A Desk Guide to

Cooperating Agency

Relationships

2005
Cvr2 

Acknowledgments

We thank Department of the Interior 

Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals 

Management Rebecca Watson; Bureau of 

Land Management Director Kathleen Clarke; 

and BLM Assistant Director for Renewable 

Resources and Planning Ed Shepard for their 

guidance and support of this project.

BLM staff. Writer and project coordinator: 

Rob Winthrop (Planning and Science 

Support). Production and editing: Sharon 

Wilson (Public Affairs), Sarah Waring 

(Planning and Science Support). Legal 

support: Amy Sosin (Solicitor’s Office). 

Cooperating agency liaisons: Cynthia MosesNedd and Gayle Gordon (Intergovernmental 

Affairs). 

Additional editing, research, and 

writing. Deborah Rawhouser, Chuck 

Otto, Mark Lambert, Erin Grundy, Andrew 

Strasfogel, and Kate Reilly (Planning and 

Science Support); Cynthia Moses-Nedd 

(Intergovernmental Affairs); Paul Politzer and 

Melissa Brandt (ADR Program); Carolyn 

McClellan (Cultural Resources); Helene 

Aarons (NLCS); John Livornese (FOIA 

Officer). Thanks also to numerous BLM 

state and field office staff for suggestions and 

comments. 

External reviewers. Judge Steven Grasty 

(Harney County, Oregon), Horst Greczmiel 

(Council on Environmental Quality), 

Val Payne (Utah Department of Natural 

Resources), Gene Piotrowski (Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources), Temple 

Stevenson (Governor’s Office, State of 

Wyoming), Elaine Suriano (Environmental 

Protection Agency), Willie Taylor 

(Department of the Interior), Commissioner 

Doug Thompson (Fremont County, 

Wyoming). 

Quotations. Sandy Brooks (BLM, Billings 

Field Office, Montana), Susan Child 

(Wyoming Office of State Lands and 

Investments), Kirk Emerson (U.S. Institute 

for Environmental Conflict Resolution), 

Judge Steven Grasty (Harney County, 

Oregon), Renee Johnson (BLM, Dillon 

Field Office, Montana), Commissioner Art 

Kleinjan (Blaine County, Montana), Rory 

Lamp (Nevada Department of Wildlife), 

Evan Lowry (San Juan County, Utah), 

Commissioners Michael McKee and Jim 

Abegglen (Uintah County, Utah), Gene 

Piotrowski (Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources), Jake Rajala (BLM, Ely Field 

Office, Nevada), Clive Rooney (Montana 

Department of Natural Resources). 

We thank Island Press for permission to 

reproduce a table from Western Confluence: 

A Guide to Governing Natural Resource by 

Matthew McKinney and William Harmon. 

Thanks to Rhey Solomon (Shipley Group) 

for suggestions regarding cooperating agency 

roles. 
i

Contents 

Director’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

1. Introduction: The BLM’s Cooperating Agency Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Implementing the Cooperating Agency Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Cooperating Agency Issues: Questions and Answers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. Preparing Agreements and Memorandums of Understanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5. Information and Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table. Cooperating Agency Participation in Plans (RMP–EIS) and Projects (EIS) . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure. Cooperating Agency Role in the BLM Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 
ii 

Director’s Message

I am pleased to 

report that the 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

is the first 

federal agency 

to promulgate 

regulations 

that establish 

a consistent, 

permanent role for cooperating agencies. 

We believe that by working closely with our 

state, local, tribal, and federal government 

partners, we will improve communication 

and understanding, identify common goals 

and objectives, and enhance the quality of our 

management of the public lands.

These regulations demonstrate the 

strong commitment to the letter and spirit 

of President Bush’s Executive Order on 

Cooperative Conservation, which recognizes 

that “local cooperation is critical to ensuring 

successful, effective, and long-lasting 

conservation results.”

This Cooperating Agency Desk Guide is 

a “how to” publication that I am requiring 

all BLM managers and staff to review and 

put into practice. The guide will help us to 

work together and foster a commitment by 

local, tribal, and state governments and other 

federal agencies to recognize common goals 

and achieve balanced multiple use across the 

public lands.

For many years the Bureau of Land 

Management has sought the advice of its 

governmental partners in creating and 

implementing successful land use plans. 

Through this expansion of our cooperative 

efforts, it is my hope that we enter a new 

era of public land management that furthers 

our ultimate goal of managing public 

land resources for the greatest good for all 

Americans.

Kathleen Clarke, Director 

Bureau of Land Management

 
1

Section 1. 

Introduction: The BLM’s Cooperating Agency Initiative

n the American political system, 

different spheres of government—

federal, tribal, state, and local—have 

their respective areas of responsibility, 

authority, and expertise. Nowhere is the 

need for cooperation more critical than in the 

management of public lands and resources. 

This guide describes one tool for creating 

more effective governmental partnerships: the 

lead agency–cooperating agency relationship 

(referred to in this guide as the cooperating 

agency relationship) and its application to 

the planning and associated environmental 

assessment responsibilities of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). While the guide 

is concerned with implementing formal 

cooperating agency relationships in preparing 

resource management plans, partnering with 

tribal, state, and local governments—as well 

as with other federal agencies—should be 

standard practice at the BLM before, during, 

and after plans are prepared. 

Section 1 of this desk guide introduces the 

cooperating agency (CA) relationship and 

describes the opportunities and challenges 

it entails for the BLM and its governmental 

partners. 

Section 2 describes the CA provisions of 

the BLM’s planning regulations, reviewing 

eligibility criteria and the appropriate roles 

for CAs at each step of the BLM’s planning 

process. 

Section 3 provides answers to frequently 

asked questions regarding effective working 

relationships with CAs. 

Section 4 describes key elements of an 

effective memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) establishing a CA relationship. 

Section 5 describes sources of information 

and training to support effective cooperation 

between the BLM and its CA partners.

The BLM’s Cooperating 

Agency Initiative

The CA relationship is distinctive, 

moving beyond consultation to engage 

officials and staff of other agencies in a 

working partnership. The CAs share skills 

and resources to help shape BLM land use 

plans that better reflect the policies, needs, 

and conditions of their jurisdictions and the 

citizens they represent. 

By providing a framework for 

intergovernmental efforts, the CA relationship 

can help the BLM achieve a number of 

objectives in its planning process: 

• gain early and consistent involvement of 

CA partners;

• incorporate local knowledge of economic, 

social, and environmental conditions, 

as well as state and local land use 

requirements; 

I

Section 1. Cooperating Agency Initiative
2 

• address intergovernmental issues;

• avoid duplication of effort;

• enhance local credibility of the planning 

review process;

• encourage CA support for planning 

decisions; and 

• build relationships of trust and 

cooperation.

The cooperating agency role derives 

from the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, which calls on federal, state, 

and local governments to cooperate with 

the goal of achieving “productive harmony” 

between humans and their environment. 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulations implementing NEPA allow 

federal agencies (as lead agencies) to invite 

tribal, state, and local governments, as well 

as other federal agencies, to serve as CAs in 

the preparation of environmental impact 

statements. 

Since that time the BLM has established 

many CA relationships. In 2005, the BLM 

amended its planning regulations to ensure 

that it engages its governmental partners 

consistently and effectively through the CA 

relationship whenever land use plans are 

prepared or revised. 

The Challenge of Federal Land 

Management 

The BLM has a large and complex 

responsibility: managing more than 260 

million acres of America’s public lands and 

roughly 700 million acres of its subsurface 

mineral estate. More than 140 resource 

management plans (RMPs) authorize and 

guide every action and approved use of 

these lands and resources. The BLM’s plans 

encompass the most varied terrain, from 

Alaska’s North Slope and California’s Mojave 

Desert to the open space surrounding many 

rapidly growing western cities. The agency’s 

challenge is to manage this portfolio on 

behalf of all Americans, while recognizing the 

considerable local and regional consequences 

its decisions may have. The BLM must act 

in conformity with federal laws, regulations, 

and policies while seeking to accommodate 

local needs, laws, and values. The BLM’s 

cooperating agency initiative represents a 

major step toward meeting these challenges 

by ensuring that the agency’s decisions 

benefit from the varied skills and knowledge, 

including knowledge of local conditions and 

values, of its governmental partners.

In any federal undertaking, harmonizing 

national, regional, and local governance 

entails at least three key tasks. As Matthew 

McKinney and William Harmon have noted 

in their list of Common Characteristics 

of Western Resource Disputes (see inset 

box, page 3), these include (1) integrating 

the involvement of multiple parties with 

competing interests and values; (2) removing 

obstacles to sharing and validating relevant 

information; and (3) resolving conflicts 

among institutions and policies. 

• Multiple Parties. Tribal, state, and 

local government officials are at times 

in a better position than are federal land 

managers to engage the communities and 

THE NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

...it is the continuing policy of the Federal 

Government, in cooperation with State and 

local governments, and other concerned 

public and private organizations...to create 

and maintain conditions under which man 

and nature can exist in productive harmony, 

and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans. (Sec. 101 (a); emphasis 

added)

Section 1. Cooperating Agency Initiative
3

interest groups most likely to be affected 

by a plan. 

• Complex Information. Effective 

discussion between federal agencies 

and their publics is often blocked by 

deeply incompatible views of the “facts” 

regarding both current environmental 

and socioeconomic conditions and how 

these will be affected by a proposed plan. 

Resolution often requires the lead agency 

and cooperating agency partners to engage 

in joint fact-finding and to seek agreement 

on where to find valid information and 

how to interpret it. 

• Conflicting Policies and Institutions. 

The challenge of managing public lands 

can reveal significant disagreements in 

jurisdictions and mandates, not only 

between federal, state, local, and tribal 

governments, but also among different 

federal or state agencies. The CA 

relationship offers a forum in which to 

discuss and, if possible, reconcile divergent 

policies and plans for the common good. 

Although challenging, intergovernmental 

cooperation in the management of lands 

and resources can yield great benefits for the 

public. The cooperating agency relationship is 

one tool among many that can advance joint 

efforts among governmental partners. Each 

party may have some lessons to learn—and 

some past practices to unlearn. 

