Bureau of Land Management

A Desk Guide to

Cooperating Agency Relationships

and Coordination with

Intergovernmental Partners

2012
ii

Acronyms

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ADR Appropriate Dispute Resolution

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation

AO Authorized Offi cer

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CA Cooperating Agency

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DOI Department of the Interior

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ID team Interdisciplinary Team

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NTC National Training Center

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision
iiiBLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

Contents

Director’s Message _____________________________________________________________ vii

Section 1. Introduction ___________________________________________________________ 1

 The BLM’s Statutory Reponsibilities ______________________________________________ 1

 The Challenges of Federal Land Management ______________________________________ 2

Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship ________________________ 7

 The Role of CAs _____________________________________________________________ 7

 Eligibility for CA Status ________________________________________________________ 8

 Eligibility of Tribes ____________________________________________________________ 9

 Invitations To Participate _______________________________________________________ 9

 How To Establish Participation _________________________________________________ 11

 The Role of CAs in the NEPA Process ___________________________________________ 11

 The Role of CAs in the Planning Process _________________________________________ 11

Section 3. Preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding _____________________________ 17

Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions ________________ 21

 Qualifying Organizations ______________________________________________________ 21

 Criteria for CA eligibility ____________________________________________________ 21

 Federal agencies _________________________________________________________ 22

 State agencies ___________________________________________________________ 23

 Local governments _______________________________________________________ 23

 Tribal governments _______________________________________________________ 23

 Intergovernmental organizations _____________________________________________ 24

 The Establishment of Working Relationships ______________________________________ 25

 Consensus and collaboration in the CA relationship ______________________________ 25

 CA relationships and schedules ______________________________________________ 26

 CA roles in preparing RMPs and EISs _________________________________________ 27

 CAs and multistate projects _________________________________________________ 28

 The creation of MOUs _____________________________________________________ 28

 Informal alternatives to the CA relationship _____________________________________ 29

 The role of a joint lead agency _______________________________________________ 29

 Financial support for the CA relationship _______________________________________ 30

 Termination of the CA relationship ____________________________________________ 30

 Other Requirements and Challenges ____________________________________________ 31

 Meeting coordination and consistency requirements ______________________________ 31

 Information sharing _______________________________________________________ 34

 FACA compliance ________________________________________________________ 35

 CA meetings ____________________________________________________________ 36

 Protests and appeals ______________________________________________________ 36

 The BLM’s role as a CA ____________________________________________________ 36

Section 5. Resources and Training _________________________________________________ 43

 Resources _________________________________________________________________ 43

 Training ___________________________________________________________________ 43
iv
vBLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

Acknowledgments

DOI and BLM staff. 2d edition. Project coordinators: Shannon Stewart and Rob Winthrop 

(Decision Support, Planning, and NEPA). Writers: Cynthia Moses-Nedd (External and 

Intergovernmental Affairs), Robert Winthrop, and Shannon Stewart. Production and editing: 

Jacqui Read (Renewable Resources and Planning), Nancy Esworthy and Jennifer Kapus (National 

Operations Center). Legal support: Laura Damm (Offi ce of the Solicitor). Cooperating agency 

liaison: Cynthia Moses-Nedd. 

We thank Island Press for permission to reproduce a table from The Western Confl uence: A Guide 

to Governing Natural Resources by Matthew McKinney and William Harmon. Thanks to Rhey 

Solomon (Shipley Group) for suggestions regarding cooperating agency roles. 
vi

Since the BLM’s implementation

of the Guide, we have

completed more than

60 resource management plans 

and have engaged more than

300 intergovernmental partners

at the Federal, State, local,

and tribal levels.
viiBLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

Director’s Message

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has led the way in establishing a culture of 

cooperation, collaboration, and partnership in its land use planning process by promulgating 

regulations that establish a consistent role for cooperating agencies. State and fi eld 

offi ces are required to engage their government partners consistently and effectively in the 

preparation or revision of land use plans. In 2008 the Department of the Interior broadened 

its regulations to require every Interior agency to offer cooperating agency status to all eligible 

intergovernmental partners for all environmental impact statements. The Department also 

indicated that cooperating agency procedures could be used to support efforts conducted under 

environmental assessments. We believe that by working closely with our State, local, tribal, and 

Federal government partners, we 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 recognizing the vital role that Federal, State, 

local, and tribal government partners play in ensuring effective and durable land management 

decisions.

