A New Approach to Building Cooperating Agency Relationships:\
An Interactive Roundtable with BLM Director Kathleen Clark\
\
A Telecast Originating

**from the**

**BLM National Training Center in Phoenix, Arizona**

**May 24, 2005**

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

It may contain errors and omissions in transcription.

Announcer: The Bureau of Land Management Satellite Network presents live
from the BLM National Training Center in Phoenix, Arizona\... A New
Approach to Building Cooperating Agency Relationships: An Interactive
Roundtable with BLM Director Kathleen Clark. And now, the moderator of
your program, Cynthia Moses-Nedd.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Good morning and welcome to our cooperating agency
broadcast. It is the latest program of the Planning/NEPA Forum, a series
of broadcasts highlighting important topics on Planning and NEPA in the
BLM. In this program, we will provide guidance for BLM staff and our
governmental partners on working collaboratively through cooperating
agency relationships in the BLM\'s land use planning process. The
information in this broadcast is based on the BLM\'s Desk Guide to
Cooperating Agency Relationships, which will be distributed to all BLM
state and field offices and to our cooperating agency partners in June.
We\'ve developed a program guide for you to use during this broadcast.
Your site coordinator may have copies for you and it is available on the
NTC web site, which is www.ntc.blm.gov.

Before we get started with the program, we need to go through some
housekeeping. Periodically throughout this broadcast, we will take
questions using the push-to-talk system. We\'ll let you know when the
Q&A segments are and we\'ll open up the bridge for your questions. If
you want to ask a question, remember to push the button on the
microphone and give us your name and location and then ask your
question. If more than one person speaks at the same time, I'll use a
\"time out\" sign to ask everyone to release their mics and then I'll
call on you one at a time. Remember to please stay about 18 inches from
the mic when speaking. If you have a problem with your push-to-talk
system, there are two other ways to ask a question. You can call the
toll-free number at 1-877-862-5346 or you can fax us your questions at
602-906-5701. And finally, please take a minute to sign the roster
provided in your viewing room and fax it back to the number shown. This
gives us a quick way to see how many people we reached with this
broadcast. Now, let\'s get started! I\'d like to introduce the panel
that is here with me today, starting with Kathleen Clark, the BLM
Director. Welcome, Kathleen.

Dir. Clark: Good morning, Cynthia. I\'m happy to be here. Cooperating
Agency Relationships are an important priority for the Bureau and the
Department, so we\'ve brought together some key people to talk about how
we can move this initiative forward and I think we\'re going to have a
great discussion.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Next we have Horst Greczmiel, who is the Associate
Director for NEPA oversight at the Council on Environmental Quality.
Thanks for coming Horst.\
\
H. Greczmiel: Hi, Cynthia. Thank you for asking me to join today\'s
telecast. It\'s a pleasure to be here with Director Clarke and the BLM
team and invited partners.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: We also have Judge Steve Grasty with us today. Steve is a
county judge from Harney County, Oregon, who served as a cooperator on
the Andrews/Steens Mountain Resource Management Plan. Hello, Steve.\
\
S. Grasty: Hello, Cynthia. I\'m excited about participating with you
today.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: And Renee Dana is here from the Rock Springs field office
in Wyoming. She\'s the project lead for the Jack Morrow Hills
Coordinated Activity Plan. It\'s nice to see you, Renee.\
\
R. Dana: Hi, Cynthia. It\'s great to be back in Phoenix.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: And finally, we have Rob Winthrop, Senior Social
Scientist in the BLM\'s Washington Office and Project Coordinator for
the Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships. Glad you could make
it, Rob.\
\
R. Winthrop: Hi, Cynthia, I\'m glad I could be here to participate in
the broadcast.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Now, before we hear more from our panel, I\'d like to
provide you with an overview of today\'s program. First we will discuss
the importance of working with cooperating agencies. Then we\'ll discuss
cooperating agency eligibility. We\'ll talk about roles and
responsibilities of the field manager, as well as the cooperating
agencies and will highlight the opportunities for cooperator involvement
in the BLM\'s planning process. Finally, we\'ll describe how to craft
effective agreements and MOUs. Throughout this broadcast we will
reference the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan, Which is a
good example of successful collaboration in the planning process. Let\'s
hear from Bob Bennett, BLM Wyoming State Director, with his thoughts on
that effort.\
\
I think Jack Morrow Hills was a good example because quite frankly we
were aware it was going to be somewhat controversial. We knew that
certainly the oil and gas industry had interest out there. We know that
the environmental community, they had had interest. It also had interest
from the wildlife community. So in order to get to a, we felt a good
decision and a good array of possible decisions, we felt we needed to
have as many of those inputs reflected to us as we developed the
alternatives and worked through the plan itself. And also because it was
sensitive, having those cooperators at the table with us, we were able
to bounce ideas off as well as gauge the progress we were making and
also gauge for the most part what they were hearing in terms of the
progress we were making and whether one alternative was more desirable
than another.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Bob was able to give us a great state office perspective
on Jack Morrow Hills. As we said, this will be an interactive discussion
and since this is a push-to-talk program, we will indicate when it\'s
time for you to ask your burning questions and share with us your
experiences with regard to Cooperating Agency Relationships. Now it\'s
time to hear from our panel. Kathleen, could you please share your
expectations for today\'s broadcast?\
\
Dir. Clarke: Certainly. Let me begin by emphasizing that working with
stakeholders at the bureau is not new. I think this is has been our
preferred way of doing business throughout the history of the BLM.
Having said that, I think there are a couple of points on which we can
agree, and one is that there\'s always new opportunities. There\'s new
way to look at our challenges, new tools, new partners, and I think the
second point is that it behooves all of us, and it benefits our
business, if we will take advantage of those opportunities. Most
importantly, I think it is in the best interest of the resources we
manage and the people we serve because working together helps us get to
more sustainable, better solutions.

Cooperating Agency status is one of the most powerful tools available to
us. Cooperating Agency status allows federal agencies to invite tribal,
state and local governments, as well as other federal agencies, to serve
as partners in the preparation of environmental impact statements. They
are often in a better position than we are to engage communities and
interest groups most likely to be affected by a plan. All federal
agencies are working to better understand this tool and to embrace its
full potential, but speaking for the BLM, I know that we\'ve made
tremendous progress, and as I said, we started in a great place, because
we have been doing this kind of work forever. I don\'t think there is
any other agency that has stepped out as aggressively as BLM has with
this concept. Still, I believe we can do more, and certainly we need to
understand how this rule impacts you in the field. I want to hear from
you about what your experiences are, about what has worked, about what
is not working and what you need to be successful. What are the concrete
steps that we need to consider and what do we need to understand at
Washington level, the state level and across the bureau to ensure that
we are actively enlisting Cooperating Agencies in every aspect of our
work and that it is working for all of us successfully.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks, Kathleen. Well set. That\'s set the standard for
this entire broadcast and we\'ve been able to maximize on our
Cooperating Agency Relationships because of your leadership in this
effort. So we thank you for that. Turning to you, Horst, what is CEQ\'s
involvement in Cooperating Agency Relationships?\
\
H. Greczmiel: It\'s been a long standing issue, as you, the other
members of the planning and NEPA communities know the statute itself
says as we strive to engage partners and work towards a productive
harmony of balancing environmental with economic and social needs we do
that in cooperation with our state, tribal and local partners. This
issue has received attention throughout the years but it\'s now front
and center for the president as well as for chairman at CEQ. It\'s been
a major initiative since the new administration came on board in January
of 2002. The chairman sent a memo to all agencies urging them to do a
better job engaging those governmental partners. It\'s something for
those of us in government for a while is not the flavor. Month. This is
something that has received a10 churn throughout and it\'s a great
opportunity as we\'re all working to make the NEPA process work better,
planning process to work better. Finally, I had would be remiss if I
didn\'t say kudos to BLM for not just talking the talk but walking the
walk and taking Cooperating Agency status to the next level.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks for that perspective, Horst, and thanks for the
pat on the back. We certainly couldn\'t do it without CEQ\'s support.
And in terms of support, the Department of Interior has not only been
supportive of our efforts to engage our partners up front, but it\'s
also using it as a model for other interior agencies to follow. Rebecca
Watson, DOI assistant secretary for land and minerals management
couldn\'t be here with us today but recorded this message for our
program. Let\'s listen.\
\
Hello. It is my pleasure to welcome you to this special broadcast on
Cooperating Agency Relationships. Recently the BLM strengthened its
commitment to partnerships and collaboration by formally recognizing the
role of Cooperating Agencies in its planning regulations. Today\'s forum
is extremely important to me personally and to interior secretary gale
Norton, who has said the BLM\'s new rule will change the way we do
business with the American people. On behalf of the secretary, I would
like to thank you for being part of this change. Last August, President
Bush signed an executive order on cooperative conservation. In it he
called for the appropriate inclusion of local participation in federal
decision making. The essence of cooperative conservation is bringing
people together to work toward shared goals of responsible land
stewardship.

Our goal with this new approach is to ensure that the people and
communities whose lives and lively hoods are impacted by federal land
management decisions are at the table when land use plans are being
developed. Their knowledge of on the ground conditions, community
concerns and their vision for the future, should be part of the planning
process from the very beginning. As you know, our partners have played a
significant role in public land management for a long time, but this new
regulation for the first time formally recognizes the important role of
local governments in land use planning. Now, as a matter of policy, BLM
must invite city, county, state and tribal governments, along with other
federal agencies, to become involved early on in land use planning as
Cooperating Agencies. State and local governments are no longer merely
regular gated to the commenting role but have the opportunity to shape
the land use plans that will guide management of public lands
surrounding their communities for the next 10 to 15 years.

