page | 101 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 1. The BLM develops a 43 CFR 1610.4-1 (BLM) preparation plan. Identification of issues. At the outset of the planning process, The RMP’s preparation plan should include the public, other Federal agencies, State a list of potential CAs and a preliminary and local governments and Indian tribes assessment of the role of each entity based shall be given an opportunity to suggest on jurisdiction by law or special expertise. concerns, needs, and resource use, The preparation plan establishes the planning development and protection opportunities schedule and budget within which the CAs for consideration in the preparation of must operate. Informal discussions with the resource management plan. The potential CAs should begin at this time, Field Manager, in collaboration with any followed by formal invitations for CA status as cooperating agencies, will analyze those appropriate. The BLM works with the potential suggestions and other available data, such CAs to prepare an MOU to establish CA as records of resource conditions, trends, relationships. needs, and problems, and select topics and determine the issues to be addressed Suggested roles for CAs: during the planning process. [Here and Identify relevant local and regional in other excerpts from 43 CFR 1610.4, organizations and interest groups. Sponsor emphasis added.] public forums in conjunction with the lead agency. Identify coordination needs 3. The BLM develops planning associated with Federal, State, local, and criteria. tribal land use plans, policies, and controls. Begin to identify significant issues. Work At the start of the planning process the with the appropriate BLM office to develop an field office planning team determines the MOU. Participate in the development of the parameters that will guide development of the preparation plan, as appropriate. For example, plan consistent with statutory and regulatory it would be appropriate for CAs to help in requirements. These planning criteria aid in identifying data and inventory needs as well as tailoring plans to identified issues and help anticipated management issues and concerns. eliminate unnecessary data collection and It is expected that CAs would be involved to a analysis. The BLM has an obligation to seek lesser extent on some aspects of a preparation consistency with Federal, State, local, and plan, such as schedule and budget. tribal plans, but only to the degree that such plans are also consistent with applicable 2. The BLM conducts scoping and Federal law and regulation. identifies issues. This process provides a major opportunity for Suggested roles for CAs: BLM and CA discussion. The issues selected Provide advice on proposed planning criteria. will guide the planning process. To the extent Identify pertinent elements of Federal, State, consistent with other BLM responsibilities, local, and tribal plans (such as transportation these issues should include matters significant and environmental regulations). Identify legal to CAs. requirements that shape Federal, State, local, and tribal CA policies and responsibilities. Suggested roles for CAs: Sponsor public forums in conjunction with the 43 CFR 1610.4-2 (BLM) lead agency. Collaborate in assessing scoping Development of planning criteria. comments. Identify coordination needs (a) The Field Manager will prepare associated with Federal, State, local, and tribal criteria to guide development of the land use plans, policies, and controls. Identify resource management plan or revision, to significant issues. Identify connected, similar, ensure: 12 and cumulative actions.
page | 102 (1) It is tailored to the issues previously as appropriate. Identify management Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship identified…. opportunities to respond to the gathered data and the planning issues. Review draft AMS. 13 (b) Planning criteria will generally be based upon applicable law, Director 43 CFR 1610.4-4 (BLM) and State Director guidance, the results Analysis of the management situation. of public participation, and coordination The Field Manager, in collaboration with with any cooperating agencies and any cooperating agencies, will analyze other Federal agencies, State and local the inventory data and other information governments, and federally recognized available to determine the ability of the Indian tribes. resource area to respond to identified issues and opportunities. 4. The BLM collects inventory data. 6. The BLM formulates alternatives. The planning team identifies available data that can be used to characterize the physical, Each planning alternative consists of desired biological, social, and economic characteristics outcomes (goals and objectives) and the of the resource area; assesses the data; and allowable uses and management actions identifies data gaps. anticipated to achieve those outcomes. Formulating alternatives is a key decision item Suggested roles for CAs: that determines the range of management Identify data needs. Provide data and choices to be subsequently analyzed and technical analyses within CA’s expertise. considered for adoption in the plan. 43 CFR 1610.4-3 (BLM) Suggested roles for CAs: Inventory data and information Suggest goals and objectives for potential collection. alternatives. Suggest land allocations or The Field Manager, in collaboration with management actions to resolve issues. any cooperating agencies, will arrange for resource, environmental, social, economic 43 CFR 1610.4-5 (BLM) and institutional data and information Formulation of alternatives. to be collected, or assembled if already At the direction of the Field Manager, available. in collaboration with any cooperating agencies, BLM will consider all reasonable 5. The BLM analyzes baseline data resource management alternatives and and prepares the analysis of the develop several complete alternatives for management situation. detailed study. Nonetheless, the decision to designate alternatives for further The analysis of the management situation development and analysis remains the (AMS) should describe current conditions exclusive responsibility of the BLM. and trends of resources, offer a framework for resolving planning issues, and provide a 7. The BLM estimates effects basis for analyzing the no-action alternative. of alternatives. Field office personnel are encouraged to make this document (or a summary) available to The analysis in the plan should provide the public. A summary of current conditions adequate information for evaluating the and trends appears in the plan’s “Affected physical, biological, social, and economic Environment” section. effects of each proposed planning alternative. The analysis should include direct, indirect, Suggested roles for CAs: and cumulative effects considered in both Provide information (such as local monitoring short- and long-term perspectives, at various and baseline data) for the draft AMS and geographic scales. help interpret the AMS to constituents
page | 103 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 Suggested roles for CAs: for approval, publication, and filing with Suggest models and methods for impact the Environmental Protection Agency. analyses. Develop and review direct, indirect, This draft plan and environmental impact and cumulative effects analysis within CA’s statement shall be provided for comment expertise. Suggest mitigation measures for to the Governor of the State involved, adverse effects. and to officials of other Federal agencies, 43 CFR 1610.4-6 (BLM) State and local governments and Indian Estimating effects of alternatives. tribes that the State Director has reason to The Field Manager, in collaboration believe would be concerned. with any cooperating agencies, will estimate and display the physical, 9. The BLM responds to comments biological, economic, and social effects of and issues the final RMP. implementing each alternative considered The BLM is required to respond to substantive in detail. comments submitted on a draft RMP/draft 8. The BLM selects preferred EIS that reveal new information, missing alternative and issues the draft RMP. information, or flawed analysis that could substantially change the conclusions. The AO The various planning alternatives must be then forwards the final plan, revised as needed evaluated in relation to planning issues and to reflect comments received, to the State criteria and the analysis of effects. The AO Director for publication. The document is also selects a preferred alternative and forwards forwarded to the Governor for a 60-day review the resulting draft plan to the State Director for to identify any inconsistencies with State or approval and publication. The draft plan must local plans, policies, or programs. be available for public comment for a minimum Suggested roles for CAs: of 90 days. Review comments within CA’s expertise Suggested roles for CAs: and assist the BLM in preparing responses. Collaborate with the BLM’s AO in evaluating Review the preliminary (internal) draft of alternatives. Provide information for the proposed RMP. State agency CAs may preliminary (internal) draft RMP. Review the contribute to the Governor’s consistency preliminary (internal) draft RMP. After public review. release of the draft RMP/draft EIS, CAs may 43 CFR 1610.4-8 (BLM) provide written comment, if desired, just as Selection of resource management plan. non-CAs and members of the public are After publication of the draft resource allowed. management plan and draft environmental 43 CFR 1610.4-7 (BLM) impact statement, the Field Manager shall Selection of preferred alternative. evaluate the comments received and select The Field Manager, in collaboration with and recommend to the State Director, any cooperating agencies, will evaluate for supervisory review and publication, the alternatives, estimate their effects a proposed resource management plan according to the planning criteria, and and final environmental impact statement. identify a preferred alternative that After supervisory review of the proposed best meets Director and State Director resource management plan, the State guidance. Nonetheless, the decision to Director shall publish the plan and file the select a preferred alternative remains the related environmental impact statement. exclusive responsibility of the BLM. The See 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) for requirements of resulting draft resource management plan the Governor’s consistency review. and draft environmental impact statement 14 shall be forwarded to the State Director
page | 104 10. The BLM responds to protests and Trans-Alaska Pipeline). Implementation Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship signs the Record of Decision. actions and projects will receive a level of NEPA analysis commensurate with their The final RMP is subject to a 30-day protest potential effects. Those expected to have period. Any party (including a CA) that significant effects require an EIS. Actions and participated in the planning process and that projects that are unlikely to generate significant may be adversely affected by approval of the effects will normally be analyzed through an resource management plan may file a protest EA. with the Director of the BLM. On approval of the final RMP, and subject to resolution of any Suggested roles for CAs: protests, the State Director signs the Record of Opportunities exist for Federal, State, Decision (ROD). local, and tribal entities to participate as cooperating agencies in future NEPA efforts Suggested roles for CAs: for implementation actions. See subsection, The CA has a limited role in protest resolution The Role of CAs in the NEPA Process. CAs and ROD development. Reviewing protests may also assist the BLM in performing and signing the ROD are actions reserved to implementation tasks such as monitoring, the BLM. The protest procedures provide the enforcement, or even project work. Director with an administrative review of the State Director’s proposed decision. Where 12. The BLM monitors the RMP. a CA has provided information relevant to a protest, the BLM may ask the cooperator for Monitoring is the process of collecting data clarification. and information to determine whether or not desired outcomes in the RMP (expressed as See 43 CFR 1610.5-2 for protest procedures goals and objectives) are being met as the for resource management plans. allowable uses and management actions in the plan are being implemented. A monitoring 11. The BLM implements the RMP. strategy, developed as part of the plan, identifies indicators of change, acceptable Formal CA status for a plan ends when the thresholds, methods, protocols, and ROD is signed. Federal, State, local, and timeframes that will be used to evaluate and tribal entities may work with the BLM as the determine whether or not desired outcomes plan is implemented through assistance with are being achieved. on-the-ground projects. Such actions range from the identification of roads and trails within Suggested roles for CAs: designated open and limited areas, to approval Federal, State, local, and tribal entities are of small projects with few effects (such as strongly encouraged to work with the BLM improving campgrounds), to large projects and private partners to develop monitoring with the potential for significant effects strategies and participate in assessing the (such as establishing a right-of-way for the effectiveness of plan implementation. 15
page | 105 The BLM has developed a Model MOU, which provides guidance for developing a comprehensive, mutually respectful framework to guide the CA relationship. 16
