THE BLACKFOOT WATERSHED – By Brian McDonald May 2003

The 1.5 million acre Blackfoot River watershed is located in west central Montana. The Blackfoot River starts its 132 mile journey to the Clark Fork River from Rogers Pass on the Continental Divide. The Blackfoot River watershed hosts a wide variety of habitats including prairie grasslands, sagebrush steppe, coniferous forest, extensive wetlands, and extensive riparian areas. These diverse landscapers support numerous plant and animal species. Grizzly bears, waterfowl, elk, bull trout, and approximately 600 species of vascular plants all inhabit the watershed (Coughlin 1999). Ownership of the watershed is divided between public land (60%), corporate timber holdings (20%), and private landowners (20%) (Blackfoot Challenge 2003). Large ranches make up the bulk of private ownership. A map of the Blackfoot watershed is included in the appendix.

Environmental impacts on the watershed by humans is extensive. Settlement of the area began in the mid 1800's. In the 1890's, gold was discovered in the area and massive mining operations were set up to retrieve the valuable metal. Tributaries of the Blackfoot River were dredge mined on more than one occasion, leaving the water to find new paths to the Blackfoot River. Simultaneously, heavy logging occurred in the watershed not only to support mining operations but also to aid in the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad. Today, mining is all but gone with the exception of a few small claims. Logging continues on both public and private lands. The dominant use of the valley today is ranching, although recreation is rapidly gaining popu1arity.

Growing concerns over the quality of the environment and 1ife in the Blackfoot River Watershed prompted landowners, public agencies, and community leaders to take a proactive role in the future of the watershed. Poor mining, logging, and grazing practices of the past had resulted in water quality and supply issues, sedimentation, and declining fisheries (Coughlin 1999). For ranchers in the Blackfoot Valley, noxious weeds, private property damage from elk migration, and water rights were of great concern. Ranchers were also looking for ways to improve grazing conditions in order to keep ranching economically viable in the Blackfoot. Ranching is not always profitable, and at the time, many ranches were being sold off and subdivided. The loss of rural character in the Blackfoot Valley was of concern to both ranchers and public land managers. Public managers were concerned about losing large tracts of intact wildlife habitat from the sale of large ranches. Considering much of the watershed was already degraded, private land was gaining importance with regard to wildlife habitat. Something had to be done and the recognition that a cohesive group could do more for the cause than independent individuals, planted the seed for what would eventually become the Blackfoot Challenge (Coughlin 1999). Officially chartered in 1993, the Blackfoot Challenge has evolved into a dynamic and responsive group that can be used as an example for future collaborative efforts.

MISSION AND GOALS

The mission of the Blackfoot Challenge is '"to coordinate efforts that will enhance, conserve, and protect the natural resources and rural lifestyle of Montana's Blackfoot River Valley for present and future generations" (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). The goals and objectives set by the group are designed to support the mission and to reflect their collaborative approach. The goals are to be inclusive, recognize, and work with the diverse interests in the Blackfoot Valley. To avoid confrontation by bringing together public and private resources to resolve issues. To work together and partner by promoting a coordinated approach to problem solving and forging partnerships. To share information and provide for the exchange of technical and topical information through communication between stakeholders. To achieve resource stewardship by examining the cumulative impacts of land management decisions and by supporting environmentally responsible resource stewardship. And finally to be a service to those with interests in the Blackfoot Valley (Blackfoot Challenge 2000).
The Blackfoot challenge serves a variety of purposes to the Blackfoot Valley's stakeholders. The Blackfoot Challenge serves as a communication tool for stakeholders, a clearinghouse for information, a place for honest discussion of differing viewpoints, a vehicle for achieving cooperative resource management, and a means of building alliances and avoiding conflict (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). This collaborative approach to decision-making allows for a more holistic way of imaging the watershed. The services provided by the Blackfoot Challenge has led to the implementation of numerous on-the-ground projects while respecting the values of stakeholders. The stakeholders have certainly accomplished more as a collaborative group than as competing, adversarial individuals.

ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

The Challenge is a 501 (c)3, non-profit organization. It has no formal dues paid membership, meaning anyone interested can become involved. Similarly, cooperation is voluntary meaning members are free to disassociate and compliance with the group's activities is not mandatory. The Blackfoot Challenge works hard to keep stakeholders involved as well as gather a diverse range of interests to be represented. Current stakeholders involved in the Blackfoot Challenge include numerous private landowners, state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, and private businesses. Additionally there are roughly 400 people on the mailing list.

At this point some clarifications must be made. Although the Blackfoot Challenge is a collaborative group, many of the organizations still maintain their own agenda. These organizations have signed on in support of the mission of the Blackfoot Challenge while pursuing the mission of their own organization. There is extensive intermingling of the Challenge and its partners. Various Blackfoot Challenge members sit on the Boards of other Partner organizations and many partner sit on committees of the Challenge. The lines between the Blackfook Challenge and its partner organizations in the Blackfoot Valley is blurred but still visible. (Bernd-Cohen 2003).
 
With so many interests, values, and participants it is hard to imagine how issues and p1anned projects make it beyond the drawing board. But the Blackfoot Challenge has been successful when it comes to taking action. The structure of the Blackfoot Challenge requires close examination to understand why it works so well. First there is a Board of Directors that consists of 10 to 16 members representing the "various businesses, farms and ranches, communities and residents, as well as the county, state and federal agencies residing and or operating in the Blackfoot Valley" (Blackfoot Challenge Bylaws). The Board of Directors is responsible for making decisions regarding group activities and plans. Board members are elected to serve through voting by the general membership. The Board meets once a month and the meetings are open to the public.

Next there is the Executive Committee which is made up of Board members and officers. “The Executive Committee serves as the finance and administrative oversight arm of the Blackfoot Challenge. The Executive Committee oversees the budget, expenditures, and fund raising as well as the work of the Executive Director" (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). The Executive Director carries out the "strategic plan, implements fund-raising opportunities, and administers all funding contracts, project activities and services of the ChaIlenge.” (Blackfoot Challenge 2000).

Finally there are the smaller, issue specific committees that are responsible for the development of issues, activities, and programs to achieve the mission of the Blackfoot Challenge. The issue specific committees are one of the most fascinating portions of the Blackfoot Challenge and will be detailed later.
 
The Blackfoot Challenge has established five major programmatic areas to accomplish its goals, objectives, and ultimately; its mission. The first is the Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation Program. This program is central to the Challenge as it allows members to discuss issues and exchange information. The monthly public meetings of the Board of Directors falls under this program. Distribution of information is also a key component of this program. The Blackfoot Valley is big and not everyone can
attend the meetings. The use of electronic mail, phone calls, and face to face interaction keeps members involved and informed (Blackfoot Challenge 2000).

"The Blackfoot Challenge considers resource education as one of its priority roles and responsibilities" (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). The Information, Education, and Outreach Program is probably the most established program of the Blackfoot Challenge. Since 1993, the Challenge has conducted or sponsored numerous educational meetings, workshops, teacher resource training, tours and field days" (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). The most notable educational programs are Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) and weed management education. Project WET instructs teachers in how to blend water resource education into their curriculum. Weed education is intended to '"raise awareness of landowners, land managers and the public about the long terms adverse impacts of noxious weeds and promote public information, education and partnerships m noxious weed control" (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). Other education topics include habitat restoration, drought, native fisheries, wildlife, recreation, and water quality. A web site, brochures, videos, press releases, and direct mail are tools employed by the Blackfoot Challenge to promote their activities.

A common theme throughout the mission and goals of the Blackfoot Challenge is creating partnerships. Without partnerships and the ability to pool resources, the Challenge would not have been as successful as it is. The Partnership, Facilitation, and Projects Program allows the Challenge to be responsive to change through the development of issues specific committees. Committees are used to develop recommendations and action plans. Committees are composed of board members, specialists, technical experts, and landowners. Essentially, it is through these committees, that words are translated into action. Although some committees will remain permanent, some are intended to be relatively short term. The Blackfoot Challenge forms new committees as needed to address emerging issues and problems (Blackfoot Challenge 2000).

