BL

M

What BLM, Communities, and the Public Need to Know for Preventing Conflict and

Resolving Disputes Involving Public Lands and Resources

Bureau of Land Management National Natural Resources Policy for

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and

Appropriate Dispute Resolution
Grand Staircase-Escalante

National Monument in Utah. 

Photo by Peter Fitzgerald.

The photos used on the front and back covers were taken during a field trip

to BLM’s Sprague parcel near Spokane, Washington. 

Agreements reached using collaborative stakeholder engagement 

or ADR can be more creative, satisfying, and enduring

than those imposed through conventional systems

of conflict resolution.
i

Acknowledgments

We thank the Interior Dispute Resolution Council of the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, including all the bureaus of the 

Department; Ed Roberson, BLM Assistant Director, Renewable 

Resources and Planning; and Bud Cribley, Deputy Assistant 

Director, Renewable Resources and Planning; as well as 

Ed Shepard in his previous capacity as Assistant Director, 

Renewable Resources and Planning for their guidance and 

support. Also, we appreciate the review by the other BLM natural 

resources directorates and the natural resources divisions and 

programs in the Washington Office and the States.

Washington Office Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement 

and Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program staff: 

Paul Politzer, Bureau Dispute Resolution Manager, National 

Ombudsman, and Head, ADR Program. Matt Magee, Dispute 

Resolution Specialist, Jared Nichol and Melissa Brandt in their 

BLM land in Moab, Utah.

previous positions as Dispute Resolution Specialists, and Adam 

Eckman in his previous position as Legal Intern. 

Review and Comments: BLM’s ADR Advisory Council (ADR 

Manager-Advisors and Natural Resources ADR Advisors in each 

State and Center and in the Washington Office), and Laura Van 

Riper (National Riparian Service Team).

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit contributors: Matthew 

McKinney and William Harmon.
Meeting where the action is being implemented

and/or scheduling follow-up meetings also may work well

for maintaining positive stakeholder relations.

Sprague parcel field trip.
iii

Sprague parcel field trip.

Contents

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Basic Conflict Management Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Preparing for a Collaborative Stakeholder

Engagement or ADR Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Assessing the Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Designing a Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Implementing a Collaborative Stakeholder

Engagement or ADR Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Upstream Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 Early Public Outreach Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 Stakeholder Working Group Processes . . . . . . . . . 14

 Ombudsman Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 Other Upstream Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Downstream Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Joint fact-finding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Other Downstream Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Wrapping Up a Collaborative Stakeholder

Engagement or ADR Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Kiger Gorge, Steens Mountain

Cooperative Management and 

Protection Area (CMPA) in Oregon. 

Photo by Mark Armstrong.

By preventing, managing, and resolving conflicts

or disputes through collaborative stakeholder engagement

or ADR processes, the Bureau and stakeholders

can reduce costly litigation and realize savings

of time, budget dollars, and public resources.
1

Overview

This guide provides Bureau of Land Management (BLM or 

Bureau) policy, suggested strategies, and best management 

practices for many of the collaborative stakeholder engagement 

and appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) processes most often 

utilized in the BLM. This information was developed to help the 

Bureau, communities, and the public in considering, convening, 

and/or participating in these processes for BLM natural resources 

projects, plans, and decisions, thereby improving relationships 

and reducing time-consuming and costly protests, appeals, and 

litigation. 

Collaborative stakeholder engagement and ADR encompass 

a broad spectrum of processes for preventing, managing, 

mitigating, and resolving disputes outside the conventional 

arenas of administrative adjudication, litigation, or legislation. 

This guide highlights those processes most often participated 

in by the BLM. These processes are divided into “upstream” 

(Early Public Outreach Processes, Stakeholder Working Group 

Processes, Group Intervention, Cooperating Agency Agreements, 

Early Involvement and Early Communication with Tribal 

Communities, and the BLM’s National Ombudsman services) 

and “downstream” (Negotiation, Facilitation, Joint Fact-Finding, 

Mediation, Conciliation, and Negotiated Rulemaking). Upstream 

processes are designed to prevent an issue or dispute from 

arising or to manage conflict at an early stage, while downstream 

processes involve managing or resolving an existing dispute or 

conflict. 

The upstream and downstream distinction may be helpful in 

choosing and designing a process for a given situation; however, 

many of these processes may overlap or share certain elements 

with one another. Additionally, “upstream” processes may be 

helpful in preventing further escalation even after a dispute has 

arisen and some “downstream” processes (such as Joint FactFinding and Facilitation) also may be appropriate for preventing 

conflicts. Thus, while these processes are divided for purposes 

of this guide, they are best understood as part of a continuum 

of conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Please refer to the 

continuum graphic on the page following and the processes table 

on page 10 and 11.

Bureau policy is to seek to use collaborative stakeholder 

engagement and ADR processes as standard operating practice 

for natural resources projects, plans, and decision-making 

except under unusual conditions. By preventing, managing, 

and resolving conflicts or disputes through these processes, the 

Bureau and stakeholders can realize savings of time, budget 

dollars, and public resources.

This guide is not intended to be an exhaustive review of all 

possible processes for conflict prevention or conflict resolution, 

but rather to provide an overview and some practical steps 

and strategies for BLM employees and the public. More 

detailed information on these and other processes, as well as 

opportunities to build advanced skills and techniques, may be 

found in the Further Reading section at the end of this guide, in 

various National Training Center and external training courses, 

and by contacting the Bureau Dispute Resolution Manager 

or Dispute Resolution Specialists in the BLM’s Collaborative 

Stakeholder Engagement and ADR Program (www.blm.gov/

adr). 

This guide also includes tips and strategies (shown in shaded 

boxes), narrative BLM case studies (in open boxes), and 

resource specific side bars (in solid blue boxes). The Bureau 

of Land Management photographs contained in this guide are 

of various BLM lands and resources, as well as employees and 

stakeholder working groups.
2

Continuum of Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR)

for Natural Resources in the Bureau of Land Management

Typical Steps in an ADR Process

1. Preparing and documenting an ADR 

Suitability Determination, including a go/

no-go decision, Conducting Situation 

Assessment as part of the Determination.

2. Where appropriate, developing an ADR

Plan: identifying parties, processes,

strategies, and determining need for a

third-party neutral

3. Convening parties; establishing ground rules

4. Identifying issues: storming and norming

5. Establishing common ground: goals, values

6. Identifying interests vs. positions

7. Building consensus (buy-in)

8. Developing and finalizing an agreement

Common strategies in an ADR Process

• Framing; re-framing

• (Identifying) BATNAs 

• Caucusing; Mutual Gains Bargaining

• Bridging; Blocking; Logrolling

• Decision analysis; Minority reports

Key Components of the Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR Program

BLM Conflict Prevention/Collaborative Stakeholder

Engagement Processes (Upstream)

• Public Outreach (Early Participation in Projects, Plans, and 

Decision-Making): Meetings (one-on-one, groups/stakeholders/

public (scoping, etc.), town halls, workshops, visioning on 

appropriate use of lands and resources, community-based 

collaboratives) Other (internet, print, phone, email)

• BLM/Tribal Communities Early Involvement and Early 

Communication: Based on trust responsibility; to begin prior 

to formal consultation; Government -to-Government 

• Group Interventions

• Cooperating Agency Agreements

• Ombudsman (including Conflict Coaching): the public 

(including communities, stakeholders, appellants, protesters, 

interest groups, American Indians and Alaskan Natives); other 

agencies; employees

BLM Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution 

Processes (Downstream)

• Traditional Dispute Resolution Processes: Assisted or 

unassisted negotiation, mediation, facilitation, conciliation, 

joint fact-finding, negotiated rulemaking

• Other: Settlement judge (Hearings Division); Administrative 

Order (IBLA); Court order; Congressional mandates; 

Administration directives; Litigation prevention

Overview ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR

Upstream Processes Downstream Processes

Risk of Protests, Appeals, Litigation

Conflict Prevention/Collaborative Engagement

Conflict Management/Resolution
3

What are collaborative stakeholder 

engagement and ADR?

Collaborative stakeholder engagement and appropriate dispute 

resolution (ADR) encompass a broad spectrum of “upstream” 

and “downstream” processes for preventing or resolving disputes 

outside the conventional arenas of administrative adjudication, 

litigation, or legislation. In some cases, there may be overlap 

in both purpose and practice among the various processes. 

However, upstream collaborative stakeholder engagement 

processes are generally designed to prevent conflict from arising 

while downstream ADR processes involve managing, mitigating, 

or resolving an existing dispute, often with the assistance of a 

third-party neutral. 

The acronym “ADR” traditionally has been used to represent 

“alternative dispute resolution.” The substitution of “appropriate” 

in more recent scholarly literature addresses various differences 

in connotation and, in the BLM, reflects Bureau involvement 

in a broader spectrum of conflict resolution processes than is 

included in the traditional understanding of “alternative dispute 

resolution.” The broader term “appropriate dispute resolution” 

includes the traditional “alternative dispute resolution” processes, 

but also other approaches such as strategies relating to litigation.