page | 106 Section 3 Section 3. Preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding Preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding Key to the CA relationship is the negotiation at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/nepa/ of an effective MOU that acknowledges cooperating_agencies.html. the interests, expertise, and jurisdictional responsibilities of both the BLM and its CA Please note: The Model MOU is intended partners and that outlines their respective roles to be used only as a guide. The BLM and and responsibilities in the planning and NEPA CAs should work together to ensure that the processes. DOI policy states that bureaus agreed on MOU reflects their unique working should develop and adopt an MOU to establish relationship and the tasks at hand. a CA relationship and that an MOU must be used in the case of non-Federal agencies (43 Introduction CFR 46.225(d)). An MOU will also provide for continuity despite changes in priorities and • Describe the planning or NEPA effort personnel within the BLM and its CA partners. and the major statutory and regulatory requirements it fulfills. While the framework for a CA relationship is established by an MOU, its utility is limited • Identify the government entities assuming if open and honest communication does not CA status through the MOU and their exist among the cooperating agencies. An qualifications: jurisdiction by law, special MOU may transform a difficult relationship into expertise, or both. a productive one, by reducing the chance for friction and misunderstanding by describing • If the CA is a tribal entity, specify the in sufficient detail each participant’s goals government-to-government consultation and expectations and how the CAs will work provision, including applicable laws and together. Positive results will come from the directives. willingness of all parties to pursue sound resource management on America’s public Purpose lands. • Describe what the MOU will accomplish. The BLM should ensure that cooperators are engaged in drafting the MOU. There is • Designate cooperating agency(ies) in the no required format for an MOU, but there planning or NEPA process. are certain essential elements that should be included in all MOUs as a basis for an • Identify the lead agency that has effective CA relationship. The BLM has responsibility for the completion of the developed a Model MOU, which provides planning or NEPA effort. guidance for developing a comprehensive, mutually respectful framework to guide the • Establish a framework for cooperation CA relationship. A summary of the BLM’s and coordination between the lead Model MOU is included below (a copy of agency and the cooperating agency(ies) the complete Model MOU can be found on the BLM’s Cooperating Agencies webpage 17
page | 107 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 that will ensure successful completion of • Describe the schedule for any tasks the planning or NEPA effort in a timely, assigned through the MOU. efficient, and thorough manner. Other Provisions • Describe the respective responsibilities, jurisdictional authority, and expertise of • Include standard legal stipulations to each of the parties in the planning or NEPA indicate, for example, that authorities process. are not altered and that immunities and defenses of all parties are retained. Authorities for the MOU • Include provisions to address issues such • Identify the principal statutory authorities as conflicts of interest, the management that authorize the parties to enter into and documentation of disagreements, and the MOU (such as the NEPA of 1969 (42 procedures that will be employed when U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); Federal Land Policy parties disagree on matters of scientific and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. information, data collection, or analysis. 1701 et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality regulations on implementing NEPA • Describe procedures for handling (40 CFR Part 1501 et seq.); BLM planning confidential and predecisional information, regulations (43 CFR 1601 et seq.); and while paying particular attention to state other authorities). “sunshine” laws, requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and Roles and Responsibilities other pertinent laws. • Identify the roles of each party in the • Include a conflict resolution provision, planning or NEPA process, and outline the which may include options for facilitation responsibilities each party will assume. and joint factfinding. The lead agency and CAs may consider retaining an • Describe the BLM’s responsibility for the independent facilitator to foster clear content of the planning or NEPA document, communication among the parties. The including the BLM’s obligation to consider parties may stipulate in the MOU that a CA input, particularly in those areas where facilitator be used for a specific period and the CA is deemed to possess jurisdiction may agree to review the need for such by law or special expertise. assistance at designated intervals. A cost- sharing agreement (monetary, or in-kind) to • Describe those areas where the CA will pay for the facilitator should be detailed in provide information, comments, and the MOU. technical expertise to the lead agency regarding those elements of the planning or • If necessary, include detailed provisions for NEPA effort in which the CA has jurisdiction engaging contractors as representatives for or special expertise or for which the lead the CAs. agency requests the CA’s assistance. Agency Representatives • Specifically address any matters of compensation (monetary or in-kind) for • Designate a representative and alternate CAs providing technical analysis or data. representative for each party to ensure The BLM should consult the Department’s coordination between the cooperating Office of the Solicitor to determine if any agency(ies) and the lead agency during the matters of compensation require a more planning or NEPA process. formalized agreement than an MOU. 18
page | 108 Section 3. Preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding Administration of the MOU • Describe MOU approval authority. For the BLM, the MOU shall be signed by the authorized officer in accordance with BLM Manual 1203 and appropriate delegations of authority. For CAs, the MOU shall be signed by a similarly authorized official. • Describe how the MOU may be amended or modified. • Describe how and under what circumstances the MOU may be terminated. 19
page | 109 Some expertise is based on informal rather than technical knowledge. 20
page | 110 Section 4 Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions Qualifying Organizations revising an RMP or preparing an EIS. It is the AO’s responsibility, however, to determine Criteria for CA eligibility which entities possess special expertise relative to a proposed plan or project and the ► What types of organizations may nature of their expertise, subject to review serve as CAs? by the State Director. The claimed expertise should be demonstrated (not merely asserted), The CA relationship is limited to government and it should be relevant to the decisions to be entities: State agencies, local governments, made. tribal governments, and other Federal agencies. 40 CFR 1508.26 (CEQ) Special expertise means statutory ► Within the interdisciplinary (ID) responsibility, agency mission, or related team, is a CA limited to participating program experience. only on the topics on which the BLM has acknowledged its jurisdiction by ► How is expertise demonstrated? law or special expertise, as reflected in the MOU? In most cases, a government entity’s expertise is demonstrated through staff capabilities and A CA is entitled to collaborate as part of an an appropriate program focus. For example, RMP or EIS ID team in those areas for which a local government that routinely conducts the MOU acknowledges the CA’s jurisdiction transportation planning and road maintenance by law or special expertise. A CA’s formal may be assumed to have special expertise on involvement on other issues occurs at the these topics whether the work is carried out by discretion of the BLM’s AO. In practical terms, permanent staff and/or contractors. There are the scope and nature of a CA’s participation many small governments that cannot afford to is a matter for negotiation that takes into keep full- or part-time staff for every resource account the CA’s policy concerns, the staff and area and consequently rely on consultants resources it can reasonably contribute to the for help. A government entity without regular effort, the schedule, and other constraints. programmatic responsibilities for a given resource area, however, cannot establish ► What discretion does the BLM have special expertise for the CA relationship by to determine the scope of a CA’s hiring a consultant or specialist in that area. special expertise? Note: Some expertise is based on informal rather than technical knowledge. (See the The criterion of special expertise emphasizes discussion of knowledge of local “custom and the relevant capabilities or knowledge that a culture” by tribal and local government officials CA may contribute to the planning and NEPA below.) process. Managers are required to offer CA status to potentially eligible government 21 entities, including tribes, when preparing or
page | 111 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 ► What are some considerations Guidelines for Conducting Tribal in determining whether expertise Consultation, BLM Manual Handbook, is relevant? H-8120-1, Sec. IV(E) Native Americans may be reluctant to Relevance in this context means not only that share sensitive information regarding the topic of the expertise has importance for resource locations and values with agency the plan or project, but that the government officials. This is partly because agencies entity claiming the expertise can speak to have been hindered, until recently, from foreseeable effects on the people, property, effectively protecting Native American or resources for which it has responsibility. cultural information from public disclosure For example, one county requested CA under the Freedom of Information Act. status on the basis of special expertise in air quality modeling. While air quality was a Federal agencies relevant issue and the county had program responsibility and technical skills on this topic, ► What discretion do Federal the county was so distant from the project area agencies have when requested to that it would not be influenced by any project- serve as CAs? generated air quality impacts. For this reason the county’s expertise was not relevant to A Federal agency eligible on the basis of the project, and its request for CA status was jurisdiction by law must serve as a CA when denied. so requested. A Federal agency eligible on the basis of special expertise may choose whether ► Is knowledge of local “custom or not to serve as a CA when so requested. A and culture” a sufficient basis for State, local, or tribal entity eligible on either including local governments as CAs basis may choose whether or not to serve as a under the special expertise criterion? CA when so requested. Yes. Leaders of local governments are 40 CFR 1501.6 (CEQ) presumed to possess special expertise Upon request of the lead agency, any other concerning the history, institutions, and social Federal agency which has jurisdiction and economic conditions of their jurisdictions. by law shall be a cooperating agency. In This knowledge is often relevant to assessing addition any other Federal agency which baseline conditions and potential effects of has special expertise with respect to any planning alternatives. environmental issue, which should be addressed in the statement may be a ► How should the criterion of special cooperating agency upon request of the expertise be applied to tribes? lead agency. An agency may request the Because American Indian tribes have culturally lead agency to designate it a cooperating distinctive uses and understandings of land agency [emphasis added]. and resources, a tribe’s special expertise may ► What should the BLM do if a be wide-ranging. Examples include the effects Federal agency with jurisdiction by of a proposed planning decision on tribal law refuses/declines an invitation to employment and income, the need for access be a CA? to ceremonial places, and the medicinal value of certain plant species. Sharing tribal It is important to document the request and knowledge of “custom and culture” through denial of the request in writing and include it the CA role may create special challenges in as part of the project file. A copy of the denial managing information appropriately, as public letter should also be forwarded immediately disclosure of certain tribal information may be to the Washington Office Division of Decision inappropriate. Support, Planning and NEPA and submitted as 22 part of the BLM’s annual CA data call. While
page | 112 a formal CA agreement may not be reached Special-purpose districts (such as conservation Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions between the parties in some instances, there districts) will qualify if State law defines them are other informal methods of engagement as political subdivisions. 23 that may be pursued. The goal is to work together to the extent practicable to develop 43 CFR 1601.0-5(h) (BLM) analysis acceptable to the lead agency and Local government means any political any agency(ies) with jurisdiction by law. subdivision of the State and any general purpose unit of local government with State agencies resource planning, resource management, zoning, or land use regulation authority. ► Can more than one State agency be granted CA status for a given RMP Wyoming Statutes 16-4-201(a)(iv) (2004) or EIS? “Political subdivision” means every county, city and county, city, incorporated and Yes. Because multiple State agencies may unincorporated town, school district and have special expertise or jurisdiction by law, special district within the state. there may be instances where more than one State agency assumes CA status. When Tribal governments working with multiple State agencies, it is desirable to have one entity (for example, the ► Does inviting a tribe’s participation Governor’s office) coordinate all comments as a CA satisfy the BLM’s obligation and analyses from State CAs to ensure the to consult on a government-to- BLM benefits from a consistent perspective. government basis regarding land use This working arrangement should be described planning or other actions? as part of the MOU. No. Consultation is particularly important Jack Morrow Hills Final Coordinated in the BLM’s government-to-government Activity Plan–Final EIS relationship with tribes. Once formal Chapter 5, Sec. 5.1.2, July 2004 (Green consultation has been initiated, tribal officials River RMP Amendment) may decide to use the CA role as a convenient The Wyoming Office of Federal way to communicate their views or contribute Land Policy represents the State of their expertise. However, this is at the tribe’s Wyoming, with the following agencies request, not the BLM’s. designated as members: 1. Wyoming State Geological Survey, 2. Wyoming Executive Order 13175: Consultation Game & Fish Commission, 3. Wyoming and Coordination with Indian Tribal DEQ [Department of Environmental Governments Quality]–Water, 4. Wyoming Oil and Gas Our Nation, under the law of the United Commission ... [includes 16 agencies]. States, in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial Local governments decisions, has recognized the right of Indian tribes to self-government. As ► What is a “local government” for domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes purposes of CA requirements? exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members and territory. The United A local government is defined in BLM States continues to work with Indian tribes planning regulations as a general purpose on a government-to-government basis to unit of government with resource address issues concerning Indian tribal management authority or a political self-government, tribal trust resources, and subdivision of a State. Counties (boroughs in Indian tribal treaty and other rights. (E.O. Alaska) and incorporated cities clearly qualify. 13175, Section 2(b), November 6, 2000.)