The final two programs of the Blackfoot challenge keep things moving and functioning. Funding is always an issue with any organization. The Financial and Technical Assistance Program is responsible for acquiring funding for the Blackfoot Challenge. Grant writing and solicitation of donations are actions taken by the group to ensure sufficient funding. Because of the partnerships formed by the Blackfoot Challenge, cost sharing on projects has also been effective. Cost sharing is just one example of how resource pooling has led to successful outcomes.

The Administration, Planning, and Development program is fairly straightforward. This program mainly involves the activities of the Executive Director. With a group this large, that carries out so many projects,  effective administration is crucial. The Executive Director and the Executive committee oversee the finances of the Challenge, provide administrative assistance, bookkeeping, and tax preparation (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). Program development is done by the Board of Directors and the Executive Director. This program guides the work of the Blackfoot Challenge. Obviously, there is much more work that goes into running the Blackfoot Challenge than this short description provides.

EVOLUTION

The evolution of the Blackfoot Challenge is impressive. Starting slowly with small, tangible projects, the Blackfoot Challenge has grown to deal with much more complicated issues at the watershed scale.
Before the official formation of the Blackfoot Challenge, US Fish and Wildlife Service agents began working with local landowners on specific on-the-ground, low risk projects. One example of these projects was the installation of artificial nesting structures for Canadian geese (Coughlin 1999). The success of these projects eventually led to other projects like wetland, stream, and riparian restoration. Noxious weed management and grazing practices were also taken on by the Bureau of Land Management, Powell County Weed District and other partners in the initial stages. These small scale short-term projects were used for several reasons. First to establish trust between landowners and government agencies. And second to show how working together could produce positive results. The success of these initial projects motivated those involved to take on more issues at larger scales. If these projects had not been successful, the Blackfoot Challenge may have never been formed. Positive results in the initial stages of collaboration are crucial and can set the stage for continued success.

Today the Blackfoot Challenge faces a variety of issues. Although some issues like weed management and water quality have remained constant, there is no shortage of new issues to keep the Blackfoot Challenge busy. The issues that currently concern the Challenge are balancing protection of natural resources with human activities, protection of water quality and availability, conservation and restoration of fisheries and wildlife habitat, protection of threatened and endangered species, forest management practices and fire hazard reduction, adverse impacts from subdivision of large tracts of private land, reclamation of abandoned mines, noxious weed management, and grazing management (Blackfoot Challenge 2000). Maintaining the rural lifestyle of the Blackfoot Valley is part of the mission of the Blackfoot Challenge and there are several issues involved with that as well. The loss of agricultural lands to other uses such as ranchettes and second homes, the shift from traditional to non-traditional ranching, increased recreational activities and pressures on resource are a few examples.

In order to deal with the variety of issues, the Blackfoot Challenge utilizes issue specific committees. As 2003, there were ten major committees working under the Blackfoot Challenge (Blackfoot Challenge 2003). This inc1udes both the standing and issue specific committees. The Executive and Finance Committees were discussed earlier and are examples of standing committees. The development of issue specific committees has allowed the Blackfoot Challenge to avoid burnout. Collaborative efforts are difficult to maintain and many groups dissolve after conflicts have been resolved. This bas not been the case for the Blackfoot Challenge. It is important to examine the work of these committees in order to understand how the Blackfoot Challenge has evolved and how it has benefited the Blackfoot Valley.

Noxious weed management is one of the oldest issues to be addressed by the Blackfoot Challenge. The Weed Steering Committee is in charge of education and implementation of weed management projects. Weed management really helped establish the Challenge as an organization that could take on the big issues. Weeds are a universal concern that both private landowners and public land managers can relate to. Weeds pose a significant threat and since weeds grow everywhere, they are a watershed issue. Like the Blackfoot Challenge, weed management started small and has grown to encompass the entire watershed. The Weed Steering Committee has established nine Weed Management Areas (WMA's) on 350,000 acres m the Blackfoot Valley. This committee uses educationa1 - training and workshops to get people involved. Because of this committee, various actions have been taken to manage weeds in the Blackfoot including chemical treatments, the use of flea beetles and weed pulls. Over 100 individual landowners have imp1emented weed management on their lands (Blackfoot Challenge 2001). TheWeed Steering Committee is working on mapping weeds throughout the watershed using GIS, promoting experimental biological weed control, and goat-herding projects, and testing species-specific revegetation. Overall the Weed Steering Committee continues to be one of the hardest working and most successful portions of the Blackfoot Challenge.