Why use these processes?

Both upstream and downstream processes can produce 

agreements and resolutions efficiently, cost-effectively, and 

cooperatively. Agreements reached can be more creative, 

satisfying, and enduring than those imposed through 

conventional systems of conflict resolution. Collaborative 

stakeholder engagement and ADR processes often serve 

to mend or improve the overall relationship between parties 

because the focus is largely on identification of interests and 

common goals and on cooperation while protests, appeals, 

and litigation are focused on positions and win/lose outcomes. 

When parties craft a solution themselves, they are generally 

more committed to the agreement than when a judge or agency 

imposes a solution. Additionally, preventing or resolving conflict 

through these processes can reduce or resolve protests, 

appeals, and litigation and result in savings of time, budget 

dollars, and public resources.

While downstream ADR processes allow the parties to develop 

more flexible or creative solutions than are generally possible 

in a court setting or formal hearing, Bureau policy recognizes 

that earlier upstream involvement amplifies these benefits and 

increases the likelihood of successful prevention or resolution of 

conflicts or disputes. In managing lands and natural resources 

Introduction

Collaborative stakeholder engagement and ADR in the BLM

for multiple-use, the Bureau is charged with balancing the 

diverse needs of myriad stakeholders. Collaborative stakeholder 

engagement brings interested and affected parties inside the 

decision-making process, increasing cooperation, understanding, 

and buy-in, and creating more open and transparent government 

decision-making.

When does the BLM engage in these 

processes?

Bureau policy is to seek to use collaborative stakeholder 

engagement and ADR processes as standard operating practice 

for natural resources projects, plans, and decision-making except 

under unusual conditions such as when constrained by law, 

regulation, or other mandates or when conventional processes 

are important for establishing new, or reaffirming existing, 

precedent. All of these processes have increased success rates 

when initiated as early as possible (upstream). Thus, BLM policy 

encourages beginning with the least formal appropriate process 

at the lowest possible level of the organization, followed with 

a more downstream process if necessary. Any collaborative 

stakeholder engagement or ADR process should be adapted 

according to the particular circumstances of a situation, or, in 

some situations, these processes may not be appropriate at all.

Upstream and downstream processes and strategies are used 

across the Bureau throughout natural resources and land use 

planning programs and the National Landscape Conservation 

System (as well as in contracting and acquisition and internally in 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and employee relations). 

Involving and engaging the public in projects and plans across 

the range of BLM programs enhances Bureau effectiveness 

and improves the quality of decisions. Collaboration with other 

agencies, with Tribal, state, and local governments, and with the 

Resource Advisory Council

meeting in California.
4

communities the BLM serves allows for shared skills, resources, 

and information and increases government transparency. 

Providing analysis of conflict prevention and conflict resolution 

involving BLM (including litigation and other conventional dispute 

resolution processes), as well as overall coordination within the 

Bureau, allows the BLM to adapt to new information, conditions, 

and direction, and helps to prevent future disputes and reduce 

future litigation.

The Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement 

and ADR Program

The Bureau’s Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR 

Program (ADR Program) in the Washington Office provides 

policy development, oversight, and field support for conflict 

prevention and dispute resolution activities in the BLM, as well as 

trends analysis for protests, appeals, and litigation. In addition, 

the ADR Program provides the Bureau’s National Ombudsman, 

Mediation, Facilitation, and Conflict Coaching Services. 

The ADR Program serves the States and Centers through the 

Bureau ADR Advisory Council, which consists of ADR Advisors 

designated by the States, and includes: ADR Manager-Advisors 

(from State leadership and management teams), Natural 

Resources ADR Advisors (focusing on BLM’s mission programs), 

and CORE PLUS ADR Advisors (focusing on internal EEO and 

employee relations). The council members act as points of 

contact and resources for their State or Center, assist with and 

champion collaborative stakeholder engagement and ADR in 

their State or Center, and provide input on policy development for 

the national ADR Program.

For more information and advice on when and how to use these 

processes, for assistance in finding a third-party neutral, or 

for other questions and clarifications, please contact the ADR 

Program in the BLM’s Washington Office, Office of the Assistant 

Director, Renewable Resources and Planning (www.blm.gov/

adr) or contact the appropriate State’s or Center’s ADR Advisors.

Introduction ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR

Bristlecone Wilderness

Area in Nevada.
5

The following skills and strategies are commonly utilized 

in literature and training on downstream conflict resolution 

processes. While upstream processes ideally begin before a 

dispute arises, these “dispute resolution” skills can be used 

in any process to improve communication and strengthen 

relationships.

Understanding positions vs. interests

“Positions” are actions or solutions a party sets out as “what they 

have to get” from an agreement or from the process. Parties’ 

positions do not necessarily reflect what they need to get to 

make an agreement viable. “Interests” are the underlying values, 

needs, or minimum requirements. Interests may be common 

to all parties, but because positions are more readily proffered 

in a negotiation than interests, dialogue between parties often 

focuses on these preconceived proposals, thus making a 

successful agreement more elusive. Positional conversations 

will start with proposed solutions and often generate a win/

lose attitude. It is important to discover other parties’ interests 

by determining why they take the positions they adopt. In part, 

this is helpful because parties are more likely to share interests, 

and thus are more likely to be able to find common ground and 

a basis for agreement. However, parties themselves may not 

be consciously aware of their own interests. By focusing on 

uncovering underlying interests, the group will be collectively 

better equipped to find room for agreement.

Understanding BATNAs

It is important for participants in a conflict resolution process to 

know their goals and to be aware of their other options. The term 

“Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” (BATNA) refers to 

the basic standard that parties should consider in determining if 

Basic Conflict Management Skills

What you should know to help make a process work

Conflicting Positions, Shared Interests

The classic example for clarifying the difference between 

positions and interests is the story of two children fighting 

over an orange. Each child’s position is that he should have 

the orange, and a reasonable compromise imposed by their 

mother might be to give each half. However, to uncover 

the children’s interests by focusing on the “why,” the mother 

would learn that the children are making a Mother’s Day 

breakfast, and one child has an interest only in the rind for 

a zest while the other has an interest in the fruit to make 

juice. By splitting the orange a different way, each child can 

achieve his whole objective and satisfy their common goal.

Tips for considering BATNAs

Consider the actions you might take if no agreement is 

reached and determine which alternative is most likely to 

be implemented from your perspective. Also consider the 

alternatives open to other parties if no agreement is reached. 

Be sure to reality check, as it is common to be overly 

optimistic about one’s own BATNA. An accurate 

assessment of all parties’ BATNAs can give a better idea 

of the space for agreement.

an agreement is in their best interest. By comparing a proposal 

to their other options and to the most likely outcome of the 

actions they will take if no agreement is reached, participants 

can determine the value of an agreement. BATNA is also an 

important concept for determining the benefits of participating 

in a process, for forecasting other parties’ intentions, and for 

understanding one’s own negotiating power.

Understanding the effect of different 

sources of power

Both the BLM and stakeholder groups often deal with internal 

competing interests and pressure from different sources of 

Parashant National Monument in Arizona.
6

Basic Conflict Management Skills ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR

power in a conflict prevention or resolution process. It is 

important to keep in mind that parties may be affected by their 

constituencies’ power structures and that not all participants 

leverage equal levels of political power. Participants should be 

willing to learn about political and organizational power dynamics 

when beginning a process and should ask other parties about 

the level of authority they have as representatives of their 

agencies or constituencies. For example, will the parties be 

able to come to an agreement at the table without first going 

back to their constituencies or management for approval? If 

not, will they have the opportunity to champion their perspective 

as a participant? Depending on the power disparity among the 

parties, it may be worthwhile to address these imbalances openly 

in establishing ground rules and/or to design a process around 

such considerations. 

Understanding the effect of 

cultural differences

Different cultures are often represented when multiple 

stakeholders come to the table. Communication and

social interaction styles vary among cultures and differing

values of participants may stem from cultural differences. 

Cultural differences also relate to issues about identity – conflict 

often will be created rather than prevented if people feel that 

their identities are threatened. A communication style that 

is most comfortable for one cultural group may make others 

uncomfortable and thereby hinder participation in the conflict 

prevention or resolution process. Participants should be aware 

of cultural sensitivities in designing a process and should make 

an effort to ensure that all participants are comfortable with the 

style of the process selected. 

Practice active listening

Listening is as critical as speaking for effective 

communication. Active listening involves complete 

attention to the speaker, but it also involves occasional 

summaries of what was heard to ensure understanding. 

In any dialogue, it is common to focus on formulating a 

response while someone else is talking, but this tends 

to perpetuate adversarial communication. Through 

active listening, participants may benefit from hearing 

new things, and misunderstandings can be avoided.

Reframing

It can be helpful to reframe negative statements to make 

them more positive or neutral, providing validation to the 

speaker and clarification of the statement while reducing the 

level of defensiveness. Participants should seek to 

turn demands into interests and complaints into requests 

without changing the facts or minimizing the party’s concern. 