page | 113 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 ► Must a native group be federally Intergovernmental organizations recognized to be eligible to serve as a CA? ► May an intergovernmental organization serve as a CA? Yes. Only government entities can be cooperating agencies. Under Federal law, No. Many regional intergovernmental only federally recognized tribes qualify as associations exist to provide technical governments (25 U.S.C. 479a). assistance or other services to member governments. The terminology varies: the While Federal agencies must consider the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, the interests of members of the public in general, Uintah Basin Association of Governments, the agencies’ official interactions with tribes, and the Genesee–Finger Lakes Regional including consultation, are distinguished by Planning Council, are all intergovernmental unique legal relationships. The sovereign associations. These organizations are status of Indian tribes and special provisions not themselves units of government. An of their law set Native Americans apart from intergovernmental association may not, all other U.S. populations and define a special therefore, serve as a CA. Some regional level of Federal agency responsibilities. government bodies, such as regional planning authorities, are defined as political subdivisions ► Do reservation lands need to be in State law and could therefore qualify as affected for a tribe to serve as a CA? CAs. No. The CEQ’s NEPA regulations allow New Hampshire Revised Statutes, Title tribes to serve as CAs “when the effects [of 3, 36:49-a a proposed action] are on a reservation” (40 Regional planning commissions are CFR 1508.5). (In its guidance, the CEQ has political subdivisions of the state. However, supported extending CA status to federally regional planning commissions have recognized Alaska Native villages and tribes only that power and authority expressly when the proposed action would affect provided for in [New Hampshire Revised tribal interests.) In contrast, both DOI NEPA Statutes] 36. regulations and BLM planning regulations use the same eligibility criteria for tribes as for ► May an intergovernmental Federal, State, and local government entities: organization represent a CA in the jurisdiction by law or special expertise. Some BLM’s planning process? areas with large native populations, notably Alaska, lack reservations almost entirely. Yes. An intergovernmental organization may In practice, tribes may have aboriginal or represent one or more CAs, provided that historical ties to lands at a considerable all agencies to be represented are members distance from contemporary centers of tribal of that organization and all have formally settlement. authorized it to act on their behalf. Such authorizations should be identified in the MOU. Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Please be aware that such representation Consultation, BLM Manual Handbook, will likely preclude the use of the Unfunded H-8120-1, Sec. V(B) Mandates Reform Act exemption to FACA (see Tribes and groups with historical ties to the FACA compliance below for more information). lands in question, including those that are no longer locally resident, should be given the same opportunity as resident tribes and groups to identify…their issues and concerns regarding the public lands. 24
page | 114 The Establishment of considered to be a reasonable alternative Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions Working Relationships or be identified as the bureau’s preferred alternative, the bureaus must be able to Consensus and collaboration in show that the reasonable consensus- the CA relationship based alternative, if any, is reflected in the evaluation of the proposed action and ► Does a CA relationship require the discussed in the final decision. To be BLM and the cooperators to make selected for implementation, a consensus- decisions by consensus? based alternative must be fully consistent with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and No. Consensus may not always be achievable all applicable statutory and regulatory or consistent with the BLM’s legal obligations provisions, as well as Departmental and or policy decisions. However, the DOI’s bureau written policies and guidance. NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.110(c) require that the Responsible Official must, 43 CFR 46.110(e) whenever practicable, use a consensus-based If the Responsible Official determines management approach to the NEPA process. that the consensus-based alternative, if any, is not the preferred alternative, Consensus-based Management he or she must state the reasons for this determination in the environmental 43 CFR 46.110(a) document (43 CFR 46.110(d)). When Consensus-based management practicing consensus-based management incorporates direct community involvement in the NEPA process, bureaus must in consideration of DOI bureau activities comply with all applicable laws, including subject to NEPA analyses, from initial any applicable provisions of the Federal scoping to implementation of the bureau Advisory Committee Act (FACA). decision. It seeks to achieve agreement from diverse interests on the goals of, Collaboration mandates methods, not purposes of, and needs for bureau plans outcomes. It brings diverse parties together and activities, as well as the methods to seek broadly acceptable solutions to (what anticipated to carry out those plans are usually) complex problems. It does not and activities. . . . Consensus-based guarantee the parties will achieve consensus, management involves outreach to persons, and the BLM remains the final decisionmaker organizations, or communities that may be on matters within its jurisdiction. interested in, or affected by, a proposed action, with an assurance that their ► How does the involvement of CAs input will be given consideration by the affect the role of the BLM’s AO in the Responsible Official in selecting a course development of an RMP or EIS? of action. CA involvement makes the AO’s leadership of 43 CFR 46.110(b) the land use planning process essential. In In incorporating consensus-based guiding planning efforts, field managers are management in the NEPA process, the challenged to reconcile bureau-wide policy bureaus should consider any consensus- objectives with the needs and values of local, based alternative(s) put forth by those regional, and national constituencies. To participating persons, organizations or be successful, the field manager must be communities who may be interested in or committed to collaborative problem solving. affected by the proposed action. While there is no guarantee that any particular 25 consensus-based alternative will be
page | 115 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 ► In working collaboratively with they arise. CAs should participate in the CAs on a plan, should the AO limit the selection of a facilitator. However, using a range of issues and solutions to be facilitator does not alter the decisionmaking considered? responsibilities of the BLM or CAs. Since a key reason to involve other units ► What should the BLM and of government is to benefit from their CAs do if they cannot agree on distinctive perspectives and expertise, substantive elements of an RMP or innovative approaches should be encouraged. EIS—for example, the designation Nonetheless, collaboration increases the of alternatives or the analysis of need to establish practical parameters for effects? the planning process. As the representative of the lead agency, the AO is responsible for Where the BLM and one or more CAs disagree clarifying for CAs the general goals of the on substantive elements of an RMP or EIS and RMP. The goals include, where appropriate, these disagreements cannot be resolved, the the range of potential land use allocations BLM should include a summary of the CAs’ as consistent with statutory and regulatory views in the draft and final documents. requirements. Such limits are best established through clear planning criteria and a well- CA relationships and schedules developed statement of purpose and need. ► Does the potential CA partner ► Is it appropriate to extend also have a say in determining the a planning or EIS schedule to objectives and ground rules of the CA accommodate the needs of CAs? relationship? Normally, no. The preferences of CAs Yes, the MOU establishing the CA relationship regarding the pace and direction of should reflect the views of all signatories. collaborative efforts do not supersede the need to adhere to established schedules. Those schedules should be included in the MOUs ► What if the parties cannot agree on establishing CA relationships. Whenever the terms of an MOU? possible, the AO and CA representatives should develop a mutually agreeable planning The AO should make a good faith effort to or EIS schedule while negotiating their negotiate the terms of an MOU with the MOUs. It is important to discuss with CAs potential CA partner, consistent with applicable what acceptable timeframes are for meetings, statutes, regulations, and this Guide. If this requests for information, and requests for effort is unsuccessful, the CA relationship has reviews. Appropriate timelines should be not been established. incorporated into the MOU and adhered to throughout the process to the extent ► Is it appropriate to use a third- practicable by all parties. party facilitator to help CAs and BLM staff collaborate when preparing an ► If effective collaboration with CAs RMP or EIS? would be compromised by adhering to an established planning or EIS Yes. CAs and BLM staff may differ significantly schedule, what are some solutions? not only in their policy orientations but also in their knowledge, skills, style of interaction, and AOs and their CA partners have a number of experience with NEPA and the BLM planning options, including: process. An effective facilitator may help the parties negotiate the MOU, focus efforts • Vary the level of a CA’s involvement. Both 26 productively, and resolve disagreements as CEQ and BLM regulations make it clear
page | 116 that the CAs may negotiate a level of CA roles in preparing Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions involvement consistent with their available RMPs and EISs staffing and resources. The CAs may vary the time and resources they commit ► May the CAs use their expertise to by determining which meetings to attend, prepare (rather than merely review whether to offer data or analyses (or both), and comment on) sections of an RMP and at what stage of document preparation or EIS or the technical analyses on to comment. which either is based? • Seek ways to reorganize the planning or Yes, where appropriate, when the CA EIS schedule for greater efficiency, without possesses expertise and resources to modifying the deadline for completion. complete the task in a timely manner, the BLM may agree to include the CA’s analysis as • Improve the efficiency of collaboration part of an RMP or EIS. Work developed by among the CAs and BLM staff. The the CA becomes the BLM’s work, however, involvement of an effective facilitator may and the BLM is responsible for all content improve the speed and focus of CA and within the planning or NEPA document and the BLM staff interaction. supporting materials, which must be included in the administrative record. • Where none of these approaches is feasible, the Washington Office may 40 CFR 1501.6(a) (CEQ) consider a change in the planning The lead agency shall…[u]se the schedule, or the Responsible Official may environmental analysis and proposals of change the schedule for completion of a cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by NEPA document. law or special expertise, to the maximum extent possible consistent with its 40 CFR 1501.6(c) (CEQ) responsibility as lead agency. A cooperating agency may in response to a lead agency’s request for assistance ► May a CA participate in the review in preparing the environmental impact of protests to a plan? statement ... reply that other program commitments preclude any involvement No. Protest resolution is an internal review or the degree of involvement requested process conducted by the BLM Washington in the action that is the subject of the Office, to determine if in preparing a plan environmental impact statement. A copy of applicable laws, regulations, and policies were this reply shall be submitted to the Council followed. However, a CA that has provided [on Environmental Quality]. information relevant to an issue raised in a protest may be asked for clarification. 43 CFR 1601.0-5(e) (BLM) Cooperating agencies will participate in the ► What is the role of a CA once the various steps of BLM’s planning process Record of Decision (ROD) is signed? as feasible, given the constraints of their resources and expertise. While formal CA status ends once the ROD is signed, CA expertise may be valuable in implementing plans and projects, as well 27 as in monitoring outcomes and assisting with enforcement. Both the BLM and local communities may benefit from an ongoing relationship. In addition, after the establishment of a new or revised RMP, CA relationships may be formed around the NEPA
page | 117 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 processes for subsequent implementation The creation of MOUs activities. CAs and multistate projects ► Is a single MOU or are multiple, separate MOUs preferable for large projects involving many cooperators? ► What are some tips for dealing with CAs on multistate projects? While a single MOU signed by multiple CAs may be a very efficient approach The project manager should take responsibility to establishing CA relationships, it does for drafting key documents, such as letters have limitations. If a single MOU is to be of invitation and the MOU, to ensure that effective, CAs must have similar roles and all agencies and governments receive a responsibilities that can be adequately consistent message about the nature of the described in the single agreement, and all project and their opportunity for signing on as parties must be willing to sign jointly. In some a CA. Correspondence to potential CAs is instances, CAs may have unique or specific usually best issued by the appropriate state circumstances that would be better described office over the State Director’s signature. in individual MOUs. Some CAs may also be Managing the administrative record can be unwilling to sign a joint MOU with other CAs. particularly challenging on multistate projects. The project manager should ensure that ► Are variations in the BLM’s Model procedures are in place for maintaining a MOU acceptable? complete administrative record, including correspondence with potential and actual CAs. Yes, in fact adapting the Model MOU is ► How does the potential role of a encouraged. CAs should be fully engaged CA differ when participating in an EIS in the drafting of an MOU. The BLM’s Model for a multistate project as compared MOU is intended to be used only as a guide. with participation in a localized plan The BLM’s Model MOU outlines certain or project? essential elements that should be included in all MOUs as a basis for an effective CA The CA role involves a significant commitment relationship. The BLM and CAs should work of time and resources. Local governments together to ensure that the agreed on MOU may not find it advantageous to participate as reflects their unique working relationship and cooperators in large projects that encompass the tasks at hand. issues not specific to their interests. The ► Are there other uses for MOUs interest of local governments in a multistate besides establishing CA project such as an electric transmission relationships? line, for example, may be limited to a few miles of the right-of-way that affects their Yes. The BLM has used MOUs for many jurisdiction, but may not include discussions purposes. For example, MOUs have about endangered species in a distant State. described the relationship between the BLM This type of concern may be addressed by and other Federal, State, local, or tribal entities speaking with project staff or the local field on land use plan implementation. Such manager in a meeting specifically called to MOUs outline roles, priorities, and timelines address these issues, rather than requesting for actions needed to implement land use plan CA status. decisions and to monitor the effectiveness of those actions at meeting established goals and objectives. In a few instances, MOUs have also described the coordination between the BLM and other units of government as 28 provided under FLPMA for the BLM’s land
