackalopes Here? Shhhhhh\... I\'m Going to
Take This One Back to

California with Me ‑‑ Oh, Wait, Fish & Game. Too Much Problems. I\'ll
Leave Him Here. We Had

a Number of Problems That We ‑‑ Faxes That We Received Over the Couple
Days and We Tried

to Screen and Lump Them Together. If You Don\'t Hear Your Specific
Wordage That You Gave

Us, Please Don\'t Get Too Upset Because We Really Did Try to Take a Look
at Everything We

Possibly Could. This One Kind ‑‑ Came from Roseberg, Oregon. Why Prepare
an Ea When an

Rmp Rod Is Already in Place. The More General Rmp or EIS May Not Provide
Site‑specific

Enough Analysis. Eye May Not Address the Issues You Have to Resolve,
Depending On the

Proposed Actions You Have And Depending on the Shelf Life Of That Rod or
Rmp, We May

Need To Get Some New Information. Also from Roseberg, Oregon, What Is
the Geographic

Region Which Is Covered in the EIS or Previous Ea? For Instance, a
Resource Area District, et

Cetera. Again, You Want to Make Sure When You Are Tiering Whatever
You\'re Tiering To, If

You Will, On a Geographic Scale, Larger, Whatever That Is, Because EISs
Can Cover a

Site‑specific Development like a Coal‑fired Powerplant or it Could Be
Something of National

Consequence like the Vegetation Management EIS So That You Usually Want
to Tier down.

You May Want to Use Some Analysis from Other Documents as Well. But When
Tiering, You

Want to Make Sure That Are Using a Larger Geographic Region. So ‑‑ You
Guys Want to

Handle Some of These Questions, Too?

Keep Going. You\'re Doing Fine.

I\'m on a Roll. Okay. Out of Nevada and Vernal Utah ‑‑

Doug, Before You Go on ‑‑ I\'m Sorry, Francis, Before You Go On, There
Is a Call Waiting.

Why Don\'t We Take That Real Quick.

Yes, They Get Preference.

Hit the Button There.

this One Right Here?

Yeah.

Hi, Cheryl, in Las Vegas, You Are On. You Have a Question Regarding The
Self‑assessment in

Question Number 2?

Caller: Yes, You Say It\'s True and I Just Want Clarification on You Say
must Be Reviewed for

NEPA Compliance. What Are You Exactly Speaking About? Are You Talking
about the

Screening Process? Or Are You Talking about Doing An Ea?

I Don\'t Have the Question up Here with Me.

We\'re Digging it out.

We\'re Going Through Our Technical Reference Right Now.

I Don\'t Recall Question Number 2 Is.

it Says All Actions on or Affecting Public Lands or Resources must Be
Reviewed for NEPA

Compliance.

That\'s Correct.

Caller: My Question Is: Clarification on What Do You Mean by Reviewed
for NEPA

Compliance? Are You Speaking of the Screening List of Six Critical
Screening Questions or

Doing an Environmental Assessment? Or If it Leads up to an Environmental
Assessment?

Yes to All of the above. First, You Would Want to Screen The Proposal to
See Which NEPA

Analysis Documentation Process Is Appropriate, and So, Therefore, Not
Only Screening ‑‑

Screening Does Not Complete the Environmental Review. However, the
Determination That An

Action Is an Exception to BLM NEPA Requirements or That an Action Is
Categorically Excluded

Or That the Action Is Adequately Covered by Existing Analysis and
Therefore You Do an

Administrative Determination Would Suffice for Adequate NEPA Analysis,
in Any of Those, as

Well, of Course, as Doing an Environmental Assessment for an
Environmental Impact Statement.

Caller: the next Question I Have Is Relating to Specifically What NEPA
States, the Threshold

Determinations of Major Significant Actions, Which Is The Key to Trigger
off the Environmental

Analysis. I\'m a Little Confused on Actions ‑‑ for Example, Here in Las
Vegas, We Do an EA for

Everything, Whether It\'s Small Or Large or Whatever, and It\'s Not the
Consideration of Major

Significant Is Not Part of the Consideration.

the Only ‑‑ the Only Threshold, and I Wouldn\'t Really Refer to it as
That, the Only Guides Ceq

Really Gives Us on Determining Significance Is as Provided in That
Section of Your Green

Booklet. I Believe It\'s Back on Page ‑‑ Let\'s See Here. Bear with Me a
Second. It\'s Back on Page

‑‑ 39?

36\.

36\. Okay. That Is What Ceq Offers in Terms Of Guidance, and it Says
Look at The ‑‑ Look at

the Significance Of the Impact, and We Are, Again, Talking about
Significance of the Impact, Not

Significance or Controversy over The Action Itself Necessarily. But the
Significance of the

Impact. But Look at it in Terms of Context and Intensity. I like to Use
One Example in This

Situation, and That Is If You\'ve Got ‑‑ If I Were to Go Out and
Clear‑cut a 40‑acre Unit In the

Pacific Northwest, the Soil Was Fairly Fragile and Thin, and During the
First Major Storm Event

We Lost All the Soil Resource down the River, Stream And Right out into
the Pacific Ocean,

Does That Constitute a Significant Impact? And Almost Everybody out
There Is Saying, Yeah,

Yeah, it Does. It Does. It Does Site Specifically, Definitely. However,
If You Were to Look at

The Overall Productivity of All Of the Soils in Western Oregon And You
Lost Only 40 Acres of

That Soil Resource, Is Then the Impact Significant? It May Be Site
Specifically Significant but

Cumulatively Insignificant. Sure, That\'s a Far‑out Example, But You
Need to Make That

Determination on a Case by Case Basis, and in Terms of Using Thresholds,
You Might Want to

Be A Little Cautious. Thresholds Are Not Flexible. But Ceq Did Intend
That the Determination of

Significance Be Flexible.