(“You will close the area to OHVs” might be reframed by 

responding, “I understand that you want to prevent damage 

to this habitat.” “Our input is ignored” might be reframed 

by asking, “How might we better include you in the 

decision-making process?”)

Understanding the effect of 

communication styles

How effectively participants communicate with each other from 

the beginning to the end of a conflict prevention or dispute 

resolution process will have a strong impact on whether or not 

agreement is reached. Being direct, honest, and open is the 

first step for effective communication. Participants should make 

their own reasoning clear and explicit, and elicit responses 

from others to proposed solutions. Questioning assumptions 

and acknowledging one’s own assumptions strengthens 

communication. All evidence or data grounding assumptions 

should be presented to the group to establish the importance of 

information sharing. 

Advisory Council meeting

in California.
7

The scale of the problem...

The appropriate focus of a natural resources dispute 

may depend on the scale of the conflict. For discussions 

focusing on larger areas or broader topics, the appropriate 

issues will be similarly broad-scale. Broad-scale issues 

might include conditions or effects (e.g., reduced riparian 

vegetation) rather than perceived causes (e.g., cattle 

grazing) which would require much finer-scale analysis 

for accurate determinations. Defining issues too finely 

can frustrate or derail a broad-scale process.

Strategies for Avoiding Confusion of Terms

• Jointly develop definitions that can apply

across projects

• Share copies of documents that define terms

• Hold joint education sessions conducted by 

specialists or policy makers

Preparing for a Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement or ADR Process

Assessing the Situation

The first step in any collaborative stakeholder engagement 

or ADR process entails an evaluation of the situation or a 

situation assessment. This should make evident whether these 

approaches are possible and desirable and, if so, which would be 

the most appropriate process. An evaluation should establish the 

issues or disagreements at stake, look at the potential for future 

conflict or the level of existing conflict, identify the stakeholders 

and their concerns and interests, and gauge the capacity of the 

parties to effectively engage in a conflict prevention or dispute 

resolution process.

The formality of the evaluation should be appropriate to the 

complexity of the situation or the potential for conflict. Early 

communication by telephone with a well-known stakeholder, 

for example, will not require a prior interview (although the 

considerations addressed here still should be internally 

evaluated). When bringing multiple disputing stakeholders into 

a workgroup, however, such interviews are not only necessary, 

but most likely should be completed as part of a formal situation 

assessment by a third-party neutral. For the steps involved in a 

formal situation assessment, please see Situation Assessments 

available online at www.blm.gov/adr.

It is important to keep in mind that in any process, the more 

time invested up front to understand the people, background, 

procedural constraints, and substance of the situation, the better 

the chances of moving forward and achieving a successful 

outcome.

Collaborative RMP Implementation 

meeting in Lakeview, Oregon.

Designing a Process

If the situation assessment suggests that a collaborative 

stakeholder engagement or ADR process is appropriate for 

addressing the issue(s) at hand, the next step is to prepare for 

the process. Carefully planning and structuring the process 

can help ensure more consistent deliberation, participation, and 

decision-making from all participants.

Developing a work plan 

Whatever process is chosen, it is more likely to be successful 

if a work plan is developed. The objectives, tasks, products, 

meeting structure, and participants’ roles should be clearly 

delineated, especially for a more complex or more downstream 

process. The work plan should include any significant deadlines 

and an understanding of any flexibility associated with those 

deadlines. Information needs and external constraints can also 

be established at this time.

Defining ground rules

Defining ground rules at the beginning of a conflict prevention 

or resolution process is critical for ensuring a respectful 

environment and a systematic process. It also creates a level 
8

Bringing People to the Table

As useful as collaborative stakeholder engagement

and ADR can be, these processes are necessarily 

voluntary. This means that stakeholders must choose to 

be involved in order for a process to go forward. Many 

different factors can make parties reluctant to come “to the 

table” of a conflict management process. Less powerful or 

often disenfranchised groups may feel unsafe. Some 

groups may feel that their BATNA is better than anything 

they could achieve by talking.

Along with designing a process to address power imbalance 

or cultural difference, it is also helpful to look for “common 

ground” among all participants. By seeking issues and 

interests in common, a starting point is established to begin 

a conversation. Focusing on mutual goals can create an 

atmosphere of joint problem solving and work to diminish 

feelings of distrust and adversarial thinking.

Preparing for a Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement or ADR Process ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR

Meeting at visitor center in California.

playing field for all participants and can serve to clarify the 

group’s purpose, meeting procedures, process coordination, and 

the roles and responsibilities of the participants. Depending on 

the process, confidentiality rules may be part of the ground rules. 

In some cases, ground rules may be as simple as disallowing 

interruptions or defining what will constitute agreement.

For upstream processes, generally it is best to have the 

participants convene and come up with ground rules together in 

order to achieve buy-in. For downstream processes, a third-party 

neutral will likely establish the ground rules or propose ground 

rules for the participants’ approval. Participants may want to 

start discussing the substantive issues right away, but regardless 

of the process chosen, it is important to take time up-front to 

establish the ground rules. Some guiding questions to use in 

developing these ground rules can be found online at www.blm.

gov/adr. 
Sunset at Mittry Lake in Arizona.

It is important for participants

in a conflict resolution process to know their goals

and to be aware of their other options. 
10

Implementing a Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement or ADR Process

The different processes discussed in this guide each may be 

appropriate in different situations depending on the nature of the 

issues, the number of parties involved, the relationships between 

the parties, and whether a conflict or dispute has progressed 

from the upstream to the downstream side of the continuum. The 

following table may be used in selecting which process may work 

best for a particular set of circumstances.

Upstream 

Processes

These processes 

work best before a 

conflict arises, or as 

early as possible in 

a dispute, in order 

to prevent further 

escalation. Aspects 

of these processes 

can be utilized later 

in a dispute, but may 

require time and effort 

to repair relationships 

before they can be 

most effective.

Process Description Parties Goals

Early Public Outreach 

Processes

A set of processes 

including many different 

options for communication 

with the public: meetings 

(one-on-one, groups/

stakeholders/ public 

(scoping, etc.), town halls, 

workshops) internet, print, 

telephone, email/mail, 

polling. Used to inform, 

consult or engage the 

public regarding a project, 

plan, or decision. 

Meaningful opportunities 

to be involved help create 

public ownership and 

support for government 

decisions and actions. 

Input helps decision 

makers to more clearly 

understand and better 

serve the array of often 

competing public interests.

In-person communication 

can range from one-onone up through large 

groups or public meetings. 

Different forms of media 

can potentially reach or 

engage even broader 

audiences.

• establish relationships

• build trust

• consult

• involve stakeholders

• increase buy-in

• prevent conflict or 

disputes

Stakeholder Working 

Groups Processes

Different stakeholders or 

interest groups from within 

a community, voluntarily 

brought together to 

provide individual input, 

group recommendations, 

decisions, or direct action. 

Can be convened by, and 

include representatives 

from, Federal, Tribal, state, 

and local government 

agencies, communities, 

interest groups, and 

private entities.

Can be small to large 

groups of stakeholders 

with common area of 

interest. (Size of group 

depends on the issues 

and on the number of 

interested or affected 

parties.) Can range from 

advisory committees to 

focus groups and have 

varying levels of decisionmaking authority.

• recommend actions or 

decisions

• establish relationships

• build consensus

• prevent conflict or 

disputes

• mitigate impacts of 

prior disputes
11

Downstream 

Processes

These processes 

can be used after a 

dispute arises, or with 

issues that have high 

potential for conflict, in 

which the assistance 

of a third-party neutral 

may be necessary 

to help find common 

ground, reframe 

iscommunications, 

and manage time and 

procedural elements.

Process Description Parties Goals

Negotiation The common process 

of two- (or more) party 

consensus building. May 

or may not be assisted by 

a third-party neutral. 

Refined process steps 

and strategies (such as 

interest-based negotiation) 

can make the process 

and the results more 

sustainable.

Usually two parties; can be 

more.

• reach compromise

• build consensus

• resolve disputes

• establish “win/win” 

solutions

Facilitation The use of a third-party 

neutral, selected by 

consent of the parties, to 

help increase a group’s 

effectiveness.

A group process, many 

factors may suggest the 

usefulness of a neutral 

facilitator, such as: group 

size, contentiousness 

of issues, and status of 

existing relationships.

• help group to establish 

goals, time frame, 

agenda

• help group to 

communicate effectively

• maintain neutral 

atmosphere

Joint Fact-Finding Scientists and the Bureau 

working together with 

stakeholders to discuss, 

collect, review and/

or incorporate scientific 

information into Bureau 

decisions.

As with stakeholder 

working groups, the size of 

the group depends upon 

the number of affected or 

interested parties.