Experience has shown three lessons 

important to success when working across 

governmental boundaries. 

• Tribal, state, and local partners need 

to recognize that the CA relationship 

is a forum for sharing information and 

expertise, not for asserting or relinquishing 

authority. Engaging in a cooperating 

agency relationship neither augments nor 

diminishes an agency’s jurisdiction and 

authority. 

• BLM managers and staff should 

acknowledge that the CA relationship 

requires new ways of doing business. 

Engaging with government partners as 

CAs is not another form of consultation or 

public involvement. Cooperating agencies 

expect and deserve to be given a significant 

role in shaping plans and environmental 

analyses—not merely commenting on 

them—commensurate with their available 

time and knowledge. 

• All parties will find the CA relationship 

most productive when they emphasize 

mutual, rather than individual, gains and 

seek solutions that meet others’ needs as 

well as their own. 

Common Characteristics of 

Western Resource Disputes

MULTIPLE PARTIES

• Clash of values

• Competing interests

• Complicated relationships

• Varying types and levels of power

COMPLEX INFORMATION

• Lack of information

• Misinformation

• Different views on what information 

 is relevant

• Different procedures to collect and 

 assess data

• Different interpretation of data

• Different levels of comfort with risk 

 and uncertainty

A BRIAR PATCH OF POLICIES AND 

INSTITUTIONS

• Multiple jurisdictions

• Competing missions and mandates

• Lack of meaningful public participation

• Multiple opportunities for appeal

• A fundamental question of who 

 should decide

From The Western Confluence: A Guide to 

Governing Natural Resources, by Matthew 

McKinney and William Harmon. Copyright 

2004 by the authors. Reproduced by permission of Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Section 1. Cooperating Agency Initiative
4 

Note to the reader: At the time this guide 

was prepared, the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) proposed to modify its Department 

Manual (516 DM 2.5) to add requirements 

regarding the cooperating agency relationship 

similar to those contained in the BLM’s 

revised planning regulations. (See Federal 

Register, vol. 70, no. 52 (March 18, 2005), 

pages 13203–13206.) These changes, if 

adopted, would 

• Require bureaus to invite eligible 

governmental entities to participate as 

cooperating agencies when the bureau 

is developing an environmental impact 

statement;

Seek Mutual Gains

“While many agencies have staff 

that are effective advocates for 

their mission, far fewer staff have 

effective negotiating skills for 

discovering mutual gains.” 

~Kirk Emerson, Director, U.S. Institute for

Environmental Conflict Resolution 

• Require bureaus to consider any requests 

by governmental entities to participate 

as a cooperating agency with respect to a 

particular environmental impact statement;

 • Establish uniform eligibility criteria for 

federal, tribal, state, and local governments; 

and

• Ensure that throughout the development 

of an environmental impact statement, the 

bureau will collaborate with all cooperating 

agencies, to the fullest extent practicable.

Proposed DOI changes would affect BLM 

staff by extending the requirements contained 

in BLM planning regulations (which apply 

only to resource management plans) to both 

plan- and project-level environmental impact 

statements. When preparing environmental 

impact statements other than in conjunction 

with resource management plans, BLM staff 

should consult the Department Manual, 

Part 516, to determine if new requirements 

regarding the CA relationship have been 

adopted. 

Section 1. Cooperating Agency Initiative
5

Section 2.

Implementing the Cooperating Agency Relationship

his section of the desk guide 

explains the requirements 

regarding cooperating agency 

(CA) relationships established 

by the new Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) planning regulations. 

The Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) govern 

the cooperating agency relationship for all 

federal agencies preparing environmental 

impact statements under NEPA. The BLM’s 

regulations and policies on cooperating 

agencies supplement—rather than replace—

CEQ regulations. Only those CEQ 

regulations specific to the CA relationship are 

cited here. 

The Role of Cooperating Agencies

The CEQ regulations call for early and 

significant involvement by cooperating 

agencies in the preparation of an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Both lead and cooperating agencies assume 

significant obligations in offering and 

accepting the CA relationship. 

• As the lead agency, the BLM is expected to 

use the analyses and proposals of a CA “to 

the maximum extent possible consistent 

with its responsibility.” 

• CAs accept obligations to contribute staff 

to the EIS team, develop analyses for 

which they have particular expertise, and 

fund their own participation. 

T

The BLM land use planning process 

yields a dual-function document: a resource 

management plan (RMP) and an EIS. The 

distinction is important. Planning (producing 

the RMP) selects the goals and identifies the 

management actions needed to achieve them. 

Environmental analysis (producing the EIS) 

identifies the consequences of achieving those 

goals.

The CEQ regulations make the CAs 

partners in environmental analysis. By 

adding provisions for the CAs to its planning 

regulations, the BLM has also included the 

CAs as formal partners in land use planning. 

➤	40 CFR 1501.6 (CEQ)

Roles of lead and cooperating

agencies. 

(a) The lead agency shall

(1) Request the participation of each 

cooperating agency in the NEPA 

process at the earliest possible time. 

(2) Use the environmental analysis 

and proposals of cooperating 

The Bureau of Land Management has initiated 

a land use plan with Coconino County, Arizona, 

for the entire Arizona Strip, which includes the 

Vermilion Cliffs National Monument.

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
6 

agencies with “jurisdiction by law” or 

“special expertise,” to the maximum 

extent possible consistent with its 

responsibility as lead agency. 

(3) Meet with a cooperating agency 

at the latter’s request. 

(b) Each cooperating agency shall

(1) Participate in the NEPA process at 

the earliest possible time. 

(2) Participate in the scoping 

process....

(3) Assume on request of the lead 

agency responsibility for developing 

information and preparing 

environmental analyses including 

portions of the environmental impact 

statement concerning which the 

cooperating agency has “special 

expertise.” 

(4) Make available staff support at 

the lead agency’s request to enhance 

the latter’s interdisciplinary capability. 

Normally use its own funds. 

(5) The lead agency shall, to the 

extent available funds permit, fund 

those major activities or analyses it 

requests from cooperating agencies. 

Potential lead agencies shall include 

such funding requirements in their 

budget requests.

Eligibility for Cooperating Agency 

Status

State agencies, local governments, tribal 

governments, and other federal agencies may 

serve as CAs. Other than its provision for 

tribes (see subsection Eligibility of Tribes), 

CEQ regulations recognize two criteria for CA 

status: jurisdiction by law and special expertise. 

The BLM regulations incorporate these 

criteria.

➤	40 CFR 1508.5 (CEQ) 

Defining eligibility. 

“Cooperating agency” means any 

Federal agency other than a lead agency 

which has “jurisdiction by law” or 

“special expertise” with respect to any 

environmental impact....A State or local 

agency of similar qualifications or, when 

the effects are on a reservation, an Indian 

Tribe, may by agreement with the lead 

agency become a cooperating agency.

Jurisdiction by law offers a very specific 

basis for CA status: authority to approve, 

deny, or finance all or part of a proposal. 

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

could possess jurisdiction by law for a 

resource management plan through its 

consultation role under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. Note that the 

FWS would qualify as a CA not merely 

because the BLM is obliged to consult 

with that agency, but because in the 

Section 7 consultation process the FWS 

has the authority to impose binding terms 

and conditions on an agency’s action. 

• A state Department of Natural Resources 

could possess jurisdiction by law through 

its delegated authority under Section 402 

of the Clean Water Act to issue National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

permits.

➤	40 CFR 1508.15 (CEQ)

Jurisdiction by law. 

“Jurisdiction by law” means agency 

authority to approve, veto, or finance all 

or part of the proposal. 

Special expertise provides a broader 

window for CA status, emphasizing the 

relevant capabilities or knowledge that a federal, 

state, tribal, or local governmental entity can 

contribute to an undertaking. 

• State agencies responsible for policies or 

programs affecting the condition and use 

of public lands—for example by regulating 

water rights or sport hunting—would 

possess special expertise through relevant 

statutory responsibility. 

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
A technician for the Seneca Nation of Indians’ Utility Department and a petroleum engineer for the 

Bureau of Land Management–Eastern States Office 

check the location of gas wells on the Cattaraugus 

Reservation in western New York.

7

• Cities and counties within an RMP 

planning area would possess special 

expertise regarding local land use plans and 

policies relevant to BLM requirements 

for land use plan coordination and 

consistency (43 CFR 1610.3-1, 3-2).

➤	40 CFR 1508.26 (CEQ)

Special expertise.

“Special expertise” means statutory 

responsibility, agency mission, or related 

program experience. 

The agreement or Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) establishing a CA 

relationship should identify the basis for 

eligibility, see Section 4 (Preparing Agreements 

and MOUs). For additional guidance on 

applying the CA eligibility criteria, see Section 

3 (Cooperating Agency Issues). 

➤	43 CFR 1601.0-5 (BLM) 

Defining eligibility.

(d) Eligible cooperating agency means

(1) A Federal agency other than 

a lead agency that is qualified to 

participate in the development of 

environmental impact statements as 

provided in 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5 

or, as necessary, other environmental 

documents that BLM prepares, by 

virtue of its “jurisdiction by law” as 

defined in 40 CFR 1508.15, or 

“special expertise” as defined in 

40 CFR 1508.26; or

(2) A federally recognized Indian 

tribe, a state agency, or a local 

government agency with similar 

qualifications.

(e) Cooperating agency means an eligible 

governmental entity that has entered 

into a written agreement with the BLM 

establishing cooperating agency status 

in the planning and NEPA processes. 

BLM and the cooperating agency will 

work together under the terms of the 

agreement. Cooperating agencies will 

participate in the various steps of BLM’s 

planning process as feasible, given 

the constraints of their resources and 

expertise. 

Eligibility of Tribes

The CEQ and BLM regulations differ 

regarding the eligibility of American Indian 

tribes for CA status. The CEQ regulations 

specify that a tribe is eligible “when the effects 

[of an undertaking] are on a reservation” 

(40 CFR 1508.5). In contrast, the BLM 

regulations apply the same criteria for federal, 

state, local, and tribal government entities: 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise (43 CFR 

1601.0-5(d)(2)). The broader BLM criteria 

will apply in the preparation of all RMPs and 

EISs. 