This is a very significant step toward shared community stewardship of
public lands. I would like to recognize the Bureau of Land Management
for leading the Department of Interior by solidifying this policy into a
rule, looking to the BLM as the model, secretary Norton has proposed
other interior agencies take a similar approach. This will represent a
significant legacy for the interior department when we consistently draw
on the knowledge, values and unique perspectives of the people who live
on and love the land, the result will be stronger land use decisions
that more accurately reflect the vision of local communities. Whether
you are a BLM employee or a Cooperating Agency, you here today are the
ones who will help shape this new approach to public land management I
want to thank you for being a part of this important initiative.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: We certainly appreciate the department\'s support in this
effort, and Rebecca taking the time to voice that support for this
initiative on Cooperating Agencies. Many of our cooperators would agree
that Cooperating Agency Relationships are a useful tool which benefit
not only federal agencies but also the communities we serve. A moment
ago, Horst, you mentioned that BLM had taken Cooperating Agency
Relationships to the next level. Rob, can you comment on that and tell
us how we\'ve done that?\
\
R. Winthrop: Absolutely. As Horst explained the council on environmental
qualities regulation permit lead agencies preparing environmental impact
statements to invite eligible tribal, state and local governments, as
well as other federal agencies, to serve as cooperators. This past March
the BLM formally amended its land use planning regulations to
incorporate requirements regarding how the agency will work with
cooperators in the planning process. I\'d like to highlight two points
about that\... First, BLM\'s regulations, which supplement those of CEQ,
require managers to invite eligible agencies and governments to become
cooperators. That\'s a significant change in how we do business. Second,
BLM\'s new regulations provide more specific direction, explicitly
including a role for cooperators in most stages of the planning
process.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thank you for that summary. Do these new requirements,
however, apply only to RMPs and associated EISs?\
\
R. Winthrop: That\'s correct. They only apply to new or revised resource
management plans, which, of course, are prepared concurrently with
environmental impact statements. However, this week the department will
amend its manual to require the same level of Cooperating Agency
involvement for all the EISs, which include plans, projects and
programmatic documents in all interior agencies. So in essence, the
types of requirements we\'ve been imposing through our new planning
regulations are going to apply to all EISs for all DOI agencies\
\
That\'s a broadcast. \-- that\'s a broad scope. Panel, can you share
with me some of the benefits that we can expect of working with our
Cooperating Agency partners in the planning process?\
\
R. Winthrop: I\'m glad you asked that question. There are actually
multiple benefits. One of the most fundamental benefits is gaining the
early and consistent involvement of our government partners.\
\
H. Greczmiel: Rob, I agree. Another benefit is working with Cooperating
Agencies is in incorporating local knowledge of economic, social and
environmental conditions as well as state and local land use
requirements. From a county government perspective, we found it quite
helpful to be involved from the very start of the planning process. In
Harney county, the federal government manages 75% of the land there
while many services like search and rescue and even law enforcement are
provided by the county. So it\'s imperative that to work together on the
plan from the start to max maximize those limited resources that we
have. On the Andrews/Steens resource management plan the county was able
to provide local knowledge on the economic and social conditions of our
local community. Additionally we were able to provide the BLM with an
understanding of the land use requirements that our county and the city
governments and the county must meet under state law. Sometimes those
requirements conflict with federal agency rules, so we were able to
consider these challenges early on.\
\
R. Dana: Thanks, Steve. We also have a good example of understanding of
economic conditions from the Jack Morrow Hills. Joanne Zakotnik provides
some insight on that plan\
\
One of the first things I remember about sharing information is when the
contractors had done an economic study, and we sat there and looked at
the presentation, and there were just some things that just really
didn\'t fit, and so we said, you know, you people have this all wrong
and we brought out some of the things that we knew and went back and got
some of our information, and then at this point BLM had someone come in
and do studies at each county so the economic battle was changed
somewhat. We also like broad in the things \-- brought in the things we
had like information on the schools and some of the highest taxpayers in
the county, those kinds of things, so that \-- because it was
information we felt like the BLM wasn\'t using.\
\
S. Grasty: Another benefit is providing the agencies with needed
technical expertise. Harney county has mandates and responsibilities put
on us by the state and the federal government and by our community. As
we worked on the recent resource management plan, the county was able to
provide input from a community perspective where culture is dependent
upon a working relationship with the federal agencies. Additionally the
Cooperating Agency status has added to the positive working relationship
that Harney county already enjoys with the burns district of the BLM.\
\
R. Dana: Steve raise as good point. We also found that the Cooperating
Agency relationship to be an opportunity to build trust and cooperation
as well as recognize each other\'s mandates and responsibilities. Stan
McKee, the rock springs field manager throughout much of the Jack Morrow
Hills planning process has an excellent perspective on this\
\
I think it\'s very important when working with a project such as Jack
Morrow Hills using cooperators. It\'s a really good idea. You have to
establish trust right off the bat. Trust is the most important key word
of anything that you can do, and that trust is not going to just develop
itself. It has to be earned, it has to be worked at really hard, and
that is the first thing that you must do.\
\
S. Grasty: Stan\'s right. I think it\'s also important to recognize some
of the challenges which county government may have as Cooperating
Agencies. In our case, the largest barrier was simply having the
necessary time to devote to the writing and reviewing of the resource
management plan. In other words, it was not having the human capacity,
which most limited our input into the plan.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That\'s a good point, Steve, and we hear that frequently
as we\'re out talking to counties and local government officials as
we\'re doing Cooperating Agency training. Kathleen, I know a lot of our
field offices out are there wondering, why are you placing so much
emphasis on working with local governments and state governments and
tribes and Cooperating Agency status in general?\
\
Dir. Clarke: It probably builds on my background as a westerner, and
having come from a state where BLM managed 50% of the land base, I\'m
acutely aware of the potential for conflicts, intergovernmental
conflicts, because there is shared geographical jurisdiction and
constituencies. So it is, in my mind, imperative that we work in a
cooperative sense with state and local governments. So first answer to
that is I believe it\'s the right thing to do. I believe that NEPA
envisioned such relationships and our regulations now mandate it. Second
reason is that we are really attempting at the BLM to have \-- to create
a sense of ownership of these public lands.

We have 262 million acres to manage at the BLM and about 10,000
employees and if we\'re going to get the job dub, we have got to expand
the ranks and the way we do that is by engaging partners, engaging
communities, engaging state and local government and to get their
involvement and their buy-in and their ownership they need to be at the
table with us and have a voice in the formulation of plans and the
establishment of objectives for public land management. I also believe
that we will get better decisions if we engage these folks. You know, if
I put a group of BLM folks in a room and ask them to come up with a plan
or to make a decision, they\'re going to bring the best experience they
have, and I applaud all of you. You\'re the best and the brightest out
there. But I do believe that we always work smarter and better when we
invite partners and people who live in the areas that we\'re managing,
invite their expertise, their wisdom, their perspectives to help inform
those decisions and then they also become decisions that others support.