• fill in data gaps

• create common base of 

scientific information

• identify best science 

and resolve conflicting 

facts or approaches

• decrease feelings 

or allegations of 

inaccuracy

• increase buy-in

Mediation The assistance of a thirdparty neutral, selected by 

consent of the parties, 

to help find mutually 

acceptable solutions. 

Parties retain control 

over outcome; mediator 

provides control over the 

process and assists with 

communication.

Usually two parties 

(and possibly their 

representatives); an 

intensive process so 

becomes difficult with 

larger groups.

• build creative solutions

• facilitate effective 

communication

• help to find common 

ground

• focus disputants on 

interests and common 

goals

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR ❚ Implementing a Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement or ADR Process

Typical implementation steps

After progressing through the situation analysis and process 

design stages, the following implementation steps generally will 

be applicable to whichever process is chosen as appropriate to a 

situation. Whether upstream or downstream, a process will begin 

by convening the participants, refining the issues, uncovering 

interests, and identifying common ground (goals, objectives, and 

values). After building a common understanding of the situation, 

the participants then will brainstorm options and proposals. In 

most processes, the participants develop a set of objective 

criteria to evaluate the options. The final step involves reaching 

an agreement. While these stages will be more formally laid out 

and specifically adhered to in the further downstream processes, 

any process is more likely to succeed when participants are 

mindful of this sequence of steps.
The overarching goal of early public outreach

is to add the values, experiences, and

perspectives of the public to BLM decision-making,

thereby creating good public policy. 

Lower Snake River District in Idaho.
13

Upstream Processes

The following categories of upstream collaborative stakeholder 

engagement work best before a conflict arises or when utilized 

as early as possible in a dispute. Aspects of these processes 

can be helpful later in a dispute but may require time and effort to 

repair relationships before they can be most effective.

Early Public Outreach Processes

Public input helps

the BLM be

responsive to

those it serves. 

Meaningful

opportunities to be

involved help create

public ownership

and support for

projects and plans

and help decision-makers to more clearly understand, and 

better serve, the array of often competing public interests 

they must weigh and balance. Increasing public input builds 

better supported decisions and actions, thereby decreasing the 

perceived need for protests, appeals, and litigation. This results 

in more effective and durable public policies and decisions.

Early public outreach ensures an improved information flow 

from the BLM to the public or from the public to the BLM. 

This process can extend from one-on-one conversations with 

individual stakeholders to town hall meetings and workshops. 

Early communication with interested and affected parties is 

always encouraged for any project, plan, or decision through 

in-person meetings, phone or email communications, or media 

publication such as print or internet. 

The overarching goal of early public outreach is to add the 

values, experiences, and perspectives of the public to BLM 

decision-making, thereby creating good public policy. At the 

core of early public outreach is engaging key participants. The 

process should be expanded to consider including anyone 

interested in or affected by an issue, decision, or action and 

anyone needed to implement that decision or action. It is 

important to engage as many of these interests as possible as 

early in the process as possible. Even in a good faith effort, it 

may be harder to win trust and buy-in from interested parties 

who did not have the opportunity of early participation. Broad 

inclusiveness from the outset can ensure that the process is 

designed and works in a way that all can accept.

Use of technology has the potential to inform and engage a 

broader reach of stakeholders. Internet-based communication 

tools can allow the Bureau to provide more information to more 

people and enable more timely discussions while visualization 

tools can aid in the understanding of natural resource and land 

use issues. The BLM’s ePlanning application is an example of 

both of these kinds of tools and allows interested and affected 

parties to more readily access information such as planning 

documents and mapping, as well as more easily submit feedback 

to the Bureau, including tying comments to specific text in the 

planning documents.

Town meeting to discuss Steens

designation in Burns, Oregon.

Planning

Public input is already an integral part of the planning 

process, but employing public outreach as early as possible 

can strengthen a plan and achieve broader and earlier buy-in 

from stakeholders. Involving as many interested and affected 

parties as possible early (e.g., in scoping and development of 

alternatives) can ensure that alternatives and drafts already 

reflect stakeholder input, thus reducing unnecessary conflict 

later in the process. 

Early engagement yields informed and engaged comments, 

and increased stakeholder input leads to fewer protests and 

reduced number of appeals. Greater public ownership of a 

plan also ensures more consistent support for implementation 

on the ground.

For further information on incorporating public outreach 

and stakeholder working groups into planning and NEPA 

processes, see the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

“Collaboration in NEPA; A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners” 

available at: http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/Collaboration_in_

NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf.

Grazing

Opportunities for conflict prevention and conflict management 

addressing grazing issues can run the spectrum from 

upstream to downstream, and include conflict prevention 

processes like early public outreach through conflict 

management and resolution processes like joint fact-finding 

and mediation. 

The BLM grazing regulations state that consultation, 

cooperation, and coordination shall be conducted at a 

number of stages involving grazing permits, changes 

associated with allotments and allotment management plans, 

range improvements, and evaluation of monitoring and other 

data. Employing these processes has ensured opportunity 

for collaboration with, and inclusiveness of, affected 

communities and affected stakeholders and has led to more 

consistent on-the-ground implementation of decisions.
14

As highly useful as technology can be, it is also important to be 

mindful that groups with limited access, education, or resources 

can be excluded by technology-based processes which rely on 

these advantages. Generational and cultural differences also 

may affect how a technology-based process is perceived. 

Stakeholder Working Group Processes

A stakeholder working group or community-based collaborative 

is typically comprised of individuals who voluntarily come 

together in a local community. The participants in the group often 

have opposing interests and objectives. Some examples are: 

maximizing fishing opportunities versus preserving the pristine 

nature of a wilderness study area; protecting water and air quality 

and rangeland improvements versus ensuring that a maximum 

number of grazing permits or oil and gas applications for permit 

to drill are approved; or ensuring protection for subsistence 

hunting versus protection of rare or endangered species. 

Upstream Processes ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR

Case study: Public Outreach

A BLM area in California became an international tourist attraction 

for the sport of “bouldering,” featuring world class climbing potential 

with its hundreds of house-sized boulders. The recreationists 

had little knowledge of low-impact recreation, sanitation, and 

camping. As a result, many wide-ranging impacts on physical, 

wildlife, and cultural resources were occurring. To address this 

use, the BLM decided to develop a strategy to manage the area’s 

climbing activities that complied with its Resource Management 

Plan (RMP). 

With no organized bouldering group to provide assistance, the 

BLM initiated a collaborative dialogue with a national access 

organization. The agency also solicited local climbers to act 

as BLM liaisons with the boulderers and immersed itself in 

learning the culture’s needs, values, and language. The BLM, 

the access organization, and the bouldering liaisons engaged 

in a collaborative process to identify the recreationists’ needs 

and the measures for RMP conformance and to then design an 

infrastructure to address the groups’ interests and protect the 

area’s resource values. 

The effort resulted in the formation of a local organization to 

participate in regional climbing issues, the generation of outside 

funding to support BLM, and the creation of a user guide to 

“boulderer” ethics for the protection of natural resources during 

climbing. Additionally, a regional interagency coalition formed to 

advance broader climbing management issues using the BLM’s 

model of communication and collaboration.

Stakeholder working groups often include BLM staff and may 

focus both on preventing future conflict (and future protests, 

appeals, and litigation) as well as on resolving existing disputes. 

Additionally, a stakeholder working group may seek to develop 

an alternative in the planning process that reflects a consensus 

of stakeholders in the local community. 

A collaborative may be convened for purposes of providing an 

opportunity for residents of a local community to provide input for 

a proposed Bureau project, plan, or decision. By involving the 

public in decision-making through stakeholder working groups, 

Consensus Decision-Making

With many of the processes discussed in this guide, 

the participants can define what constitutes an 

agreement. Participants may choose, for example, to make 

decisions by majority vote. In order to achieve maximum 

buy-in, many groups choose a consensus-based approach. 

Participants may further choose how they define “consensus,” but generally, this approach means that in order to 

reach an agreement, make a decision, or take an action, 

every member of the group must accept (or not object to) 

that course. This ensures that all issues and concerns are 

addressed and that a final agreement is something that 

everyone involved can “live with.”

It is important to note that a consensus decision-making 

approach does not take decision-making power away from 

the Bureau. This approach expands buy-in to include all 

participants.

A group choosing to implement a consensus-based approach should discuss the possibility of impasse and either 

create a fall-back option or ensure participants understand 

what will happen if consensus cannot be reached.
15

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR ❚ Upstream Processes

public values and experiences can be integrated with scientific, 

legal, and other data. This in turn helps agencies to develop 

well-rounded, informed, and broadly supported proposals and 

decisions. Involving the public also creates greater levels of trust 

among the various stakeholders and between the public and the 

BLM and can be an effective strategy for preventing conflict by 

increasing understanding of issues early on in a process. 

These multiparty and place-based groups utilize approaches 

such as consensus-building and collaborative problem-solving 

to seek common ground and to identify or elicit shared goals. 