For more guidance on managing the CA 

relationship with tribes, see Section 3 (CA 

Issues).

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
Cooperating agencies hold a quarterly Riverfront Commission Meeting during their annual 

intergovernmental float trip through public 

lands in Colorado.

8 

Inviting Participation

The CEQ regulations permit a lead 

agency to invite other eligible agencies and 

governments to assume a cooperating agency 

role (40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5). The BLM 

planning regulations, in contrast, require 

managers to invite eligible agencies and 

governments to become CAs. 

the criteria—jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise—is met, CA status should be 

granted. 

Note that the requirement to invite 

participation applies to all RMPs or plan 

changes prepared in conjunction with 

an EIS. This includes (a) new resource 

management plans; (b) RMP revisions; and 

(c) RMP amendments prepared through 

an EIS. The requirement does not apply 

to RMP amendments prepared through an 

environmental assessment (EA).

➤	43 CFR 1610.3-1 (BLM)

Inviting participation. 

(a)(5) Where possible and appropriate, 

develop resource management plans 

collaboratively with cooperating agencies.

(b) When developing or revising 

resource management plans, BLM State 

Directors and Field Managers will invite 

eligible Federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and federally recognized 

Indian tribes to participate as cooperating 

agencies. The same requirement applies 

when BLM amends resource management 

plans through an environmental impact 

statement. State Directors and Field 

Managers will consider any requests of 

other Federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and federally recognized 

Indian tribes for cooperating agency 

status. Field Managers who deny such 

requests will inform the State Director 

of the denial. The State Director will 

determine if the denial is appropriate.

Establishing Participation

Under the BLM planning regulations, 

CA status can only be established through 

a written agreement between the BLM 

and the eligible governmental entity 

(43 CFR 1601.0-5). An MOU is the 

recommended means of establishing the CA 

relationship, because it allows for a systematic 

description of the respective authority and 

responsibilities of the parties, and how 

Managers are expected to make a 

reasonable effort to identify federal, state, 

local, and tribal entities possessing jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise concerning 

a planning area. Conversely, when a 

government entity requests CA status for an 

RMP–EIS, the request must be evaluated 

against CA eligibility criteria. If either of 

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
The Initial Approach 

to Agencies is Critical

“Local government cooperators 

commented that the first or second 

meeting with federal agencies and 

cooperators sets the initial trust 

level with the agencies.” 

 ~Wyoming State Planning Office, 

Cooperating Agency Status Report (2004)

Bureau of Land Management Director Kathleen 

Clarke discusses proposals for management 

of BLM-administered lands in the West with 

representatives of cooperating agencies.

9

they propose to work together through the 

planning process, see Section 4 (Preparing 

Agreements and MOUs). 

It is important that agreements 

establishing a CA relationship be completed 

in a timely manner, preferably before the 

Notice of Intent (which formally initiates 

the planning process) is published in the 

Federal Register. The CA relationship may 

be established later in the planning process, 

but it is then particularly important that 

the agreement or MOU clearly identify 

expectations and responsibilities within an 

already established schedule. 

Implementing the Cooperating 

Agency Relationship

The revised BLM land use planning 

regulations provide a role for cooperating 

agencies at most steps of the planning process. 

The regulations are summarized here, together 

with suggested roles for CAs. See also the 

Table on page 14 and the Figure on page 32. 

Preparation Planning.

The RMP–EIS preparation plan 

should include a list of potential CAs and a 

preliminary assessment of the expertise each 

would contribute to the planning effort. The 

preparation plan establishes the planning 

schedule and budget within which the CAs 

must operate. Informal discussions with 

potential CAs should begin at this time, 

followed by formal invitations for CA status. 

The BLM works with the potential CA to 

prepare an agreement or an MOU to establish 

CA relationships. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Work with your appropriate BLM office to 

develop an agreement or MOU. Participate 

in developing a preparation plan. 

1. Conduct scoping and identify issues.

This process provides a major opportunity for 

BLM and CA discussion. The issues selected 

will guide the RMP process. To the extent 

consistent with other BLM responsibilities, 

these issues should include matters significant 

for CAs. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Identify relevant local and regional 

organizations and interest groups, sponsor 

public forums with lead agency, collaborate 

in assessing scoping comments. Identify 

coordination requirements based on CA plans; 

identify significant issues; identify connected, 

similar, and cumulative actions; identify other 

relevant agencies.

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
10 

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-1 (BLM) 

Identification of issues.

At the outset of the planning process, 

the public, other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments and Indian 

tribes shall be given an opportunity to 

suggest concerns, needs, and resource 

use, development and protection 

opportunities for consideration in the 

preparation of the resource management 

plan. The Field Manager, in collaboration 

with any cooperating agencies, will 

analyze those suggestions and other 

available data, such as records of resource 

conditions, trends, needs, and problems, 

and select topics and determine the issues 

to be addressed during the planning 

process.* * * [Here and in other excerpts 

from 43 CFR 1610.4, emphasis added]

2. Develop planning criteria. 

At the start of the planning process the 

field office planning team determines the 

parameters for land allocation decisions 

consistent with statutory and regulatory 

requirements. The BLM has an obligation to 

seek consistency with state, local, and tribal 

RMPs, but only to the degree that such plans 

are also consistent with applicable federal law 

and regulation.

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Provide advice on proposed planning 

criteria, including local government 

comprehensive plan elements (such as growth 

and transportation) and environmental 

regulations. Identify legal requirements that 

shape tribal, state, and local CA policies and 

responsibilities. 

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-2 (BLM) 

Development of planning criteria. 

The Field Manager will prepare criteria 

to guide development of the resource 

management plan or revision, to ensure... 

[i]t is tailored to the issues previously 

identified....Planning criteria will 

generally be based upon applicable law, 

Director and State Director guidance, 

the results of public participation, and 

coordination with any cooperating 

agencies and other Federal agencies, State 

and local governments, and federally 

recognized Indian tribes. 

3. Collect inventory data. 

The planning team 

• identifies available data that can be used 

to characterize the physical, biological, 

social, and economic characteristics of the 

resource area; 

• assesses the data; and 

• identifies data gaps.

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Identify data needs; provide data and technical 

analyses within CA’s expertise. 

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-3 (BLM) 

Inventory data and information 

collection. 

(a) The Field Manager, in collaboration 

with any cooperating agencies, will 

arrange for resource, environmental, 

social, economic, and institutional data 

and information to be collected, or 

assembled if already available. * * * 

4. Analyze baseline data and prepare 

Analysis of the Management Situation. 

The Analysis of the Management Situation 

(AMS) should describe current conditions 

and trends of resources, offer a framework for 

resolving planning issues, and provide a basis 

for analyzing the no-action alternative. Field 

office personnel are encouraged to make this 

document (or a summary) available to the 

public. A summary of current conditions and 

trends appears in the Affected Environment 

section of the RMP–EIS. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Provide information (such as local monitoring 

and baseline data) for the draft AMS and 

help interpret the AMS to constituents as 

appropriate. 

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
11

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-4 (BLM)

Analysis of the management situation. 

The Field Manager, in collaboration with 

any cooperating agencies, will analyze 

the inventory data and other information 

available to determine the ability of the 

resource area to respond to identified 

issues and opportunities. * * * 

5. Formulate alternatives. 

Each planning alternative should represent 

a distinct set of land use allocations and 

management actions consistent with the 

overall goals of the land use plan. This is a 

key decision item that determines the range 

of management choices to be subsequently 

analyzed and considered for adoption. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Suggest themes for potential alternatives; 

suggest land allocations or management 

actions to resolve issues.

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-5 (BLM)

Formulation of alternatives.

At the direction of the Field Manager, 

in collaboration with any cooperating 

agencies, BLM will consider all reasonable 

resource management alternatives and 

develop several complete alternatives for 

detailed study. Nonetheless, the decision 

to designate alternatives for further 

development and analysis remains the 

exclusive responsibility of the BLM. * * *

6. Estimate effects of alternatives. 

The analysis should provide adequate 

information for evaluating the physical, 

biological, social, and economic effects of each 

proposed planning alternative. The analysis 

should include direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects considered in both short- and longterm perspectives, at various geographic scales. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Suggest models and methods for impact 

analyses; provide effects analysis within 

CA’s expertise; identify direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects within CA’s expertise; 

suggest mitigation measures for adverse 

effects. 

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-6 (BLM)

Estimating effects of alternatives.

The Field Manager, in collaboration 

with any cooperating agencies, will 

estimate and display the physical, 

biological, economic, and social effects of 

implementing each alternative considered 

in detail. * * * 

7. Select preferred alternative and issue 

Draft RMP–Draft EIS for public comment. 

The various planning alternatives are evaluated 

in relation to planning issues and criteria and 

the analysis of effects. The field manager 

selects a preferred alternative and forwards the 

resulting Draft RMP–Draft EIS to the State 

Director for approval and publication. The 

Draft RMP–Draft EIS is available for public 

comment for a minimum of 90 days. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Collaborate with BLM field manager in 

evaluating alternatives; provide information 

for Preliminary (internal) Draft RMP–Draft 

EIS. Just as other agencies and members of 

the public do, CAs may also provide written 

public comments on the published Draft 

RMP–Draft EIS if desired. 

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-7 (BLM)

Selection of preferred alternative.

The Field Manager, in collaboration with 

any cooperating agencies, will evaluate 

the alternatives, estimate their effects 

according to the planning criteria, and 

identify a preferred alternative that 

best meets Director and State Director 

guidance. Nonetheless, the decision to 

select a preferred alternative remains the 

exclusive responsibility of the BLM. The 

resulting draft resource management 

plan and draft environmental impact 

statement shall be forwarded to the 

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
12 

State Director for approval, publication, 

and filing with the Environmental 

Protection Agency. This draft plan and 

environmental impact statement shall be 

provided for comment to the Governor 

of the State involved, and to officials of 

other Federal agencies, State and local 

governments, and Indian tribes that the 

State Director has reason to believe would 

be concerned.

8. Respond to comments and issue the 

Final RMP–Final EIS. 