They start to understand land conflicts and the trade-offs that we have
to make in the planning process. They\'re much more likely to be
comfortable with those if they\'ve been a part of those. So I think
there\'s good reasons for this. I realize it\'s a challenge. It isn\'t
easy. But I think ultimately if we get comfortable with this it will
improve the way we do business and improve the product of our work, the
products of our work, and ultimately we will expand stewardship of the
public lands in a way that\'s imperative for us to take care of the
lands that we manage and love.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks for giving us that emphasis. I think those were
some excellent points. It\'s so important for us to bring our
governmental partners to the table in our planning efforts, and in
promoting cooperative conservation, that\'s the key to management of the
public lands for the good of everyone, of course. Now we\'re going to
shift gears and talk about implementing the Cooperating Agency
relationship. Horst, can you giver us your thoughts on how to make the
Cooperating Agency relationship effective?\
\
H. Greczmiel: Be happy to, Cynthia. We have learned it takes time and
effort to develop good meaningful Cooperating Agency Relationships. The
Cooperating Agency relationship brings obligations for both parties. As
the lead agency, the BLM is expected to use a Cooperating Agency\'s
information, analysis and proposals to the maximum extent possible
consistent with its responsibility. Cooperating Agencies are not
stakeholders for whom we just invite comments. They\'re intended to be
true partners assisting the lead agency in developing information and
preparing sound environmental analyses. Cooperating Agencies in their
unique status accept a range of obligations, including the contribution
of information expertise to the EIS team, developing analyses for which
they have particular expertise and normally funding their own
participation. So we advise our government a.m. Partners to consider
carefully before signing up for every plan and proposed project in their
region. They\'ve got to pick and choose. Carol Kruse who served as NEPA
analyst and Cooperating Agency coordinator under former Wyoming governor
Jim Geringer has comments on this point\
\
Terms of recommendations for other groups just getting started on
Cooperating Agency projects, one of the key factors, I believe s making
sure everybody\'s expectations are in line or aligned at the very
beginning. Part of that is the memorandum of understanding. Part of that
is probably just having several meetings just to figure out roles and
responsibilities and make everyone comfortable with that.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: You know, key to this Cooperating Agency relationship is
that both cooperators as well as field managers understand the
importance of developing a formal Cooperating Agency relationship,
something beyond just working together on an everyday basis, and at
times this can be quite challenging and require a lot of hard work.\
\
H. Greczmiel: That\'s absolutely right. There are many ways for BLM\'s
governmental partners to be involved. Our governmental partners can
engage by working closely with field managers and state office personnel
and by using opportunities for formal comments through the planning
process. The Cooperating Agency relationship, which is a very special
and specific unique status that\'s given under the national
environmental policy act, is only one tool for working with our
governmental partners.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: I think that\'s an important thing to know. Rob, now that
we have a general understanding of the Cooperating Agency relationship,
what has BLM done in terms of this Cooperating Agency initiative?\
\
R. Winthrop: Actually quite a lot, Cynthia. As I mentioned, we recently
modified BLM\'s planning regulations to add specific language regarding
how the BLM will work with its Cooperating Agency partners. We\'ve
developed a how-to Desk Guide for BLM staff and our partners that
details requirements under the new rule and responds to questions raised
about its implementation. These should be distributed across the bureau
next month. Cynthia, you and Horst, of course, have head the charge on
training on Cooperating Agency Relationships for BLM staff and our
governmental partners. Finally, we\'ve recently developed a web site on
Cooperating Agency Relationships. That site includes a downloadable copy
of the Desk Guide, provides links to our regulations and policies on
Cooperating Agencies and is intended to serve as a resource both for our
BLM staff and for our Cooperating Agency partners.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Sounds like you\'ve just been quite busy on this effort,
Rob. We appreciate all that hard work. You mentioned the Cooperating
Agency training, and you\'re right, we have conducted training sessions
in most of the BLM states, and as we\'ve talked to our cooperators and
staff on the ground, we\'ve found that Cooperating Agency Relationships
greatly affect the way we do business and the \-- changes the
responsibilities of BLM managers. Joanne Zakotnik and Carol Kruse can
provide insight on this from their experience with Jack Morrow Hills\
\
The importance to this whole process and the success of this process of
having commitment, honest commitment, from the highest levels right on
down, the federal agency directors and their State Directors, as well as
from the cooperators on constituencies from the top down. If, for
example, the governor of Wyoming had not been committed to the
Cooperating Agency process and to being an effective participating
partner in the whole process, that would not have \-- it wouldn\'t have
happened, and the same with the federal agency, if Kathleen Clarke had
not been very committed to these kinds of partnerships, it would not
have happened would not have worked well.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Excellent comments there. Rob, you mentioned before the
term eligible partners. Who fits into that category?\
\
R. Winthrop: First of all, eligible Cooperating Agencies are limited to
governmental entities, state, local and tribal governments, as well as
other federal agencies. Beyond that, Cooperating Agencies must meet one
of two criteria for eligibility, which the BLM has incorporated from
CEQ\'s regulations. The criteria are jurisdiction by law and special
expertise.\
\
H. Greczmiel: Let me add to that. Jurisdiction by law adds a specific
base for Cooperating Agency status, the authority to approve, deny or
finance all or part of a proposal. For example, a state department of
natural resources could possess jurisdiction by law through its
delegated authority under section 402 of the clean water act to issue
national pollutant discharge elimination system permits. However, the
vast majority of Cooperating Agencies relationships BLM will engage in
will be predicated on special expertise. Special expertise provides a
broader window for Cooperating Agency status emphasizing the relevant a
capabilities and knowledge regarding the effects of the proposed action
or its alternatives. Some types of special expertise are fairly
specialized, such as transportation planning or air quality assessment.
Others are more general. For example, local government officials possess
special expertise concerning the history and social and economic
conditions every their jurisdictions.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Renee, could you tell us who determines whether an entity
meets the criteria to qualify as a Cooperating Agency?\
\
R. Dana: Cynthia, that would be the field manager\'s responsibility.
Managers are expected to identify federal, state and local and tribal
entities possessing jurisdiction by law or special expertise in the
planning area and to invite those partners as Cooperating Agencies.
Cooperating Agencies can also take the initiative and request
Cooperating Agency status and then the field manager should evaluate
that why against the same criteria.\
\
R. Winthrop: A key point where BLM regulations differ from those of CEQ
involves eligibility of American Indian tribes as cooperators. CEQ
regulations specify that a tribe is eligible when the effects of an
undertaking are on a reservation. BLM regulations, in contrast, say the
tribal eligibility is based on the same criteria as for federal, state
or local agencies.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Does this mean offering Cooperating Agency status to
tribes satisfy our obligations to fulfill the government to government
consultation with them?\
\
R. Winthrop:, Cynthia, it really doesn\'t. Government to government
consultation involves a formal effort to obtain the advice or opinion of
another agency. Once formal consultation has been initiative, they may
use the cooperating rule as a way to communicate their views. But this
is at the tribe\'s option, not the BLM\'s.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That\'s a great point of clarification there. Before we
move on, we\'d like to take a moment and address the burning questions
that you all may have out there. Anything that may be on your mind about
what we\'ve covered so far. We\'re going to open the push-to-talk bridge
for your questions and comments, and remember, you can also call us or
fax us using the numbers that are printed on your screen. All right.
Let\'s begin. Who has a question for this panel? Well, I have a question
for the panel \--\
\
Caller: This is Sherry Brown with Elko county.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. What\'s your question?\
\
Caller: Regarding Cooperating Agency status and eligibility, the recent
Lincoln county lands act designate a pipe lined and we have been trying
to get Cooperating Agency status and have been denied basically because
the groundwater basin supposedly doesn\'t come into ELKO county but the
topography and our data shows it does. Just wondering what we may do to
continue on with that?\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Okay. Horst, would you take that question for us?\
\
H. Greczmiel: Certainly. One thing that I\'d recommend that the county
do if they haven\'t done so already is to put into writing to BLM the
request to be a Cooperating Agency and spell out the basis that the
county believes it has of right to come to the table as a Cooperating
Agency. Indicate the special expertise that you want to bring to the
table and the value that you can add to that process. Beyond that, I
think this might be an issue that we might want to take up later on as a
follow-up to this conference today.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That\'s excellent. And she could contact you, follow up
with you on that, Horst?\
\
H. Greczmiel: Certainly. At the end of the conference, I'll be giving my
telephone number and we can discuss this at great length.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Does that answer your question?\
\
Caller: yes, it does.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Any other questions out there?\
\
Caller: My name is Tracy Trent from Idaho Department of Fish & Game. I
have a question.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Okay. Go ahead, Tracy.\
\
Caller: Does the Cooperating Agency status in any way constrain an
agency\'s ability to comment on the final EIS?\
\
R. Winthrop: A good question, and that comes up frequently. The answer
is no. Signing on as a Cooperating Agency does not constrain a
jurisdiction\'s rights, the right to protest a plan, for example or to
comment in more formal ways is in no way abridged by serving as a
cooperator. Does that help?\
\
Caller: Yes, it does. Thank you very much. I would like to add that
Idaho BLM and the Idaho department of fish & game have developed close
working relationship on a number of projects involving local
community-based conservation that we greatly see the value of getting
Fish & Wildlife information injected into the planning process early
on.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Excellent. It\'s good to hear those relationships are
being established and actually working out there in the field. Any other
questions?\
\
Caller: This is Ken Sizemore in St. George, Utah. My question deals with
regional planning associations. They exist throughout the western United
States. My association of governments here in southwestern Utah
requested in writing Cooperating Agency status and was denied by the
Utah state office because we don\'t have local government authority, yet
we provide most of the special expertise to our local government
officials. Why were we denied that Cooperating Agency status?\
\
R. Winthrop: I'll comment and I think some of the other panelists may
want to possibly amplify. That\'s a very good question. Cooperating
Agency relationship, just to jump back one step is specifically limited
to bringing on governmental partners. Now, intergovernmental
associations of governments, that type of thing, are not themselves, in
most cases, and I stress in most cases, governmental entities. It\'s our
policy that we would encourage, for example, counties or municipalities
that might be members that would like to be represented through
associations such as yours to do so, and is spelled out in the guide
that will be forthcoming next month, if we\'re quite \-- we will welcome
representation of Cooperating Agencies through an association of
governments \-- if let\'s say the \-- Junta County belongs to that
association and will give you formal authority in writing to represent
it.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Kathleen?\
\
Dir. Clarke: I think you captured the comment I was going to add,
because we have had similar situations in other states arise, and what
we are looking for is for that delegation of authority to a
representative, and because it is costly to participate fully in
Cooperating Agency activities, oftentimes counties and cities do want to
coalesce. So if they have a formal planning entity and they do want to
assign their voice at the table to someone, then we\'re willing to work
to create an MOU that would accommodate that. We have had situations,
though, where counties kind of wanted it both ways. They want to retain
an individual voice as well as have the association. So we want to work
with you, we want to make this a flexible process. So if you\'re having
difficulties, you know, visit again with the state office and talk to
them about options and we\'ll follow up as well with the state office
and encourage them to maybe think about some flexibility in the way
they\'re interpreting the new rule.\
\
R. Winthrop: Can I just add one thing? I think it\'s important to be
clear, if under this scenario a county, say \-- chooses to be
represented by an association of governments, the association is still
not a Cooperating Agency, per se. They are serving as the representative
for the underlying jurisdictions. That doesn\'t change by this
delegation.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Important point to make, Rob. We thank you for that. Any
other questions.\
\
Caller: Yes, my name is Ken \--\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Time-out, I think I heard Kim graves from Colorado
first.\
\
Caller: Tom gray. Yes, we are \-- I\'m with county government here, and
we are in the middle of an RMP process, well into it, in the little
snake river district, and I appreciate this new rule that allows more
input from Cooperating Agencies. I just had a quick question. One of the
things we\'ve ran into is that some BLM policies don\'t allow for
adaptive management, and, for instance, an existent would be an OHV, off
highway vehicle use, there\'s only three categories, open, closed or
restricted, and we\'re having a hard time dealing with how do we use
some adaptive management so that changes can be made with the RMP as
conditions change. Then also I had a question, would you be thinking
about maybe assigning people to support area managers who are going
through an RMP to help implement these new rules?\
\
Dir. Clarke: This is Kathleen. Let me take your second question first.
We are, as you know, setting up training, but we\'re also going to be
identifying mentors and people who can help field managers and their
staffs who are getting into this type of relationship for the first
time. So we recognize that that\'s important. We have offices in the BLM
that have been working with cooperators for decades and understand very
well the benefits, the challenges and how to make it work for everyone.