Caller: Okay. Thank You.

Any Other Questions?

Thank You.

Caller: That Was All.

Thank You, Cheryl, for the Call. We Do Appreciate It. We Do Have Another
Call Coming In

from Idaho Falls. Dennis, Are You with Us?

Caller: Yes, I Am. Can You Hear Me?

Yes.

Caller: Great. A Minute Ago We Were ‑‑ Gregg Was Discussing Some of the
Rules Of Thumb,

and in Particular One Of the Ones That Relate Specific To Eas ‑‑ it
Would Be 2h, I Guess. The

Statement Is the FONSI and The EA Are Not Decision Documents, and I
Certainly Don\'t

Disagree with That, or Have Any Reason to Do So, but I Seem to Recall
That Either at a

Training, past NEPA Training in Phoenix, or Something That I Read
Related to NEPA That Was

a Substantial Document Implied That FONSIs Were Often Appealed. That
Kind ‑‑ Maybe I\'m

Recalling That Totally Incorrectly, but Is That So? I Know It\'s Not a
Decision Document, but Is a

FONSI Itself Appealable? I Know a Lot of Folks Are Concerned Sometimes
When We Come To

That Conclusion.

I Was Going to Say, I Had That Very Question from Idaho Falls Earlier.

We Had That Question and We Were Going to Respond to It. Go Ahead,
Francis.

from Idaho Falls, We\'re Unsure If a FONSI Can Be Appealed. Can It? No.
That\'s a Simple

Answer. Only a Decision Can Be Appealed. The FONSI Is a Document That
Contains a Finding.

It Is Not a Decision.

Caller: Has it Ever Been Attempted, Although Unsuccessfully, Obviously?

We\'ll Have to Go to the Clarence Darrow of NEPA on That One. I Am Not
Sure of Any

Casework. Do You Guys Know of Cases Involving That?

If the FONSI Is Turned into a Decision Document, Then, of Course, Ibla
Would Accept That As

Your Decision Document. What We\'re Suggesting Is You Don\'t Do That,
That You Clearly

Separate the Finding of No Significant Impact from Your Decision Record.
That Is the Reason

Why BLM, for As Long as I Can Remember, Back In the Very Early \'80s,
Came One A Decision

Record to Complete an Ea‑level Analysis. The Recommendation Is to Keep
Those Two

Documents Separate, Therefore, Allowing the Decision To Be Appealable. I
Have Heard of

Cases, and Even With Some Other Agencies, Where They Don\'t Do a
Decision Record Of Any

Type Completing an Ea‑level Analysis and Then the FONSI Does Become
Appealable, But I

Think It\'s Intended in the Regulations It\'s Defined as a NEPA
Document, an Analytical

Document, It\'s Not a Decision Document and it Would Only Become
Appealable If We Make it

One.

Caller: That Sounds Good but I Am a Little Unclear as to How Would You
Turn a FONSI into

a Decision Document. It\'s Certainly More than Simply Putting it on the
Same Sheet of Paper with

the Decision Record.

it Certainly Would, and I Would ‑‑ I\'d like to ‑‑ We Have An Awful Lot
of Questions. Could I

Talk to You next Week on That ‑‑ about That or Sometime After the
Telecast? We Can Talk

about Ways I\'m Aware That Has Been Done. I Want to Make Sure I Get Your
Name.

It\'s Dennis from Idaho Falls. Dennis, We Do Appreciate Your Call. Thank
You. Now We\'re

Going to Go to Tom in The California Desert District. Let\'s Go to
Number 1. Tom, Are You

There?

Caller: Yes, I Am.

You Have a Question on Appeals, Do You Not?

Caller: Yeah\... What it Comes from Is the Environmental Coordinators in
the California Desert

District Have Begun Inserting Appeals Language into All Decision Records
for Eas, And this

Occurs Regardless of What the Program Specific Appeals Process Is, and a
Lot of The Specialists

Feel That this Is Inappropriate Because, for Example, on Land Exchanges,
Decision to Approve a

Land Exchange by a District Manager Must First Be Protested, and Then it
Can Be Appealed

Only After the State Director Issues A Decision Which Dismisses the
Protest. Can You Provide a

Comment on That?

I Think That ‑‑ I Guess I Will Attempt That. I Believe That in Almost
Every Situation We\'re

Aware Of, Whenever We Write Decision Documents, Our Counsel, Solicitors,
Have Always

Indicated We Need to Put Appeal Language in There. It Should Be Appeal
Language That Deals

with the Specific Kind of Decision Being Made, and It Does Vary by Some
of Our Programs, as

We All Are Aware. So I Would Say That We Should Continue to Include
Appeal Language in

There, Invite the Public to Do It, but It\'s All Right to Reference the
Process As Laid out in the

Cfr, and it Is up to the Public to Go to the Cfr and to Follow the
Process as Provided in That

Code of Federal Regulations That\'s Applicable to The Decision Being
Made. Anybody Else Have

a Comment?