Education and the need for information were big reasons why the Blackfoot Challenge started. The Education Committee is the driving force behind the Information, Education, and Outreach Program. The Education Committee supports various programs like Project WET, and Adopt-A- Trout. Adopt-A- Trout is a project that links fisheries migration data collected by biologists to teachers and students in the Blackfoot Valley (Blackfoot Challenge 2001). Not only does this committee provided educational opportunities for students, teachers, and the public, it has also provided forums for members of the
Challenge to learn. In 2001, the committee hosted a Montana Watershed Coordinators Retreat for watershed groups to share their experiences and identify common needs (Blackfoot Challenge 2001). It is this innovative thought that has kept the Blackfoot Challenge thriving for so many years.

There are severa1 conservation organizations that focus activities in the Blackfoot watershed a1ong with the Blackfoot Challenge. The Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy Montana Chapter, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and many others partner with the Blackfoot Challenge on various conservation projects. Beginning in 2000, a Conservation Strategies Committee has been meeting to provide a forum for exchanging information on conservation work being done in the Blackfoot watershed and looking for ways to pool resources, identify priority areas for conservation,
and utilize conservation strategies (Blackfoot Challenge Annual Report 2000). This committee is made up of 20 members representing all organizations with conservation easements. Today, there are 85,000 acres in conservation easements (Blackfoot Challenge 2002). This committee helps coordinate and facilitate the various conservation efforts in the Blackfoot watershed that has streamlined progress and cut down on duplication of efforts.

The State of Montana has gone through several consecutive dry years. In response to the ongoing drought, the Blackfoot Challenge and the Big Blackfoot Chapter of Trout Unlimited formed the Drought and Water Conservation Committee in 2000. What this committee has accomplished in a short time is astonishing. The Drought and Water Conservation Committee has come up with an emergency drought response plan in which voluntary restrictions on water use are enacted during drought years and the low flow season. It is seen as a shared sacrifice that is used to protect fisheries as well as maintain stable supplies of water. In 2001, over seventy irrigators, the Double Arrow golf course, outfitters and some recreationists participated in the emergency response (Blackfoot Challenge 2001). Although precipitation has been higher than average this year, low water table and early runoff may result in our needing to implement the emergency response plan (Bernd-Cohen 2003). This committee hopes to include more recreationists in the future and is currently developing a long-term water conservation strategy for the watershed.

Recreation in the Blackfoot watershed has increased substantially over the last 10 years. More specifically, recreation on the Blackfoot River itself. Although recreation has boosted the economy of the watershed, it has also brought issues of over use and damage of private property to center stage. For the past two years the Recreational Steering Committee has worked to address these concerns. This committee has developed recommendations on a management direction that included guidance on access and facilities, commercial use, user fees, and use limitations (Blackfoot Challenge 2001). With recreational activities continuing to increase, this committee will be very busy for a long time.

The efforts and hard work of the Blackfoot Challenge are being recognized. As a result, the Blackfoot Challenge has been asked to lead the way on projects that concern the Blackfoot watershed. Total Daily Maximum Load (TD~) Planning requires that degraded streams be cleaned up in Montana. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has asked the Challenge to become involved in creating a habitat and water quality restoration strategy for the Blackfoot starting with the headwaters (Blackfoot Challenge 2001). The Blackfoot Challenge has been doing this for over a decade but had not yet come up with a comprehensive plan. The Habitat, Water Quality, and Restoration Committee was established to tackle this challenge.

Similarly, the Blackfoot Challenge was asked to aid in the bicentennial celebration of the Lewis and Clark expedition. In 1806, on his return trip, Meriwether Lewis traveled up the Blackfoot River. In anticipation of tourists who will retrace Lewis's path, the Lewis and Clark Committee is working on ways to manage human impacts, protect private property, provide educational and interpretive signs, maps and sites highlighting Lewis's route (Blackfoot Challenge 2001).

The Wildife Committee was formed in 2002 to exchange information and coordinate efforts improve management of human-wildlife interactions in the Blackfoot Watershed. Concern with Grizzly bears, wolves and elk on the part of landowners and wildlife managers lead to the formation of this group.
 