page | 118 use planning process. These MOUs focus documents, whether prepared by the BLM Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions on defining a coordination framework that is or one of the CAs. The MOU is intended to acceptable to both parties. protect the interests of all parties and provides a set of mutually agreeable procedures guiding Informal alternatives to the CA the collaboration. relationship The role of a joint lead agency ► Are there ways to engage agencies and governments other than through ► Under what circumstances should formal CA relationships? a Federal, State, local, or tribal government entity be invited to serve Sometimes agencies and governments are as a joint lead agency, as opposed to unwilling to enter into formal CA agreements participating as a CA? due to concerns about conflict of interest, capacity/workload issues, or lack of The DOI NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.220 understanding. When those situations arise, provide guidance on establishing joint lead there are many ways to engage potential agency relationships. In most cases, the partners in close working relationships Responsible Official should designate one without their becoming a formal cooperator. Federal agency as the lead, with the remaining For example, the AO may maintain informal Federal, State, local, and tribal governments communication on key issues, relevant assuming roles as CAs. In this manner, the information, and the partners’ preferred other Federal, State, local, and tribal entities outcomes. may work to ensure that the NEPA document will meet their needs for adoption and ► How should the BLM treat application to their related decision(s). government partners that wish to be closely involved in a plan or project In some cases, a non-Federal agency assessment and that are eligible for (including a tribal government) must comply CA status, but that are unwilling to with State or local requirements that are sign an MOU? comparable to the NEPA requirements. In these cases, the Responsible Official may By DOI regulation, an MOU must be used to designate the non-Federal agency as a establish the CA relationship in the case of joint lead agency. (See 40 CFR 1501.5 and non-Federal agencies, and this agreement 1506.2 for a description of the selection of must include a commitment to maintain the lead agencies, the settlement of lead agency confidentiality of documents and deliberations disputes, and the use of joint lead agencies.) during the period before the bureau’s public release of any NEPA document, including In some cases, the Responsible Official may drafts to the extent permitted by law (43 CFR establish a joint lead relationship among 46.225(d)). As noted above, when other several Federal agencies. If there is a joint agencies or local governments are unwilling to lead, then one Federal agency must be sign an MOU, the AO may maintain informal identified as the agency responsible for filing communication on key issues, relevant the environmental impact statement with the information, and the partners’ preferred Environmental Protection Agency. outcomes. In nearly all cases, however, it is inappropriate to provide the same level of 29 involvement in a plan or project analysis for an entity unwilling to formalize its participation as provided to formal CAs. For example, the MOU should specify how the parties will control the dissemination of predecisional
page | 119 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 Financial support for the CA authority regarding the scope of the relationship analysis, including authority to define the purpose and need for the proposed ► Will the BLM compensate the CAs action. for their participation? • The cooperating agency is not able or The CAs normally assume the costs of willing to provide the data and rationale their own participation, including salary, underlying its analyses or assessment of travel, and other expenses. A field office alternatives. should reimburse the costs of any studies it specifically requests from a CA within its • The cooperating agency releases expertise. predecisional information (including working drafts) in a manner that 40 CFR 1501.6(b)(5) (CEQ) undermines the agreement to work Each cooperating agency shall … cooperatively before publishing draft or [n]ormally use its own funds. The lead final analyses. agency shall, to the extent available funds permit, fund those major activities • The cooperating agency consistently or analyses it requests from cooperating misrepresents the process or the agencies. findings presented in the analysis and documentation. ► Are CAs required to fund, staff, or prepare analyses if requested? This list of factors is not exhaustive. (Adapted from: Council on Environmental No. CAs are not required to fund, staff, or Quality, Memorandum for Heads of Federal prepare analyses. CAs may elect to do so, but Agencies: Cooperating Agencies in the decision is theirs. Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, Termination of the CA relationship Attachment 1 (2002)) ► Under what circumstances may a The MOU should include provisions for CA relationship be terminated? termination, as well as other ground rules, such as procedures for dispute resolution. If the BLM and one or more of its CA partners find that they cannot work together toward a ► Is a disagreement about common goal and efforts at dispute resolution substantive matters that is raised have been unsuccessful, it is appropriate in the planning or NEPA process a to terminate the CA relationship. Factors valid basis for terminating the CA identified by the CEQ as suggesting the relationship? need to consider termination include a CA’s unwillingness to accept the lead agency’s No. While the BLM remains the decisionmaker key decisions; deliberate violation of key for matters within its jurisdiction, the CAs procedural agreements (such as the restricted are not required to concur on all findings; release of predecisional documents); and for example, the effects anticipated from deliberate misrepresentation of the planning a particular planning alternative. Working and NEPA process or its findings. through disagreements within the planning or NEPA team often results in stronger, better Factors Supporting Termination of the justified findings and decisions. CA Relationship • The cooperating agency cannot accept 30 the lead agency’s final decisionmaking
page | 120 Other Requirements of proposed decisions which may have a Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions and Challenges significant impact on non-Federal lands. Meeting coordination and 43 CFR 1610.3-1 (BLM) consistency requirements Coordination of planning efforts. ► What is the scope of the BLM’s (a) In addition to the public involvement coordination responsibilities in prescribed by §1610.2, the following developing and revising RMPs? coordination is to be accomplished with other Federal agencies, state and local The BLM has a responsibility to coordinate governments, and federally recognized with other government units. To the extent Indian tribes.... practicable, the BLM will seek to maximize consistency with the plans and policies of (1) Keep apprised of non-Bureau of other government entities. This responsibility Land Management plans; applies whether or not a CA relationship has been established. (2) Assure that BLM considers those plans that are germane in the development FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1712(c) (BLM) of resource management plans for public In the development and revision of land lands; use plans, the Secretary shall… (3) Assist in resolving, to the extent (9) to the extent consistent with the practicable, inconsistencies between laws governing the administration of the Federal and non-Federal government public lands, coordinate the land use plans; inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land (4) Provide for meaningful public use planning and management programs involvement of other Federal agencies, of other Federal departments and agencies State and local government officials, and of the States and local governments both elected and appointed, and within which the lands are located…and of Federally recognized Indian tribes, in the or for Indian tribes by, among other things, development of resource management considering the policies of approved State plans ... and and tribal land resource management programs. In implementing this directive, (5) Where possible and appropriate, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds develop resource management plans practical, keep apprised of State, local, collaboratively with cooperating agencies. and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, ► Is there a “coordinating agency and tribal plans that are germane in the status” designation? development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent No. There is no such designation as practical, inconsistencies between Federal “coordinating agency status.” and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public ► Is an MOU required between a involvement of State and local government local government and the BLM to officials, both elected and appointed, in the define coordination? development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for No. While there are a few examples where public lands, including early public notice the BLM has used MOUs for this purpose, an MOU is not required. However, a framework is needed to define the coordination and how it will occur. An MOU may be a useful tool to establish these terms. Such an MOU should be negotiated and agreed on by both parties. 31
page | 121 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 ► Can the BLM meet its coordination ► Does coordination under responsibilities through a CA FLPMA require the BLM to share relationship? predecisional documents? The BLM has a duty to coordinate even if No. FLPMA does not require the sharing a formal CA relationship is not established. of predecisional documents as part of a In accordance with FLPMA, the BLM’s coordination-based relationship. However, coordination responsibilities include during the planning process, a key element of maximizing consistency with the plans and the cooperating agency relationship includes policies of other government entities and BLM sharing of predecisional documents with providing for meaningful public involvement cooperators. Absent extraneous factors such of other Federal, State, local, and tribal as protection of proprietary or contractual government officials in the development of information or ensuring compliance with State land use decisions (see above). The CA public records or public meetings requirements relationship provides an excellent opportunity (“sunshine laws”), predecisional documents to meet, and exceed, these coordination can be shared with cooperating agencies in responsibilities under FLPMA. The CA accordance with the terms of the MOU that relationship goes beyond coordination by directs the activities within the relationship. facilitating a close collaboration in sponsoring Sharing of predecisional documents may occur public involvement, reviewing resource data, as part of the BLM’s coordination activities formulating alternatives, analyzing potential at the discretion of the AO. However, if it is impacts, and sharing internal draft documents. deemed critical to the coordination process, The BLM encourages the establishment of a sharing of predecisional documents should CA relationship if this type of collaboration is be guided by a detailed written agreement or expected. MOU between the parties. Such an agreement or MOU should specify that predecisional 43 CFR 46.155 (DOI) documents will remain confidential to the Consultation, coordination, and extent allowed by law. cooperation with other agencies. The Responsible Official must whenever ► To what extent is the BLM possible consult, coordinate, and obligated to follow local plans and cooperate with relevant State, local, and policies? tribal governments and other bureaus and Federal agencies concerning the By regulation, the BLM has an obligation environmental effects of any Federal action to keep apprised of non-BLM plans; assure within the jurisdictions or related to the consideration is given to those plans that interests of these entities. are germane to the development of the 43 CFR 1610.3-1 (BLM) BLM RMPs; assist in resolving, to the extent Coordination of planning efforts. practicable, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal plans; provide for meaningful (b) When developing or revising public involvement of other Federal agencies, resource management plans, BLM State State, local, and tribal government officials Directors and Field Managers will invite in the development of the BLM’s RMPs; and eligible Federal agencies, state and local where possible and appropriate, develop governments, and federally recognized the BLM’s RMPs collaboratively with CAs. Indian tribes to participate as cooperating Furthermore, the BLM’s RMPs must be agencies. consistent with officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, so long 32 as those plans and policies/programs are also
page | 122 consistent with the purposes, policies, and ► When inconsistencies between a Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions programs of Federal laws and regulations. proposed action and a local plan or policy cannot be resolved, should 43 CFR 1610.3-2 (BLM) they be acknowledged in the RMP Consistency requirements. or EIS? (a) Guidance and resource Yes. The CEQ regulations require that management plans and amendments … inconsistencies between the proposed action shall be consistent with officially approved and other Federal, State, local, or tribal land or adopted resource related plans, and use plans and policies be documented in the the policies and programs contained EIS. therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Indian tribes, 40 CFR 1502.16 (CEQ) so long as the guidance and resource [The environmental consequences section management plans are also consistent with of the EIS] shall include discussions of... the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to (c) Possible conflicts between the public lands. proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in For example, a county’s capital improvement the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land plan might identify a parcel of BLM land use plans, policies and controls for the for acquisition to build a fire station or a area concerned. community center. Under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, such a transfer of 40 CFR 1506.2 (CEQ) land could be consistent with Federal law. In (d) To better integrate environmental revising its RMP, the local field office would need to consider this request, weighed against impact statements into state and local other relevant management objectives, planning processes, statements shall such as the need to protect critical habitat discuss any inconsistency of a proposed for threatened or endangered species or to action with any approved state or local minimize conflicts with existing uses, such as plan or laws (whether or not federally a nearby shooting range already permitted by sanctioned). Where an inconsistency the BLM. exists, the statement should describe the extent to which the agency would reconcile Recreation and Public Purposes Act, 43 its proposed action with the plan or law. U.S.C. 869 (a) The Secretary of the Interior ... may ... ► What if a State or local plan is dispose of any public lands to a State, inconsistent with a Federal law Territory, county, municipality, or other or policy? State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public In such cases, the BLM does not have an purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or obligation to seek consistency. For example, nonprofit association for any recreational in preparing RMPs the BLM is required or any public purpose consistent with its to designate and protect areas of critical articles of incorporation or other creating environmental concern (ACECs). The BLM authority. could not honor a request from a county government that only ACECs consistent with the county’s general plan be designated in 33 the RMP, if this would prevent the BLM from complying with its statutory obligation. FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1712(c) (BLM) In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall …
page | 123 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 (3) give priority to the designation and lead Federal agency’s deliberative process protection of areas of critical environmental privilege, potentially precluding withholding concern. documents under FOIA exemption 5. The AO should consult with the FOIA officer or the Information sharing Department’s Office of the Solicitor if there are questions about whether releasing a sensitive ► May the BLM share predecisional document would waive applicable privileges planning documents with the CAs? and subject the document to disclosure under FOIA. Yes. Unless constrained by other factors, such ► Are there exceptions to FOIA as a State public records requirement or the exemption 5? need to protect the confidentiality of proprietary or contractual information, predecisional Yes. Communications from a CA will not documents should be freely shared with qualify as exempt from release under FOIA the CAs. If the AO does not intend to make exemption 5 where that agency is advancing a predecisional documents publicly available, competitive position that would be detrimental the MOU establishing the CA relationship to another party, which will almost always be should specify that such documents will remain the case here. confidential to the extent allowed by law. ► Are documents provided by CAs or Limitations on FOIA Exemption 5 to CAs subject to disclosure under In some circumstances, [FOIA exemption the Freedom of Information Act 5] may also apply to documents generated (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552)? outside of an agency. Documents prepared by outside consultants at the request of the agency and recommendations or It depends on the nature and content of the advice from Congress or the States can be document. FOIA includes a provision that protected if those documents played a role allows an agency to exempt from release in the agency’s deliberative process and documents involving “inter-agency or intra- the outside parties are not advocating their agency memorandums or letters which would own interests in seeking a Government not be available by law to a party other than benefit at the expense of others. This an agency in litigation with the agency.” (FOIA may include Indian tribes under limited exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5)). A lead circumstances. However, the bureau Federal agency could assert this exemption should conclude that documents generated to protect from disclosure those documents outside of the Federal Government meet prepared by cooperating or joint lead agencies the “intra- or inter-agency” threshold that contributed to the development of an requirement only after consulting with RMP or EIS. Such documents may satisfy its designated FOIA attorney [emphasis both requirements of FOIA exemption 5: they added]. (U.S. Department of the Interior, are predecisional and they are part of the Freedom of Information Act Handbook, 383 lead agency’s deliberative process. Although DM 15, Sec. 5.7(A)(2), 2004.) FOIA exemption 5 may be applicable, in many instances documents that meet this exemption ► How should the BLM work with are released. In response to a FOIA request, a CA whose actions are governed the BLM should review each document that by a State open records responds to the request under FOIA and any (“sunshine”) requirement? applicable FOIA policies and guidance to determine whether release is appropriate. The BLM can successfully enter and has successfully entered into CA relationships Note that the release of a document by with partners in states that have open records 34 a CA may be considered a waiver of the (“sunshine”) requirements. Such requirements
page | 124 vary from State to State. The AO and the CA Further, even if the requirements of the Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions must decide on the best ways to work together Unfunded Mandates Reform Act are not and describe that approach in the MOU met, FACA will not apply to the group if the 35 establishing the CA relationship. Keeping sole purpose of the meeting is to “exchange predecisional material from public view if facts or information” (41 CFR 102-3.40(f)). permitted under the law may encourage candid Additionally, FACA will not apply if a group discussion among all members of the planning meeting occurs with a Federal official where or project team, including CA representatives. advice or recommendations are sought from the attendees on an individual basis and not FACA compliance from the group as a whole (41 CFR 102- 3.40(e)). These FACA considerations are ► Are meetings between the particularly important at key decision points BLM staff and CAs subject to the in a planning or project assessment process, requirements of the Federal such as the designation of alternatives Advisory Committee Act for analysis or the selection of a preferred (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. 2)? alternative. As a general matter many meetings between The BLM’s Collaborative Stakeholder BLM staff and CAs are exempt from FACA Engagement and Appropriate Dispute pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Resolution Program has developed guidance Act. This intergovernmental exemption to on FACA, which is available online at http:// FACA applies to meetings between Federal www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_ officials and elected State, local, or tribal and_Renewable_Resources/adr_conflict_ government officials “or their designated prevention.Par.24269.File.dat/facaguide. employees with authority to act on their behalf” acting in their official capacity (2 U.S.C. ► May a CA be represented by a 1534(b)). The criteria below must be met contractor instead of an official or for the intergovernmental exemption to be employee of the CA? applicable. Yes, but only if the appropriate relationship Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 between the CA and the contractor is U.S.C. 1534(b) established. Meetings in which a CA is The Federal Advisory Committee represented by a contractor who is not an Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to official or employee of the CA with authority actions in support of intergovernmental to act on behalf of the CA acting in its official communications where— capacity are generally not covered by the intergovernmental FACA exemption (2 U.S.C. (1) meetings are held exclusively 1534(b)). In some situations, State law may between Federal officials and elected treat the contractor as an employee, and the officers of State, local, and tribal intergovernmental exception to FACA may governments (or their designated apply. See the question on FACA above for employees with authority to act on their more guidance. behalf) acting in their official capacities; and It is important to emphasize that the CA (2) such meetings are solely for relationship is intended to facilitate the the purposes of exchanging views, exchange of views and expertise between information, or advice relating to the BLM personnel and other government management or implementation of officials and staff. The BLM recognizes that Federal programs established pursuant limited local government staff and potentially to public law that explicitly or inherently heavy time demands of the CA role may share intergovernmental responsibilities make it necessary in some instances to or administration. designate contractors to participate in some
page | 125 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 interdisciplinary team or work group meetings. Protests and appeals The use of contractors should be the exception rather than the rule and must be undertaken ► Does participation as a CA prevent consistent with the requirements of FACA. that agency from protesting or appealing the final decision? CA meetings No. A CA may protest a final land use planning ► Should CA meetings be opened or decision as long as it meets the requirements closed to the public? of BLM protest procedures. Similarly, a CA may appeal a decision as long as it meets Decisions about opening or closing CA the requirements for appeal under applicable meetings to the public and the level of public laws. By becoming a CA, a government participation at CA meetings are within the entity does not forfeit any rights otherwise AO’s discretion. Opening CA meetings to the available to it, including the right to protest a public is consistent with the general direction land use planning decision or to file an appeal of the BLM’s public involvement policy, on implementation actions or project level reflected, for example, in the BLM’s publication decisions. Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution (2009). In 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a) (BLM) support of these goals, it is recommended Protest procedures. that the option of opening CA meetings to the Any person who participated in the public receive serious consideration. Opening planning process and has an interest CA meetings to the public does not mean that which is or may be adversely affected by the public must be allowed to participate in the the approval or amendment of a resource discussions. The public’s role at CA meetings management plan may protest such may be limited to that of observer. approval or amendment. A protest may raise only those issues that were submitted There may also be good reason for closing for the record during the planning process. some or all CA meetings to the public. Closed meetings may support a deliberative process Procedures for protest and appeal of where CAs explore and evaluate ideas and implementation actions and project level options. In making the decision to open or decisions are explained in 43 CFR Part 4, close CA meetings to the public, any applicable Subpart B, 4.21 and Subpart E. Any special Federal or State open meeting (“sunshine”) provisions regarding the application of the laws should be considered. general procedures for protests and appeals are explained in the CFRs for the specific If FACA applies, all meetings should be held program that applies to the decision. consistent with the requirements of FACA. ► Is it acceptable for the lead The BLM’s role as a CA agency to hold meetings with some ► If requested, must the BLM cooperators but not others? participate as a CA? The lead agency should limit meetings that involve some cooperators but not others on If another agency asks the BLM to be a CA in substantive topics to the extent practicable. the preparation of a NEPA document for an While it may not always be possible to meet action in which the BLM has jurisdiction by law, with all cooperators at the same time or in the BLM must accept (40 CFR 1501.6). If on the same location, the lead agency should the other hand an agency asks the BLM to be seek input from all CAs on substantive issues, a CA in the preparation of a NEPA document in such as changing the preferred alternative or which the BLM has special expertise, the BLM 36 proposing new special designations. may elect to be a CA.
page | 126 Unfortunately, requests for the BLM to be a • Expanding the scope of a NEPA analysis to Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions CA are not always made in a timely manner. consider connected and cumulative actions In some instances, the BLM has received of all CAs into a single document improves 37 requests to be a CA after the development of overall interagency coordination. an administrative draft of a NEPA document. In these cases, the potential effectiveness • Agencies working cooperatively help of engaging in a CA relationship should the public to participate effectively and be evaluated, and alternative strategies efficiently, with fewer meetings to attend for working together and meeting the and fewer letters to write. Participation of requirements of NEPA may need to be multiple agencies in a single NEPA process considered. may help the public better understand the entire scope of a proposal, rather than ► What factors should go into the learning a piece of it now and another BLM’s decision whether or not to piece later. become a CA? • The BLM may provide sufficient input In deciding whether to become a CA, the so that the NEPA analysis specifically BLM should consider any BLM decisions addresses the action that the agency must to be made and any BLM actions that are consider before making its decision. This separate from, but connected to, the lead helps to avoid the struggle of adapting agency’s proposal. Consideration should another agency’s documentation to fit the be given to the level of BLM expertise with BLM’s proposed action. respect to reasonable alternatives or any significant environmental, social, or economic • The BLM may benefit from a single NEPA impacts associated with a proposed action. analysis that simultaneously considers Consideration should also be given to what actions separate from, but connected to, resources the BLM has to commit to the the lead agency proposal. process and document preparation. ► What are BLM’s roles and responsi- ► What are the benefits to the BLM of bilities as a cooperator? Where/how participating as a CA? should the BLM capture those roles and responsibilities in writing? Participation as a CA in the preparation of an EIS or EA provides the BLM with many As a CA, the BLM should collaborate to the benefits (as described below) and should fullest extent possible concerning those issues receive serious consideration. relating to its jurisdiction and special expertise. This may include, but is not limited to, helping • The BLM may adopt the EIS without to identify issues to be addressed; arranging recirculating the document when, after an for the collection and/or assembly of necessary independent review of the analysis, the resource, environmental, social, economic, agency concludes that its comments and and institutional data; analyzing data; suggestions have been satisfied (40 CFR developing alternatives; evaluating alternatives 1506.3(c)). and estimating the effects of implementing each alternative; and carrying out any other • The BLM, and the lead agency, may task necessary for the development of the save staff time and dollars through such environmental analysis and documentation. cooperation, as compared with each agency preparing its own document. The BLM is strongly encouraged to enter into an interagency MOU with the lead agency, one • The BLM may provide sufficient input so that formally acknowledges their respective that the NEPA analysis document meets all DOI and BLM requirements or standards.
page | 127 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 interests, expertise, and jurisdictional ► Must the BLM, as a CA, adopt an responsibilities and outlines their roles and EIS before making a decision based responsibilities in the planning and/or NEPA on it? process. The MOU should identify a BLM contact and specify any special resource Yes. The BLM may use another agency’s EIS needs, data requirements, and issues that the for decisionmaking, but only after adopting the analysis must address. The MOU should also EIS. If the BLM is a CA in the preparation of describe how conflicts will be communicated an EIS, the BLM may adopt an EIS without and resolved if they arise between the BLM recirculating it if the agency concludes that the and the lead agency. See Section 3 and the BLM’s comments and suggestions have been questions and answers on MOUs under “The satisfied (40 CFR 1506.3(c)). Establishment of Working Relationships” in Section 4 for additional information. ► Must the BLM, as a CA, issue its own decision? ► Should the BLM, as a CA, be named in the Notice of Intent for an EIS or Yes. After adopting the NEPA document, the NEPA document itself? the BLM must issue its own decision (and a Finding of No Significant Impact for an EA). It is recommended that the Notice of Intent This may be done in an individual decision published in the Federal Register identify the document or in a decision document signed BLM as a CA and that the NEPA analysis by more than one agency, as long as it is clear document also identify the BLM as a CA, that only the BLM decisionmaker is making preferably on the cover sheet. a decision regarding resources under BLM authority. ► When the BLM participates as a CA, what role does it play in selecting ► When should the BLM, as a CA, and approving a NEPA contractor? issue its decision? When the BLM is a CA, its role in selecting The BLM, as a CA, should not sign any a NEPA contractor may vary. According to decision before the lead agency signs its the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.5(c)), the own decision. A lead agency and a CA may, contractor may be chosen by the lead agency however, sign their respective decisions at the solely, by the lead agency in cooperation same time. Such an approach can allow the with CAs, or, when appropriate to avoid any protest and appeal periods for both agencies conflict of interest, by a CA. Therefore, as to run concurrently. In some cases, it is a CA, the BLM may not be involved in the advisable to allow sufficient time for completion selection of the contractor (lead agency only); of any administrative review process offered may participate in the selection of a contractor; by the lead agency before signing a BLM or may be assigned the role of selecting the decision. For example, under Forest Service contractor. This role should be discussed and Handbook 1909.15, the U.S. Forest Service described as part of the development of an provides a 45-day appeal period between a MOU between the lead agency and the BLM Record of Decision and implementation of a (see above). The MOU should also outline proposed action. If the BLM is cooperating the process for selecting a NEPA contractor. with the Forest Service on an action, the BLM No matter the level of its involvement, the may defer its decision until the end of the BLM should share with the lead agency any 45-day period if no protests are received, or relevant knowledge that could contribute to the until resolution of any protests on the Forest selection of a NEPA contractor. Service decision. If the BLM and the Forest Service issued concurrent decisions, there might be two appeals with different timeframes 38 and outcomes.