No, That\'s a Good One. Very Thorough.

We Have Another Call ‑‑.

Tom, Did We Answer Your Question?

Caller: Well, I Think You\'ve Answered My Question, but I Guess My
Concern Is That by

Putting Appeals Language into a Decision Document When That Is Not the
Time to Appeal the

Decision, I Think It\'s Misleading to the Public.

Well, Is There Any Probable With Putting in Timing Requirements or the
Time Frames In That

Same Decision Document, For Instance, Telling Them When They Should
Appeal and So On?

You Could Go a Little Bit Further and Explain That Situation, in That
Case in Your ‑‑ Say, Your

Letter to Interested Publics. You Wouldn\'t Necessarily Have to Put it
in the Decision Record or

Record of Decision Itself, but You Certainly Could Put All Sorts of
Information Right in The ‑‑

Say the \"Dear Reader\" Letter That Usually Goes on the Face or Cover of
These Things. Would

That Work for You?

Yeah, I Guess What You\'re Saying Is We Would Have to Tailor the
Language to the Program

Guidance.

Correct. I Was Going to Suggest One Thing, Tom. You May Want to Get
Together With Jack

and Dave in Sacramento, Because this Is Going to Deal with Both NEPA and
Lands, and See If

We Can Work Out a Solution, Because What You Are Grappling With, Tom,
Affects Us All

Throughout BLM and Particularly Throughout California Where We\'re Doing
a Number of Land

Exchanges.

Caller: Okay. Thanks.

Thank You, Tom.

Thank You Very Much, Tom. We Appreciate It. I Believe You Have a Fax
There On Your Rule

of Thumb? Then We\'ll Go to Karen in Burley. Hold On, Karen.

Go Ahead and Go to Her and I Will Cover this in a Minute.

Great. He Will Look at That One. Karen, Thank You for Waiting. Are You
There.

Caller: I Have a Question or Suggestion, I Guess, That\'s Kind Of Been
Nagging Me. I Work

Closely with the Forest Service on a Mining Project Here In Our District
and Something That

We\'ve Run into on Eas Is The Inconsistency Between BLM\'s Procedures
Concerning Public

Review and Appeals and the Forest Service\'s Policies. From What I
Understand, the Forest

Service, They Have a Mandatory 30‑day Public Review On Their Ea, and
Then If They ‑‑ If They

Don\'t Get Any Comments During That 30‑day Public Review, They Can Wave
Their Appeal

Period and Go Ahead with A Full Force and Effect and Implement the
Decision, Whereas, You

Know, Ours We Don\'t Have a Public Comment Period but We Have a 30‑day
Appeal Period, and

It Gets Confusing and Cumbersome. Is There Any ‑‑ I Guess I Just Wanted
to Point That out and

‑‑ You Had Mentioned Earlier That There Was Some Collaboration Between
the BLM and

Forest Service on Cxs, and I Just Wondered If There Was ‑‑ If That Point
Had Been Brought Up,

and If Anybody Is Working on It?

I\'ve Got Kind of a Topic That Came out of a Couple of the Faxes That
Related to That, and I

Don\'t Think it Will Fully Address Your Answer. I\'m Not Trying to Duck
at All, Karen, but it

Does Relate to Some of the Information We Got Or Requests We Got from
Some of The Faxes

over the Last Couple Of Days. Somebody in Nevada and Somebody In Vernal,
Utah, Asked:

What Is The Appropriate Level of Public Review of an EA or EIS?
Specifically, Could BLM

Adopt The Forest Service Practice of Identifying Specific Media? You
Know, You\'re Taking a

Little Bit Different Twist on It, but We\'re Talking about the
Administrative Practices of Two

Similar but Different Agencies. Looking at the Appropriate Level Of
Public Review, the Cfr

Requires BLM to Provide Appropriate Opportunities or Ceq ‑‑ Ceq Guidance
for Public

Involvement in Eas and EISs and I Guess Our Policy Thus Far Are The
People Who Are the Best

Qualified to Determine the Appropriate Amount of Public Involvement Are
the Folks in the Field.

You Know the Resource Issues. You Know the Publics You Need to Deal with
Far Better. And,

of Course, If You Need Advice, You Usually Grab It. Ours Perhaps ‑‑ BLM
Policies Are A Bit

More Liberal, less One Size Fits All. It\'s Not Right or Wrong. They\'re
Just Different. I Think it

May Benefit the Public for Forest Service and BLM, Talking on a Personal
Level Here, I Can\'t

Represent the Agency, but I Think it Would Make Sense for the Public to
Be Able to Understand

a Single Process. That Makes it a Little Bit More User Friendly. Do You
Guys Have Any

Thoughts on Karen\'s Question?