The BLM is required to respond to 

substantive comments that reveal new 

information, missing information, or flawed 

analysis that could substantially change the 

conclusions. The field manager forwards 

the Final RMP–Final EIS, revised as needed 

to reflect comments received, to the State 

Director for publication. The document is 

also forwarded to the Governor for a 60-day 

review to identify any inconsistencies with 

state or local plans, policies, or programs. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Review comments within CA’s expertise 

and assist in preparing responses. State CAs 

should contribute to Governor’s Consistency 

Review.

➤	See 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) for 

requirements of the Governor’s 

Consistency Review.

➤	Sec. 1610.4-8 (BLM) 

Selection of resource 

management plan. 

After publication of the draft 

resource management plan and draft 

environmental impact statement, 

the Field Manager shall evaluate the 

comments received and select and 

recommend to the State Director, for 

supervisory review and publication, a 

proposed resource management plan and 

final environmental impact statement. 

After supervisory review of the proposed 

resource management plan, the State 

Director shall publish the plan and file the 

related environmental impact statement. 

9. Protests and Record of Decision. 

The Final RMP–Final EIS is subject to a 30-

day protest period. Any party (including a 

CA) that participated in the planning process 

and may be adversely affected by approval 

of the resource management plan may file a 

protest with the Director of the BLM. On 

approval of the Final RMP–Final EIS and 

subject to resolution of any protests, the State 

Director signs the Record of Decision (ROD).

Suggested roles for CAs: 

The CA has a limited role. Reviewing protests 

and signing the ROD are actions reserved to 

the BLM. The protest procedure provides 

the Director with an administrative review of 

the State Director’s proposed decision. Where 

a CA has provided information relevant to a 

protest, the BLM may ask the cooperator for 

clarification.

➤	See 43 CFR 1610.5-2 for protest 

procedures for resource management 

plans.

Plan Implementation

When the ROD is signed, the RMP has 

been completed. While formal cooperating 

agency status for the RMP ends at this 

time, state, local, tribal, and federal entities 

are strongly encouraged to work with the 

BLM and private partners to implement the 

RMP through on-the-ground projects and 

other support. Such projects range from 

small actions, with few effects (improving 

campgrounds), to large actions with the 

potential for significant effects (establishing 

a right-of-way for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline). 

Actions approved by the BLM under the RMP 

will be conducted under the appropriate level 

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service employees in Wyoming review plans for prescribed 

burns being conducted cooperatively on BLM and Shoshone National Forest public lands.

13

of environmental analysis under NEPA. For 

projects that have the potential for significant 

effects, an EIS would be required. 

While BLM planning regulations 

provide requirements for working with CAs 

in preparing RMPs, they do not apply to 

projects. In preparing project-level EISs, the 

cooperating agency relationship is governed 

by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.6). BLM 

staff should also consult the Department 

Manual, Part 516, to determine if additional 

requirements apply when working with CAs 

on project-level EISs. 

 The BLM welcomes the informal 

involvement of governmental partners in 

preparing project-level EAs. It is not necessary 

to establish a formal CA relationship to work 

productively with other governmental entities 

in the preparation of an EA.

Monitoring

Monitoring is the process of collecting 

data and information to determine whether 

or not desired outcomes (expressed as goals 

and objectives in the land use plan) are being 

met as the allowable uses and management 

actions are being implemented. A monitoring 

strategy, developed as part of the land 

use plan, identifies indicators of change, 

acceptable thresholds, methods, protocols, and 

timeframes that will be used to evaluate and 

determine whether or not desired outcomes 

are being achieved. Tribal, federal, state, 

and local entities are strongly encouraged to 

work with the BLM and private partners to 

develop monitoring strategies and participate 

in assessing the effectiveness of plan 

implementation. 

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
14 

Table. Cooperating Agency Participation in Plans (RMP–EIS) and Projects (EIS)

Actions Plan EIS Project 

EIS

Potential Roles for Cooperating Agencies

1 Conduct scoping and 

identify issues ➀ ➀

Provide input on preparation plan; identify coordination requirements based 

on cooperating agency (CA) plans; identify significant issues; identify relevant 

local and regional organizations and interest groups; sponsor public forums 

with lead agency; collaborate in assessing scoping comments; identify 

connected, similar, and cumulative actions; identify other relevant agencies.

2 Develop planning 

criteria ➁ Provide advice on proposed planning criteria. 

3 Collect inventory data ➀ ➀ Identify data needs; provide data and technical analyses within the CA’s 

expertise. 

4 Analyze management 

situation (AMS) ➁ Provide input on the Draft AMS and aid in interpreting the AMS to constituents as appropriate. 

4a Describe affected 

environment ➁ Provide input on draft description of baseline conditions.

5 Formulate alternatives ➀

decision ➌

➀ Suggest land allocations or management actions to resolve issues. Decision to 

select alternatives for analysis is reserved to the BLM.

6 Estimate effects of 

alternatives ➀ ➀

Provide effects analysis within the CA’s expertise; identify direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects within the CA’s expertise; suggest potential mitigation 

measures for adverse effects.

7

Select the preferred 

alternative; issue Draft 

RMP–DEIS

➀

decision ➌

➀ Collaborate with field manager in evaluating alternatives and in developing 

criteria for selecting the preferred alternative; provide input on Preliminary 

Draft RMP–DEIS. The CAs may provide written, public comments on draft if 

desired. Note: Decision to select a preferred alternative is reserved to the BLM.

8 Respond to comments ➁ ➁ Review comments within the CA’s expertise and assist in preparing responses, 

as appropriate. 

8a Issue Proposed 

RMP–FEIS ➌ ➌ Action reserved to the BLM.

8b Initiate Governor’s 

Consistency Review ➀ State CAs should contribute to the Governor’s Consistency Review.

9 Sign Record of 

Decision (ROD) [or] ➌ ➌ Action reserved to the BLM.

9a

Resolve protests, 

modify RMP–EIS if 

needed, sign ROD

➌ Action reserved to the BLM. A CA that has provided information relevant to a 

protest may be asked for clarification.

9b Resolve appeals of 

project-level decisions ➌ Action reserved to the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

Prepare 

implementation work 

plan

➍ ➍

[The role of cooperating agencies can continue under a partnership MOU 

throughout implementation and monitoring. This chart is meant to highlight 

the relationship between cooperating agencies and the BLM and does not 

include the roles of private or public partnerships.] Assist in developing 

implementation work plan, where applicable. Participate as appropriate 

in implementation (project-level) workgroups, including public–private 

partnerships. Implementation may be through EIS, EA, or CX (categorical 

exclusion). 

Monitor and evaluate 

RMP ➍ Assist in developing monitoring strategy, where applicable. Participate as appropriate in monitoring workgroups, including public–private partnerships. 

 ➀ = primary cooperating agency role ➁ = secondary cooperating agency role

 ➌ = reserved to the BLM or IBLA ➍ = role for public and private partners

Section 2. Cooperating Agency Relationship
Representatives of the Bureau of Land Management 

Abandoned Mine Land program and the Colorado 

Division of Minerals and Geology—Inactive 

Reclamation Program inspect the stability of an old 

mine portal entry to determine the best method of 

physical closure. 

15

Section 3. 

Cooperating Agency Issues: Questions and Answers 

A. Building working relationships

A.1. Collaboration in the cooperating 

agency (CA) relationship

Q1: Does a cooperating agency relationship 

require the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) and the cooperators to make decisions 

by consensus?

A1: No. In describing the steps of the land 

use planning process, the BLM’s revised 

planning regulations generally refer to 

collaboration between the field manager and 

cooperating agency representatives. 

➤	43 CFR 1610.4-3

The Field Manager, in collaboration with 

any cooperating agencies, will arrange for 

resource, environmental, social, economic, 

and institutional data and information 

to be collected, or assembled if already 

available. (emphasis added)

As used here, collaboration is “a 

cooperative process in which interested 

parties, often with widely varied interests, 

work together to seek solutions with broad 

support for managing public and other lands.” 

(BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

[H-1601-1, 2005 revision, Glossary]) 

Collaboration mandates methods, not 

outcomes. It brings diverse parties together to 

seek broadly acceptable solutions to what are 

usually complex problems. It does not imply 

that the parties will achieve consensus. The 

BLM remains the final decision maker on 

matters within its jurisdiction. 

Q2: How does the involvement of CAs 

affect the BLM field manager’s role in the 

development of a plan? 

A2: CA involvement makes the field 

manager’s leadership of the land use planning 

process even more essential. In guiding 

planning efforts, field managers face the 

challenge of reconciling Bureau-wide policy 

objectives with the needs and values of local, 

regional, and national constituencies. This 

requires a serious commitment to collaborative 

problem solving. A common thread that runs 

through each step in the planning process is 

the role of the manager. The manager must 

establish a vision and lead the way, and must 

be committed to the planning effort for it to 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Informal Contacts are Essential

“As a Field Manager, I play a key 

role in developing and enhancing 

relationships with cooperating 

agencies. In Billings, Montana, 

we have established an informal 

interagency breakfast, where 

several local, federal, and state 

agency administrators gather every 

other month to share information. 

It provides an opportunity to build 

relationships outside of an office 

environment. Then, when there are 

issues, we have already established 

a higher level of cooperation and 

communication.” 

~Sandy Brooks, Field Manager, 

Billings Field Office, 

BLM-Montana

Managers Must Be Accessible

“Accessibility to the Field Manager 

and State Director has been a key 

factor in improving our relationship 

with BLM. We hope to be just as 

accessible to them as well.”

~Commissioners Michael McKee and Jim 

Abegglen, Uintah County, Utah

16 

succeed. (See BLM-WO Information Bulletin 

2003-113.)

Q3: In working collaboratively with CAs on a 

plan, should the field manager limit the range 

of issues and solutions to be considered? 

A3: Since a key reason to involve other 

units of government is to benefit from 

their distinctive perspectives and expertise, 

innovative approaches should be encouraged. 

Nonetheless, collaboration increases the 

need to establish practical parameters for 

the planning process. As the representative 

of the lead agency, the field manager is 

responsible for clarifying for cooperating 

agencies the general goals of the resource 

management plan. The goals would include, 

where appropriate, the range of potential land 

use allocations consistent with statutory and 

regulatory requirements. Such limits are best 

established through clear planning criteria and 

a well-developed statement of purpose and 

need. 