Back to your first question, BLM is working to incorporate and embrace
the notion of adaptive management, but it is not available in every case
and not knowing the specifics of the situation where you are, it\'s
difficult for me to conjecture as to why it isn\'t being applied, but
one of the greatest challenges that we have at the BLM is managing off
highway vehicle usage. It creates challenges on the landscape itself, it
creates challenges for other users and regrettably we find ourselves
vulnerable with litigation as we seek to improve our management of
off-highway vehicle usage. I would encourage you to continue to speak up
and to bring your best and brightest ideas and to bend the thinking of
those who believe there\'s only one way to look at this, and that is the
whole purpose of inviting cooperators, to help us see new ways, new
options, new approaches to the problem. So we welcome your voice and
your perspective, understand that often you are closer to the
communities that we\'re all trying to serve than we are. So I\'d say
come to those meetings and speak up and keep working for solutions that
meet everyone\'s needs.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. Thanks, Kathleen. There was someone else that had
a question out there?\
\
Caller: Yes, this is Ken crane with state Department of Agriculture in
Idaho. I had a question in regards to the parameters of this process. Is
this limited strictly to EISs associated with RMPs or does have it a
broader scope and, say, other uses out here besides the large planning
documents?\
\
Dir. Clarke: This is Kathleen again. Our rule specifically speaks to
EISs that are linked to our plans. However, the department is going to
be rolling out a manual, a handbook, this week which will expand the use
and application of Cooperating Agency status, and all EISs that are
being performed throughout the department of the interior. Rob, maybe
you can elaborate a little bit on how that is going to work.\
\
R. Winthrop: Well, the criteria for the cooperating initiative
essentially is, as Horst described earlier, asks us to reach out to
governmental partners and to asks, really as Renee said, the field
manager in the particular planning area must identify what the special
expertise or jurisdiction by law may be. Now, in the case of the manual
change that secretary Norton has initiated, this really simply means
that projects and programmatic environmental impact statements will also
come under this essentially mandatory direction, this policy direction
to managers, affirmatively to reach out and invite potential agencies to
come to the table as cooperators.\
\
H. Greczmiel: Let me add that in the council on environmental qualities
regulations as well as guidance and memos we\'ve sent to the agencies
Weaver focused on EISs but there is nothing says that thou shall not do
this for an environmental assessment. In fact in the guidance memo in
January of 2002, it was made clear that there are a lot of agencies more
aggressively using assessments with mitigated findings of no significant
impact that do raise issues where we ought to invite governmental
partners to the table. If you are working on an environmental assessment
or if you\'re on the county or stateside and believer you confronted
that situation, then try to get together and see if you can make use of
Cooperating Agency status in an environmental assessment context as
well.\
\
Dir. Clarke: Let me add one more thing to that. You can always engage
the state and local government agencies informally. We don\'t always
have to have a formal MOU and on some of the smaller activities that are
demanding an EA rather than EIS, you may be able to if you have
established relationships, have more informal consultation which may
help you get to a better product that may not be as bureaucratic in the
needs of having to go through processes to get to a formal MOU.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Excellent point. Does that answer your question, Ken?\
\
Caller: Yes, it does, and in response to the informal consultation, near
Idaho the BLM has been doing a real good job at that over the last few
years.\
\
Dir. Clarke: Good.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That\'s good to hear. Are there any other questions out
there?\
\
Caller: This is Terry Gibson from the Paiute tribes \--\
\
Could you back away from your mic a little bit.\
\
Caller: Terry Gibson.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thank you, Terry. Go on with your question.\
\
Caller: I have a question concerning \-- specifically where it indicates
that it only affects the areas on reservation. I\'m concerned with that,
and I was wondering if at the time when these regulations were being
developed, was there any consultation with tribes or any tribal input as
to the development of these regulations?\
\
H. Greczmiel: First, let me comment on the CEQ regulations that you
mentioned. CEQ\'s interpretation of our regulations and the work we\'ve
done with the agencies has put tribes on the same level as other
federal, state and local governmental entities. So this quote-unquote
limitation of the reservation is no longer there. It\'s not part of the
playing field anymore and we\'ve made that very clear. When BLM went
through the process of developing their specific regulations, which, by
the way, were approved by CEQ, that\'s part of our role as oversight for
NEPA, and we endorsed that interpretation, they explicitly said that
tribes would be treated on the same level and that there was no question
as to where the effects were going to be. The question was, were there
any effects on tribal interests, regardless whether on or off a
reservation.\
\
Caller: Great. I think that\'s very important because of the reserve
rights that tribes have and treaty rights that are involved. Also I
would like to state here in the Boise district with the BLM we have an
established consultation process. It\'s called the wings & roots
campfire and it\'s a process we\'ve been involved in going on 10 years
now. It provides for consultation between the agency and the tribes. We
meet monthly, and every action that is \-- that has been undertaken by
the BLM is presented to the tribe so we have full participation and
it\'s something that\'s worked out real well for both the agency and the
tribe. The tribe\'s concerned are being met and also the deadlines and
time frames that BLM needs to meet are being met at the same time. So
it\'s been a very viable process.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: I\'m glad to hear that things are working well out there
and that you all have processes in place to engage with our BLM
partners. I think we have time for one more question out there?\
\
Caller: Art, Blaine county commissioner.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Good to hear from you. What\'s your question?\
\
Caller: A comment first. I\'m a participating county in a Cooperating
Agency and monument plan. We\'re working out of the BLM office in Havre.
My question is this. Is there any way in the future, do you think we
could have a Cooperating Agency MOU ongoing so that there\'s anything
that would affect a county we would not have to go through each
individual memorandum of understanding, if we could just have one that
was ongoing?\
\
Dir. Clarke: Yes.\
\
R. Winthrop: It\'s certainly worth exploring.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Yes, I think it is a viable option, and it will help with
making this process more efficient. We\'ve talked about that around this
table, and the thought of a programmatic type MOU, and then once you
engage on a specific project, being able to add provisions, which would
address all of those little specifics and intricacies of that project
would be helpful. So your idea definitely is well taken and we agree
with it. I think you can see it coming down the road. Is that right,
Kathleen?\
\
Dir. Clarke: My idea for the Cooperating Agency partnership is that it
be easy to engage in and simple as a handshake and I realize we need
some formality to our agreements but I would like to make this as simple
and efficient as possible. So I would welcome having a broad in scope of
kind of an MOU, programmatic MOU, that you could basically be an
umbrella for your participation and involvement with the BLM on lots of
matters that are of concern to your county.\
\
Caller: I thank you and I think it\'s a wonderful way to go.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. Thanks for your question. I have a fax question
here. Can we use scientists from our state university for technical
expertise on a plan revision as Cooperating Agency reps? And, Rob, would
you be willing to take that?\
\
R. Winthrop: The fax question also \-- I'll have a stab at it and then
maybe other people can come in and rescue me. The key question here is
whether the federal advisory commission act, committee act, applies, and
if so n what if a Cooperating Agency brings on someone as an advisor who
is not a staff person, who is not an employee of that, but in this case
a professor at a university, and then further asks whether that person
can represent the Cooperating Agency. The \-- really, we\'ve looked into
this some and do address it in the guide. It\'s the \-- frankly the
legal standing, as I am advised by our solicitors is not entirely clear
and we\'ve tried to steer a conservative course in the guide. So the
answer is, it isn\'t maybe, it\'s partly. What we say in the Desk Guide
is that any person serving in the contractor role, whether it\'s to
provide scientific expertise or other sort of expertise, can, if
necessary, represent a Cooperating Agency in much of the planning
process, but we advise against having a person who is not either an
elected official or designated employee of that entity represent the
Coop agency where there are key decisions to be made, for example, where
the final alternative \-- the preferred alternative is chosen in a
plan.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Steve, I think you had something you wanted to add?\
\
S. Grasty: I think this is key, and it\'s going to be an interesting
topic as we go along with this. As you know, I\'m a huge supporter of
Cooperating Agency Relationships, but the expertise of the small
counties is going to be so critical to go out and find people that we
know and that we work with and to look to them to help us fill in some
of the technical gaps. So it will be an interesting subject to work. So
far I think it\'s worked very well.\
\
H. Greczmiel: When we\'re talking about special expertise, when Weaver
counties able to access local land grant colleges and university and tap
into that expertise, that\'s a great opportunity to expand the quality
and amount of information that we get early in the process to help us
work through the planning process and the environmental review process.
As a final note, when it comes to the FACA issues for counties and
governments there is a specific exemption from FACA when we\'re dealing
with governmental entities. So then you take that to the next step and
say is the county willing to designate someone to speak on their behalf
and that\'s where I have to endorse what Rob said, it\'s critical the
counties understand how much authority they\'re giving to that
spokesperson going to be at the table and obviously we would prefer to
have a representative county or someone edge gauged by the \-- engaged
by the county as a full-time employee to speak on behalf of the county.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. Sounds like a great opportunity to be creative and
to maximize on the resources that are available to us. I think we had a
phone call or another question that was out there?\
\
Caller: Hello, this is Mary TOMAN. I\'m speaking from Wyoming, and I
would just like to thank you for a great presentation. I\'m a cooperator
from Sweetwater county, and I want to apply Kemmerer field office for
initiating the open house format with the cooperators and the technical
people and their staff, and I think it\'s a great model and maybe it\'s
going to be a little bit more effective than working directly through
contractors. Thank you.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. Thanks for that comment. We appreciate that.
Anyone else out there? Remember, we\'re also looking not only for your
questions but if you\'ve got some good Cooperating Agency experiences,
just as Mary shared, feel free to give us a call, because this is a
learning experience for us all. We\'re heading into new territory.
We\'re trying to do things a new way. Take those laws that have ham
strung us in the past and that we\'ve waved as kind of a shield, no, we
can\'t, no, we can\'t, and try to look at them with fresh eyes so we can
do things on a broader scale, work together, and goat things done on the
ground. So we\'re looking forward to your shared experiences also. Is
there any other question that we need to address out there? We thank you
for your engagement and for your brisk dialogue. Before we move on, I\'d
like to clear up a couple of points regarding how we work with
Cooperating Agencies. Kathleen, you know, many people think that when we
make Cooperating Agency decisions or when we bring them to the table we
have to make decisions by consensus. Is that true?