Well, Just One Observation\... In Looking Specifically at the NEPA Regs,
in Part 1507, Which

Addresses Agency Compliance, it Talks about the Fact That, First Of All,
All Agencies must

Comply With Those Regulations. But It\'s the Intent of the Regulations
to Allow Each Agency

Flexibility to Adapt its Implementing Procedures. Then a Subsequent
Portion of Those Regs Is

1507.3 Which Specifically Addresses Agency Procedures, and it Says: Each
Agency Shall as

Necessary Adopt Procedures to Supplement These Regulations. So I Think
to Some Extent What

We\'re Seeing, Karen, in the Differences Between BLM and Forest Service
Is the Flexibility That

Was Built in to The NEPA Regs for Us to Be Able To Do That. I Think What
Happens What

You\'re Grappling with Is How We Might Be Able to Bring Those Two Sets
Of Regulations

Together So That They Can Be Compatible and We Can Both Meet Our
Requirements. My

Suggestion with Regard to That Is That You Get Together With Them, You
Get Together with

Some Solicitors and Try to Find That Common Ground.

I Would like to Rephrase Your ‑‑ One of Your Questions, Because I
Thought I Heard You Ask

Were There Any Plans That The Forest Service and the BLM Might Be
Getting Together on

Revising the Appeal Regs. Were You Asking That Question?

Caller: Yeah, That Is a Question I Have. I\'m Not Saying That One Is
Right And One Is Wrong.

I Just Think it Would Be Beneficial to the Public and to Us That We
Streamline Those Regs.

I Think We\'re All in Agreement That If the Federal Government,
Particularly the Forest Service

and the BLM, Where We Have a Lot of Our Land Management Responsibilities
That Are

Virtually the Same, If We Could Come up with One Standardized Appeal or
Protest Process, I

Think Our ‑‑ Not Only Are We, but Our Public\'s Would Enjoy That Quite a
Bit. But I\'m Not

Aware We\'re Working In That Direction to Come One a Standardized Set. I
Am Aware That We

Are Attempting to Bring Things as Close Together as Possible, but Also
Recognize We Are

Dealing With Two Different Departments With, of Course, Established
Procedures That Vary

Between the Two of Them. It May Take Some Time to Bring Them Closer
Together than We

Had Hoped.

Caller: Okay.

Does That Answer Your Questions?

Caller: Yes, it Does.

We Do Appreciate Your Call. We\'re Going to Go on Now to Jess In Las
Vegas. Are You

There?

Caller: this Is Jeff in Las Vegas.

Okay.

Caller: a Question I Have Is, Yesterday You Mentioned That The Secretary
of the Interior

Concurrence or Signing of a Record of Decision on an EIS Is Not
Appealable.

That\'s Right.

Caller: My Question Would Be Can the Secretary of Interior Sign the
Record of Decision for A

Resource Management Plan, Therefore, Making it Not Protestable.

I Was Going to Actually Respond to That Question Today, But I Will
Certainly Do it Right

Now, and Thank You for Asking It. The Record of Decision or the Approved
Rmp and Record of

Decision for an ‑‑ for a Resource Management Planning Effort Is a
Delegated to the State

Director. When the Director ‑‑ the Director by Regulation, When the
Director Resolves the

Protest, It\'s Not Reviewable by Ibla, the Secretary Has Delegated
Overall Approval to the

Director Himself. So the Secretary Is Kind of Pretty Much out of the
Picture Right from the

Beginning. Because He\'s Delegated the Authority. Approval of the
Resource Management Plan

Lies with the Director of BLM Ultimately, but It Is Actually Made by the
State Director. Just

Review Is Done by the Director Himself. There Is No Need to Extend That
Beyond the Bureau of

Land Management. On Rmps or Rmp Plan Level Amendments. Does That Answer
the Question.

Caller: the Question Came up A Couple of Months Ago and an Individual
Was Concerned We

Would Get So Many Protests That We Would Never Resolve Them and Wanted a
Way to Try to

Get the Plan Through Without Any Protest Period and I Realize We Have to
Let the ‑‑ Let the

People That Are Part of the Process Protest And That Sort of Thing, but
it Was a Question That

We Wanted to Get Answered, and We Can Just Tell Them That We\'re Going
to Go Through the

Protest Procedures.

That\'s Right.

We Are Diligently Working on Trying to Resolve the Problems With Protest
Resolution

Process, And I Know That We\'re Supposed To Be Having a Meeting Between
The Washington

Office Planning Staff and the Four Downsize Positions in the near Future
to Work on this

Problem Specifically as Well as Some Others. So Hopefully We\'ll Get
Some of Those Things

Straightened out. That\'s an Internal Problem More Than it Is an
External Problem, And All I Can

Say Is We Will Do Our Best to Get Things Corrected.

I Empathize with Your Desire To Make an End Run on That. I\'ve Been
There \"I Feel Your

Pain\" on That One, But, Yeah, We Do Have to Go Through Those Protest
Procedures, and

Probably End up Running into the Same Kinds of Slowdowns Possibly Even
If You Bump it Up.

Caller: Okay. Thank You.

Thanks, Jeff, for Calling. It\'s Nice to Have Live Interaction with Some
of These Folks Because

That Way We Can Clarify Your Questions. It\'s So Much Better than Just
Dealing with the Faxes.

We Do Appreciate the Faxes, but We Love to Get the Live Interchange with
the Folks out There

in BLM Land.

Okay. You Want to Answer That Rule of Thumb Fax?