A stakeholder working group process may include other 

collaborative stakeholder engagement or ADR processes, such 

as Public Outreach, Negotiation, Facilitation, Group Intervention, 

and/or Joint Fact-Finding, as well as techniques such as teambuilding. 

In general, a collaborative process will move through the same 

sequence of steps enumerated for the other processes. A 

“sponsor” or designated third-party will conduct the situation 

assessment or evaluation to determine if a stakeholder 

working group is appropriate and work with a “convener” to 

bring the diverse interests to the table. Attention should be 

given to ensuring a neutral forum and, if appropriate, a neutral 

facilitator. Participants will jointly agree to ground rules and 

other procedural elements, and meet to exchange information, 

frame the issues, engage in joint problem-solving, generate and 

evaluate options, and develop acceptable solutions. 

Stakeholder working groups can be sponsored or convened 

by Federal, Tribal, state, or local government agencies as well 

as by communities or private entities. If the BLM assumes 

any authority or control over a group that includes nongovernment representatives, and if the group offers advice 

or recommendations to the Bureau, then special attention 

should be paid to ensure the group complies with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.) and the related 

administrative guidelines developed by the General Services 

Administration (41 CFR Part 102-3). For the BLM, additional 

requirements for administering advisory committees are found at 

43 CFR § 1784. In depth information can be found in the BLM 

National Policy for FACA Guidebook, available at www.blm.gov/

adr.

A common example of stakeholder working groups in the BLM 

are the Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) which provide 

advice and recommendations on the management of public lands 

Kiger Mustangs, Steens Mountain CMPA in Oregon.

Photo by Jerry Magee.

Wild Horses and Burros

The Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board is a stakeholder 

working group chartered under FACA. The board assists 

and advises the BLM and the Forest Service on wild horse 

and burro policy formulation and on oversight of the Wild 

Horse and Burro Program (administered under the provisions 

of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1331-1340).

Members are drawn from representatives of advocacy 

groups, research institutions, natural resource management 

organizations, and other specialized groups, as well as 

members of the general public with special knowledge on the 

issues. The Advisory Board reviews and recommends 

procedures, conducts public meetings, and advises the 

Secretary of the Interior (through the Director of the BLM) and 

the Secretary of Agriculture (through the Chief of the Forest 

Service) on ways to foster cooperation and stimulate public 

participation in management and adoption issues.

Recreation

In managing public lands for multiple-use, recreation issues 

often involve multiple stakeholders with different interests or 

objectives. Even stakeholders who participate in different 

forms of recreation may have competing interests, as some 

forms of recreation may exclude or reduce the viability of 

others. Engaging with stakeholder working groups can allow 

representatives of different groups to prevent or resolve 

disputes by working together toward mutually agreeable 

plans. 

Existing Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) or targeted 

sub-committees can tackle these issues, or new groups 

may be formed. “Recreation RACs” are part of an existing 

public advisory committee structure which provides 

recommendations concerning recreation fee proposals on 

BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands.
16

and resources within their geographic areas in most BLM States. 

The RACs consist of representative members from diverse 

interests in local communities, including ranchers, environmental 

groups, Tribal, state, and local governments, academics, and 

other public lands users. Each RAC has a charter under FACA, 

and can create issue-specific sub-committees. A sub-committee 

shares the charter of the RAC and can be created quickly without 

involving further FACA implications. 

Case study: Stakeholder Working Groups

In Arizona, shooting on public lands was causing both resource 

management problems and threats to public safety. The basin 

affected was managed by the BLM, the Arizona Fish & Game 

Department, and the USDA National Forest Service. It became 

evident that if one agency eliminated shooting on land under its 

jurisdiction, it would become another agency’s problem. Thus, 

there was a need to bring the different agencies together with 

the recreationists to develop a common vision and appropriate 

guidelines for the area. 

A situation assessment was conducted entailing interviews 

of affected parties to determine the key issues and identify 

recommendations for future action. A neutrals assessment team 

then brought together representatives from all affected stakeholder 

working groups for a larger dialogue. A series of workshops 

involving stakeholder working groups led to progress on the issues 

identified by the interviewees, including locations for recreational 

shooting, safety and enforcement issues, resource impacts, and 

firearm and public lands education. 

In addition, the participating agencies felt that several other 

benefits resulted from the process. The agencies agreed that 

simply holding a dialogue on such a highly charged issue was 

an important accomplishment. Improved relations between the 

different groups were also identified. Lastly, the process resulted in 

a broader understanding of each agency’s mandates.

Upstream Processes ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR

Renewable Energy Resources

The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) 

provides a neutral forum for a wide range of stakeholders to 

pursue the shared objective of developing environmentally, 

economically, and politically sustainable commercial markets 

for wind power in the United States. Formed in 1994, this 

partnership of experts and interested parties, including 

Bureau participation, identifies issues that affect the use of 

wind power. By establishing dialogue on key and current 

topics and catalyzing activities that build consensus among 

stakeholders, the NWCC has successfully addressed critical 

challenges in the areas of transmission, wildlife and habitat 

impacts, siting, power markets, and other aspects of wind 

development.

Wind turbine in California.

Resource Advisory 

Council meeting in 

California.
17

In addition to the RACs, many other stakeholder working groups 

include Bureau participation and/or provide recommendations 

to the BLM. These include groups such as the National Wind 

Coordinating Collaborative, the Upper Klamath Basin Working 

Group, the Powder River Regional Coal Team, the Western Arctic 

Caribou Herd Working Group, the West Eugene Collaborative, 

the Modoc-Washoe Experimental Stewardship Group, the Steens 

Mountain Advisory Council, the Pinedale Anticline Working 

Group, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Subsistence 

Advisory Panel, and hundreds of other collaboratives and 

cooperatives of varying scope and size. 

Ombudsman Services

The Bureau’s National Ombudsman service, as part of the 

Washington Office’s ADR Program, provides assistance and 

support to the public (including communities, stakeholders, 

appellants, protesters, and interest groups, as well as American 

Indians and Alaskan Natives). The Ombudsman function assists 

these parties to prevent, manage, mitigate, or resolve conflicts in 

coordination with appropriate officials. Responsibility for ultimate 

resolution of disputes typically remains with the Field manager or 

appropriate official. Ombudsman services also include conflict 

coaching, facilitation, and group intervention. These services 

also are available internally for employees.

Other Upstream Processes

There are many other processes and variations of processes 

for upstream conflict prevention and management. Other such 

processes in the Bureau involve Group Intervention, Cooperating 

Agency Agreements, and Early Involvement and Early 

Communication with Tribal Communities. 

Group Intervention typically involves a neutral’s intercession 

in an established group’s proceedings in order to provide 

unbiased coaching, counsel, and support to the participants. 

This involvement assists in formulating and addressing otherwise 

elusive solutions within the group.

The BLM’s Cooperating Agency Initiative provides a framework 

for intergovernmental partnerships in planning and environmental 

document processes. The cooperating agency relationship 

Strategies for Collaborating with Other Agencies

• Conduct orientation sessions to build mutual 

understanding of each agency’s mission, mandates, 

and procedures

• Consider and seek to accommodate each 

participating agency’s procedural requirements

• Create opportunities for management-level 

discussions or reviews to distinguish between 

personal interpretations and agency policies

• Respect each agency’s unique mission and 

mandate for collectively serving the public interest and, 

as appropriate, accept shared responsibility to help 

other agencies fulfill their mandates

derives from the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

allowing a Federal “lead” agency to invite “cooperating” agencies 

to collaborate in the preparation of environmental impact 

statements. This relationship fosters increased engagement with 

Tribal, state, and local governments, along with other Federal 

agencies. The BLM may engage these partners when land use 

plans are prepared or revised, allowing the agencies to share 

skills, resources, and information, and to help shape plans 

that better reflect the policies, needs, and conditions of their 

jurisdictions. For further information, see the BLM Desk Guide to 

Cooperating Agency Relationships, available at www.blm.gov/

publish/wo/en/info/nepa/cooperating_agencies.html.

The processes and strategies for Early Involvement and 

Early Communication with Tribal Communities are based 

on the government-to-government trust responsibility. Early 

involvement is intended to develop working relationships with 

Tribal representatives in order to better understand Tribal 

interests and to prevent potential future conflict between the BLM 

and Tribes. These processes precede and may set the stage for 

the formal consultation process. For further information, please 

see the ADR Program website at www.blm.gov/adr.

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR ❚ Upstream Processes
Bianca Wetlands near 

Alamosa, Colorado.

If parties uncover the underlying interests

of all participants at the table,

they are better able to generate

mutually acceptable options. 
19

Strategies for Addressing Personality and 

Communication Differences

• Build relationships through opportunities for

informal conversation and interaction

• Avoid making assumptions about the motives of

others. Examine assumptions before reacting

• Learn – through training and conversation – 

about different communication styles, informationprocessing approaches, and motivational factors. 

Apply this understanding by becoming more

tolerant of differences

Downstream Processes

Downstream ADR processes are generally utilized after a conflict 

or dispute arises or when an issue has high potential for conflict. 