Surprisingly there is no formal committee to address concerns over the loss of rural lifestyle in the Blackfoot. It may be because maintaining the rural characteristics of the valley is constantly reinforced. The Conservation Strategies Committee does work to secure large tracts of intact 1andscapes through conservation easements. This has helped as has efforts by the Blackfoot Challenge to help ranchers develop alternative incomes. Recreational activities like eco-tourism on ranches is one possibility being explored.

The structure of the Blackfoot Challenge, particularly the issue specific committees, is very unique. They have allowed the Challenge to grow and take on new issues as well as show how responsive and effective the Blackfoot Challenge can be. The last two committees described represent something more. It would seem only natural that the Blackfoot Challenge would be involved ill these projects, but traditionally this is not how things work. For a non-government organization to be involved, and lead the way on projects like TDML planning is actually a pretty big step. It shows that the Blackfoot Challenge does good work, is respected and trusted, and that collaboration can work.

COLLABORATION

In many ways, the Blackfoot Challenge is a textbook example of collaboration. The focus of the Blackfoot Challenge is on the Blackfoot watershed and the peop1e who live and work there. Although some groups involved operate outside the watershed, all work done by the Challenge is intended to benefit the people and environment of the Blackfoot Valley. Without the involvement of local landowners and residents, the Blackfoot Challenge may not even exist. The Blackfoot Challenge has worked very hard to involve local people and to build long lasting, positive relationships between landowners, agencies, and the general public. All actions are voluntary. No one is forced to participate in programs or even to be involved.

Decisions involve both science and local knowledge. Science plays a vital role in the actions of the Blackfoot Challenge. It has too when considering projects like fisheries and stream restoration. But in the Blackfoot Challenge, local knowledge plays an equally important role. Most of the ranchers who run operations in the Blackfoot Valley are at least second generation and they know the land. It is a two-way learning process in which both ranchers and public agents learn from each other. As George Hirschenberger says, "You can't help but learn something new everyday" (Hirschenberger 2003).

Government agents and agencies do not run the Challenge, they are on equal footing with all other stakeholders when it comes to decision making. Gary Sullivan of the USFWS describes it as leading from behind (Coughlin 1999). Agencies offer advice but do not set the agenda. Finally, decisions are based on consensus. Using consensus building allows the Challenge to thoroughly work out issues and to ensure the best results for everyone.

No two collaborative efforts are exactly alike. Many collaborative focus exclusively on the management of public lands. The B1ackfoot Challenge is involved with the management of an entire watershed comprised of both public and private lands. It is important to note however, that on public lands, final decision making authority still lies with the agencies. But then again, compliance on private lands is voluntary as well. Most of the time, the Blackfoot Challenge acts as an advisory council to actions on public lands. The Blackfoot Challenge is involved in every step of public land planning, implementation, and monitoring. And although final authority rests with the agency, the Blackfoot Challenge has stamped its approval for the plan. This relationship has greatly reduced the amount of conflict over public land management in the Blackfoot watershed.

Unlike other collaborative efforts that may dissolve after crisis situations, the Blackfoot Challenge is intended to last for the long haul. The issue specific committees that operate under the Blackfoot Challenge are collaborative efforts in their own way and may disband after issues have been addressed. The Blackfoot Challenge will continue on and create new collaboratives as necessary. The Blackfoot Challenge has a good blend of collaboration cooperation, and advisory councils. It is an incredibly dynamic organization that has produced many benefits for the Blackfoot Valley.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In the first ten years of existence, the Blackfoot Challenge has produced some impressive results from improving the condition of the land to restoring fisheries. As of April 2002, 85,000 acres of private lands have been placed in perpetual conservation easements, 350,000 acres are under noxious weed management, 2,300 acres of native grasslands have been restored, and grazing systems have been implemented on over 35,000 acres (Blackfoot Challenge 2002). Further, 37 tributaries have restoration projects completed or underway, 32 miles of instream restoration have been completed, 51 miles of
riparian restoration have been completed, over 300 miles offish passage barriers have been removed, 13 self cleaning fish screens have been installed on irrigation ditches, numerous feedlots have been removed from streams, and 2,100 acres of wetlands have been restored (Blackfoot Challenge 2002). In accordance with their mission, the Blackfoot Challenge has also helped to keep the ranching industry alive in the valley. Jim Stone, a rancher and Chairman of the Blackfoot ChaIlenge, feels that many of the ranches would not be around without the Challenge and that the future of ranching In the valley would have been questionable (Coughlin 1999).