Sure. The Question Came in from Lewistown. Is Having Prepared Signed
Cover Sheet with the

Information That\'s Required under 4b on Page 13 of the Green Booklets
the Same as Signing the

Ea. Although ‑‑ I Actually Read this A Little Differently on Page 13 Of
the Green Booklet, Item

4b, If You Go under Item 1, it Says List of Preparers. It Really
Doesn\'t Say Anything About

Signing. It Also Indicates That That\'s a Recommended Action. And My
Recommendation Is Not

to Have Anybody Sign It, but Go Ahead and List Them Much like You Would
an Environmental

Impact Statement, in a List, and Include That Back in the Section That
Says Individuals and

Agencies Consulted, but Just Have Another Final Page That Says List of
Preparers or Your List

of Your I.d. Team. No Signature Is Required on That. Does That ‑‑ I Hope
That That May Clear

That Up. Would You like to Go on to ‑‑ We Ought to Hear from Bob or
Glenn On Some of the

Questions They Received.

You Bet.

I\'ve Got a Few Faxes Here, And Most of These Circulate Around Things
Adjacent to

Preparation of the NEPA Dock. The First One Is from Lewistown. It Says
Shoe the Permit Be

Signed on the Same Day as the FONSI and the Decision Record? In this
Case the Permit Is the

Authorizing Action. What We Want to Talk about Is Once an Authorizing
Action Is Ready to

Go, You Sign Your Decision, Normally You Wait 30 Days Unless It\'s for
an Appeal To Be Filed,

If One Is to Be Filed, Unless It\'s a Full Force And Effect, of Course.
You Wait 30 Days and Then

Sign The Authorizing Document. Related Question to That, it Says,
Without Approval of the

Decision Record, the Decision Record Has No Effect. That\'s True. If
There Is No Signature on

the Decision Record, You Don\'t Have A Completed Document Yet.

Bob, If I Might Interrupt, We Have Elaine Sorreno on the Line From Epa.
She Is Viewing this

at the BLM Headquarters Office. Let\'s Go to the Line. Elaine, Are You
There? We Got Your Fax

Yesterday and Were Going to Address it but It\'s Nice to Have You on
Line.

Caller: I Thought I Would Give a Call and Tell You How Much I
Appreciated Being Part of

This Program, and a Comment Was Made Yesterday about Epa as a
Cooperating Agency with

BLM in The Preparation of EISs. I Just Wanted to Clarify Appear Little
Further by Saying When

There Are Actions That Have Epa Jurisdictional Interests, Such As Clean
Water or Air, We Have

Frequently in the past Been Cooperating Agencies, and It\'s Not Uncommon
to Have Three or

Four Agency, Including a State, Be a Cooperator On, for Example, A
Large, Complex Mine

Action. So I Thought I Would Just Point This out and I Didn\'t Want
People to Go Away with the

Impression That Epa Was Not a Cooperating Agency on EISs That Are
Prepared on Some of the

BLM Actions.

Very Good. And We Might Point out There\'s a Lot of BLM/epa
Collaboration and Discussions

That Are Ongoing Throughout BLM, Particularly in Washington and I Know
in Wyoming On

Very Substantive Matters. We Do Appreciate Your Call, Elaine.

Caller: Sure. Thanks.

Bye. I Do Have a Fax That We Got in And We Will Go Back to Bob in a
Minute, but We Did

Get a Fax Yesterday That\'s Very Important. They Wanted to Know in
Casper, Can We Get a

NEPA Jackalope? And We Did Have Clarification it Was Not a NEPA
Jackalope, at All, but a

Jackladeer. We Can\'t Do That. It Hasn\'t Gone Through Section 7
Consultation. Even Though

You Are Offering a Lot of Money and So Forth, We Just Can\'t Do It.
Lewistown, Montana, They

Want One Also, but They Also Want to Have a Club. That\'s Just Unusually
Cruel. So, Bob, You

Got Some More Faxes.

I Can Tell ‑‑ Here\'s a Question from Vernal. Are Rfds Needed or
Necessary for Oil and Gas

Field Eas? Usually What Happens Is in the Preparation of an Ea, They
Refer To Their Rmp,

Which Has a Good Section of Reasonable Foreseeable Development. That\'s
the Easiest Way to

Do That. It Says, Sit Necessary for Rfds, Are They Necessary for
Cumulative Impacts? And the

Answer Is Yes. This Deals with Thresholds from The Wyoming State Office
and it Says, Please

Revisit the Definition of Thresholds on Page 37 of the Green Book. Is
this Exactly as it Should

Be? Officials Should Have Upper Limits Should it Not ‑‑ Thresholds
Should Have Upper Limits,

Should it Not? This Could Be Seen as Both Ways. The Number Is a
Threshold, Depending on

Which Way You Use It. Sometimes If You Exceed the Threshold, You Would
Stop Something.

In Another Situation, If You Exceed the Threshold, You Could Start
Something. So to Answer

Your Question, Yes It Could Be Considered That Way.

Bob, I Am Going to Ask You to Slow down a Bit. Because We\'ve Got a
Little Extra Time,

Folks and We\'re Going to Possibly Take It. We\'ll Let You Know as We Go
Along, but We Do

Have a Lot of Faxes, and We Want to Point out That this Interactivity Is
Unique and We Do

Have a Lot of Teachable Moments Going on Here. So We\'re Going to Slow
down and Continue

Them, Bob.