The assistance of a third-party neutral may be necessary to 

help draw interests out of existing positions, discover common 

ground, reframe miscommunications, repair relationships, and/

or manage time and procedural elements. Third-party neutrals 

may be Federal employees as long as all parties agree to their 

neutrality.

Negotiation

In a negotiation, two or more parties meet to resolve a dispute. 

They often have little or no assistance from a third-party neutral 

(unassisted negotiation). Negotiating is a practice that people 

engage in routinely by taking a position, presenting an argument 

for the position, and then making a concession and/or trying to 

convince the other party to make a concession. Moving beyond 

positions in order to understand the underlying interests can 

make negotiation far more effective in any context. 

While the “positions vs. interests” concept is discussed in the 

Basic Conflict Management Skills section of this guide, it is worth 

returning to the point as the absence of a third-party neutral in 

most negotiations means that participants often must manage 

this process for themselves. If parties uncover the underlying 

interests of all participants at the table, they are better able to 

generate mutually acceptable options. 

As discussed above, interests motivate people to take a 

certain position on an issue, but it is possible that the same 

underlying interest can motivate individuals to take opposing 

positions. Simple compromise is generally understood if not 

always possible to achieve. However, if a common interest 

is discovered, there is much greater potential for reaching 

Case study: Negotiation

In Oregon, following a BLM timber sale for density management 

thinning, a high bidder was selected. The BLM’s decision to offer 

the timber sale was then protested, and the protesting organization 

subsequently appealed BLM’s protest denial to the Interior Board 

of Land Appeals (IBLA). The protest was based on concerns 

about impacts from the road building and logging systems, as well 

as the types of trees included in the sale. 

The BLM invited the protester and the purchaser to participate 

in informal negotiations. The goal was to come up with an 

interest-based agreement that alleviated some of the protesting 

organization’s concerns while allowing for an economically viable 

timber sale that the purchaser could accept. Direct negotiations 

resulted in a formal agreement between the BLM, the protesting 

organization, and the purchaser, to modify the timber sale contract 

in a manner that was acceptable to all parties. Examples of 

modifications made included the use of existing spur roads to 

eliminate the need for new roads and the use of helicopter logging 

instead of cable yarding. 

Based on this agreement, the protesting organization withdrew 

their appeal to IBLA. The BLM followed up with a letter to the 

protesting organization confirming that the sale modifications were 

completed as agreed.

Steens Mountain CMPA in

Oregon. Photo by Jerry Magee.
20

agreement. Interests may be substantive, procedural, or 

emotional needs. Negotiating with these concepts in mind is 

known as “interest-based negotiation,” and generates an overall 

“win/win” objective among the participants. 

Successfully resolving a conflict through interest-based 

negotiation can improve trust and strengthen relationships, 

leading to higher levels of satisfaction with the process and more 

consistent on-the-ground implementation. Additionally, a history 

of successful negotiations improves the likelihood for successful 

conflict management between the parties in the future.

The sequence of 

steps involved in 

the negotiation 

process is 

generally the same 

as in the other 

conflict resolution 

processes. As 

with the other 

processes, 

negotiation should 

begin with interest 

identification and move through generation of different options 

and approaches, development of standards or a set of objective 

criteria, and evaluation of options and approaches against the 

set of criteria. For more in-depth information on negotiation 

process and strategy, see the BLM Natural Resources Guide for 

Negotiation Strategies (available at www.blm.gov/adr).

Facilitation

Facilitation is the process in which a third-party neutral assists 

a group in decision-making or problem-solving by helping to 

increase the group’s effectiveness. The goal of facilitation is not 

necessarily to resolve conflict, but rather to guide a group in its 

thinking process, keep the group focused, and help participants 

communicate effectively with one another and as a group. A 

facilitator should support all participants, be acceptable to all 

participants, not be vested in an outcome, and remain neutral 

throughout the process.

In the facilitation process, the facilitator will manage the process 

and keep participants on track. The role of the facilitator is to:

• Assist the parties to develop meeting agendas;

• Keep track of the time, keep participants focused on the topic 

and task at hand, and otherwise assist the group with keeping 

to the group’s ground rules;

• Keep a written record of the discussion to help participants 

capture what has been said about key concerns, agreements 

and disagreements, and various approaches and the tradeoffs 

among them

• For multiple sessions, summarize prior sessions and prior 

agreements when beginning new sessions; and

• Assist the group in developing solutions.

The Bureau’s National Facilitation Service, as part of the 

Washington Office’s ADR Program, is available for assistance 

in finding and selecting a third-party neutral for facilitation, or 

for more information or advice on participating in a facilitated 

process. To obtain these services, please contact the 

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR Program 

(www.blm.gov/adr).

Joint fact-finding 

Joint fact-finding is a collaborative process where members 

of the public may work with the BLM and scientists to identify, 

Interior Board of Land Appeals

The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA or the Board) is 

an appellate review body which decides appeals relating to 

a host of public lands issues. Under the IBLA ADR Case 

Referral Program, when an appeal meets certain criteria 

for resolution through ADR, the Board will issue an ADR 

Case Referral Order. The parties are ordered to attempt 

direct, unassisted negotiations, and encouraged to use 

other processes if negotiations cannot resolve the issues on 

appeal. An appellant may also request ADR by contacting 

the BLM directly.

Bureau policy, beyond requiring response to both IBLA orders 

and appellant requests for ADR, encourages proactively 

seeking the use of negotiation or other processes at any time 

during an appeal. Seeking to resolve the issues through 

these processes allows for more creative and enduring 

solutions, repairs and strengthens relationships, and results 

in cost and time savings. For more information on the details 

and requirements of the IBLA ADR Case Referral Program 

and Bureau policy, see Managing ADR in the BLM: Cases 

before the Interior Board of Land Appeals, available online at 

www.blm.gov/adr.

Facilitated public

meeting in

Briceburge, 

California.

Downstream Processes ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR
21

review, evaluate, and/or recommend scientific information for 

inclusion in resource management decisions. Joint fact-finding 

recognizes that both experts in the sciences and “non-experts” 

have important roles to play in resource management decisions. 

Diverse groups can bring other valid information to the issue at 

hand, such as experiential and traditional knowledge.

In a typical joint fact-finding process, the group will address the 

scientific questions at issue and often decide on appropriate 

methods of inquiry. Participants may interpret findings together 

and decide on assumptions and uncertainties inherent in 

the findings. In this way, joint fact-finding offers a way to 

acknowledge the limits of scientific certainty on an issue while 

providing a forum for reaching consensus on the best scientific 

data. Joint fact-finding also increases the span of involvement of 

parties in the identification and use of the best available scientific 

and technical information for BLM decision-making processes. 

It is critical that all participants in a joint fact-finding process 

understand their roles:

1) Resource managers are responsible for implementing 

the regulations “on the ground” from the BLM field offices. 

Managers can inform other participants about the feasibility 

of proposed actions. For many issues, a range of Federal, 

Tribal, state, and local agencies have jurisdiction. Resource 

managers should be clear about goals, timelines, resources, 

and constraints of the policy process, and inform the group of 

limitations on the decision-space.

2) Stakeholders, who potentially will be affected by a new plan 

or policy, often include environmental or recreation advocates 

Creeks and Communities Strategy

Implemented by the National Riparian Service Team, state 

riparian teams, and agency coordinators, the Creeks and 

Communities Strategy aims to build the capacity of land 

managers and stakeholders to address issues in managing 

riparian-wetland resources. This effort was initiated by a 

partnership between the BLM, the Forest Service, and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

The Creeks and Communities strategy assists communities 

by fostering outreach and collaborative stakeholder 

engagement while integrating science and technical 

information into the collaborative decision-making process. 

This is achieved primarily through a combination of 

training and place-based problem solving usually involving 

several interactions with a group of interested or affected 

stakeholders, interest groups, or the public to collectively set 

objectives, implement a course of action, monitor results, and 

make adaptations over time to improve the health of riparian 

systems in a community. 

Using the joint fact-finding process to gather, analyze, and 

interpret information helps to develop a credible and common 

base of expert, local, and traditional knowledge from which all 

interested parties can draw. More information on the National 

Riparian Service Team and the Creeks and Communities 

Strategy can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/

nrst/index.php.

Fish crew in Idaho.

Strategies for Working with 

Limited Agency Resources

• Work to solve problems jointly to make the 

review process easier and more efficient

• Prioritize projects so agencies can focus 

attention where needed

• Adjust meeting times and venues to accommodate limited staff resources. Use 

teleconferencing when travel funds are not 

available

• Determine resources needed (staffing, 

GIS mapping) to streamline projects

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR ❚ Downstream Processes
22

4) A convener brings these key parties to the table and provides 

neutral ground, funding, and logistical support. The convener 

also may serve as the group’s facilitator.