Q4: Does the potential CA partner also have a 

say in determining the objectives and ground 

rules of the lead agency-cooperating agency 

relationship? 

A4: Yes, the agreement or MOU establishing 

the CA relationship should reflect the views of 

all signatories. 

Q5: What if the parties cannot agree on the 

terms of an agreement or MOU? 

A5: The field manager should make a good 

faith effort to negotiate the terms of an 

agreement or MOU with the potential CA 

partner, consistent with applicable statutes, 

regulations, and this guidance. If this effort 

is not successful, the CA relationship has not 

been established. 

Q6: Is it appropriate to use a third-party 

facilitator to assist CAs and BLM staff on 

collaboration when preparing a land-use plan? 

A6: Yes. CAs and BLM staff may differ 

significantly not only in their policy 

orientations, but also in their knowledge, 

skills, style of interaction, and experience 

with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the BLM planning process. 

An effective facilitator may help the parties 

negotiate the agreement or MOU, focus effort 

productively, and resolve disagreements as they 

arise. CAs should participate in the selection 

of a facilitator. Using a facilitator does not 

alter the decision-making responsibilities of 

the BLM or CAs.

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
17

A.2. Challenge of the BLM’s planning 

schedule 

Q1: Is it appropriate to extend a planning 

schedule to accommodate the needs of CAs? 

A1: Normally, no. With the exception of other 

federal agencies having jurisdiction by law, no 

government entity is required to participate 

as a CA. The preferences of cooperating 

agencies regarding the pace and direction 

of collaborative planning efforts do not 

supersede the need to adhere to established 

schedules, which should be included in 

the agreements or MOUs establishing CA 

relationships. Nonetheless, whenever possible 

the field manager and CA representatives 

should develop a mutually agreeable planning 

schedule when negotiating their agreements or 

MOUs. 

Q2: If effective collaboration with CAs would 

be compromised by adhering to an established 

planning schedule, what are some solutions?

A2: Field managers and their CA partners 

have a number of options. 

• Vary the level of a CA’s involvement. 

Both the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) and BLM regulations 

make it clear that the CAs may negotiate 

a level of involvement consistent with 

their available staffing and resources. The 

CAs may vary the time and resources they 

commit by determining which meetings to 

attend, whether to offer data or analyses, 

or both, and at what stage of document 

preparation to comment. 

• Seek ways to reorganize the planning 

schedule for greater efficiency, without 

modifying the deadline for plan 

completion. 

• Improve the efficiency of collaboration 

among the CAs and the BLM staff. The 

involvement of an effective facilitator may 

improve the speed and focus of CA and 

BLM staff interaction.

• Where none of these approaches is 

feasible, and the field manager considers 

that an extension of the Final RMP–Final 

EIS due date is essential to effective 

collaboration with the CAs, the State 

Director may request the Washington 

Office to consider a change in the 

planning schedule. Extensions may be 

granted in exceptional circumstances. 

➤	40 CFR 1501.6(c) (CEQ)

A cooperating agency may in response 

to a lead agency’s request for assistance 

in preparing the environmental impact 

statement . . . reply that other program 

commitments preclude any involvement 

or the degree of involvement requested 

in the action that is the subject of the 

environmental impact statement. A copy 

of this reply shall be submitted to the 

Council [on Environmental Quality].

➤	43 CFR 1601.0-5(e) (BLM)

Cooperating agencies will participate 

in the various steps of BLM’s planning 

process as feasible, given the constraints 

of their resources and expertise.

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues

“We are inundated from all the 

simultaneous planning that BLM is 

doing. They have made efforts to 

involve us but our time and resources 

are stretched to the limit. I think if 

we could have been involved even 

earlier in the process, when schedules 

were being set and timetables 

prepared, we would now be able 

to more effectively work on these 

RMPs.”

 ~Evan Lowry, County Planner, 

San Juan County, Utah
Focus on Practical Issues

“The cooperator must be focused on 

things within the scope of the plan 

that can make a difference.”

 ~Renee Johnson, Dillon 

Field Office, BLM-Montana

Cooperating Agencies 

Can Provide Continuity 

“Personnel at federal agencies turn 

over so quickly that they frequently 

don’t have the local knowledge and 

history that Nevada Department 

of Wildlife biologists can bring to 

the table. We can bring a coherent 

record of what we have done 

together and knowledge of the 

history of other activities in the 

project area that BLM does not 

have.” 

 ~Rory Lamp, Nevada 

Department of Wildlife

18 

A.3. The CA roles in the planning–

NEPA process 

Q1: May the CAs use their expertise to 

prepare (rather than merely reviewing and 

commenting on) sections of the RMP–EIS or 

the technical analyses on which it is based? 

A1: Yes, at the request of the BLM when 

the CA possesses expertise and resources to 

complete the task in a timely manner. 

➤	40 CFR 1501.6(a) (CEQ)

The lead agency shall...[u]se the 

environmental analysis and proposals of 

cooperating agencies with “jurisdiction 

by law” or “special expertise,” to the 

maximum extent possible consistent with 

its responsibility as lead agency. 

Q2: May a CA participate in the review of 

protests to the RMP? 

A2: Protest resolution is an internal review 

process conducted primarily by the BLM 

Washington Office, to determine if in 

preparing an RMP the State Director followed 

applicable laws, regulations, and policy, and 

considered all relevant resource information 

and public input. Therefore, the CAs should 

not participate in the BLM’s review of protest 

letters or the formulation of responses. A CA 

that has provided information relevant to 

an issue raised in a protest may be asked for 

clarification.

A.4. Criteria for CA eligibility

Q1: Within the interdisciplinary (ID) team, 

is a CA limited to participating only on the 

topics on which the BLM has acknowledged 

its jurisdiction by law or special expertise, as 

reflected in the agreement or MOU?

A1: A CA is entitled to collaborate as part 

of RMP–EIS core or ID teams in those 

areas for which jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise is acknowledged in the agreement or 

MOU. A CA’s formal involvement on other 

issues is at the field manager’s discretion. In 

practical terms the scope and nature of a 

CA’s participation is a matter for negotiation, 

taking into account the CA’s policy concerns, 

the staff and resources it can reasonably 

contribute to the planning effort, the plan 

schedule, and other constraints.

Q2: May a local government be granted CA 

status based on the jurisdiction by law criterion 

because of the BLM’s obligation under the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) to seek consistency with local plans? 

A2: No. The consistency requirement does 

not provide state, local, or tribal governments 

with the authority to “approve, veto, or 

finance” a land use plan, which are the 

only criteria for CA status on the basis of 

jurisdiction by law (40 CFR 1508.15).

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Bureau of Land Management and Natural Resource 

Conservation Service employees in Wyoming survey 

water surface discharge from a pilot coal bed natural 

gas well in the Powder River Basin area.

“As a federal agency, BLM isn’t 

familiar with how a county 

government operates. We feed into 

the process the economic needs 

of the county and the interests of 

the people who live here. That 

may not conform to what they are 

trying to do with this RMP, but it 

is information that needs to be 

incorporated and that they would 

not have otherwise.”

~Art Kleinjan, County Commissioner, 

Blaine County, Montana

19

➤	40 CFR 1508.15 (CEQ)

“Jurisdiction by law” means agency 

authority to approve, veto or finance all 

or part of the proposal.

Q3: What discretion does the BLM have to 

determine the scope of a CA’s special expertise? 

A3: The criterion of special expertise

emphasizes the relevant capabilities or 

knowledge that a CA can contribute to the 

planning process and associated environmental 

analysis. Managers are required to offer CA 

status to potentially eligible government 

entities when preparing or revising an RMP–

EIS. It is the field manager’s responsibility, 

however, to determine which entities possess 

special expertise relative to a proposed RMP–

EIS and the nature of their expertise, subject 

to review by the State Director. 

➤	40 CFR 1508.26 (CEQ)

“Special expertise” means statutory 

responsibility, agency mission, or related 

program experience.

Q4: Is knowledge of local “custom and 

culture” a sufficient basis for including local 

governments as cooperating agencies under 

the special expertise criterion? 

A4: Yes. Leaders of local governments 

are presumed to possess special expertise

concerning the history, institutions, and 

social and economic conditions of their 

jurisdictions. This knowledge is often relevant 

to assessing baseline conditions and potential 

effects of planning alternatives. 

Q5: How should the criterion of special 

expertise be applied to tribes? 

A5: Because American Indian tribes have 

culturally distinctive uses and understandings 

of land and resources, a tribe’s special expertise

may be wide-ranging. Some of the topics on 

which tribes provide comment may be similar 

to those expressed by local governments, such 

as the effects of a proposed planning decision 

on tribal employment and income. Other 

information and advice may be grounded 

in culturally specific knowledge, such as 

the need for access to ceremonial places or 

the medicinal value of certain plant species. 

Sharing tribal knowledge of “custom and 

culture” through the cooperating agency role 

may create special challenges in managing 

information appropriately. 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Mohave County, Arizona, is a cooperating agency 

working with the Bureau of Land Management on 

the Arizona Strip land use plan. The Grand Canyon–

Parashant National Monument is within the County 

and will be covered by the plan. 

20 

➤	BLM Native American Consultation 

Handbook, H-8120-1, § IV.E 

Native Americans may be reluctant to 

share sensitive information regarding 

resource locations and values with agency 

officials. This is partly because agencies 

have been hindered, until recently, 

from effectively protecting Native 

American cultural information from 

public disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

A.5. The role of joint lead agency 

Q1: Under what circumstances should a state, 

local or tribal government entity be invited 

to serve as a joint lead agency rather than as a 

cooperating agency? 

A1: The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.2) 

encourage a state agency or local government 

(and by implication, a tribal government) 

to serve as a joint lead when the non-federal 

entity must complete an environmental review 

process comparable to NEPA. In practice, 

joint lead agency status is primarily applicable 

to project-level EISs where a state or local 

government partner must concurrently 

meet its own NEPA-like (or “little NEPA”) 

requirements. For an example of a state’s 

NEPA-like requirement, see the California 

Environmental Quality Act (California Pub. 