page | 128 ► What should the BLM do if it BLM Manual Handbook, H-1790-1, Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions disagrees with the lead agency’s Sec. 6.5.2.1 selection of a preferred alternative Connected actions are those actions or disagrees with the scope of the that are “closely related” and “should be issues or impacts analyzed? discussed” in the same NEPA document…. Actions are connected if they automatically Consensus may not always be achievable on trigger other actions that may require an key elements of a NEPA analysis. The CA EIS; cannot or will not proceed unless relationship brings diverse parties together other actions are taken previously or to seek broadly acceptable solutions to what simultaneously; or if the actions are are usually complex problems. It does not interdependent parts of a larger action imply that the parties will achieve consensus. and depend upon the larger action for The BLM should provide its views and input their justification…. Connected actions through the CA relationship as described in the are limited to actions that are currently MOU. proposed (ripe for decision). Actions that are not yet proposed are not connected It is important to keep in mind that engaging actions, but may need to be analyzed in a CA relationship neither augments nor in cumulative effects analysis if they are diminishes the BLM’s jurisdiction or authority. reasonably foreseeable. Even when participating as a CA, the BLM remains the final decisionmaker on any and BLM Manual Handbook, H-1790-1, all matters within its jurisdiction. In addition, Sec. 6.5.2.2 by becoming a CA, an agency does not forfeit Cumulative actions are proposed actions the right to comment, protest, or appeal the which potentially have a cumulatively analysis or decision advanced by the lead significant impact together with other agency. proposed actions and “should be discussed” in the same NEPA document. Regarding the scope of the NEPA analysis, the BLM will have to determine independently ► How does the BLM determine if a if the NEPA analysis in which it cooperated NEPA analysis provides a sufficient is appropriate to cover any proposed actions basis for its decision? When should and decisions that the BLM wants or needs the BLM pursue a separate EIS or to make. If it deems the analysis sufficient, prepare a supplemental EIS? the BLM will need to adopt the lead agency’s NEPA document (see above). If it determines Before making a decision based on another that the analysis is not sufficient, the BLM will agency’s NEPA document, the BLM must have to initiate new or supplemental NEPA determine that the NEPA document has analysis to support the Bureau’s proposed adequately analyzed the BLM’s proposed action and decision. action. The BLM must determine if the proposed action is a feature of or essentially ► To what extent does the lead similar to an alternative analyzed in the agency’s NEPA document need NEPA document. The BLM must consider if to analyze impacts to the proposed action is located in the same BLM-administered lands? analysis area. The BLM must also determine if the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that The scope of the NEPA analysis should fully would result from implementation of the BLM’s consider connected and cumulative actions proposed action are covered or are similar that may take place on BLM-administered (both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those lands. analyzed in the NEPA document. Active participation as a CA may afford 39 sufficient input so that the NEPA document
page | 129 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 contains an appropriate level of analysis to support the BLM’s decision. If the analysis is not sufficient to support the BLM’s proposed action, additional NEPA analysis will be required. In these cases, tiering and incorporation by reference should be used to the extent practicable to avoid paperwork and redundant analysis. ► When should the BLM choose to be a joint lead agency rather than a CA? The BLM should consider being a joint lead agency when it and another agency have approximately equal pieces of a proposal under consideration. An MOU must be signed by both agencies serving as joint leads, clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of each. Only one agency must be identified as the agency filing the EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency. 40
page | 130 41 Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions
page | 131 Working effectively in the CA relationship requires BLM and CA staff to understand the relevant organization and policies of their partners. 42
page | 132 Section 5 Section 5. Resources and Training Resources and Training Working effectively in the CA relationship • Council on Environmental Quality’s Forty requires BLM and CA staff to understand Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s the relevant organization and policies of NEPA Regulations (46 FR 18026, 1981, their partners. Each can benefit from the questions 14a–14d) lessons learned in other CA relationships (for example, lessons gained from working within • BLM Planning Regulations (43 CFR 1600) the constraints of tight planning schedules, or from resolving a disagreement over methods • BLM Land Use Planning Handbook of impact analysis). The CAs will be more (Section I) effective participants when armed with a sound grasp of planning and NEPA concepts • BLM NEPA Handbook (Chapter 9 and 12) and procedures. DOI regulations direct the bureaus, including the BLM, to provide, where • DOI NEPA Regulations (43 CFR Part 46) practicable, any appropriate community-based training to reduce costs, prevent delays, and Training facilitate and promote efficiency in the NEPA process (43 CFR 46.200(c)). Planning- and NEPA-related Training Here are some sources of information and The BLM’s National Training Center (NTC) training that can help— provides in-person and online courses on planning and NEPA concepts and procedures, Resources collaboration, and alternative dispute resolution. The in-person course, Kick-start The BLM’s website on CA status provides links Your RMP (1610-10), and all of the online to land use planning and NEPA regulations, courses (such as Planning Nuts and Bolts BLM handbooks, a Model MOU, and other [1610-09], NEPA Concepts [1620-17], and the information useful to BLM staff and their CA NEPA Analysis Process for the BLM [1620-02]) colleagues. You can find that information are open to Federal, State, local, and tribal at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/nepa/ government officials and staff. Many of the cooperating_agencies.html. online courses and other resources may be found through the NTC’s Knowledge Resource For those without Internet access, key Center (www.ntc.blm.gov/krc). documents helpful for cooperators are available from any BLM state office or field CONTACT: The BLM’s National Training office. These documents include the following: Center (http://www.ntc.blm.gov, 602-906- 5536) for further information or a copy of the • Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) planning- and NEPA-related courses and other NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– online resources. 1508) 43
page | 133 BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012 BLM Cooperating Agency Training Resolution Program and the NTC provide in-person and online training on collaborative The BLM’s Washington Office provides training stakeholder engagement and ADR for BLM on CAs’ roles and responsibilities in the employees and managers. Many of the in- planning and NEPA processes. By request, person classes and all of the online courses the training is provided in two formats: and resources are open to Federal, State, local, and tribal government officials and staff. • 1- to 2-hour workshop overviews for internal and external audiences Collaborative stakeholder engagement and ADR encompass a broad spectrum of • 1- to 2-day training sessions, offered “upstream” and “downstream” processes in various locations for BLM staff and for preventing, managing, and resolving cooperators disputes outside the conventional arenas of the courts, the legislature, or administrative CONTACT: The BLM’s Communications channels. Upstream collaborative stakeholder Directorate (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ engagement processes are designed to info/directory.html, 202-208-6913) for further prevent a conflict or dispute from arising information. or to manage conflict at an early stage. Downstream ADR processes involve managing Economic Strategy Workshops and resolving an existing conflict or dispute, often by use of a third-party neutral. These 1-day workshops bring together community leaders and BLM staff to explore The acronym “ADR” traditionally has been regional social and economic conditions, used to stand for “alternative dispute trends, and opportunities relevant to the resolution.” The substitution of “appropriate” BLM’s planning process and community in more recent literature addresses various development goals. The BLM’s Land Use differences in connotation, and, in the BLM, Planning Handbook requires that at least one reflects Bureau involvement in a broader such workshop be conducted at the beginning spectrum of conflict prevention, conflict of each RMP/EIS (Appendix D). management, and conflict resolution processes than are included in the traditional definition CONTACT: The BLM’s Washington Office of ADR. “Appropriate dispute resolution” Division of Decision Support, Planning and includes the traditional “alternative dispute NEPA (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/ resolution” processes. planning.html, 202-912-7215). CONTACT: The BLM’s Collaborative Collaboration and Appropriate Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training Dispute Resolution Program (http://www.blm. gov/adr, 202-912-7215) or the BLM’s National The BLM’s Collaborative Stakeholder Training Center (http://www.ntc.blm.gov, Engagement and Appropriate Dispute 602-906-5536). 44
page | 134 BLM/WO/AE-11/008+1780 Bureau of Land Management Division of Decision Support, Planning and NEPA 20 M Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 Editing, design, and production services provided by the BLM National Operations Center, Information and Publishing Services Section.
page | 135
page | 136 Guide to Best Practices for Rangeland Management Garfield County, Colorado Introduction This guide describes important practices and concepts for managing rangelands for livestock production and multiple uses in Garfield County. Recommended practices are based on best available science and generally agreed upon principles developed by the range management profession. Emphasis is on livestock production, but the principles also apply to other uses. In a landscape with such diversity of vegetation, soils, precipitation, topography, elevation, and land ownership as Garfield County it is obviously not possible to specify best practices that will match every possible situation. Therefore, these practices should be taken as guides which are applicable in general and which may be selectively applied and/or modified for specific situations. Management practices include any action to taken to reach the goals and objectives for a ranch or grazing allotment, and may include planning, monitoring, livestock management, land treatments, physical improvements, water development, coordination among interested parties, and even public relations. Practices are implemented to achieve goals and objectives, thus it is important to define those goals and objectives for each management unit in order to identify appropriate practices. Where federal or state grazing allotments are an important part of a ranch operation, which is the common situation in Garfield County, the goals and objectives must include consideration of agency policy and other interested parties. Choice of practices is also subject to environmental, economic, legal, and social constraints. For example, excessive amounts of an undesirable shrub may hamper reaching objectives of sustainability (soil erosion), vegetation diversity, livestock and wildlife forage, etc. and therefore a practice to remove or reduce it is appropriate. Aerial application of herbicide may be an effective method to do this. However, other environmental concerns (susceptible desirable plant species, etc), economic issues (cost will exceed benefits), legal issues (EPA rules or possible legal action by neighboring landowners), or social issues (appeals or lawsuits by local anti-herbicide interests) may dictate that another practice is used, or that no action can be taken. In presenting the following best management practices it is assumed that the general goals are those generally found on public lands managed for multiple use and sustained yield. These would include: 1. Protecting soil from accelerated erosion. 2. Maintaining productive vegetation communities that provide forage and cover for livestock and wildlife. 3. Maintaining properly functioning riparian systems. 4. Protecting threatened or endangered species where they occur. 5. Providing for hunting and other outdoor recreation. 6. Maintaining natural beauty and visually pleasing landscapes. 1
page | 137 Coordinated Planning Planning might not ordinarily be thought of as a “range management practice”, but when operating ranches where there are multiple land administrators and other regulatory agencies (Wildlife agencies, water resources, etc), the setting of objectives and plans to reach those objectives is dominated by those agencies. General USFS Forest Plans, BLM Land Management Plans, and similar documents by other agencies largely set the goals and accepted actions on rangelands in the County. They are further elaborated in more specific plans such as transportation, utility corridors, fire plans, etc. Therefore, it is very important to be involved in the development and review of those plans and environmental assessments from the very earliest opportunity. Waiting until the “draft plan” is published to comment or object will not likely accomplish much. Ranchers can have input to these plans either as individuals, through their livestock associations, or entities of local government – conservation districts, towns, and counties. Federal agencies are required by law to accommodate the plans and goals of local governments in development of their plans. The approach of these local governments should be that federal agencies are only a class of landowner within their jurisdiction, not a separate government unto itself. Ranchers can also take the initiative in developing Coordinated Ranch Management Plans (CRMP) for their own ranch when there are several agencies involved. A CRMP involves getting all interested parties together to decide on goals, objectives, and management plans for the entire operation. Left to themselves, each agency tends to concentrate on their own area of responsibility and without considering how that affects an entire ranch operation. This results in a piecemeal approach that often does not work well on a whole ranch basis. Ranchers can get interested parties together to develop a plan for management and monitoring which is signed by all involved. Conservation Districts, University Extension, or possibly other entities can assist in setting up these coordinated efforts. A CRMP can be very helpful to the rancher. However, the rancher must take the initiative in forming these plans and in calling periodic meetings to conduct monitoring and review data, and to revise plans as needed for both the short and long term. Stocking Rate Range managers generally agree that “proper” stocking rate is essential for success of any grazing management plan. (A related term is carrying capacity – which refers to the number of animals and particular pasture can carry on a sustainable basis). But neither “proper stocking” or “carrying capacity” are simple biological constants that can be determined with certainty, as is for example, the weight bearing capacity of a metal beam. Proper stocking can refer to the intensity of utilization on key forage plants that will allow these plants to thrive and either maintain or increase their abundance. This is the basis for the “take half leave half” rule which is based on research that shows most perennial grasses can tolerate an average use over time of about 50% of the year’s biomass production This may vary depending on the species of grass, the time of grazing, the time for rest after grazing, and other factors. Proper stocking can also refer to the optimum stocking level in terms of animal production. Individual animal performance is greater at light stocking because animals have more forage available and can 2