Dir. Clarke: No, that is not true. As a matter of fact, BLM has to
retain authority to make decisions on matters that are under its
jurisdiction. But the Cooperating Agency opportunity allows us to bring
folks that live in the areas that we manage together, elected officials,
to get their perspectives, to tap into their skills, their local wisdom
about the land and to seek solutions to the challenges and conflicts we
face, and then we can work together to better understand the
opportunities to move forward and then ultimately BLM needs to make
those decisions.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That\'s a good point. But as you recognize, collaboration
takes time, and, you know, the BLM\'s planning process, they\'re
supposed to be completed on a tight schedule. Washington is asking our
field offices to complete these things within two to three years. Do you
think we should extend a planning schedule to meet Cooperating Agency
needs?\
\
Dir. Clarke: As a general rule we do not want to be changing our
schedules for planning because our ability to move forward and permit
activities on the land is dependent on our having up to date plans.
Nonetheless, we have granted extensions, particularly during this time
when these relationships are forming, when we are establishing trust and
learning how to work together. But we hope we can get past introductory
phase and get to a point where we\'re all working together on mutually
acceptable schedules and making progress towards decisions.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great, so you\'re saying, just to clarify, possibly when
they craft the MOU, come up with a schedule and try to work within that
schedule and make sure that both parties agree to that schedule, is that
right?\
\
Dir. Clarke: That would be idea ideal, you bet.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: I think it\'s good to point that out that that has to be
done up front. Let me ask about if that planning schedule would
compromise effective collaboration with those Cooperating Agency. What
are some of the solutions you can offer to our field managers in that
vein?\
\
Dir. Clarke: A county can be involved without having to be involved in
every single step of the process or to \-- into the fullest degree
available to them. So I think right up front you negotiate the level of
engagement that you want to have and that the county wants to have. Be
realistic about the times and capabilities, capacity of your partners to
engage. And help identify for them maybe what are the most critical
issues that they have concern about and make sure you engage them in
those specialized select areas. Another possibility is to revise your
planning schedule without extending it. You may be able to overlap some
of the activities in your planning agenda so that they\'re running on
parallel tracks and keep yourself on track but while still accommodating
the interests and needs every your cooperators. Finally, in some
instances it\'s helpful to have a facilitator. It can help focus your
discussion, make sure you\'re making progress, and help you avoid
running down rabbit tracks. There\'s always plenty of those.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: I\'m sure the field offices appreciate hearing they have
options and are not boxed in on the schedule that they have looming
before them. I think Don Christianson, who serves as a senior policy
analyst with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, also can give us a
cooperator\'s view on working within tight planning schedules\
\
One of the things to be weary of is if a schedule does not allow the
full participation of cooperators, county commissioners, state agency
people all have other jobs and responsibilities. If you try to push a
schedule that requires a product like, say, within one year, only gives
one week for the \-- a review, an analysis of a multi-hundred page
document, it just doesn\'t allow enough time for those county
commissioners, conservation supervisors and state agency officials to
properly review and analyze that document. You have to allow enough time
in that procedure for that to occur.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Good perspective from a cooperator who was actually on
the ground on the plan. That takes us to our next topic, which are the
opportunities for Cooperating Agency involvement in the planning
process. I believe Renee and Rob, you two were going to tag team on
this.\
\
R. Winthrop: We are going to tag team. Let me start. Let\'s turn our
attention to the BLM planning process diagram, which you should have in
your program guide. This diagram is also in the Desk Guide that you\'ll
be receiving in the next few weeks. The diagram shows the various steps
of BLM\'s planning process Distinguishing different levels of
Cooperating Agency involvement at each step. The main message is there
are many ways and many opportunities for cooperators to contribute to
planning at the BLM. Each step of the planning process gives our
cooperators opportunities to contribute among the more significant
opportunities are scoping, which is shown as step 1, assessing needed
and available information, or step 3, and estimating effects of proposed
planning alternatives. But most of the other steps will be strengthened
by Cooperating Agency involvement. Now the other half and better half of
the tag team will take us through the stages in more detail.\
\
R. Dana: Thank you, Rob. Actually in looking at the planning diagram I
think one of the more important stages isn\'t even on the diagram, and
that\'s the preplan when we plan how to plan. This step begins the
planning process and identifies preliminary issues and schedules.
Preplanning is the best time to reach out to agency partners and explore
opportunities for involvement and express their interest and concerns as
Kathleen said as far as identifying capabilities and involvement. For
the Jack Morrow Hills plan, we didn\'t have the opportunity to go into
preplanning. We jumped strictly into a supplemental draft EIS and kind
of drug our cooperators along at a pretty quick pace.

If there is interest in the Cooperating Agency involvement, this is the
time to draft MOUs and to work out those agreements with the BLM so that
when scoping does begin we\'re all ready to hit the ground running. The
second step in the planning process is the first formal step, which is
the issue issuance of the scoping statement. Scoping is an opportunity
for cooperators to interact with their constituents on the plan. It\'s
an opportunity where they can identify organizations and agencies and
interest groups. They can identify coordination requirements for their
own plans, make sure their boards and groups are informed, sponsor
public forums with the lead agency, and identify issues and help
evaluate scoping comments. Joanne Zakotnik gives a great example of
incorporating Cooperating Agency input into the scoping process.\
\
I think when Cooperating Agencies need to share information and reach
common understanding on, for example, the economic analysis, I think it
would be real beneficial like at scoping \-- at the scoping process you
get together and say, okay, what kind of information do we need, what
kind of information do you have and what do we need to know? And then at
that time everyone can say, okay, these are the things that we have, and
then there could be some discussion on the agreement or disagreement and
how to resolve those conflicts.\
\
R. Dana: Back to our planning diagram, looking at step 2, which is the
identification of planning criteria, we try to do this early in the
planning process, and Cooperating Agencies can advise us on proposed
criteria, including legal requirements that shape tribal, state and
local government policies and responsibilities as well as those of other
federal agencies. Also, we\'re required to be consistent with plans,
policies, programs of state and local governments and Indian tribes to
the extent that these are consistent with federal and BLM mandates. This
obligation isn\'t altered by the participation of the Cooperating Agency
in the planning process. Steve, I know you\'ve had concerns about this
and we\'ve had some discussions on that. Could you provide your
insight?\
\
S. Grasty: Sure. It\'s a fact that county governments have a number of
laws which we are obligated to comply with. It\'s probably also a fact
that we wished we didn\'t have to at times, but \-- so I\'m sure that
every state is different, but in Oregon\'s case, we do have a state
mandated comprehensive land use plan which our county must comply with.
So our being at the table early on in planning, we\'re able, or we can
help, resolve many of these issues and we\'re better able to assure that
the variety of state, local, federal and tribal plans are considered and
that they complement rather than conflict with one another.\
\
R. Dana: Thanks, Steve. I know we had some similar discussions in the
Jack Morrow Hills effort, and one thing we did discuss was, of course,
BLM\'s mandates and that the planning process is not the opportunity to
modify or change those laws and regulations or to modify FLPMA or the
endangered species act. So just as local agencies have mandates to work
with, so do we. Some of the most important potential contributions of
Cooperating Agencies come at steps 3 and 4 in the planning process where
we assess the information that will be needed and prepare assessment of
current conditions, called the Analysis of the Management Situation, or
AMS. Cooperating Agencies can identify data needs as well as provide
data and technical analysis within their expertise. They can provide
input into the draft AMS as it is prepared and help interpret the
document to their constituents. For a perspective on this, let\'s turn
to Don Simpson, who is the deputy State Director for resources in the
Wyoming state office.\
\
A lot of the decisions that are made in the land use plan or
alternatives that are analyzed have to take a look at a variety of
impacts to resources. So those agencies have been very helpful in
providing us some of that data that assist us in understanding what the
impacts might be. For example, we could be looking at impacts to air
resources if we have additional oil and gas drilling, there\'s impacts
to air resources. So having the information from there, modeling and
their monitoring, it assists us in putting together the range of
alternatives. Wildlife is the same way. The game & fish department
provides us number of animals that they manage. That\'s more information
than we have. It\'s timely information. They fly that information yearly
and provide that so we can take a look at what the impacts to our
various alternatives would be to deer, elk or sage grouse.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Don gives us very good examples there based on his
experience. Renee, could you elaborate for us that after the initial
scoping of issues and collecting needed information, describing those
current conditions within the planning area, what roles can Cooperating
Agencies play as we begin to identify and assess alternatives?\
\
R. Dana: Cynthia, Cooperating Agencies can have a major role at this
point. When we begin to formulate the alternatives, Cooperating Agencies
can help develop those alternative themes, and they can provide input to
land allegations and management actions for each alternative. The
identification of alternative marks a critical stage in the process.
While cooperators can contribute a great deal to this, the final
designation of the alternatives for further development is solely a BLM
responsibility. When estimating the effects of the various alternatives
or step 6, which is on the planning chart, Cooperating Agencies can
suggest models or methods for impact analysis, identify impacts
including cumulative impacts, and within their expertise and suggest
mitigation to minimize adverse effects.\
\
R. Winthrop: I would like to add something, Renee. Steps 3, collecting
data, and 6, assessing effects, should be primarily driven by science,
not policy. For the BLM and it\'s Cooperating Agency partners to work
together effectively, it\'s important that they seek agreement up front
on what information is needed and how it should be analyzed.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks for that emphasis, Rob. Appreciate that. You know,
that brings to mind another question for me\... How far does BLM have to
go in terms of sharing pre-decisional documents and other planning
documents that we may have with our cooperators?\
\
R. Dana: This is a really good question, Cynthia, and it comes up in
discussions with Cooperating Agencies as well. It\'s a good idea to
discuss disclosure requirements of BLM and Cooperating Agencies early on
in the planning effort. As we mentioned, getting started early is kind
of key to this process. For the most part, documents shared only with
Cooperating Agencies are not subject to disclosure under the freedom of
information act, but you should talk to your state FOIA coordinator for
more specifics. Getting back to the planning diagram and the planning
steps, selecting the preferred alternative is shown in step 7, and this
is solely BLM\'s responsibility. However, cooperators can work with the
field managers by providing their perspectives and their
recommendations. Then once the draft plan has been issued, the public
responds with their comments, which is under step 8, and then the
Cooperating Agencies can help us review and respond to those comments.