Res. Code §21000 et seq.).

A.6. Supporting the CA relationship

Q1: Will the BLM compensate the CAs for 

their participation? 

A1: The CAs normally cover the costs of 

their own participation, including salary, 

travel and other expenses. A field office 

should reimburse the costs of any studies it 

specifically requests from a CA within its 

expertise. 

➤	40 CFR 1501.6(b)(5) (CEQ)

Each cooperating agency shall ... 

[n]ormally use its own funds. The lead 

agency shall, to the extent available 

funds permit, fund those major activities 

or analyses it requests from cooperating 

agencies.

A.7. Terminating the CA relationship

Q1: Under what circumstances may the CA 

relationship be terminated? 

A1: The CA relationship is not primarily a 

forum for advocacy. If the BLM and one 

or more of its CA partners find that they 

cannot work together toward a common goal, 

and efforts at dispute resolution have been 

unsuccessful, it is appropriate to terminate 

the CA relationship. Factors identified by 

the CEQ as suggesting the need to consider 

termination include a CA’s unwillingness 

to accept the lead agency’s key decisions; 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
21

deliberately violating key procedural 

agreements (such as the restriction of predecisional documents); and deliberately 

misrepresenting the planning and EIS process 

or its findings. 

➤	Factors Supporting Termination of 

the CA Relationship

• The cooperating agency cannot accept 

the lead agency’s final decisionmaking authority regarding the scope 

of the analysis, including authority to 

define the purpose and need for the 

proposed action. 

• The cooperating agency is not able 

or willing to provide the data and 

rationale underlying its analyses or 

assessment of alternatives.

• The cooperating agency releases 

predecisional information (including 

working drafts) in a manner that 

undermines the agreement to work 

cooperatively before publishing draft 

or final analyses.

• The cooperating agency consistently 

misrepresents the process or the 

findings presented in the analysis and 

documentation.

This list of factors is not exhaustive. 

Adapted from: Council on Environmental 

Quality, Memorandum for Heads 

of Federal Agencies: Cooperating 

Agencies in Implementing the 

Procedural Requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Attachment 1 

(2002).

The agreement or MOU should include 

provisions for termination, as well as other 

ground rules, such as procedures for dispute 

resolution.

Q2: Is disagreement over substantive matters 

raised in the planning–EIS process a valid 

basis for terminating the CA relationship? 

A2: No. While the BLM remains the decision 

maker for matters within its jurisdiction, 

the CAs are not required to concur in all 

findings (such as the effects anticipated from 

a particular planning alternative). Working 

through disagreements within the planning 

team often results in stronger, better justified 

findings and decisions. If such disagreements 

cannot be resolved, the dissenting agency’s 

view may be documented in the RMP–EIS 

(or EIS). 

B. Qualifying organizations

B.1. General

Q1: What types of organizations may serve as 

CAs?

A1: The CA relationship is limited to 

governmental entities: tribal governments, 

state agencies, local governments, and other 

federal agencies.

B.2. Federal agencies

Q1: What discretion do federal agencies have 

when requested to serve as CAs?

A1: A federal agency eligible on the basis of 

jurisdiction by law must serve as a CA when 

so requested. A federal agency eligible on the 

basis of special expertise, and a tribal, state, or 

local entity eligible on either basis may choose 

whether or not to serve as a CA when so 

requested. 

➤	40 CFR 1501.6 (CEQ)

Upon request of the lead agency, 

any other Federal agency which has 

jurisdiction by law shall be a cooperating 

agency. In addition any other Federal 

agency which has special expertise with 

respect to any environmental issue, which 

should be addressed in the statement may 

be a cooperating agency upon request 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Seek an Integrated 

State Response

“At the beginning of this process 

[for the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument] we established 

an MOU that assured when 

providing formal comment on the 

RMP that we would provide a single 

consistent state viewpoint, rather 

than submit separate comments 

from each of our agencies. That is a 

clear advantage for BLM, and I think 

they should encourage it.”

~Clive Rooney, Montana Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation

22 

of the lead agency. An agency may 

request the lead agency to designate it a 

cooperating agency. (emphasis added)

B.3. State agencies

Q1: Can more than one state agency be 

granted CA status for a given land use plan? 

A1: Yes. Because multiple state agencies 

may have special expertise or jurisdiction by 

law, there may be instances where more than 

one state agency assumes CA status. When 

working with multiple state agencies, it is 

desirable to have one entity (for example, the 

Governor’s Office) coordinate all comments 

and analyses from state CAs to ensure the 

BLM benefits from a consistent perspective. 

➤	Jack Morrow Hills Final 

Coordinated Activity Plan–FEIS, 

Chapter 5, July 2004 (Green River 

RMP Amendment)

The Wyoming Office of Federal Land 

Policy represents the State of Wyoming, 

with the following agencies designated 

as members: 1. Wyoming State Geological 

Survey, 2. Wyoming Game & Fish 

Commission, 3. Wyoming DEQ–Water, 

4. Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission... 

(includes 15 agencies). 

B.4. Local governments

Q1: What is a “local government” for 

purposes of CA requirements?

A1: A local government is defined in BLM 

planning regulations as a general purpose unit 

of government with resource management 

authority or a political subdivision of a 

state. Counties (boroughs in Alaska) and 

incorporated cities clearly qualify. Specialpurpose districts (such as conservation 

districts) will qualify if state law defines them 

as political subdivisions.

➤	43 CFR 1601.0-5(h) (BLM)

Local government means any political 

subdivision of the State and any general 

purpose unit of local government with 

resource planning, resource management, 

zoning, or land use regulation authority. 

 

➤	Wyoming Statutes

16-4-201(a)(iv) (2004):

“Political subdivision” means every 

county, city and county, city, incorporated 

and unincorporated town, school district 

and special district within the state. 

B.5. Tribal governments

Q1: Does inviting a tribe’s participation 

as a cooperating agency satisfy the BLM’s 

obligation to consult on a government-togovernment basis regarding land use planning 

or other actions?

A1: No. Consultation involves “a formal 

effort to obtain the advice or opinion of 

another agency...as required by statute 

or regulation.” (BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook, H-1601-1 (rev. 2005), Section 

I.C) This responsibility is particularly 

important in the BLM’s government-togovernment relationship with tribes. Once 

formal consultation has been initiated, tribal 

officials may decide to use the cooperating 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
23

agency role as a convenient way to 

communicate their views or contribute their 

expertise, but this is at the tribe’s option, not 

the BLM’s. 

➤	Executive Order 13175: 

Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

Our Nation, under the law of the United 

States, in accordance with treaties, 

statutes, Executive Orders, and judicial 

decisions, has recognized the right of 

Indian tribes to self-government. As 

domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes 

exercise inherent sovereign powers over 

their members and territory. The United 

States continues to work with Indian 

tribes on a government-to-government 

basis to address issues concerning Indian 

tribal self-government, tribal trust 

resources, and Indian tribal treaty and 

other rights. (E.O. 13175, Section 2(b), 

November 6, 2000). 

Q2: Must a native group be federally 

recognized to be eligible to serve as a 

cooperating agency?

A2: Yes. Only governmental entities can be 

cooperating agencies. Under federal law, 

only federally recognized tribes qualify as 

governments (25 U.S.C. 479a).

While federal agencies must consider the 

interests of members of the public in general, 

the agenciesí official interactions with tribes, 

including consultation, are distinguished 

by unique legal relationships. The sovereign 

status of Indian tribes and special provisions of 

law set Native Americans apart from all other 

U.S. populations and define a special level of 

federal agency responsibilities.

Q3: Do reservation lands need to be affected 

for a tribe to serve as a cooperating agency?

A3: No. The CEQ’s NEPA regulations 

allow tribes to serve as cooperating agencies 

“when the effects [of a proposed action] are 

on a reservation” (40 CFR 1508.5). (In its 

guidance, CEQ has supported extending CA 

status to federally recognized Alaska Native 

villages and tribes when the proposed action 

would affect tribal interests.) BLM revised 

planning regulations, in contrast, use the same 

eligibility criteria for tribes as for federal, state, 

and local government entities: jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise. Some areas with 

large native populations, notably Alaska, lack 

reservations almost entirely. In practice, tribes 

may have aboriginal or historical ties to lands 

at considerable distance from contemporary 

centers of tribal settlement. 

➤	BLM Native American Consultation 

Handbook, H-8120-1, § V.B 

Tribes and groups with historical ties to 

the lands in question, including those that 

are no longer locally resident, should be 

given the same opportunity as resident 

tribes and groups to identify...their 

interests in the public lands.

B.6. Intergovernmental organizations

Q1: May an intergovernmental organization 

serve as a cooperating agency? 

A1: No. Many regional intergovernmental 

associations exist to provide technical 

assistance or other services to member 

governments. The terminology varies, 

including “council of governments” 

(Rogue Valley Council of Governments), 

“association of governments” (Uintah Basin 

Association of Governments), and “regional 

council” (Genesee–Finger Lakes Regional 

Planning Council). Such organizations are 

not themselves units of government. An 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Firefighting and related programs require close 

cooperation among local, state, tribal, and federal 

governments and agencies to ensure efficiency and 

effectiveness when wildfires threaten. 

24 

intergovernmental association may not, 

therefore, serve as a cooperating agency. 

(Some regional governmental bodies, such as 

regional planning authorities, are defined as 

political subdivisions in state law, and could 

therefore qualify as CAs.)

➤	New Hampshire Revised 

Statutes, Title 3, 36:49-a

Regional planning commissions are 

political subdivisions of the state. 

However, regional planning commissions 

have only that power and authority 

expressly provided for in [New Hampshire 

Revised Statutes] 36.

Q2: May an intergovernmental organization 

represent a CA in the BLM’s planning process?

A2: Yes. An intergovernmental organization 

may represent one or more CAs, provided that 

all agencies to be represented are members 

of that organization and all have formally 

authorized it to act on their behalf. Such 

authorizations should be identified in the 

agreement or MOU. 

C. Other requirements

C.1. Meeting consistency requirements 

Q1: To what extent is the BLM obligated to 

follow local plans and policies when working 

with CAs? 