5) A neutral facilitator creates a climate conducive to 

joint investigation of issues, productive dialogue, and 

relationship-building among participants. Facilitators 

should be experienced in consensus-building principles and 

techniques, have a basic understanding of the mechanics of 

the disagreement being negotiated, and maintain neutrality 

throughout the process.

For the key steps in a joint fact-finding process, and for some 

responses to common concerns, see Joint Fact-Finding Steps, 

and Joint Fact-Finding FAQs, both available at www.blm.gov/adr.

Mediation 

Mediation is the most formal downstream process, providing 

parties with an option for seeking a mutually acceptable 

resolution of their disputes through the aid of a third-party neutral 

(the mediator). In this confidential process, the mediator will 

attempt to uncover interests, find common ground, and indentify 

shared goals so that an agreement can be crafted that satisfies 

all parties. The mediator guides the process (such as finding 

agreement on ground rules and helping to establish the order 

and dynamic of the proceeding), but does not impose a solution 

or decision. The terms of the agreement are limited only by the 

interests and creativity of the parties.

Typically, the mediator will start by providing an introduction and 

explaining the mediation process to all parties. This will include 

information about the mediator’s role, individual mediation style, 

and confidentiality rules. All participants must sign a mediation 

consent form, and they may choose to solicit advice from an 

attorney.

Case study: Joint Fact-finding

The creation of one of the national monuments in 2000 mandated 

that the BLM undertake a study of the impacts of livestock 

grazing in the monument. The study was a conglomerate of 

monitoring projects designed to establish a baseline of site-specific 

information on objects of biological interest within the monument. 

However, the local publics and many of the stakeholders had 

concerns about the grazing study. Ranchers with grazing leases 

in the monument raised certain issues. Some stakeholders 

preferred that grazing in the monument be eliminated altogether. 

The opinions of the adjacent communities varied greatly, and 

congressional offices also were very interested in the outcome of 

the dispute. Alternative studies were proposed by some of the 

stakeholders.

In 2004, the BLM convened a panel of scientists from a state 

university to review and comment on the series of studies. In 

addition, the BLM received resources to design and implement 

an ADR process. The BLM asked an advisory committee to 

establish a working group to review the current livestock grazing 

study, review and consider the university scientific peer review, 

and engage in a joint fact-finding process to acquire input from 

the public, interest groups, and elected officials. After deliberation 

over a six-month period, the working group affirmed the scientific 

integrity of the original BLM livestock study and also made 

some recommendations that were approved by the advisory 

committee. The BLM revised the study plan to incorporate these 

recommendations and published an updated version in November 

2005. 

The joint fact-finding process helped to educate all stakeholders in 

the outcome of, and reasons for, conducting the livestock grazing 

study. Through the process, the key stakeholders also recognized 

that their interests would be advanced by coming to an agreement 

instead of accepting an outcome that did not include their interests.

and business/industry representatives. Local community 

members may additionally have social or economic concerns 

such as the effect of a decision on area growth or the job 

market.

3) Scientific and technical experts will work with other 

participants throughout the joint fact-finding process. They 

must be willing to work collaboratively with all parties, conduct 

their work in a transparent fashion, address stakeholders’ 

questions, and help the group consider how scientific and 

technical information relates to a policy decision. Warner Wetlands in Klamath Basin, Oregon.

Downstream Processes ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR
23

Case study: Mediation

After a BLM watershed-scale assessment found that upland and 

riparian standards for rangeland health were not met on a grazing 

allotment, partially due to livestock grazing, the BLM worked with 

the permittees – members of a grazing association – for nearly a 

year to identify alternative management strategies that would meet 

their needs and address the concerns identified by BLM. The 

Bureau completed an environmental assessment in which several 

alternatives were analyzed, including one alternative provided by 

the permittees. When the proposed decision to reduce permitted 

levels of livestock grazing was issued, the permittees protested 

but offered no viable alternatives. The BLM responded to their 

protest and issued a final decision. The grazing permittees initially 

threatened to appeal the final decision. However, the BLM and 

the permittees agreed instead to enter into mediation if the BLM 

would rescind its final decision. Both parties subsequently agreed 

on a professional mediator to assist in reaching consensus on a 

resolution.

The parties continued to meet with the assistance of the mediator 

over the course of six months. They first established procedural 

guidelines and a planning process, and then conducted site visits 

and discussed concerns and alternatives. The BLM was able 

to formulate a more complex grazing plan that would mitigate 

watershed impacts while also taking into account the needs of 

the grazing permittees. The BLM subsequently issued a final 

decision, combining several alternatives that had been included in 

the original environmental assessment. In addition to preventing 

further appeals and potential litigation and initiating progress 

toward meeting rangeland health standards, the BLM improved its 

working relationship with the permittees and increased trust in the 

BLM.

The mediator then will allow each party to present their version of 

the dispute. It is important that each party be allowed to describe 

the facts from their perspective uninterrupted by the other 

participants, but the mediator may ask questions to clarify the 

parties’ interests or to move the process forward. The mediator 

also is likely to paraphrase what is said during the session, often 

“reframing” a statement to emphasize interests and aide effective 

communication.

The mediator may choose to hold caucuses, which are separate 

meetings between each party and the mediator. A caucus is 

a tool often employed if the parties are at an impasse, there is 

reason to believe parties are withholding important information, 

or the mediation process is diverging from productive 

conversation. The parties themselves choose whether 

information shared in a caucus is kept confidential. 

As with the other ADR processes, the parties may generate 

different approaches or settlement options for resolving the 

conflict. A mediator may encourage the parties to brainstorm 

options and may use different techniques to help the parties 

to explore their interests and “reality check” their assumptions. 

However, the parties rather than the mediator must ultimately 

decide on a settlement.

As in the case of needed facilitation services, the Bureau’s 

National Mediation Service, as part of the Washington Office’s 

ADR Program, is available for assistance in finding and selecting 

a mediator, or for more information or advice on participating in 

a mediation process. To obtain these services, please contact 

the Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR Program 

(www.blm.gov/adr).

Other Downstream Processes

There are many other processes and variations of processes 

for downstream conflict management and resolution. Other 

processes include Conciliation (the use of a third-party 

“conciliator” to meet with disputing parties separately in an 

attempt to resolve differences by seeking concessions) and 

Negotiated Rulemaking. 

Negotiated Rulemaking (“Reg-Neg”) brings together the BLM 

and various stakeholders with the goal of reaching consensus on 

the text of a draft or proposed rule or regulation. This process 

allows interested and affected parties to have direct input into 

the drafting process, which assists in addressing the needs and 

limitations of both the stakeholders and the Bureau. The group 

can draw on the diverse experience and creative skills of the 

members to address problems encountered in writing a rule or 

regulation and, as a group, may find solutions to contentious 

issues that have eluded individual members. Negotiated 

rulemaking can increase the perceived legitimacy of the 

rulemaking process and result in reduced litigation.

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR ❚ Downstream Processes
Commitment to an agreement can be further strengthened

by formalizing it in writing. This ensures that the parties

have heard and understood each other clearly,

gives the participants a concrete product to take back

to their constituents for review and ratification where applicable, 

and provides a vehicle for carrying the agreement through

established decision-making channels where necessary

Yaquina Head Lighthouse in Oregon.
25

Following up with formal agreement(s)

Commitment to an agreement

Since the parties in a collaborative stakeholder engagement 

or ADR process retain control over the final outcome, they 

typically develop a sense of ownership of, and investment in, the 

ideas, options, and agreements generated in the process. This 

generally translates into heightened commitment to carry an 

agreement forward and support its implementation. Commitment 

to an agreement can be further strengthened by formalizing it in 

writing. This ensures that the parties have heard and understood 

each other clearly, gives the participants a concrete product to 

take back to their constituents for review and ratification where 

applicable, and provides a vehicle for carrying the agreement 

through established decision-making channels where necessary.

In some mediation cases, a memorandum of understanding or 

other official document may replace an agreement, particularly 

if legal counsel is involved or will be consulted in the agreement 

process. In most other processes, the best way to produce a 

written agreement is through the single text negotiating process. 

Producing a single text negotiation document allows for input 

from all parties, codifies the agreement, and can serve to 

maintain the momentum of the process.

In the single text negotiating process, a facilitator, mediator, 

principal drafter, or a few designated participants will record any 

agreement(s) produced. This draft is circulated to all participants 

for review so that revisions or additions can be incorporated. 

This step may repeat itself as many times as necessary until all 

participants approve the language and substance of the single 

negotiating text. The text should contain clear statements of 

agreement, areas of disagreement, and the proposed course of 

action, as applicable.

Wrapping Up a Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement or ADR Process

Ratifying the agreement

In the larger, multi-party processes, the participants at the table 

often represent the interests of larger agencies or constituencies. 

Unless empowered to make commitments, these representatives 

may need to take the drafted agreement back to constituents 

(or management) in order to bind that party to the agreement. 

