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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
that the CAs may negotiate a level ofinvolvement consistent with their availablestaffi ng and resources. The CAs mayvary the time and resources they commitby determining which meetings to attend,whether to offer data or analyses (or both),and at what stage of document preparationto comment.• Seek ways to reorganize the planning orEIS schedule for greater effi ciency, withoutmodifying the deadline for completion.• Improve the effi ciency of collaborationamong the CAs and BLM staff. Theinvolvement of an effective facilitator mayimprove the speed and focus of CA andBLM staff interaction.• Where none of these approaches isfeasible, the Washington Offi ce mayconsider a change in the planningschedule, or the Responsible Offi cial maychange the schedule for completion of aNEPA document.40 CFR 1501.6(c) (CEQ)A cooperating agency may in responseto a lead agency’s request for assistancein preparing the environmental impactstatement ... reply that other programcommitments preclude any involvementor the degree of involvement requestedin the action that is the subject of theenvironmental impact statement. A copy ofthis reply shall be submitted to the Council[on Environmental Quality].43 CFR 1601.0-5(e) (BLM)Cooperating agencies will participate in thevarious steps of BLM’s planning processas feasible, given the constraints of theirresources and expertise.CA roles in preparingRMPs and EISs► May the CAs use their expertise toprepare (rather than merely reviewand comment on) sections of an RMPor EIS or the technical analyses onwhich either is based?Yes, where appropriate, when the CApossesses expertise and resources tocomplete the task in a timely manner, the BLMmay agree to include the CA’s analysis aspart of an RMP or EIS. Work developed bythe CA becomes the BLM’s work, however,and the BLM is responsible for all contentwithin the planning or NEPA document and thesupporting materials, which must be includedin the administrative record.40 CFR 1501.6(a) (CEQ)The lead agency shall…[u]se theenvironmental analysis and proposals ofcooperating agencies with jurisdiction bylaw or special expertise, to the maximumextent possible consistent with itsresponsibility as lead agency.► May a CA participate in the reviewof protests to a plan?No. Protest resolution is an internal reviewprocess conducted by the BLM WashingtonOffi ce, to determine if in preparing a planapplicable laws, regulations, and policies werefollowed. However, a CA that has providedinformation relevant to an issue raised in aprotest may be asked for clarifi cation.► What is the role of a CA once theRecord of Decision (ROD) is signed?While formal CA status ends once the RODis signed, CA expertise may be valuable inimplementing plans and projects, as wellas in monitoring outcomes and assistingwith enforcement. Both the BLM andlocal communities may benefi t from anongoing relationship. In addition, after theestablishment of a new or revised RMP, CArelationships may be formed around the NEPASection 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions27
Page 5: ContentsDirector’s Message ______
Page 8 and 9: Since the BLM’s implementationof
Page 10 and 11: The CA relationship isdistinctive,
Page 12 and 13: BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating
Page 14: BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating
Page 17 and 18: Section 2Implementation of the Coop
Page 19 and 20: could also possess expertise on the
Page 22: BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating
Page 27 and 28: Section 3Preparation of a Memorandu
Page 29: Administration of the MOU• Descri
Page 49 and 50: ► What should the BLM do if itdis
Page 51 and 52: Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relat
Page 53 and 54: Section 5Resources and TrainingWork
Page 55: BLM/WO/AE-11/008+1780Bureau of Land

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?