C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks for walking us through those steps and the
opportunities for our cooperators. Rob, did you want to add something?\
\
R. Winthrop: Yeah, I really would. Don\'t forget about implementing and
monitoring the resource management plan. Although the formal Cooperating
Agency role established through the MOU or other agreements ends when
the Record of Decision is signed, the work with our governmental
partners continues, of course. This will ensure that the plan is
implemented effectively. Susan child, policy and planning coordinator
from the Wyoming office of state lands, has a good comment on this
point.\
\
It came one a good planning document. The document was an excellent
document. It was give and take on everybody\'s part, everybody has a
piece in there, however, we have \-- it looks good in black and white,
but I think the real success will come when it is on the ground and
implemented.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Key point. Getting past the plan and right to
implementation, because sometimes we get the plan, put it on a shelf,
never dust it off and use it again. So that\'s really important.\
\
Dir. Clarke: That\'s one really good thing about having these
cooperators s they\'re going to be there waiting to see the plans that
they helped construct implemented. They\'ll also be a force, I think, to
expand our capacity to help implement these plans. So partnership is the
way to go.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That\'s right. I think it\'s the only way to go. You\'re
right. Now we hope that that segment of discussion helped to stir up
some ideas for how you and your cooperators can work more effectively in
the planning process, and you may also be stirred up to ask more
questions. So we\'re going to again open the push-to-talk system and
we\'re going to ask you to call us with your questions, give us your
comments, share with us your positive experiences, share with us what\'s
not working in terms of Cooperating Agency Relationships. Again, this is
an opportunity for us to learn what\'s being done right and also to
learn from what\'s not working in the field. So, give us a call right
now. The numbers are on your screen. We\'re ready to hear from you.\
\
Caller: This is Dan from Roseburg, Oregon. It seems like what we\'ve
heard from other states is that the cooperators are really interested in
being involved in the process, and I\'m just wondering what kind of
advice you all might give if our agency wants to reach out and develop
early involvement with regulatory agencies for a better product but
because of personalities or some aspect \-- there\'s lack of interest,
maybe to maintain the power to react to the project at the end of the
process rather than being involved throughout the process. Do you have
any advice for trying to bring those other agencies in?\
\
H. Greczmiel: Let me start what you raised towards the end of the
question. The fact that there might be some disagreement or some desire
to want to maintain or keep that ability to comment on the final plan
should in no way prevent you from trying to interact as early as
possible and come to the table as a Cooperating Agency. I think Rob made
those points earlier. The other point that I make is that since this is
new to a lot of our partners, as well as to a lot of the federal
agencies, we have to keep working at it, and we have to keep opening
those channels of communication. So when there are situations where you
may not want to be a full Cooperating Agency, examine other
opportunities to partner where there are situations where who you would
like to see become a Cooperating Agency isn\'t quite ready to go there
yet, look at other opportunities to work with them and start developing
that trust and those relationships, and over time perhaps we can then
get to the level where we\'ll be a little more formal as Cooperating
Agencies. But the key point is to get those partners to the table and to
start talking.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: How about you, Steve.\
\
S. Grasty: I\'m not sure whether the tall caller is talking about
counties or other state agencies. But from a county perspective, by
encourage all the field managers to recognize this is new for us, too.
There\'s a lot of anxiety and a lot of learning that\'s going to go on
on our part, and I would just say keep trying.\
\
Dir. Clarke: These relationships also require trust, and so it may
require just sitting down and visiting a few times until you start to
feel like you\'ve got some rapport, that you can speak a common
language, that you identify some common ground and a reason for you to
come together. So if you haven\'t had that kind of relationship with the
Cooperating Agencies in your area, work at it, and we\'d ask the
counties and cities and state government to reach out as well.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Good advice. I think what I hear you saying is even
before you have a plan on the horizon, we should be making those
comments and establishing relationships right now.\
\
Right. Absolutely.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Don, does that answer your question?\
\
Caller: Yes, thank you.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Okay. Anyone else out there?\
\
Caller:.\
\
Caller: Bill in Medford. Could somebody address the potential legal
liability of a Cooperating Agency when BLM is faced with a litigation
situation?\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Okay. Horst?\
\
H. Greczmiel: Simple answer to that one, there isn\'t any. The
responsibility and the legal liability stays with the lead agency, the
federal agency that\'s responsible, in this case BLM that\'s responsible
for the plan and the EIS. The fact that BLM has reached out to
Cooperating Agencies, has gotten comments from the public, doesn\'t mean
that those members of the public who have commented or those agencies
that are Cooperating Agencies have any legal liability. That
responsibility, that liability remains with BLM. Hopefully they won\'t
have to use it. Hopefully they won\'t get sued because they\'ll be doing
a boater job of getting those documents and analyses done by using their
Cooperating Agencies.\
\
Dir. Clarke: And hopefully all of those partners will have some level of
agreement and support for the decisions we\'ve made, and so they can
become part of the voice in support of what \-- the choices we\'re
making and the plans we\'re rolling out instead of finding that they are
part of the group who are very unhappy about it. That\'s why I really
believe that inclusion is a key element to us making good decisions and
sustainable decisions.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great point. Does that answer your question, bill?\
\
Caller: Yes, thank you.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Anyone else? Okay. Well, let me ask you, Steve, what did
you see that worked from a cooperator\'s perspective when you engaged on
the Steens plan? What were some of the things that you saw that worked
well that helped move the relationship along and that you really saw as
an advantage to having you at the table?\
\
S. Grasty: Well, I think that\'s really a repeat of all of our
conversation here this morning, Cynthia. It\'s the fact that we\'re
together, we\'re talking. Harney county and the burns district certainly
has very strong working relationship. So that helped us to begin with.
But we got \-- we felt like we were a part of it. Our comprehensive land
use plan overlays all the land in Harney county, and we get defensive
when we see BLM making something that looks \-- a decision that looks
like it overlays private ground but state law requires us to write one
large comprehensive plan. So they have to fit together, and I think just
the conversation is the real strength in this. Did we get all the
outcomes we wanted? I wouldn\'t say that. But we sure tried hard and
next time it will be better, I think.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. Thank you for that perspective. I don\'t think we
can say that enough, that there are tremendous benefits to engaging with
cooperators and having our governmental partners at the table as we\'re
planning.\
\
Dir. Clarke: I agree. I think you reduce conflict and you do build a
common vision. So I think it\'s just very important. And as you say,
there\'s always trade-offs, but if you\'re at the table and you
understand the basis for those trade-offs, you\'re more likely to feel
better about them and support them than if you have no reason why that
decision was made. And we will make smarter decisions and we will better
value those trade-offs if we have partners at the table, particularly
our stakeholders, our Cooperating Agencies, folks who are elected by the
people to represent them.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Good point. Renee, can you share with us on Jack Morrow
Hills \-- I know you all engaged cooperators, and tell us how easy that
was.\
\
R. Dana: Everybody\'s laughing because, no, it\'s kind of a tough
prospect to bring Cooperating Agencies onboard, to develop that trust
and understanding, to understand what BLM\'s vision and BLM\'s objective
is, as well as to understand what the Cooperating Agency\'s objectives
and concerns are. So it\'s not an easy process. It does not necessarily
go smoothly. And it takes time, and as Kathleen said, times this is
where we need to expand a little more time on our schedule, is building
that relationship, that understanding and providing the information
between all the entities so that we all understand what we\'re all
trying to accomplish.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Steve, did you want to add to that? What could we have
done better, as you look in hindsight being 20/20, what could you have
done bet or Jack Morrow Hills?\
\
R. Dana: I think taking a little more time up front to understand the
agency\'s initiatives and requirements as well as \-- and we did get to
this later \-- explaining thoroughly the BLM\'s planning steps and what
our requirements are, some of the background involved with Jack Morrow
Hills, it\'s got quite a history to it and there was a lot of
assumptions on all parts to what was really occurring or going on there,
and getting those out early on and just getting everybody together
rather quickly and finding a way to share all that information and come
up with kind of a constructive approach.\
\
Dir. Clarke: In the polarized world we live in, particularly as it
relates to land management and natural resources, the way we\'re going
to make progress is through relationship, through positive
relationships, through understanding, through good communication and
shared objectives. So I just can\'t emphasize enough how important it is
that we do take the time to build those relationships with these
Cooperating Agencies, with people that we have shared responsibilities
with, shared jurisdiction, shared constituencies.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Exactly. Well said, Kathleen. I have a fax from Floyd who
is with the Wyoming game & fish, and based on the flowchart, Renee,
where does the public, non-governmental entities, where do they become
involved?\
\
R. Dana: Initially, Floyd, non-governmental or public entities are \--
have opportunities for input at the scoping stage, that\'s the formal
public comment stage, and on the draft and the final documents. Also,
we\'ve provided additional opportunities to review alternatives and
provide opportunities for public comments without \-- with those as well
\-- which extended our planning schedule but provided more public
interaction, because it does take a while to develop an EIS and get it
out on the street for public involvement. Hopefully that answers your
question, Floyd.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: We hope so. I know we\'ve got a lot of our Idaho offices
out there, and sounds like a lot of cooperators at the table. We\'d
welcome, if you want to share your experiences with us, it sounds like
it\'s all going well and it\'s a walk in the park up there in Idaho. But
we\'d welcome your input and your calls.\
\
H. Greczmiel: You\'re right.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: It\'s going very, very well, that\'s good to hear. I know
we\'ve had some tough questions and some good interaction, and we know a
lot of you are dealing with how best to engage your cooperators, so
we\'ll say think about the things that you\'re doing out there, if you
have questions, we\'ll have one more push-to-talk segment, and that will
be your opportunity to ask questions or get your comments in. Now we\'re
going to switch gears just a little and talk about the ways that our
Cooperating Agencies can work with us through the planning process, and
as we mentioned earlier, talk about that process in terms of the
agreement that will guide the relationship. We said there needs to be a
written agreement, preferably an MOU, but not necessarily so. But
something that\'s in place to formalize that relationship. Our
governmental partners can structure the Cooperating Agency relationship
with BLM in a number of ways, and Ryan Lance, who serves as the natural
resources policy analyst in the governor\'s office in Wyoming shares his
perspective on structuring agreements for Cooperating Agency
Relationships.\
\
Initially we started out with the notion of an umbrella agreement with
state and local cooperators all together under one MOU. That process
changed with governor\'s election and we moved to individual MOUs with
state and then with the local cooperators. The MOU really spells out how
the process will move forward and is \-- it needs to be detailed. The
details incorporated into that document guide timing, access to
information and must be a tight document. So everybody knows what to
expect as that process moves ahead.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. As Ryan commented, local governments, that
includes cities, counties and conservation districts, are welcome to
establish the Cooperating Agency relationship through an MOU or some
other agreement with BLM. Steve I know you\'ve been through this. Can
you tell us why an MOU was important to the process there in Oregon?\
\
S. Grasty: Cynthia, I think the most important reason, it really needs
to describe the participants. Our expectations, our goals, we\'ve said
it over and over here today, but spelling out the time commitments, the
cost commitments that are involved is going to reduce friction and
misunderstandings. Earlier I said how small counties have a limited
amount of staff time available. The MOU needs to provide a clear
understanding of the time commitments all parties may have in the
process. It should also address though costs that each of us are going
to have.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Horst, could I have you tell us the essential elements of
a Cooperating Agency MOU.\
\
H. Greczmiel: I would be glad to. It doesn\'t have to be an MOU,
although that\'s a preferred method of operating, if you will. First
comes the introduction, in that section you would want to describe the
planning effort and major statutory and regulatory requirements that
will have to be dealt with. You would also identify the governmental
entities that are assuming Cooperating Agency status and their
qualifications, whether it\'s jurisdiction by and/or special expertise.
Second you should describe the purpose. A good concise statement of what
it is you plan to accomplish both by the MOU and the Cooperating Agency
relationship. And I would say the third essential element of an MOU is a
list of the authorities. In that section you identify the principal
statutory authorities, both those that authorize BLM to enter the
agreement but also that identify the principal statutory authorities
that authorize the Cooperating Agencies to enter into the MOU.