page | 138 select the preferred plant parts and species. Animal production per acre increases as stocking rate increases until a point where the addition of animals results in a lower overall production due to competition for forage. The most economic stocking rate is always at or below the rate where total production peaks, never above it. The most profitable stocking rate is below, and sometimes well below, the maximum production per acre because costs tend to rise as stocking rate increases. Conservatively stocked ranges require less supplemental feed and generally have fewer problems with poisonous plants. Finally, proper stocking may be related to considerations other than forage sustainability and animal production. For example, need to protect sensitive areas or endangered species may sometimes call for a lower stocking rate, or the use of targeted grazing to reduce fire hazard due to cool season annuals may dictate a higher stocking rate. Therefore, the only practical way to determine the proper stocking rate for any given situation is to monitor the effects of livestock grazing on those attributes related to management objectives, usually the abundance of key forage plants, but also wildlife habitat, streambank protection, or other resource concerns. This is called the stock and monitor approach. It is essentially the same concept as adaptive management and recognizes that the proper stocking rate may change up or down over time in response to weather cycles, additional range improvements, brush control, fires, or other factors. An alternative approach is called “forage allocation.” This approach was widely used by the BLM in the 1970s and was even recommended in some range management textbooks. BLM abandoned this approach to some extent and adopted the stock and monitor approach. Unfortunately forage allocation seems to be returning, perhaps due to the advent of computers and GIS technology that make “modelling” of forage availability easier to do. The forage allocation approach is as follows: The dry weight of annual production of vegetation is estimated over an allotment or pasture. This can be based on field sampling (clipping, drying and weighing samples), or on average production of different soils, or sometimes on remote sensing. Of the total production, only that of better forage plants for livestock is considered, and only a portion of that is considered forage. For example, if the total production of all plants is 1000 pounds/acre/year, and forage plants make up 40% of that, the total production of forage plants is 400 pounds/acre/year. If the proper use level is 50%, then there would be 200 pounds of available forage per year for livestock on average across the allotment. However, on ranges with rough topography and/or limited water, a further reduction is made for areas considered too steep or too far from water to receive much grazing use. The pounds of forage remaining after these reductions is divided by the forage requirement per animal unit month (AUM) to obtain an estimate of carrying capacity or proper stocking rate. The forage allocation approach is highly subject to errors involving sampling and the many assumptions that go into the calculations. Dry matter production varies spatially at several scales, and also varies seasonally and annually. Therefore, field sampling involves large statistical errors unless samples are very large and repeated over several years. Which plants will be utilized, or to what extent they will be used is usually not known with certainty, and also portions of plants may not be present at time of sampling (seeds, flowers), and both of these may vary depending on the time of year the grazing takes place, weather, and adaptations of the livestock. Adjustments due to slope or distance from water are also based on rules of thumb that may or may not apply to a specific situation. The allowable use level on key forage plants (e.g.50%) is also subject to question and may be arbitrarily assigned. Finally, the 3
page | 139 forage requirement per AUM is also a rule of thumb. An animal unit is considered to be a 1000# cow or equivalent in terms of forage consumption. Forage consumption per AUM usually averages about 2% of body weight per day, but that varies depending on forage quantity, quality, and the size of animal. The Society for Range Management uses a figure of 26# of dry matter per day per AU, which includes some use of forage by an unweaned calf and possibly some wastage. But actual forage consumption per AU can vary from 10-12#/day to over 30# per day depending mainly on the time the animal has to graze to obtain enough forage and the digestibility of that forage. From the discussion above, it can be seen that forage allocation approach will not produce reliable or accurate estimates of actual carrying capacity. The errors associated with it are usually not known but can easily amount to +/- 20% or more of the actual value. Stocking records, observation of the condition of the range, and local experience can produce a much better and sounder estimate than that. The forage allocation approach can sometimes be useful to estimate the relative carrying capacity of proposed new pastures or the amount of forage that might be obtained by creating a new water source. Finally, the forage allocation approach has also been used to “allocate” forage to different users. For example, agencies have tried to use estimated populations of elk, deer, or antelope to allocate a portion of the forage supply to these animals, with livestock receiving the remainder. Aside from the potential errors described above, this procedure often just “allocates” a portion of the livestock forage to wild species, without taking into consideration that the plants used, locations used, and time of year grazing takes place are different for these wild animals. For example, deer usually do not compete significantly with cattle for forage unless either the deer or the cattle are severely overstocked. Grazing Management Managed grazing requires a plan, preferably written and agreed upon by all interested parties, for how the intensity, distribution, timing and duration of grazing will be accomplished to reach management objectives. The plan should consider the impact of grazing on key forage species and other species of importance as well as physical impacts of livestock on soils, stream banks, etc. In addition, the plan should consider possible conflicts with other uses recreation, hunting, bird nesting, fawning cover, etc. Finally, the plan has to take into consideration the amount, distribution, and reliability of water sources, predators, insect pests, possible routes for moving livestock, and other needs, such as bull pastures, weaning pastures, working corrals, etc. In short, the plan should attempt to balance the requirements for maintaining sustainable plant and animal populations with the realities of livestock management. In the past most ranges were grazed on a continuous basis throughout the grazing period, either yearlong or seasonally and generally at heavy stocking rates, especially in open range areas where individual grazing rights and improvements to control stock did not exist. This resulted in considerable damage to the range which is still evident in some areas. Now, almost all ranches (both on public and private land) employ some sort of rotational grazing plan. (Research studies on grazing systems have not demonstrated that rotational systems are superior to continuous, moderate stocking. However, those studies generally focus on overall condition of the range and animal production and were generally done in relatively gentle country, with small well-watered pastures, where other issues, such as riparian areas, endangered species, etc. were not a concern, or at least not studied.) The purpose of a rotation grazing system is primarily to allow preferred species and locations on the range to have a periodic relief from grazing. Animals, including both livestock and wildlife, are very 4
page | 140 selective in their use of different plant species and plant parts. They also tend to graze more heavily in selected locations such as valley bottoms, meadows, near water, favorable topography, etc. Favored plants get grazed heavily and repeatedly in those areas and may be damaged or eliminated even though the pasture as a whole is not overstocked. The extent to which this occurs varies depending on the terrain, the tolerance and relative preference for plant species, the type of livestock, the time of year, and other factors. In the past, these areas were considered “sacrifice areas” since there was no way to prevent damage unless stocking were reduced to an uneconomic level or eliminated. Rotational grazing is primarily a way to give the forage plants in these concentration areas a chance to regrow after grazing and to prevent excessive regrazing during a given season by deferring the time of grazing in a pasture during a given season, or by allowing periodic seasonlong rest from grazing. A number of “grazing systems” have been proposed and used to accomplish this deferment or rest for specific kinds of rangelands, e.g. Hormay Rest-Rotation System. However, all of these are only general models that must be modified to fit a particular piece of country and specific management objectives. A rotation grazing plan requires some means of restricting animals to a given area, either by fencing, natural barrier, riding, controlling waters, or other means. It also means that stocking rates are increased in each grazing unit but the length of time in that unit is reduced. Increased stocking density in the grazed pastures means a greater demand on water supplies, and usually increased reliability of water throughout the season for each pasture. This requires fencing, water developments, and increased labor for maintenance and moving stock. The stocking density increases as the number of pastures increases and the grazing period decreases. For example, with a 120 day grazing season, 4 pastures would be grazed 30 days each; 8 pastures only 15 days on average. Although some have recommended “short duration grazing” using many pastures, experience shows that 2-4 pastures are adequate, and require fewer improvements, and fewer moves. (Moving from winter to spring to summer to fall and back to winter ranges is not a rotation system. The rotation must be done within each of those seasonal ranges.) A rotational grazing system also makes it possible to defer pastures where necessary for recovery from fire or land treatments, to avoid pastures when conflicts may occur with other uses (e.g. nesting of TES species), to avoid losses due to poisonous plants, to hold out reserve pastures for meeting special needs (e.g. drought), to see and gather livestock, to improve chances for bulls to breed cows, etc. It also makes it easier to see whether the forage supply is going to last for the season before it is too late to adjust. A general guideline for designing a rotational grazing system is to try to avoid using any pasture, especially those with riparian areas, too long, and to use each pasture at a different time each year if possible, or rest one or more pastures each year if possible. Different plant species may benefit with rest at different times of the year (even in the dormant season) and thus deferment in any season generally benefits some species. It is important that the permittee, agency range specialist, and wildlife officers work together to develop a plan that fits each allotment or ranch, and that the entire ranch operation be part of the plan, not just one land ownership. The permittee is the one who knows what is feasible and what is not as far as moving livestock around in the allotment. In mountainous country it may not be possible to move from one pasture to any other due to topography. Where water is unreliable, it may be necessary to alter plans mid season. 5
page | 141 Coping with Weather and Other Impacts on Forage Supply The amount of forage produced on a ranch is highly subject to amount of precipitation received. Unfortunately it is not possible to accurately predict when and where precipitation will occur, thus maintaining flexibility to adjust livestock numbers and grazing plans to meet changes in availability of forage is essential. That is why a grazing plan must not be based on rigid schedules for pasture moves or animal numbers. It is good practice to consider in spring how much stored soil moisture there is and again in fall after knowing how much summer rain fell in order to make possible adjustments in numbers or grazing plan. Flexibility is also necessary to cope with unexpected losses due to wildfire or lack of water, or expected losses due to temporary need to defer for brush control or seeding. Useful guidelines are to stock conservatively and reduce numbers early. Conservative stocking recognizes that most years tend to be below “average” in terms of precipitation. It is easier to add some animals during good years than to reduce in a bad year, especially if the operator has a long time herd improvement program. Animals can be increased by holding over yearlings, buying some stockers, or taking in pasture cattle. (Some agency policy does not allow this – and should be changed). Animals can be reduced by selling calves early, not retaining replacement heifers, and deep culling of the cow herd. The earlier in the season these reductions are made, the less the reduction required. If this reduction waits until most of the feed is gone, the reduction will have to be greater and more difficult to replenish when better times return. It is well established that animals raised in the area perform better than those brought in from outside so it is better to minimize the need to replenish herds from other locations. Supplementation It is important to distinguish between supplementation and feeding. The nutrient content of range forage depends on the species, the growth stage and the weather. In general grasses tend to be deficient in protein in the dormant season. Browse maintains better protein levels but may be deficient in energy. Mineral deficiencies occur due to various causes including deficiencies in soil. Consequently, it is necessary to supplement these deficiencies in order to maintain fertility and weight gains of livestock. It is important to distinguish between “supplementation” of nutrients lacking in the range forage and “feeding” to make up for a lack of forage. The latter indicates overstocking and should not be done except in extreme emergencies. Even then it is best to remove animals from the range if possible. Some agencies prohibit feeding as a condition of the grazing permit, but these rules need to be discussed and worked out between the permittee and the agency to insure they are reasonable and well understood to avoid conflict. Range Readiness In the past there were often conflicts between permittees who wanted to turn on summer range because they were short of hay or forage on spring ranges and the federal range managers who wanted to delay turn out until the range was “ready”. The federal agencies adopted rules about “range readiness” because they thought that early grazing was detrimental to forage plants, and also that excessive trampling would occur on soils with high moisture content. They set standards that certain species must reach a minimum leaf height, or growth stage before grazing could begin so that carbohydrate reserves of plants would not be depleted resulting in poor vigor or death of the plants. More recent research has shown that grazing is generally most detrimental to grasses during the “boot stage” of growth, which is about when the range readiness criteria were met. Early grazing is not necessarily detrimental to grasses provided they have time to regrow during the current growing 6