A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships, fi rst published in 2005, is a “how to” 

publication that all BLM managers and staff have been required to put into practice. The Guide

has helped to shape our collaborative efforts with State, local, and tribal governments and other 

Federal agencies to recognize common goals and achieve balanced approaches to multiple 

use management across the public lands. Since the BLM’s implementation of the Guide we 

have completed more than 60 resource management plans and have engaged more than 300 

intergovernmental partners at the Federal, State, local, and tribal levels. We have been able to 

incorporate the sound advice and recommendations of these government partners to create and 

implement successful land use plans.

We have updated the original Guide to refl ect policy changes in how we deal with the 

cooperating agency relationship, to incorporate what we have learned from our cooperating 

agency experiences, to clarify how cooperating agency status differs from efforts to improve 

coordination, and to include updated language and references from the Department of 

the Interior’s revised regulations and policies. We have also renamed it “A Desk Guide 

to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners.” 

This name change refl ects our commitment to working with Federal, State, local, and tribal 

government partners and coordinating on a variety of activities on an ongoing basis. 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 lands and resources for the 

greatest good for all Americans.

Director, Bureau of Land Management
viii

The CA relationship is

distinctive, moving beyond 

consultation to engage offi cials 

and staff of other agencies

and levels of government in 

working partnerships. 
1Section 1. Introduction

Section 4 provides answers to frequently 

asked questions regarding effective working 

relationships with CAs. 

Section 5 describes sources of information 

and training that can help support effective 

interactions between the BLM and its CA 

partners.

The BLM’s Statutory

Responsibilities

The CA relationship is distinctive, moving 

beyond consultation to engage offi cials 

and staff of other agencies and levels of 

government in working partnerships. The CAs 

share skills and resources to help shape BLM 

land use plans and environmental analyses 

that better refl ect the policies, needs, and 

conditions of their jurisdictions and the citizens 

they represent. 

The CA relationship provides a framework for 

intergovernmental efforts by: 

• Gaining early and consistent involvement 

of CA partners 

• Incorporating local knowledge of economic, 

social, and environmental conditions, as 

well as Federal, State, local, and tribal land 

use requirements 

• Addressing intergovernmental issues 

• Avoiding duplication of effort 

In the American political system, different 

spheres of government—Federal, State, 

local, and tribal—have their respective areas 

of responsibility, authority, and expertise. 

As a result, the need for cooperation in the 

management of public lands and resources is 

especially critical. This Guide describes one 

tool for creating more effective government 

partnerships: the lead agency–cooperating 

agency relationship (referred to in this Guide

as the “cooperating agency (CA) relationship”) 

and its application to the planning and 

environmental analysis responsibilities of 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

While this Guide is primarily concerned with 

implementing formal CA relationships in 

preparing resource management plans (RMPs) 

and environmental analyses, collaboration 

with State, tribal, and local governments—as 

well as with other Federal agencies—should 

also be standard practice at the BLM for all 

land use planning and related implementation 

activities. 

Section 1 of this Guide introduces the CA 

relationship and describes the opportunities 

and challenges this approach presents for the 

BLM and its government partners. 

Section 2 describes the CA provisions of the 

BLM’s planning and National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and guidance, 

reviews CA eligibility criteria, and describes the 

appropriate roles for CAs at various steps in 

the BLM’s planning and NEPA processes. 

Section 3 describes key elements of an 

effective memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) establishing a CA relationship. 

Section 1

Introduction
2BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

• Enhancing local credibility of plans and 

environmental impact statements (EISs)

• Encouraging CA support for management 

decisions 

• Building relationships of trust and 

cooperation

• Making better, more informed decisions 

The CA role derives from the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which calls 

on Federal, State, and local governments 

to cooperate with the goal of achieving 

“productive harmony” between humans and 

their environment (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347). The 

regulations of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) that implement NEPA (40 CFR 

Parts 1500–1508) allow Federal agencies—

as lead agencies—to invite State, local, and 

tribal governments, as well as other Federal 

agencies, to serve as CAs in the preparation of 

EISs. 

Additionally, in accordance with the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

of 1976, in the development and revision of 

land use plans, the BLM has an independent 

responsibility to coordinate with other units of 

government (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)). As stated, 

the BLM will, to the extent practicable, seek 

to maximize consistency with the plans and 

policies of other government entities, whether 

or not a CA relationship has been established. 

A CA relationship, however, provides an 

excellent opportunity to meet the coordination 

responsibilities under FLPMA. This Guide will 

clarify the distinctions between a cooperating 

agency relationship and the coordination that 

the BLM undertakes in carrying out FLPMA. 

The BLM amended its planning regulations in 

2005 to ensure that it engages its government 

partners consistently and effectively through 

the CA relationship whenever land use 

plans are prepared or revised. In 2008 the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) applied this 

policy to the preparation of all EISs. The 

CEQ and the DOI have also affi rmed that the 

CA relationship may be used for preparation 

of environmental assessments (EAs). CEQ 

Memorandum on Cooperating Agency Reports, 

May 26, 2006; 43 CFR 46.225(e).

