BLM Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships - National ...

BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 201226► In working collaboratively withCAs on a plan, should the AO limit therange of issues and solutions to beconsidered?Since a key reason to involve other unitsof government is to benefi t from theirdistinctive perspectives and expertise,innovative approaches should be encouraged.Nonetheless, collaboration increases theneed to establish practical parameters forthe planning process. As the representativeof the lead agency, the AO is responsible forclarifying for CAs the general goals of theRMP. The goals include, where appropriate,the range of potential land use allocationsas consistent with statutory and regulatoryrequirements. Such limits are best establishedthrough clear planning criteria and a welldevelopedstatement of purpose and need.► Does the potential CA partneralso have a say in determining theobjectives and ground rules of the CArelationship?Yes, the MOU establishing the CA relationshipshould refl ect the views of all signatories.► What if the parties cannot agree onthe terms of an MOU?The AO should make a good faith effort tonegotiate the terms of an MOU with thepotential CA partner, consistent with applicablestatutes, regulations, and this Guide. If thiseffort is unsuccessful, the CA relationship hasnot been established.► Is it appropriate to use a thirdpartyfacilitator to help CAs and BLMstaff collaborate when preparing anRMP or EIS?Yes. CAs and BLM staff may differ signifi cantlynot only in their policy orientations but also intheir knowledge, skills, style of interaction, andexperience with NEPA and the BLM planningprocess. An effective facilitator may helpthe parties negotiate the MOU, focus effortsproductively, and resolve disagreements asthey arise. CAs should participate in theselection of a facilitator. However, using afacilitator does not alter the decisionmakingresponsibilities of the BLM or CAs.► What should the BLM andCAs do if they cannot agree onsubstantive elements of an RMP orEIS—for example, the designationof alternatives or the analysis ofeffects?Where the BLM and one or more CAs disagreeon substantive elements of an RMP or EIS andthese disagreements cannot be resolved, theBLM should include a summary of the CAs’views in the draft and fi nal documents.CA relationships and schedules► Is it appropriate to extenda planning or EIS schedule toaccommodate the needs of CAs?Normally, no. The preferences of CAsregarding the pace and direction ofcollaborative efforts do not supersede the needto adhere to established schedules. Thoseschedules should be included in the MOUsestablishing CA relationships. Wheneverpossible, the AO and CA representativesshould develop a mutually agreeable planningor EIS schedule while negotiating theirMOUs. It is important to discuss with CAswhat acceptable timeframes are for meetings,requests for information, and requests forreviews. Appropriate timelines should beincorporated into the MOU and adheredto throughout the process to the extentpracticable by all parties.► If effective collaboration with CAswould be compromised by adheringto an established planning or EISschedule, what are some solutions?AOs and their CA partners have a number ofoptions, including:• Vary the level of a CA’s involvement. BothCEQ and BLM regulations make it clear