page | 142 season. In fact, it is sometimes feasible to return to the early pasture late in the season and graze it again after most plants have made full regrowth. As far as the impact on forage plants is concerned the concept of “range readiness” has been rejected. There still is some concern about trampling when soils are very wet due to snow melt and this needs to be considered. However, wet soils may occur anytime during the summer or winter if precipitation occurs. Trampling damage generally heals itself by shrinking and swelling soils due to wetting and drying if the damage is not too severe or extensive. Water Development The quantity and reliability of water for livestock and wildlife, and its distribution, are important in determining livestock distribution and the ability to practice rotational grazing, especially on drier, low elevation rangelands. It is generally recommended that cattle should be able to water every day and not have to travel more than a mile or two for water. However, the distance cattle will travel to water is highly dependent on the topography, the weather, and the type of animal. Where water comes from natural sources (springs, creeks) it is important to try to prevent livestock, and wildlife, from impacting the water quality and bank stability to the extent possible. This can include fencing springs and piping water to a trough, creating off stream water sources along riparian areas, or building water gaps to provide easy access to streams in places where damage will be minimal. Water developments are also important for wildlife, especially where water is a limiting factor. To be useful for wildlife, these water developments should be designed to allow wildlife access and include escaped ramps to avoid drowning of small animals. Water should also be maintained in functioning condition even when livestock are not in the pasture and using it. Inventory, Assessment and Monitoring A ranch management plan should be based on an inventory which maps the basic soil and vegetation resources (ecological sites), land ownership, and existing improvements (water, fences, roads, etc). The inventory serves as the base for planning grazing management, future improvements, identifying monitoring sites and need for brush control, seeding or other actions. The inventory usually does not have to be repeated often, although it may be revised continually. The inventory should be a coordinated effort among all interested parties including the rancher, land administrators, wildlife agencies, and others as appropriate. A detailed set of guidelines for inventory, assessment and monitoring is not included here because of complexity and the existence of numerous guides to collecting and interpreting these types of information. A range assessment is a process of making judgments about range/watershed conditions, stocking rates, needs for land treatments, or other issues. It is usually a one-point-time evaluation based on qualitative indicators and professional judgment and experience. The assessments may done at key areas or other selected areas, or they may be done more or less randomly across the landscape. The BLM’s range health assessments are an example of a qualitative rating based on observation of a number of attributes and arriving at a judgement of whether a given location is meeting or not meeting range health standards. These assessments may require more intensive data collection (monitoring) to verify 7
page | 143 whether the observed situation is improving or not. A map of utilization pattern is another example, usually based only on qualitative estimates. Monitoring involves repeated measurement of certain variables, usually at designated monitoring areas selected as representative of livestock grazing effects, wildlife impacts, brush treatment responses, range seeding success, etc. Monitoring usually requires quantitative or semi quantitative data collection which can be statistically analyzed to detect changes over time in such things as ground cover, species composition, utilization of key species, etc. Photographs should always be included in inventory, assessment and monitoring. They provide objective evidence of conditions at a given time. The location and direction of photos should always be documented by land marks or GPS waypoints, and notes made on what the photo shows. Photos may be the only type of monitoring necessary in some cases. Digital cameras, preferably with date stamp, make it easy and cheap to collect data often. Utilization Utilization is a form of assessment or monitoring but merits a few special statements. Utilization is the percentage of the current year’s forage that has been removed by grazing animals, including that trampled or otherwise detached and not consumed. Utilization cannot be estimated until the current year’s growth is complete. Estimating utilization during the growing season is called “seasonal utilization” because it is impossible to know what the total year’s production will be at that time. Stubble height is another approach to utilization that measured residual leaf height of plants after a grazing period. It is favored by some because it does not require a measure of production and therefore, can be done any time of year. Utilization and stubble height are not management objectives. Both are used as tools for one or more of the following purposes: 1. To identify grazing patterns within a pasture to determine where grazing may be excessive or where the forage is underutilized. This information is useful to plan additional water, fencing, or other actions to improve distribution. 2. To help interpret monitoring data on species composition, ground cover, etc. Utilization data can help to establish whether livestock or wildlife grazing is the reason for observed trends or not. 3. To help establish proper stocking before adverse trends in ground cover or vegetation occur. Since utilization varies from year to year and place to place depending on weather and livestock grazing patterns, it usually takes several years of monitoring utilization in a number of locations (key areas) to draw conclusions about need to reduce or increase livestock. Utilization or stubble height are not intended to be, nor should they be, used as “standards” not to be exceeded in any given year, or as automatic “triggers” for movement of livestock from one pasture to another or for removal from the allotment. If guides to desired levels of utilization or stubble height are written into land use plans, allotment management plans, or annual operating instructions, it should be made clear that these are guides to be met on average over a period of a few years. Further, it must be spelled out how the measurements will be made, where they will be made, when will they be made, and 8
page | 144 on what species they will be made. Failure to meet these guidelines opens the door to disputes and appeals. Woody Plant Control and Range Seeding Woody plants have generally increased over the past 100-150 years, and this increase continues today. In some cases woody species have invaded into areas that formerly had little or no woody plant cover and in other cases the cover and density of woody plants has increased compared to pre settlement times. These changes have been observed in sagebrush-grasslands, oak brush, pinyon-juniper, and higher elevation forest. The reasons for these changes is generally agreed to be lack of fires, either caused by lightning or Indians, that formerly occurred at intervals which tended to keep ranges relatively free of woody plants, or to keep the stands more open with a better herbaceous understory. Since settlement, fire frequency has been reduced due to active fire suppression and also by reduction of fine fuels by grazing. The effects of these invasions and/or increased woody cover vary depending on the vegetation type, but can be generalized as follows: 1. Reduction of understory grasses and forbs, and also of some lower statured browse plants. In some cases, aspen has also been reduced as it is dependent on periodic fire. This results in lower livestock forage production and also less suitable habitat for some wildlife species. 2. Increased soil erosion and flash flooding due to reduced effective ground cover produced by competition from woody plants. 3. Decreased total water yield due to the increased interception of precipitation, increased soil drying due to deeper rooted woody plants, and increased period of transpiration losses from evergreen trees and shrubs. 4. Increased danger of intense wildfires. For example, increased cover and fuel loadings in juniper, pine and some other types can support very intense crown fires that have far greater impact on soils, and understory vegetation than the previous comparatively light ground fires. These fires also present a greater risk to property and to human life, including both residents and fire fighters. Suppression costs are greatly increased. 5. Invasion of exotic species, especially annual grasses such as cheatgrass. Crowding out of the native perennial grasses and forbs may allow exotic annuals and noxious weeds to invade in good years. Removal of shrub cover by fire can encourage exotic invasion, since these plants tend to invade more quickly into the burned off landscape than any residual perennials will. Although heavy historical grazing may have contributed to the increase in shrubs by reducing competition and fuel loadings, managed grazing alone will not restore these areas to a more balanced composition. Direct treatment is needed to reduce or eliminate the shrub cover. These treatments can include prescribed burning, herbicides, mechanical treatment (hand cutting, plowing, masticating, grubbing, etc) depending on the species, the cover and density, topography, soil type and need for revegetation after treatment. Seeding of perennial grasses and forbs and desirable browse species may be necessary after brush treatment, depending on the amount of residual desirable plants left after treatment. This is also true after wildfires. Success of seeding becomes increasingly risky as precipitation decreases. Seeding should not be restricted to native species, especially where adequate supplies of adapted native seed 9
page | 145 are not available, the cost is prohibitive, or experience shows that success is unlikely. Introduced species (such as some wheat grasses, Russian wild rye, etc) should be considered when they meet management goals to stabilize soils and provide forage. Livestock grazing should be deferred after a brush control or seeding project to allow new plants to establish. Usually livestock should be kept out of the treated area for at least one growing season, sometimes longer depending on weather, the amount of new plant establishment, or the species involved. For example, deferment may need to be longer where establishment of browse is the objective. However, blanket rules about the time for deferment should be avoided. Targeted Grazing Livestock grazing can be a useful tool in managing rangelands for uses other than livestock production. In this case, the time and intensity of grazing is determined by how grazing will impact certain target species or other characteristics. For example, grazing can be used to reduce fire hazard by removing fine fuels. Grazing may be used to help reduce cheatgrass or other annuals by grazing when the target species are palatable. Some noxious weeds can also be controlled by grazing at selected growth periods. Such grazing often requires heavier utilization than would ordinarily be acceptable, close control of animals, and may require different kinds of animals, e.g. goats. Weeds and Poisonous Plants Invasive weeds are an increasing problem throughout the West on rangelands. Most of these are introduced species that did not occur in the natural vegetation. Some of them have the potential to spread and compete with native species. In most cases, this problem needs to be addressed by educational programs to teach people, including permittees, to identify the problem species and report infestations, which can then be treated with herbicides or grubbing. Most poisonous plants are native to the rangelands (e.g. larkspur, lupine, death camas). In some areas, livestock losses from these plants can be a major problem. The main defense is to stock conservatively and make sure nutrient needs are met so that livestock are not forced to eat these plants, avoid problem areas at times when these plants are especially toxic or attractive to animals, and use livestock which have been raised in the area. Livestock brought in from other areas often are more susceptible to local poisonous plants. Use of herbicides or mechanical means to control these plants is sometimes useful, but management is generally the best solution. Riparian Area Management Riparian areas are those vegetation communities directly adjacent to perennial, or nearly so, water. However, larger portions of the floodplain, such as wet meadows, and ephemeral drainages with plants with a somewhat higher water requirement are also sometimes included. Riparian areas, especially in arid to semi arid rangelands are important sources of water, forage and cover for wildlife, in some cases for fish habitat, and for livestock. Animals are drawn to them because of water, green vegetation and shade. The principles of managing grazing in riparian areas are not different from those in upland rangelands. In fact, it is easier to manage these areas because there is more predictability about growing conditions due to more reliable soil moisture. Plant growth, and regrowth on uplands is controlled mainly by 10
page | 146 moisture availability, but plant growth in riparian areas is controlled mainly by temperature, since moisture is always available. If riparian areas are large enough to be fenced off to create a “riparian pasture” management of livestock grazing is straightforward. However, most riparian areas are relatively small, scattered, and usually linear within a much larger area of upland rangeland within a pasture or allotment, which means it is seldom possible to fence out these areas for separate management. Livestock and other animals tend to concentrate in and around the riparian areas (including springs) for water, green forage and shade. Reducing stocking levels in the pasture will not usually reduce the pressure on these areas unless stocking rates are too low to make any appreciable use of the surrounding uplands (the actual amount of forage supplied to livestock in riparian areas is often only a small fraction of the total forage available in the pasture). In other words, reducing stocking will not result in solving the problem of achieving proper management of riparian systems. There are several options which have been shown to help to achieve better management of riparian areas: 1. Reduce the length of the grazing period in the pasture. This requires a rotational grazing system. The riparian area may still receive fairly heavy grazing use by livestock, but the opportunity for repeated grazing of key species and use of less palatable plants will be reduced. Since soil moisture is usually not limiting, regrowth of riparian species is more likely than on uplands. 2. Graze pastures with significant riparian areas early in the growing season when upland vegetation is green and water may be more available in upland areas. Livestock are increasingly attracted to riparian areas as the forage on uplands dries out. 3. Graze during the cooler parts of the year, either early in the spring or winter when livestock are not seeking shade for relief from heat and may tend to avoid low lying areas which are colder than surrounding uplands due to cold air drainage. 4. Try to draw livestock away from riparian areas by providing water sources away from these areas, providing salt or supplements away from riparian areas, or by herding. 5. Time grazing to leave adequate ground and streambank cover at the time of year when runoff and flooding is expected to be highest. 6. Where these measures are not feasible or cannot be fully implemented, rest the entire pasture for a year every few years. Unfortunately, while riparian pastures can be grazed sustainably and riparian areas can be largely protected in upland pastures by employing the measures described above, the presence of other grazers may negate the benefits of this management. Elk and wild horses also favor riparian areas for the same reasons that domestic livestock do and they may be present in the area for an entire season, or even year round. Where these animals are present in any significant number, riparian areas are likely to be overgrazed and managed livestock grazing may be largely ineffectual. Permittee access Predator control Wildlife conflicts Riparian 11
page | 147
page | 148
page | 149
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