Okay, Doug. Thanks. Next Fax We Have Is If the Rmp Is Silent Concerning
Hard Rock Mining,

Does the Amendment to The Rmp Have to Be Done in Addition to an EIS?
This Is Elko, Nevada.

It Should Be Done as an Rmp Amendment and in Doing That You Should Also
Following the

Existing Land Use Plan Procedures. The Concern Here, and this Was a
Question We Have Quite

Often on Rmps Is Where Something Is Silent in the Rmp. In Those Cases
You Do Have to Do An

Rmp Amendment Before You Can Authorize the Action. The next One Talks
about the Eas Here.

This Is from Jackson District. It\'s Referenced Eas by Another Agency,
in this Case the Corps Of

Engineers, for an Apd, to What Extent must BLM Review an EA Provided by
the Corps of

Engineers for the BLM ‑‑ for ‑‑ Through an Mou Where it Addresses BLM
Concerns and Does ‑‑

Where the BLM Takes Full Responsibility for the Scope and The Content of
the Ea? In this Case

What We Have Always Done with Other Agencies, NEPA Documents, Is We Make
Sure They

Match Our Criteria, Our Criteria Being the BLM Criteria, Before We
Approve the Apd. Another

Time I Have Seen this Question Come up Is in Relationship to Whether We
Should Lease or Not

for Oil and Gas. The Answer Is, Yes, Their NEPA Documents Should Meet
Our Criteria Before

the BLM Signs an Authorization Document.

Okay, Bob, I Am Going to Interrupt You for a Minute and Switch over to
Gregg. Gregg, You

Had a Lot of Faxes Pertaining to Appeals and the Like. Could We Address
Some of Those So We

Don\'t Leave People Hanging On Them? A Huge Stack.

as You Can See, We Got Quite A Response on the Full Force and Effect
Issue of the Appeals

and Protests and So On. Yes, All ‑‑ I Can Cover a Few of Those, Sure. We
Had a Couple

Questions Here ‑‑ Give Me Just a Second to ‑‑ Here Is One That\'s Very
Interesting, a Very

Interesting Question, and it Comes from Rawlins, Wyoming. Can a BLM
Employee Appeal a

BLM Decision Generated from an EIS? This Is a Very Touchy Situation, I
Would Say. If We\'re

Talking about an Environmental Impact Statement That Is in House, Within
Your Own District,

or Resource Area, It\'s for a Project, and the BLM Employee Has Had
Ample Opportunity to

Participate but Just Doesn\'t like the Decision That Is Being Made, I
Would Say That at Least in

Cases Gone by I Believe That That Appeal Does Not Exist. However, If
There\'s an EIS Being

Prepared Somewhere Else and You Can Show That You\'re Adversely Affected
Personally as the

Appeal Regulations Indicate for Standing, Then You Would Be Able To
Appeal That

Environmental Impact Statement. But I Think It\'s a Question of Ethics,
and When You Are

Asked To Participate in an EIS, and Then You Don\'t like the Outcome Of
It, and So You Want

to Appeal The Decision. Remember That the Decisions Are Made by the
Managers. It\'s

Appropriate for the Managers to Make Those Decisions. And Once We\'ve
Given Our Input As

Specialists, Resource Specialists or Whatever, Our Job Is Done. It Then
Becomes the

Responsibility of Management to Make the Decision and Make the
Determinations, the NEPA

Determinations. Anybody Else Have a Comment on That?

We Do Have a Phone Call from Cheryl in Las Vegas. Cheryl, Are You There?
I Think I Lost

Her.

Let\'s Go on to this next One If We Could While We\'re Waiting For That
to Come Up. Should a

Decision Record or a Rod Contain an Appeal Statement? I Think We Just
Addressed That One

from ‑‑ over the Air. I Apologize for Being ‑‑ Bringing That Back Up.
Let\'s Deal Briefly with the

Full Force and Effect. We Did Get Quite a Response from Many of You
Saying That in Certain

Regulations, and There Are Instruction Memoranda, I Got Copies of
Several Ims and So On,

That Indicate That There Are Certain Actions That Are in Full Force and
Effect. I Want You to

Look Real Close ‑‑ It Might Have Been the Person Who Helped Me out with
the Grazing

Decision Appeals. If You Were to Go Back into Your Green Booklet on Page
‑‑ I Believe it Is

5‑3, and You Look At 4b, it Says: a Final Decision May Be Issued Without
Issuing a Proposed

Decision in Situations Where Resource Deterioration or Unauthorized Use
Basically Exists and

That Decision Would Be in Full Force And Effect. We Want to Be Careful
That When We Deal

with Full Force and Effect, since 4.21 Became Effective, I Believe, in
January Of \'83 ‑‑ I\'m ‑‑

January of \'93 ‑‑ I Think it Was January of \'93 ‑‑ That We Look Real
Closely at What Decision ‑‑

Because It\'s Probably Going to Be Decision Specific That Remains a Full
Force and Effect. But I

Appreciate All the Responses That Everybody Has Sent In, and We\'ll Take
a Look At All of

These Things and See If We Can\'t ‑‑

Gregg, Hold On. We Just Got this In. A Special Fax.