Fourth, as Steve said, and I can\'t emphasize enough, you want to define
the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties, setting out those
expectations are great. In that section you not only describe those but
you do that recognizing that over time priorities and people change and
this is a document that\'s going to help guide you through that and
define what those expectations are. You can also at this point address
the points that Renee raised earlier about treating confidential and
pre-decisional information and the points that Kathleen and you,
Cynthia, have discussed about staying on the schedule and what that
anticipated schedule might be. The more that section is spelled out, the
smoother the process should go.

The fifth part of the MOU identifies the agency representatives. That\'s
usually a list of the representatives with their contact information,
and it can be include as an attachment to the MOU. You might also want
to make sure you have the ability to amend that over time as folks do
change and points of contact turn over. The sixth essential element of
the MOU does that. It describes how it\'s going to be administered, how
it can be amended and provides thing things such as a mechanism for
resolving disputes and disagreements and how the MOU might be terminated
or modified. If necessary, that\'s a spot where you can also consider
including a provision that deals with things such as third-party
contractor representation. Once it\'s completed, the MOU is signed by
the authorized officials of all the participating agencies, according to
their appropriate delegation of authority. Here a personal plea, don\'t
let things get bogged down. I don\'t like getting calls from the hill,
neither does BLM, about why does it take longer to sign the MOU than
does it to finish the plan and the EIS. So let\'s keep those things on
track. Those are some of the essential elements of the Cooperating
Agency MOU.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks, Horst. I can see how a well written MOU or
agreement would certainly help the communication and the relationship
during the planning process. I can also think of a couple of other
things that our cooperators and BLM may want to include. Just addressing
how BLM and the Cooperating Agencies might jointly select the data and
the analysis that they plan to use and also looking at when and how to
use a facilitator. While these sections aren\'t mandatory, they
certainly can help guide the relationship and help proactively address
any issues that might come up. Using a facilitator, as you mentioned
before, is a good idea, but I know I've heard stories about some of the
challenges it can also create. Carol crust is going to share her
experience when they used a facilitator on the Jack Morrow Hills plan.\
\
I think the facilitator\'s style and skills need to be matched with the
group that they\'re going to be facilitating. In this case there was a
great deal of over facilitation. This group already \-- they knew each
other. They had worked together before. In this part of the country, our
\-- are very familiar with collaborative process and consensus decision
making. The group did not need to do a lot of the socializing that the
facilitator initially was trying to get us to do. What the group really
needed was a facilitator who could keep the meetings moving and keep
everybody on track.\
\
R. Dana: Cynthia I would like to add, too, that the MOU is also a
helpful tool for keeping all parties on track as events and personnel
change, both at BLM and among the Cooperating Agencies.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That\'s a good point, Renee. Appreciate that. I think we
will move on with a couple remaining items. The Cooperating Agency
Relationship, as I've talked to our cooperators in the field and BLM
staff, we know it\'s not a perfect tool, and, Horst, you know you and I
have talked about this quite a bit. Can you share with our audience the
story you\'ve told me? I just thought it was just tell tale of how this
process works sometimes.\
\
H. Greczmiel: In one of the early sessions when we went out to the field
and talked about Cooperating Agency status, a gasp went up from the
crowd when I gave the telephone number at my desk asking folks to.\
\
Dir. Clarke: Me when they had issues and sure enough there was a county
commissioner who contacted me and contacted me, and we worked over
several months, had had a lot of great dynamic discussions with the
agencies and finally got them to the point where they would agree that,
yes, this county will be a Cooperating Agency. A couple years later we
were out in the same part of the country again and I ran into that same
commissioner, and looking for a success story, I asked him, how did it
go? He said, Horst, that was the most grueling, painful, gut-wrenching
process I have ever been through, and I said, well, doesn\'t look like
I\'m going to have a success story. No, wait a minute, you got it all
wrong. We ended up in a much better place finance we hadn\'t been at the
table and definitely a much better place than might have originally been
envisioned. The reason it was so difficult, we started off, we didn\'t
trust the agency, the agency didn\'t trust us. We didn\'t understand
what the agency was trying to do and they certainly didn\'t understand
why we as the county were at the table and what we were really
interested in and why we wanted to participate in that process. So
having worked through that once, albeit it took a while and it was a bit
of a painful process, they are now Cooperating Agencies on several
different projects and it\'s working much more smoothly. So, yeah, there
is that initial challenge to get over that initial hump and develop that
trust and that partnership relationship, but once it\'s there, things
start moving along a lot better.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: I think that tells the whole story. Not every day in this
Cooperating Agency relationship is going to be where you\'re sitting
around the table singing kum ba yah. But we know if we stick to it, we
certainly can expect a good outcome, a good product that they\'ve bought
into as you\'ve mentioned, Kathleen. I think we can also hear from Don
Christianson once again on the Jack Morrow Hills project. He can tell us
from a cooperators perspective of the struggles they faced on that
plan.\
\
It took two or three meetings. We had one really brutal meeting where
everybody sat down and talked about what were our roles, realizing BLM
has the ultimate authority, but there\'s no use for cooperators to sit
at the table if they\'re not going to be listened to. Realizing
cooperators have a responsibility to bring their best product to that
table, their best views to that table. Once that meeting took place,
then things worked out very, very well, and we had full confidence, and
I think that\'s extremely important. The cooperators had full confidence
that the BLM people were, in fact, interested in listening to what we
had to say.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Good point. I think that we recognize from this
discussion that the planning process itself, and certainly engaging our
cooperators, it\'s not a quick, nor is it an easy process. But it\'s a
worthwhile engagement as we work through our planning process. To assist
with getting us through these challenges, the bureau is providing
additional information and training and, Rob, could you tell us a bit
about those efforts?\
\
R. Winthrop: I would be glad to, Cynthia. Help us work together more
effectively, as I've already mentioned, we\'ve established the
Cooperating Agency web shoot it which you should see on your screen.
This will be a great resource for BLM staff and it should be a great
resource for our cooperators once our internet service to the outside
world is restored, which we hope and pray will be shortly. But, anyway,
it\'s ready to use for thousands of us that have access across the
agency.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: That web site is a great resource, Rob, and thanks for
your efforts in helping to develop it. In terms of training, we\'ve
partnered with the national association of counties, also known as NACO,
a number of state associations of counties and state government to
provide Cooperating Agency training sessions in most of the BLM states.
In fact, our next session will be held in Utah in July. We\'re also
developing a Cooperating Agency Training CD-ROM which is going to be
available this fall, and I know you\'ve given a lot of thought to. All
that we\'ve presented here today, and we\'ve thrown quite a bit at you,
and just in case there are more questions, more comments, more caring,
more sharing that we would like to do, we\'re going to open the
push-to-talk system once more and take any remaining questions, and so
if there are comments, questions, sharing that you would like to do,
please feel free to do that now.\
\
Caller: This is Tracy Trenton calling from Idaho again. I was curious if
the planning guide will have a template \-- that might expedite the
process of developing the individual MOUs?\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Tracy, could you give your question once more and Joe,
could you hold on until Tracy finishes.\
\
Caller: Yeah, my question was: do you plan on providing a template for
the MOUs to the BLM offices so we could expedite the development of
these?\
\
R. Winthrop: Thanks. I think I\'m supposed to answer that question.
Interesting that you ask that. In fact, just yesterday Director Clarke
gave me another assignment to see to it that we have \-- we develop some
model \-- some model MOUs that have been preapproved, essentially, by
the interior department solicitors so that I\'m sure it will be more
complicated than add water and stir but the basic idea is that from the
federal standpoint, or at least the interior standpoint, ensuring that
we have the proper stave guards, are in there in the boilerplate, in the
model from the start, because we acknowledge that at times our
solicitors have a huge backlog of work, and getting their approval of
every MOU can be extremely time consuming. So we\'re just hoping to cut
that part out. Look for it on our web site soon.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. Does that answer your question, Tracy?\
\
Caller: It certainly does. I would also encourage you to have Kathleen
review that MOU so we\'re not dealing strictly with solicitor language.
Lest you think everybody goes completely smooth in Idaho, we have do
have our disagreements over these resource issues. Resource management
is not for Sissies, but I would like to say that Cooperating Agency
approach tends to generate greater understanding among the various
competing resources on BLM lands, and even when we don\'t all get what
we want, we understand better the needs of others.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Excellent point. Thanks much, Tracy. Joe, are you still
on the line?\
\
Caller: Yes, I am.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Okay. Go ahead.\
\
Caller: This is Joe from bishop, California, BLM, a great hello to Ms.
Clarke. My question relates more to where this process is going to go
and the skill sets that Director Clarke anticipates that BLM leaders
will need to have to engage in understanding other people\'s needs,
understanding their interests and moving a group of people toward
options for mutual gain. What skill sets \-- I recognize you mentioned
mentors and facilitators, what skill sets would you anticipate we could
be looking at for training to kind of move this process and concept
forward.\
\
Dir. Clarke: I\'m here at the training center right now and I\'m
actually going to be sending some time with the new director of the
training center right after this broadcast to discuss exactly that
question. But I envision that we really need to develop conflict
management, dispute resolution, partnership building. We need to make
sure we absolutely provide the tools to our managers to be successful in
this endeavor, and it is a departure from the traditional way of doing
business. I think it\'s one can that enhance our success. We\'re also
looking at that mentoring program we talked about earlier where we can
take people who have successful experience, who have a track record of
making this work, and exporting them temporarily into other offices that
are just embarking on this type of approach to their business. We would
also William your recommendations. I never pretend to have all the
answers. By like to hear from the field, what tools do you need, what
training do you need, how can we help you make this work in your area.\
\
Caller: Watch your e-mail.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Steve, you wanted to add something?\
\
S. Grasty: Just a suggestion in the middle of this. I\'m aware of a
couple Oregon county commissioners who are working on a government \--
local government 101 class. It might be real interesting in your
trainings and as an option for your field managers to consider sitting
through that to have a better understanding of what it is that we as
county commissioners are dealing with.