The Challenges of Federal

Land Management 

The BLM has a large and complex 

responsibility—managing more than 245 

million acres of America’s public lands and 

roughly 700 million acres of its subsurface 

mineral estate. More than 140 resource 

management plans authorize and guide every 

action and approved use of these lands and 

resources. The BLM’s plans encompass 

a highly 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 compliance 

with Federal laws, regulations, and policies 

while seeking consistency with local and 

regional laws, policies, plans, needs, and 

values. This Guide represents a major step 

toward meeting these challenges by ensuring 

that the agency’s decisions benefi t from the 

varied skills and knowledge of the BLM’s 

government partners, including knowledge of 

local conditions and values.

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 fulfi ll the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations 

of Americans (42 U.S.C. 4331(a), emphasis 

added).
3Section 1. Introduction

In any Federal undertaking, harmonizing 

national, regional, and local governance 

entails at least three key tasks. As Matthew 

McKinney and William Harmon noted in The 

Western Confl uence: A Guide to Governing 

Natural Resources (2004), these include 

integrating the involvement of multiple parties 

with competing interests and values, removing 

obstacles to sharing and validating relevant 

information, and resolving confl icts among 

institutions and policies. 

• Multiple Parties. State, local, and tribal 

government offi cials are often in a better 

position than are Federal land managers 

to engage the communities and interest 

groups most likely to be affected by a plan 

or proposed activity. 

• Complex Information. Effective 

discussion between Federal agencies 

and the public is often blocked by deeply 

incompatible views of the “facts” regarding 

current environmental and socioeconomic 

conditions as well as the effects that a 

proposed plan or activity may have on 

these conditions. Resolution of these 

incompatibilities often requires the lead 

agency and CA partners to engage in 

joint factfi nding and to seek agreement on 

where to fi nd valid information and how to 

interpret it. 

• Confl icting Policies and Institutions. 

The challenge of managing public lands 

can reveal signifi cant disagreements 

in jurisdictions and mandates, not only 

among 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 benefi ts for the 

public. The CA relationship is one tool among 

many that can advance collective efforts 

among government partners. Each party 

may have some lessons to learn—and some 

practices to unlearn. 

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 Confl uence: A Guide to 

Governing Natural Resources, by Matthew 

McKinney and William Harmon. Copyright 

2004 by the authors. Reproduced by 

permission of Island Press, Washington, DC.

Experience has shown that there are three 

primary lessons that can lead to success when 

working across government boundaries. They 

are:

1. Federal, State, local, and tribal partners 

need to recognize that the CA relationship 

is a forum for sharing information and 

expertise, not for asserting authority. 

Engaging in a CA relationship neither 

augments nor diminishes an entity’s 
4BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

jurisdiction and authority. However, mutual 

respect for each agency’s authority and 

jurisdiction is critical. 

2. BLM managers and staff should 

acknowledge that the CA relationship 

requires new ways of doing business. 

Engaging with government partners as 

CAs is a unique form of consultation. 

Cooperating agencies expect, and should 

be given, a signifi cant role (commensurate 

with available time and knowledge) 

in shaping plans and environmental 

analyses—instead of merely commenting 

on them. 

3. All parties will fi nd 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. 

Working with other government offi cials 

through the CA relationship makes better 

outcomes more likely and can establish a 

foundation for long-term cooperation that 

benefi ts all partners. 

6

By adding provisions for the CAs 

to its planning regulations, the 

BLM has included the CAs as 

partners in land use planning. 
7Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship

Section 2

Implementation of the Cooperating

Agency Relationship

• CAs accept obligations to contribute staff to 

the EIS team, develop and review analyses 

for which they have particular expertise, 

and fund their own participation. 

The BLM land use planning process yields 

a dual-function document: an RMP and an 

EIS. The distinction is important. Planning

(refl ected in the RMP) selects the goals 

and identifi es the management actions 

needed to achieve them. Environmental 

analysis (refl ected in the EIS) identifi es 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 included the CAs as partners in land use 

planning. (Because this Guide discusses both 

plans and implementation actions and projects, 

“EIS” will generally refer to implementation 

and project-level documents, although RMP 

revisions also involve EISs.)

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 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 

This section explains the requirements 

regarding CA relationships established by BLM 

planning regulations and by guidance from the 

DOI on implementing NEPA (43 CFR Part 46; 

DM 516 Chapters 1–15).