A1: Under the FLPMA, the BLM has an 

obligation to seek consistency with state, 

local, and tribal resource management plans, 

but only to the degree that such plans are 

also consistent with applicable federal law 

and regulation. This obligation is not altered 

by the participation of a CA in the planning 

process. 

➤	Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA)

[T]o the extent consistent with the laws 

governing the administration of the 

public lands, coordinate the land use 

inventory, planning, and management 

activities of or for such lands with the 

land use planning and management 

programs of other Federal departments 

and agencies and of the States and local 

governments within which the lands are 

located ... (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9))

➤	43 CFR 1610.3-2(a) (BLM)

Guidance and resource management 

plans and amendments ... shall be 

consistent with officially approved or 

adopted resource related plans, and the 

policies and programs contained therein, 

of other Federal agencies, State and 

local governments, and Indian tribes, 

so long as the guidance and resource 

management plans are also consistent 

with the purposes, policies, and programs 

of Federal laws and regulations applicable 

to public lands....

For example, in its land use planning the 

BLM is required to designate and protect areas 

of critical environmental concern (ACECs). 

The BLM could not honor a request from 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Representatives from the Bureau of Land Management and the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources view the area at Maryland’s Douglas Point 

while assessing resources for land use planning.

Openness is Crucial

“Keep cooperating agencies 

informed and engaged. Don’t hide 

the BLM’s dirty laundry – let the 

cooperating agencies see how 

sausages (and RMPs) are made.”

~Jake Rajala, Ely Field Office, 

BLM-Nevada

25

a county government CA that only ACECs 

consistent with the county’s general plan be 

designated in the RMP, if this would prevent 

the BLM from complying with a statutory 

obligation. 

➤	FLPMA, 43 USC 1712(c)(3): 

Protection of ACECs 

In the development and revision of land 

use plans, the Secretary shall...(3) give 

priority to the designation and protection 

of areas of critical environmental 

concern....

Q2: When such inconsistencies cannot be 

resolved, should they be acknowledged in the 

RMP? 

A2: Yes. The CEQ regulations require that 

inconsistencies between the proposed action 

and state, local, or tribal land use plans and 

policies be documented in the EIS. See 40 

CFR 1502.16 and 1506.2(d).

➤	40 CFR 1502.16 (CEQ)

[The environmental consequences section 

of the EIS] shall include discussions of 

. . . (c) Possible conflicts between the 

proposed action and the objectives of 

Federal, regional, State, and local (and 

in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) 

land use plans, policies, and controls for 

the area concerned. 

C.2. Sharing information

Q1: May the BLM share predecisional 

planning documents with the CAs? 

A1: Yes. Unless constrained by other factors, 

such as a state public records requirement (see 

Q3) or the need to protect the confidentiality 

of proprietary or contractual information, 

predecisional documents should be freely 

shared with the CAs. If the field manager 

does not intend to make predecisional 

documents publicly available, the agreement 

or MOU establishing the CA relationship 

should specify that such documents will be 

kept confidential. 

Q2: Are documents provided by the CAs (or 

to the CAs) subject to disclosure under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 

552)?

A2: In most cases, no. The FOIA exempts 

from release documents involving “interagency or intra-agency memorandums or 

letters which would not be available by law to 

a party other than an agency in litigation with 

the agency.” (FOIA exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(5)). A lead federal agency could assert 

this exemption to protect from disclosure 

those documents prepared by cooperating 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Field trips and on-site meetings are a useful way 

to foster common perspectives of complex issues 

among the Bureau of Land Management and its 

cooperating agencies.

26 

or joint lead agencies that contributed to 

the development of a plan or EIS. Such 

documents satisfy both requirements of 

exemption 5: they are predecisional and 

they are part of the lead agency’s deliberative 

process. 

Note that communications from a CA 

may not qualify as exempt from release under 

FOIA exemption 5 where that agency is 

advancing a competitive position that would 

be detrimental to another party. 

➤	Limitations on FOIA Exemption 5

In some circumstances, [FOIA exemption 

5] may also apply to documents 

generated outside of an agency. 

Documents prepared by outside 

consultants at the request of the agency 

and recommendations or advice from 

Congress or the States can be protected 

if those documents played a role in the 

agency’s deliberative process and the 

outside parties are not advocating their 

own interests in seeking a Government 

benefit at the expense of others. 

(Department of the Interior, Freedom of 

Information Act Handbook (383 DM 15), 

Section 5.7(A)(2), 2004, emphasis added.) 

Note also that the release of a document 

by a cooperating agency may be considered a 

waiver of the lead federal agency’s deliberative 

process privilege, thus precluding withholding 

documents under FOIA exemption 5.

Q3: How should the BLM work with a CA 

whose actions are governed by a state open 

records (“sunshine”) requirement?

A3: This must be decided jointly by the field 

manager and the CA, and described in the 

agreement or MOU establishing the CA 

relationship. In the planning process, the 

main reason to keep predecisional material 

from public view is to encourage candid 

discussion among all members of the planning 

team, including CA representatives. 

C.3. Ensuring Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) compliance

Q1: Are meetings between the BLM staff and 

CAs subject to the requirements of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C.A. 

App. 2)?

A1: Normally, no. The FACA applies 

whenever a federal agency official establishes, 

manages or controls a committee, board or 

similar group for the purpose of obtaining 

consensus advice or recommendations 

on issues or policies within the agency 

official’s responsibility. Meetings among 

representatives of governmental entities, 

however, are exempt from the requirements of 

FACA when they involve intergovernmental 

activities associated with managing or 

implementing federal programs (2 U.S.C. 

1534(b)). This is a broad exemption. 

Effectively, any meeting supporting BLM 

plan- or project-level activities would be 

exempt if the CAs or representatives of 

other government entities were providing 

information, guidance, or analysis related to 

their responsibilities or expertise. 

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
27

➤	The Intergovernmental 

Exemption to FACA 

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to actions 

in support of intergovernmental 

communications where 

(1) meetings are held exclusively between 

Federal officials and elected officers 

of State, local, and tribal governments 

(or their designated employees with 

authority to act on their behalf) acting in 

their official capacities; and 

(2) such meetings are solely for 

the purposes of exchanging views, 

information, or advice relating to the 

management or implementation of 

Federal programs established pursuant 

to public law that explicitly or inherently 

share intergovernmental responsibilities 

or administration. (2 U.S.C. 1534(b))

Q2: Who may represent a CA in meetings 

covered by the intergovernmental exemption? 

A2: The intergovernmental exemption to 

FACA applies to meetings between federal 

officials and elected state, local, or tribal 

government officials “or their designated 

employees with authority to act on their 

behalf.” 

Q3: May a CA be represented by a contractor 

instead of an official or employee? 

A3: The cooperating agency relationship is 

intended to facilitate the exchange of views 

and expertise among BLM managers and 

staff and other governmental officials and 

staff. For these reasons, the BLM discourages 

the use of contractors to represent the CAs. 

Because of limited staff and the potentially 

heavy time demands of the CA role, however, 

some CAs may find it necessary to retain 

contractors to participate in interdisciplinary 

team or work group meetings. 

Meetings between the BLM and CAs in 

which a CA is represented by a contractor 

would not be subject to the requirements 

of FACA if the meeting is used solely 

for purposes of exchanging information, 

including an organization’s views regarding 

a proposed federal action. In practice, 

however, the distinction between exchanging 

information and seeking recommendations 

may not be clear. 

Contractors should not represent the CAs 

in meetings where advice or recommendations 

are sought. This means, for example, that 

contractors should not represent the CAs in 

meetings that discuss key decisions in the 

planning process, including:

• designation of alternatives for further 

development and analysis, and 

• selection of a preferred alternative. 

C.4. Filing protests

Q1: Does participation as a CA prevent that 

agency from protesting the final decision?

A1: No. A cooperating agency may protest 

the final decision as long as it meets the 

requirements of BLM protest procedures. By 

becoming a cooperating agency, a government 

entity does not lose rights otherwise available 

to it, including the right to protest a land use 

plan. 

➤	43 CFR 1610.5-2(a) (BLM)

Protest procedures. Any person who 

participated in the planning process 

and has an interest that is, or may be, 

adversely affected by the approval or 

amendment of a resource management 

plan may protest such approval or 

amendment. A protest may raise only 

those issues that were submitted for the 

record during the planning process.

Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues
Factors for Success in the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan (Green River RMP

Amendment) 

1. Communication was excellent. Cooperators were always kept ‘in the loop’ 

and informed, even though it was often 

informal. To keep all parties up to date, 

and to make them know they are being 

heard, BLM offices are encouraged to use 

all modes of communication.

2. Cooperators were allowed to talk directly 

to resource specialists. This facilitated 

access to direct knowledge and a sense 

of shared responsibility. To have access 

to on-the-ground experts meant that 

cooperators had a better understanding 

of specific situations and could better 

defend them to their constituents.

3. The BLM had good control of its contractors, which is not always the case. There 

are often times when a contractor has 

more experience than a BLM field manager or project manager, but contractors should not dictate the relationship 

between BLM and cooperators. 

~Susan Child, Wyoming Office of

State Lands and Investments

The Jack Morrow Hills area in western Wyoming 

is rich in geology, energy, scenery, recreational 

activities, and wildlife. 

28 Section 3. Cooperating Agency Issues 
The Paria Canyon Wilderness is a popular hiking 

destination in the Vermilion Cliffs National 

Monument. Cooperating agencies are working 

with the BLM to develop a land use plan for the 

Monument.

29

Section 4.

Preparing Agreements and Memorandums of Understanding

ey to the cooperating agency 

relationship is negotiation 

of an effective agreement 

or memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) that acknowledges 

the interests, expertise, and jurisdictional 

responsibilities of the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and its cooperating 

agency (CA) partners and outlines their 

respective roles and responsibilities in the 

planning process. While the BLM’s planning 

regulations simply require a written agreement 

to establish the CA relationship, field office 

personnel are strongly encouraged to formalize 

their relationships with cooperating agencies 

through an MOU. An MOU will provide 

for continuity despite changes in priorities 

and personnel within the BLM and its CA 

partners.