Oh, Good. It\'s My Turn to Kick Him? I Think We\'ve Kicked That One
Around Enough. We Do

Have Cindy Alvarez Joining Us on the Set and We Want to Point out That
We\'re Not Just a

Bunch of Pretty Faces on the Set Here. We Have Something Behind the
Scenes That Really Pulls

this Off for Us and We Do Appreciate It and We Would like to Present You
with Our Trophy

Here. We Couldn\'t Give this to Wyoming Or Montana, but We Sure Would
Like to Give it to

You.

Well, Thank You Very Much.

Thank You, Cindy, for Your Work.

Thanks, Cindy.

Thanks.

I See We Have Cheryl in Las Vegas.

Yes, We Have Cheryl Back. Thanks for Calling Back, Cheryl. We\'ll Go to
Your Call Right Now.

Then Again, We May Not.

While We\'re ‑‑

We Do Have a Technical Glitch.

Cheryl, Are You There? Cheryl? Hello?

Let\'s Go to this. I Would like to Point out Several ‑‑ Okay. She\'s On.
Here We Go. Cheryl?

Sorry We\'ve Had So Much Trouble Getting You There. Are You There?

No, She Hung Up.

Okay. We Do Have a Couple Notes We Would like to Point out to You That
We Did Get

Several Planning Specific Questions, and They Were Beyond the Scope of
this Course, and They

Will Be Answered by Your Right‑sized Field Coordinators Directly to You.

There Was One Other Planning Question That We Got, and I Have Over Here,
That We Should

‑‑ We May Want to Address Just Briefly. We Got a Question from Montana
State Office Asking

What\'s the Status of the New Planning Guidance and If There\'s a Plan
To Change the

Regulations. We Can Only Tell You That Work On the New Planning Guidance
Is In Progress.

None of Us up Here Are on ‑‑ on The Set Are Knowledgeable Specifically
about the Status of It.

Maybe One ‑‑ Somebody in Our Washington Office Could Call in And Give Us
an Update on

Where Things Are at If They\'re Listening or If They\'re There And They
Can Tell Us. To Our

Knowledge and Understanding, the Regulations Are Not Going to Be Changed
at This Time. So I

Hope That That Answers That Question.

We Did Have a Lot of Questions, Gregg, about Can the National Training
Center Send Out a

Compiled List of Questions And Answers after the Course Has Been
Completed. At the Start of

Our Broadcast I Indicated That These ‑‑ That These Transcripts for this
Course Will Be on the

World Wide Web and on the Home Page Here at NTC. So Check into That. We
Keep Trying to

Get Cheryl Back on the Line with Us but Are Have ‑‑ Struggling with
That. We Did Have a News

Flash Come in From St. George. They Indicate up There, Lorraine
Indicates, the Jackalope

Problem Was Much Worse than They Thought. A Small Angry Jackalope Herd
Just Attacked a

Small Settlement In Hoppy Valley and this Is an Emergency. Therefore,
Section 1506.11 Applies,

Implement Control Now! Worry about NEPA Later. Thanks for That Advice.
We\'re Having

Similar Problems in Boise with Potential Flash Flooding Going on There,
Too, That They\'re

Working on Feverishly to Get Done.

Doug, Thanks. I Have One Question Here from Baker Resource Area Much.
It\'s an Important

Question That Deals with Records and Record Keeping as Part of the EA
Process, and What Part

of the Record Should Be Released under The Freedom of Information Act Is
Not a Subject We

Have Talked Much about. In this Case Here, What ‑‑ What You Should Do Is
Always Assume

That Any Documentation That You Collect as Part of Your EA Process Is
Actually Open for

Public Review. If You Take That Assumption in All Your Documentation,
You\'ll Find It\'s Very

Comfortable to Deal with it and Provide That Information to Them at Any
Stage That That Piece

of Information Becomes Part of Your File. One of the Areas That We Avoid
In the NEPA

Process Is ‑‑ Deals With Proprietary Data. This Usually Occurs in Oil
and Gas or Coal

Development, the Minerals Programs. If You Have Proprietary Data and
Access to That, What

We Recommend That You Have One of Your Mining Engineers Consolidate That
Data for Your

Use and Then Use That Consolidation as Part of Your NEPA Document. Stay
Away from Using

Proprietary Data.

Okay. Glenn, Do You Have Some Unfinished Faxes There You Would Like to
Address?

Well, We\'ll Never Get Through All the Faxes That We Have Remaining in
the Time That We

Have Left.

a Virtual Plethora.

Absolutely a Plethora. But What We Do Have Is One Here Which I Suspect
Is Not a Unique

Question, Although We\'ve Only Received this from One, I\'ve Heard it on
Other Occasions. The

Question Is This: Could You Please Address to Some Extent What Is a
Major Concern with the

NEPA Process. The NEPA Process Can Often Be Procedural and Formulaic for
Fulfilling the

Requirements of Federal Law, Glossing over but Not Addressing Effects
with Management

Actions. Many Critics of Agency Actions Have Commented NEPA
Documentation Can Be Mere

Window Dressing Used to Justify and Support Management Actions. I Think
We Probably Heard

Some Iteration of That Question at One Point or Another, Each of Us
Probably Has, or If We

Haven\'t Heard It, We\'ve at Least Thought It or Somebody Else Has. I\'d
Simply Go Back to Some

of The Basics That Exist with Regard to the NEPA ‑‑ with the NEPA Regs.
We Need to

Remember That There Is a Purpose Here of NEPA, and That Is to Help Us as
Public Officials

Make Decisions Based On an Understanding of Environmental Consequences
and Take Actions

That Protect, Restore and Enhance the Environment. Those Are Some of the
Key Words.