This is a critical juncture, and the outcome is a function of the 

extent to which their constituents agreed to vest authority in their 

representative or the extent to which the representative kept 

their constituents informed during deliberations. Constituent 

representatives may also have to explain how the agreement 

meets the constituents’ interests even if it does not satisfy all 

of their expectations or desires. The participants who write 

the agreement may need to meet again to discuss requested 

revisions. When each party supports the agreement, they or 

the final decision-makers in their constituencies ratify it with their 

signatures.

Ratifying an agreement helps to reinforce accountability and 

legitimacy. This also serves to bind parties to the agreement. 

The formal and official process of ratification also can provide an 

incentive for the parties to accept the agreement. Lastly, ratifying 

the agreement can help to guarantee implementation. 

Developing a schedule for implementation

Participants should develop and agree on a schedule for 

implementing their recommendations or proposals, clarifying 

their expectations as to the amount of time required for 

implementation. The schedule should include a clear statement 

of necessary actions, expected results, and contingencies or 

results if commitments are not met. Such a schedule provides 

an explicit mechanism for ensuring that the commitments are 

binding on all. It is a “performance measure”—an objective 

Divide

drafting

duties

Writing a Single Text Negotiation Document

Produce

draft

agreement

Review

and revise

draft

agreement

Approve

agreement

text

locally

Final

agreement

document

linked to

ratification

or

Designate

principle

drafter
26

measure of each party’s commitment and of their performance in 

implementing the outcome.

Evaluating the process 

Evaluation is a key step in any collaborative stakeholder 

engagement or ADR process. Taking the time to identify the 

strengths and weaknesses of a process as well as its successes 

and failures allows for lessons learned. Also, evaluation can 

serve to reinforce the participants’ new or refined collaboration 

skills.

Examine the experience

An exit evaluation or a general group evaluation conducted 

with each party at the end of a conflict resolution process by 

the facilitator, mediator, or BLM staff can help to uncover levels 

of satisfaction and generate suggestions for future process 

implementation. Of utmost consideration are whether the 

process itself was fair and effective, whether it improved working 

relationships, and whether it produced a satisfactory outcome. 

Sustaining the agreement(s) and

the collaborative relationship

Monitoring implementation

Collaborative stakeholder engagement and ADR take place in a 

dynamic world. Since circumstances change during and after a 

process, in many situations it is important to monitor outcomes 

and their implementation. Monitoring helps to ensure compliance 

with the parties’ intentions and allows implementation to be 

measured against objective expectations. A good monitoring 

program also will provide a mechanism for modifying or 

adapting the outcome to accommodate new information, shifting 

conditions, or unanticipated needs.

The monitoring program should spell out specific, measurable 

objectives against which actual implementation can be evaluated. 

A designated, appointed, or retained monitor should periodically 

report back to the decision-makers. Implementation can then 

be modified or adapted, as appropriate, to minimize undesirable 

side effects and maximize the intended benefits.

Renegotiating

It is advisable for parties to create a context for renegotiation 

if appropriate. If circumstances change significantly, or if 

something adverse occurs during implementation, it may be 

necessary to renegotiate the original outcome. To prepare 

for this, participants should anticipate the future and discuss 

ADR Activities Database/Case Files

There is a need to track the Bureau’s collaborative stakeholder 

engagement and ADR activities nationwide. In response to 

a Departmental requirement and a directive from the Office 

of Management and Budget and the President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality, each State must establish and maintain 

up-to-date case files on Orders or Notices to enter into an ADR 

process from the IBLA or the Courts, as well as records of other 

conflict prevention and dispute resolution processes. Information 

must be collected, maintained, and updated on all ADR activities. 

Information should also be collected on collaborative stakeholder 

engagement activities other than those required by regulation. 

This information should include status, subject matter, and the 

dates of the activity, as well as information such as protests, 

appeals, or litigation involved. More information also may be 

collected, such as on the total estimated cost to the BLM of the 

activity, the total overall estimated cost, the estimated duration of 

staff time spent on the process, etc. Ensuring documentation of 

these processes also helps to build the administrative record for a 

case and thus saves time and resources over having to recreate 

facts at a later time. Please contact the Washington Office 

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR Program staff 

with any questions (www.blm.gov/adr). 

approaches in the event that further conflict occurs. In the 

ground rules, participants can spell out the terms and procedures 

under which they will reconvene. 

Examples of situations commonly necessitating renegotiation 

include those where the terms of the agreement are violated by 

a party, when implementation fails to produce the desired results, 

when a party feels their interests are threatened, or when the 

terms of the agreement become outdated.

Maintain relationships into the future

Often, participants in collaborative stakeholder engagement 

or ADR processes are convened again in the future for either 

related or unrelated issues. For this reason, it is valuable during 

and after the process to maintain relationships with the other 

parties. Meeting where the action is being implemented and/or 

scheduling follow-up meetings also may work well for maintaining 

positive stakeholder relations.

Wrapping Up a Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement or ADR Process ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR
27

Additional Resources

The BLM Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement and ADR Program

Assistance with implementation or participation in the processes 

described in this guide (or with other conflict prevention or conflict 

resolution processes) is available through the Washington 

Office’s Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate 

Dispute Resolution Program (ADR Program) in the Office of 

the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning 

(WO-200). Responsibilities of the ADR Program include policy 

development, oversight, and Field support in addition to national 

Ombudsman, Mediation, Facilitation, and Conflict Coaching 

services. To obtain these services or additional information, 

please contact the ADR Program (contact info available at 

www.blm.gov/adr) or contact your State’s or Center’s ADR 

Advisors.

ADR Program Website

Electronic versions of this and other national guidance are 

available from the ADR Program’s website at www.blm.gov/

adr. The website materials also include additional strategies 

and policy guidance, including steps in conducting a situation 

assessment, sample questions for an assessment interview, 

sample questions for an internal evaluation, guidance for creating 

ground rules, critical steps for a joint fact-finding process, 

information on choosing a mediator or facilitator, and updated 

answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs).

Further Reading

There are many books on collaborative stakeholder engagement 

and ADR processes. A keyword search on the web will offer an 

unlimited number of sources and resources. The following is 

a list of some of the most relevant books for natural resource 

managers.

Philip Brick, Donald Snow, and Sarah Van de Wetering (editors), 

Across the Great Divide: Explorations in Collaborative 

Conservation and the American West, Island Press, 2000.

“Collaborative conservation” addresses policy gridlock by 

emphasizing local participation, inclusion of underserved 

communities, and voluntary compliance rather than 

legal and regulatory enforcement. The book examines 

economic and demographic trends, the merits and 

drawbacks of collaborative decision-making, and the 

challenges of integrating diverse voices into resource 

management.

Ronald Brunner et al., Finding Common Ground: Governance 

and Natural Resources in the American West, Yale 

University Press, 2002. 

The editors diagnose problems in natural resources policy 

and suggest community-based collaboration as a way to 

address those problems. This book includes four case 

studies and suggestions for participation in communitybased collaboration, as well as advice for agency officials.

Susan L. Carpenter and W.J.D. Kennedy, Managing Public 

Disputes: A Practical Guide for Government, Business, 

and Citizens’ Groups, Jossey-Bass, 2001. 

This is a resource for those who are not mediation 

specialists but deal with public disputes. It provides conflict 

management skills and practical techniques that can be 

applied to manage public disputes. 

Patrick Field and Lawrence Susskind, Dealing with an Angry 

Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes, 

Free Press, 1996. This book provides detailed case 

studies and approaches for government officials and other 

decision makers to assist in interactions with people and 

groups who oppose their proposals and actions.

Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating 

Agreement without Giving In, Penguin Books, 1992. 

Understanding how to effectively negotiate is not only 

critical for natural resources collaborative stakeholder 

engagement and ADR but also for everyday situations. 

The book, based on research conducted through the 

Harvard Negotiation Project, presents a five-step system 

for successful negotiations. 

Matthew McKinney and William Harmon, The Western 

Confluence: A Guide to Governing Natural Resources, 

Island Press, 2004.

This book provides guidance on navigating through the 

conflict gridlock by reframing natural resources disputes 

and suggesting strategies for resolving them. The authors 

offer information for public land decision-makers.
28

Lawrence Susskind and Jeffrey Cruikshank, Breaking the 

Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public 

Disputes, Basic Books, 1989.

The authors of this book offer advice for building 

agreements and resolving disputes.

Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer 

Thomas-Larmer, The Consensus Building Handbook: 

A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, Sage 

Publications, 1999. 

This book provides a blueprint and case studies for use of 

consensus building.

Julia M. Wondolleck and Steven L. Yaffee, Making Collaboration 

Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource 

Management, Island Press, 2000. 

This book provides information on the role of collaboration 

in resource management, laying out eight themes for 

successful collaboration.

Additional Resources ❚ Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and ADR

Joshua tree in

California.
The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products

does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government.
BLM/WO/GI-10/001+1800

October 2009

Bureau of Land Management

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and

Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program

Office of the Assistant Director,

Renewable Resources and Planning (WO-200)

www.blm.gov/adr