An MOU will provide the framework 

for a cooperating agency relationship, but 

its utility is limited if there is not open and 

honest communication among the parties. 

An MOU will not transform a difficult 

relationship into a productive one. It can, 

however, reduce the chance for friction 

and misunderstanding by describing each 

participant’s goals and expectations and how 

they will work together. Positive results will 

come from the willingness of all parties to 

pursue sound land use planning on America’s 

public lands.

K

Section 4. Preparing Agreements and MOUs
30 

Essential Elements of a

Cooperating Agency MOU

The BLM should ensure that all 

cooperators are engaged in drafting the 

document. There is no single formula for 

drafting an MOU that engages cooperating 

agencies, but there are certain essential 

elements that should be included in all 

agreements or MOUs as a basis for an effective 

CA relationship. 

I. Introduction

• Describe the planning–National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) effort, 

and the major statutory and regulatory 

requirements it fulfills.

• Identify the government entities assuming 

cooperating agency status through the 

MOU and their qualifications as defined 

at 40 CFR 1508.15 and 1508.26: 

jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or 

both.

II. Purpose

• Describe what will be accomplished by the 

MOU.

“Our relationship with BLM is 

incredibly important to us, and 

the cooperating agency tool has 

benefited that relationship. If 

there is one area that needs to be 

improved, it’s the need to spend 

more time defining our relationship 

as a cooperating agency with BLM 

and understanding the roles and 

responsibilities that each of us 

have.”

~Judge Steve E. Grasty, 

Harney County, Oregon

III. Authorities

• Identify the principal statutory authorities 

that authorize the BLM to enter into the 

MOU.

1. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

2. Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)

3. Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations on implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Part 1501)

4. Other authorities

• Identify the principal statutory authorities 

that authorize the cooperating agencies to 

enter into the MOU.

IV. Roles and Responsibilities

• Identify the roles of each party in the 

planning and NEPA processes.

• Describe particular interests and areas 

of expertise of the cooperating agencies 

relative to the plan and NEPA analysis.

• Outline the responsibilities each party will 

assume. 

• Identify commitments of resources and 

time. 

• Identify how and when the cooperating 

agencies’ comments, analyses, 

recommendations, and data will be 

requested and provided.

• Describe procedures for treating 

confidential and predecisional 

information. 

• Describe the anticipated schedule. 

• Address any other expectations of the 

parties.

Section 4. Preparing Agreements and MOUs
31

V. Agency representatives 

(usually listed in an attachment)

VI. Administration of the MOU

• Include a mechanism for resolving 

disagreements and disputes. 

• Describe how the MOU may be modified. 

• Describe how and under what 

circumstances the MOU may be 

terminated. 

• Acknowledge that the authority and 

responsibilities of the parties under their 

respective jurisdictions are not altered by 

the MOU.

• If necessary, include provision for 

representation by a third-party contractor. 

VII. Approval

• For the BLM, the MOU shall be signed 

by the authorized officer in accordance 

with BLM Manual 1203 and appropriate 

delegations of authority. 

• For cooperating agencies, the MOU shall 

be signed by a similarly authorized official.

Other Considerations

The BLM and its CA partners may 

disagree regarding the validity of data or 

the soundness of the analyses. The MOU 

provides an opportunity for identifying 

procedures through which the parties may 

jointly determine the relevant data and 

appropriate scientific methods to be used in 

the RMP–EIS. They may also establish a 

cost-sharing agreement (monetary or in-kind) 

to fund the provision of data and analysis.

As the BLM and CAs begin the planning 

process, they should consider retaining 

an independent facilitator to foster clear 

communication among the parties. A 

facilitator may also transcribe input from all 

partners to ensure accuracy and build trust 

among the participants. The parties may 

stipulate in the MOU that a facilitator be 

used for a specific period and agree to review 

the need for such assistance at designated 

intervals. A cost-sharing agreement (monetary 

or in-kind) to pay for the facilitator should be 

explained in detail in the MOU.

Termination

The goal of the CA relationship is to 

work collaboratively for the public interest. 

This process can be contentious, but every 

effort should be made to develop a workable 

solution when difficulties are encountered. 

There may be instances where conflict cannot 

be resolved and the CA relationship must be 

terminated. The MOU should describe the 

procedures to be followed for terminating the 

CA relationship, when necessary. Grounds for 

termination are discussed in Section 3 (A.7. 

Terminating the CA Relationship).

“Cooperating agency status has 

been a positive experience for 

us...we went from an adversarial 

position to a good working 

relationship at the local level and 

even with the State Director.”

~Commissioners Michael McKee and 

Jim Abegglen, Uintah County, Utah

Section 4. Preparing Agreements and MOUs
32 

Figure. Cooperating Agency Role in the BLM Planning Process

Primary cooperating agency role 

Secondary cooperating agency role

Primary cooperating agency role–decision reserved to BLM

Reserved to BLM

1

Conduct 

scoping and 

identify 

issues

3

Collect

inventory

data

5

Formulate

alternatives

6

Estimate

effects of

alternatives

7

Select the preferred

alternative; issue

Draft RMP–DEIS

9

Sign record

of decision (ROD)

approving

the RMP

9a

Resolve protests;

modify RMP–EIS

if needed

Implement

plan 

(projects)

Monitor and 

evaluate 

RMP

No Protest

Protest

2

Develop

planning

criteria

4

Analyze the

management

situation

8

Respond to 

comments;

issue 

proposed 

RMP–FEIS;

initiate 

Governor’s

Consistency 

Review

Section 4. Preparing Agreements and MOUs
Ensure Mutual Learning

“We had constituents who were 

unfamiliar with BLM laws and 

participatory procedures, and BLM 

certainly needed to be educated 

about our stakeholders’ interests 

as well. Our close relationship with 

BLM facilitated the mutual learning 

that led to an efficient planning 

process.”

 ~Gene Piotrowski, Director, Resource 

Planning Program, Maryland 

Department of Natural Resources, 

speaking about the Lower Potomac 

River Coordinated Management Plan

33

Section 5. 

Information and Training 

orking effectively in 

the cooperating agency 

(CA) relationship 

requires Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) 

and CA staff to understand the relevant 

organization and policies of their partners. 

Each can benefit from the lessons learned in 

other CA relationships—for example, working 

within the constraints of tight planning 

schedules, or resolving a disagreement over 

methods of impact analysis. The CAs will 

be more effective participants when armed 

with a sound grasp of planning and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) concepts 

and procedures. Here are some sources of 

information and training that can help.

Sources of Information 

The BLM’s Web site for cooperating 

agency status provides links to land use 

planning and NEPA regulations, BLM 

handbooks, sample agreements and 

memorandums of understanding (MOUs), 

and other information useful to BLM 

staff and their CA colleagues. Find the 

information at: http://www.blm.gov/

planning/cadg/.

For those without Internet access, key 

documents helpful for cooperators are 

available from any BLM state office or field 

office. These documents include:

W

• Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508)

• Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning 

CEQ’s NEPA regulations (46 FR 18026, 

question 14a-14d)

• BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1600)

• BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

(Section I; part E).

• BLM NEPA Handbook (Chapter 9)

Training

1. BLM’s National Training Center

The BLM’s National Training Center 

provides in-person and online courses on 

planning and NEPA concepts and procedures, 

Section 5. Information and Training
34

collaboration, and alternative dispute 

resolution. 

Many of these courses (such as Planning 

Concepts, Planning Nuts and Bolts, and 

NEPA Concepts) are open to federal, tribal, 

state, and local government officials and staff. 

Contact the BLM’s National Training Center 

(http://www.ntc.blm.gov, 602-906-5500) for 

further information

2. BLM Cooperating Agency Training

 

Coordinated by the Intergovernmental 

Affairs Group, BLM Washington Office, these 

courses provide an introduction to NEPA 

and planning processes, and the cooperating 

agency role and responsibilities. The training 

is provided in two formats: 

• One- to two-day training sessions, 

scheduled in various locations, primarily 

in the western states. 

• An interactive CD-ROM is being 

prepared that will provide instruction and 

documents. 

3. The Partnership Series

 

These are community-based courses 

offering collaborative approaches to natural 

resource management and community 

development. Courses include CommunityBased Stewardship, Community Economic 

Assessment, and Place-based NEPA 

Training. Contact the Partnership Series 

(http://www.ntc.blm.gov/partner/, 

602-906-5514) for further information. 

4. Economic Profile System Workshops

 

Provided through the Sonoran Institute, 

these one-day workshops bring community 

leaders and BLM staff together to explore 

regional economic conditions, trends, and 

opportunities relevant to the BLM planning 

process. Contact the Sonoran Institute 

(http://www.sonoran.org/programs/si_se_

program_training.html, 406-587-7331) for 

further information.

5. Alternative Dispute Resolution-Based 

Collaborative Training

Developed through the Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Advisory Council. Courses include: 

• Manager’s Symposium on Collaboration and 

Conflict Prevention: Advanced Strategies for 

Alternative Dispute Resolution, 

• Collaboration and Conflict Prevention: 

Strategies for Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(Web-based), and

• Advanced Strategies for Collaboration and 

Conflict Prevention: A Clinic on Alternative 

Dispute Resolution. 

Contact Paul Politzer, Bureau Dispute 

Resolution Manager (202-452-0349) 

or the National Training Center 

(http://www.ntc.blm.gov, 602-906-5500) 

for further information.

Section 5. Information and Training

Cover Photos: 

Upper Left - A Bureau of Land Management land transfer planner 

discusses a land entitlement with village corporation members in Atka, 

a Native village on Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. 

Upper Right - An intergovernmental group of cooperators take a break 

from rafting as they evaluate conditions along the Colorado River near 

Black Rocks in the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area.

Lower - With the advent of natural gas discoveries, the Bureau of Land 

Management welcomes the assistance of cooperating 

agencies to balance energy development with conservation of areas rich 

in resources, such as the Jack Morrow Hills area of western Wyoming.

BLM/WO/AE-05/006+1780

Bureau of Land Management

Division of Planning and Science Support

DOI/BLM WO-210, 1075LS

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Phone: 202-452-5110

Editing, design, and production services provided by the

BLM National Science and Technology Center, Branch of Publishing Services.