Perhaps the biggest accomplishment so far is something that cannot be measured. The Blackfoot Challenge has helped enhance the quality of life in the Blackfoot Valley. New relationships and partnerships have been formed, trust between public agencies and the public has been repaired, and respect for differing values has grown. There is a rea1 sense of place and community. More importantly, all this has been achieved without compromising the rural lifestyle of the Blackfoot Valley. Ranching, logging, and to a lesser extent mining, continue to contribute economically to the valley as new activities like recreation are integrated.

FUTURE CHALLENGES

As strong as the Blackfoot Challenge is today, it will still need to address a few organiza1ional issues. George Hirschenberger of the BLM and Co-chair of the Weed

Steering Committee feels that the Challenge must work harder to involve younger people from both the private and public sectors in order to keep the Challenge moving into the future. This is important because participation from public land agencies and all those involved is voluntary. Currently public land managers see the benefits and want to participate. Future land managers may not be willing or even find it necessary to participate (Hirschenberger 2003). This could become a significant problem since 60% of the watershed is managed by public agencies.

The common vision of those involved with the Blackfoot Challenge is an important factor in the success of the Challenge. There are mostly conservation oriented members' involved in the Blackfoot Challenge so there is also common interests. Diversity of interests is somewhat lacking in the composition of the Challenge. Obviously some people chose not to participate, but the lack of diverse interests does raise some interesting questions. Even if the Blackfoot Challenge sees the value of and seeks out diverse interests, does the mission allow for diverse interests? The Challenge is very open and welcomes those who want to be involved, but there might be something that has kept many groups from getting involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The Blackfoot Challenge is one of eight watershed groups in Montana under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. If the Blackfoot Challenge is any indication of what is happening in these other watershed groups Montana's future looks bright. Greg Neudecker of the USFWS and George Hirschenberger of the BLM see collaborative efforts like the Blackfoot Challenge as the future of land management. Not only that, but collaboration may be the best tool we have to resolve the conflicts of land management. The Blackfoot Challenge proves that collaboration works and works well. The Blackfoot Challenge has greatly benefited the Blackfoot watershed and the people who call it home.

Working collaboratively, efficient organization, and dynamic structure have all contributed to the success of the Blackfoot Challenge. But what stands out the most about the Blackfoot Challenge is the people who make it work. Everyone involved is committed, dedicated, and they believe in the mission. Jim Stone, Greg Neudecker; Tina Bernd-Cohen, George Hirschenberger, and countless others have provided the leadership and energy necessary to sustain this group. The fact that so many people are willing to sacrifice so much is inspiring. The people have made the Blackfoot Challenge what it is today.
It seems fitting to end this description of the Blackfoot Challenge with a. quote from Norman Maclean frequently used by the Blackfoot Challenge. "Eventually; all things merge into one, and a river runs through it.” Noman Maclean's words are as powerful and poetic as the Blackfoot River. These words have also been an inspiration to the people of the Blackfoot Challenge.

References 
l Bernd-Cohen, Tina. Blackfoot Challenge Strategic Plan, 2000-2005. December 16, 2000
l Blackfoot Challenge Annual Report 2000. Blackfoot Challenge Annual Report 2001. Blackfoot Challenge Bylaws
l Blackfoot Challenge Powerpoint Slide Show April 8, 2002
l Blackfoot Challenge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website http://www.r6.fws.gov/pfw/montanatmt6.htm; Last accessed April 23, 2003
l Coughlin, Chrissy. The Blackfoot Challenge, 1999. http://www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/cnnp/blackfoot.PDF; Last accessed May 8, 2003.
l Personal communication with George Hirschenberger, BLM, Co-chair of the Weed Steering Committee. April 11, 2003.
l Personal communication with Tina Bernd-Cohen, Executive Director of the Blackfoot Challenge. April 13, 2003.