C. Moses-Nedd: That is an excellent idea. By like to remind those
participating with us, we appreciate your input and your questions and
comments. Just remember to stay 18 inches away from your mic if you can
so that we can get your questions correct. When we hear them here. Any
other questions or comments? Karl Charlie from Idaho. I had a
Cooperating Agency representing the odd hoe National Guard. I want to
echo a couple things here. We worked a template and training for the
Cooperating Agencies would be great. We\'re halfway through the mine
field. We\'ve stepped on most of them but there\'s still a few of them
out there. Also want to echo, it\'s not always an easy process. Trust is
imperative. Communication. Sometimes we have conflicting goals and we
have to work through those. It\'s okay to agree to disagree. It is not
okay to let that disagreement stifle open communication or progress.
I\'m sure I\'m looking over my shoulder at our BLM people here and
they\'re wondering, oh, what is he going to say, because we\'re at one
of these little bumps in the speed bumps in the road right now, but I\'m
very confident we\'re going to be through it very shortly. That\'s
because we are communicating, and we have developed a trust. I have a
suboffice over in their office. So it just takes a lot of effort.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Those were excellent points, and one thing that Horst
emphasizes when we have these Cooperating Agency trainings, and Kathleen
has said a couple of times today, and you\'re actually doing it and can
also attest to is that while there may be bumps in the road, sticking
with the process and continuing along on the journey, that\'s the key to
a successful outcome.\
\
Dir. Clarke: And I would encourage you to put together a list of all the
land mine that you found, lessons learned, so that we can incorporate
those into our training and share that benefit of your painful
experiences with others so that maybe we can smooth out this road ahead.
So thank you for your comments.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Exactly. I have a fax here, and the question is, can BLM
provide funding to a Cooperating Agency to help fund staff or small
local governments to provide input and expertise to the BLM plan?
Kathleen, would you take that?\
\
Dir. Clarke: I would be happy to take that. We are very committed to
making this initiative work and we\'re all dealing with limited funds
and short budgets, but let me assure you that we will explore with you
possibilities to make this happen. I\'m not sure what our capacities or
our legal authorities are to fund participation, but if there is an
issue that is a budgetary issue that\'s limiting participation, I hope
you\'ll discuss it with the field manager and let\'s see what we can
work out.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Great. I hope that answered the question there from the
Glenwood springs office. I have another fax here from Paul Jeske from
the Salem Oregon office. The time and effort to maintain partnerships
has been mentioned several times and much of the work would be outside
of the NEPA/EIS process. So what workload measures can be used to
document that work is the first question. Two, how can that workload be
recognized in the budgeting process and allocations?\
\
Dir. Clarke: I\'m not going to pretend I have an instant answer to the
question but I\'m grateful to share with you our recognition that there
is an issue there, and I will take this back and work with my new
deputy, Larry Bena, with Cynthia, and others to make sure we\'re fully
recognizing the workload that we\'re laying at the feet of the field
offices and you folks to really advance this new approach to business. I
think it\'s a case where the investment is going to be greater at the
first, and over time as these relationships are established, it will
work more smoothly and be less time intensive. It\'s kind of a case of
go slow to go fast. But we do want to acknowledge it, to give credit for
it. We have pretty explicit performance measures and workload assessment
and criteria and tracking, and so I will make a point to go back and
make sure we\'re dealing with that so that we\'re providing the guidance
you need to be successful and accountable for the time you\'re spending
in these efforts.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: We hope that helps you all out and can he look forward to
some follow-up from us. Is there anyone else out there?\
\
Caller: Yes, this is Ken crane again from Idaho. Cynthia, I\'m sorry,
left you hanging when you requested some input on ongoing collaborative
effort here\'s in Idaho, but kind of caught me flat-footed and I didn\'t
get prepared for you quick enough. There are quite a few, and it\'s hard
to \-- it would be impossible to mention all that\'s going on here, but
probably our biggest effort right now is the sage grouse planning effort
here in Idaho, and the BLM has taken a real leadership role here, I have
to give them credit for that, in providing staff and the means to
develop a good collaborative effort to develop and rewrite our state
plan. But that\'s more of a formal with the mix of informal here I
don\'t know that we \-- that would it particularly fit into the
cooperative agency role, but I think a note of caution in this
development of this process that a lot of times our most productive
means are at the informal stage, and when we formalize a process that
seems to be working well, and an example of that might be our
coordinated resource planning efforts that were going so well and then
when FACA and some of these other worries entered in, it kind of stymied
the whole process, but I would like to emphasize the continuing efforts
for these informal relationships and efforts that are going on in field
offices, project planning efforts, those sort of levels, that do build
the foundation for the more formal issues.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: I think you\'ve said a mouthful. Excellent points. We can
all take that example back with us. Well, I think as evidenced by the
robust conversation we\'ve had here today this is obviously a very
important topic. We\'ve been discussing. We\'re looking forward to
continuing to hear from all of you. I know I speak for all of us here at
this roundtable discussion in expressing our thanks for your questions,
your comments, your participation, and sharing your experience. We have
only a few minutes left in the broadcast, so I\'d like to get a closing
comment from each of our panel members and I think we\'ll start with
you, judge Grasty and then we\'ll go around the table.\
\
S. Grasty: Thank you. I guess I want to say thank you to Kathleen and to
you, Cynthia, for inviting me here to Phoenix. I'll have to admit I
don\'t think I ever experienced 110-degree days before. Kathleen, I know
how much you understand this, but the many rural communities in our
nation for many of us, we\'re just completely dependent upon the federal
grounds and the natural resources that surround our communities. So this
focus of the BLM on cooperating agency status, I believe, is going to
build these relationships between the federal land managers and the
people that live in and around those lands that they manage. The result
is going to be good for the environment. It\'s going to be good for our
communities. And it\'s going to be good for each other. So thanks
again.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks. Renee?\
\
R. Dana: Cynthia, thanks to all of you for the opportunity to be here
and to recognize the efforts of the Jack Morrow Hills Cooperating
Agencies. The RMP process is just the beginning in the process of
building those long-term relationships, and as we get past the EIS stage
we\'re looking forward to working towards long-term relationships to
carry into implementation. It\'s been a great opportunity. I\'m glad I
got to be a part of this and it\'s great to be here today.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks for being here, Renee. Rob?\
\
R. Winthrop: It\'s really been a pleasure to take part in this
discussion. Like Cynthia, I have been working on the Cooperating Agency
initiative for the past several years and over this period I've become
convinced the Cooperating Agency framework does offer a model for
managing our public lands and resources in a new and more effective way.
It\'s also clear working in this way will impose significant new burdens
on our field officers and I hope that working together we can develop
the guidance, training and support to make this initiative a success for
our agency and for our partners. So thanks very much.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: And thank you, Rob, for all your work on this initiative.
Horst?\
\
H. Greczmiel: I want to thank all of BLM from Director Clarke for her
leadership in getting us to this point today and especially to those
folks out in the field who are doing all the hard work that is making
this real. As well as their partners, because this is a process that\'s
going to require a lot of hard work in the future. It\'s not something
where we can say, ah, we finished the guidance, we\'re done now.
Obviously there are things that remain to be done. The president and
chairman have made it clear that they\'re going to keep a focus on this
and continue to track it. So I look forward to working with all of you
in making that real. And to do that, as I typically do when we go out on
training sessions, I offer to everyone out there, if you have a question
about Cooperating Agency status, if you\'re confronted with a situation
where you would like to discuss some options or some hypothetical ways
of getting through a situation, please give me a call, 202-395-5750. By
hearing the issues you\'re dealing with, the successes, as well as
failures, that enables me to do a better job helping you by providing
guidance, working together with you on the training sessions and the
like to see if we can overcome those challenges and make this work
successfully. Again, thank you Kathleen and thanks to everyone in BLM
for taking this to the next level. I\'m excited about working with all
of you in the years ahead.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks, Horst.\
\
Dir. Clarke: I would like to thank everybody on the panel for taking
time out of your very busy schedules to be here today. Also a special
thanks to you Cynthia for moderating this panel. You have done an
excellent job. A thanks to you, Rob, for working so diligently on the
Cooperating Agency rule and the attendant guide. Primarily I want to
thank everybody who has participated and helped bring this about, and
that includes the great staff here at the training center, our field
offices, our state offices, and in particular our cooperators. I\'ve
been grateful for your many questions and comments, for illuminating us
to some of the issues and challenges that you\'re facing and prompting
us to take additional action to make sure this is going to work. My
promises to you is that I\'m going to do everything I can to ensure that
you do have the guidance, the resources and the support you need from
Washington to make this initiative successful to make it positive, and
to make it productive. Thanks again for your commitment, for your
dedication to BLM and to our mission and your great service to this
nation.\
\
C. Moses-Nedd: Thanks, Kathleen. I\'d like to thank everyone who has
participated this Cooperating Agency Relationships broadcast. It was the
fifth in a series every planning and NEPA forums where we keep you
informed about what\'s new, exciting in NEPA planning. I hope you did
find this discussion informative. As you undertake Cooperating Agency
Relationships, as we\'ve said, you can expect more tools to help you
throughout your way. The Cooperating Agency web site, the Cooperating
Agency guidebook, and the Cooperating Agency training CD coming out in
the fall. We\'d like to say it\'s been a pleasure to visit with you. We
thank you. And we hope you have a great day.