Carrying on a Little Bit, Quoting from the Regs, They State That We Need
to Use All Practice

You Will Means Consistent with Requirements of The Act with Regard to
the Human

Environment and Avoid or Minimize Any Possible Adverse Effects of
Actions upon the Quality of

the Human Environment. Well, That\'s an Awful Lot of Quotation, but
Bottom Line Is This\... We

Talked in the past Three Days about Public Involvement, about Scoping,
About Screening, about

Gaining The Best Information Available For Those of Us Who Are the
Responsible Officials to

Ensure That We Make an Informed Decision. However We Can Arrive at That
Point, We Have

an Obligation to Do So. There\'s No Question in My Mind, In the Past,
That There May Have

Been Some Bad Decisions Made Based on Limited Information. But Staff and
Managers Alike

Have Mutual Responsibility to Gather the Best Information Possible and
Not Circumvent the

Basic Purpose of NEPA.

Okay.

I Have a Couple of Additional Faxes on ‑‑ Regarding Protests That Are
Worthwhile Going over.

We Got One in from Phoenix Here And it Says: What Once a Plan Protest Is
Decided by the

BLM Director Making the Final Decision for the Department of The
Interior, Are There Any

Other or Further Options Open to The Protestor? For Instance, Can the
Protestor File a Suit or

Injunction in Federal District Court If They Feel the Issue Has Not Been
Resolved to Their

Satisfaction? The Answer Is, Yes, They Can File in District Court, and
That Is the Only Real

Appeal Opportunity Left Open to Them. When the Director Resolves a
Protest on Either an Rmp

or Rmp Level ‑‑ or Rmp Plan Amendment, Then That Becomes the Final
Decision of the

Department and The BLM, and It\'s Not Appealable Within. Somebody Could,
of Course, like I

Said Before, File a Protest With Ibla, but They Almost Always, as a
Matter of Fact, They Always

Have Just Denied Those. Here Is Another One from Worland That Says an
Rmp Protest, What Is

‑‑ What Is ‑‑ What If the Concern or Issue Was Not Raised By the
Protesting Party until After the

End of the 90‑day Comment Period on the Draft EIS. Does the Party Have
Standing to Protest

the Issue or Concern? The 90‑day Public Review and Comment Period on an
Rmp/EIS as Well as

the 45 or 60‑day Public Review and Comment Period on an EIS Are
Opportunities for the People

to ‑‑ for Our Publics to Comment and Submit a Letter Hoping for ‑‑ to
Have Some Effect on the

Overall Analysis That Is Being Done. If Anyone Has Sent You Any Kind Of
a Letter Indicating

Their Concerns During Any of the Planning Process, That Will Be
Considered Adequate Enough

to Give Them Standing and Have Raised the Issue. We Need to Keep Our
Supporting Records up

to Date. We Need to Keep Records of All The Information That Comes in
From Our Interested

Publics. So the Answer to this Question, In a Round about Way Is, Yes,
They Will Get Standing,

And, Yes, They Can Protest, Even If They Didn\'t Get the Comment in
Early Enough on the Draft.

Gregg, Here\'s a Fax We Received. It Seems to Summarize the Essence of
this Course and

Perhaps the Panel as a Whole ‑‑ We Have a Very Few Minutes Left, But the
Question Is: Can

You Recommend Ways to Get Our Eas Back to Short and Concise Documents
Which Only

Address the Issues?

the ‑‑ I Think We Can, and We\'re Going to Have a Group of People Coming
Together Late this

Fall, Early this Winter That Will Be Working on the Ea‑level Analysis
Training That We

Mentioned Earlier and Have Referred to a Couple Times in This Broadcast.
In That Training

Session We Will Do Our Best to Provide You All The Tools and Techniques
to Streamline Your

Eas to the Greatest Degree Possible.

I Would like to Point out That Additionally All the Feedback That You
Can Provide Continually

in this Process, Because this Training Doesn\'t End at this Point, We
Also Would Like to Point out

That There Were Some Unanswered Faxes and We Will Be Getting Our
Instructors to Answer

Those Specifically to the People That Sent Us a Fax, Provided You Gave
Us Information to Get

Back to You. That Wraps up Our Overview of The NEPA Course ‑‑

Doug, Before You Go, I Would Like to Just Take One Second. I Realized We
Have Very Little

Time Left, but I Wanted to Do One Thing and That Is, We Got a Question
from Yuma Who

Asked: How Many People Are ‑‑ and Offices Are Attending ‑‑ Are Taking in
the Telecast? My

Latest Count Was about 70‑plus Offices, Some of Them Are Other Agencies
Only, and in Excess

of 800 People Have Been Watching the Telecast. Back to You, Doug.