The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

govern the CA relationship for all Federal 

agencies preparing EISs. Only those CEQ 

regulations specifi c to the CA relationship are 

cited here. CAs are typically not treated as 

advisory committees under the purview of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 

5 U.S.C. App.). This is because meetings 

held exclusively between Federal offi cials 

and elected offi cers of State, local, and tribal 

governments (or their designated employees 

authorized to act on their behalf) acting in their 

offi cial capacities are generally exempt from 

the requirements of FACA when the meetings 

are solely for the purpose of exchanging views, 

information, or advice related to management 

or implementation of Federal programs 

established pursuant to a public law that 

provides intergovernmental responsibilities or 

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

The Role of CAs

The CEQ regulations call for early and 

signifi cant involvement by CAs in the 

preparation of an EIS. Both lead agencies 

and cooperating agencies assume signifi cant 

obligations in offering and accepting the CA 

relationship, meaning: 

• As a lead agency, the BLM is expected to 

use the analyses and proposals of a CA “to 

the maximum extent possible consistent 

with its responsibility.” 
8BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

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.

 (5) Normally 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. Potential lead agencies shall 

include such funding requirements in their 

budget requests.

Eligibility for CA Status

State agencies, local governments, tribal 

governments, and other Federal agencies may 

serve as CAs. CEQ regulations, apart from the 

provision for tribes (see subsection Eligibility 

of Tribes), recognize two criteria for CA status: 

jurisdiction by law and special expertise. The 

BLM regulations incorporate these criteria.

40 CFR 1508.5 (CEQ) 

Defi ning 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 

qualifi cations 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 specifi c basis 

for CA status: Authority by a Federal, State, 

tribal, or local government entity to approve, 

deny, or fi nance all or part of a proposal. Note 

that a Federal agency eligible on the basis of 

jurisdiction by law must serve as a CA when 

so requested by the lead agency (40 CFR 

1501.6).

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

could possess jurisdiction by law for 

an RMP or EIS through its consultation 

role under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Note that the FWS 

would qualify as a CA not merely because 

the BLM is obliged to consult with that 

agency pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, 

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’s Department of Natural Resources 

could possess jurisdiction by law for an 

RMP or EIS 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 fi nance 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, local, or tribal government entity has 

with respect to reasonable alternatives or any 

signifi cant environmental, social, or economic 

impacts associated with a proposed action. 

Note that, as compared to a Federal agency 

with jurisdiction by law, a Federal agency that 

is eligible on the basis of special expertise 

is not obligated to serve as a CA when so 

requested by the lead agency (40 CFR 

1501.6).

• 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. 

• Cities and counties within a 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). Local governments 
9Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship

could also possess expertise on the 

environmental, social, or economic impacts 

of a proposal and specialized local data 

and information.

There are two key considerations in 

determining whether an agency or government 

possesses special expertise relative to an 

RMP or EIS. The expertise must be relevant 

to the decisions to be made, and it must be 

demonstrated, generally through an 

appropriate program focus and staff 

capabilities. 

40 CFR 1508.26 (CEQ)

Special expertise.

Special expertise means statutory 

responsibility, agency mission, or related 

program experience. 

The MOU establishing a CA relationship 

should identify the basis for eligibility; see 

Section 3 (Preparation of an MOU). For 

additional guidance on applying the CA 

eligibility criteria, see Section 4 (Cooperating 

Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked 

Questions). 

43 CFR 1601.0-5 (BLM) (also see 43 CFR 

46.225(a) (DOI))

Defi ning eligibility.

 (d) Eligible cooperating agency means:

 (1) A Federal agency other than a 

lead agency that is qualifi ed 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 defi ned in 40 CFR 1508.15, or special 

expertise as defi ned in 40 CFR 1508.26; or

 (2) A federally recognized Indian tribe, 

a state agency, or a local government 

agency with similar qualifi cations.

 (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 regulations differ from the BLM 

and DOI regulations regarding the eligibility 

of American Indian tribes for CA status. The 

CEQ regulations specify that a tribe is eligible 

“when the effects [of an action] are on a 

reservation” (40 CFR 1508.5). In contrast, 

the BLM and DOI regulations apply the same 

eligibility criteria for Federal, State, local, and 

tribal government entities: jurisdiction by law 

or special expertise (43 CFR 1601.0-5(d)(2) 

and 46.225(a)(3)). The broader BLM and DOI 

criteria will apply in the preparation of all RMPs 

and EISs and, when appropriate, EAs. 

For more guidance on managing the CA 

relationship with tribes, see Section 4 

(Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently 

Asked Questions).

Invitations To Participate

The CEQ regulations state that a lead 

agency shall request the participation of 

eligible agencies and governments as CAs 

in the NEPA process (40 CFR 1501.6(a)(1)). 

Further, both BLM planning regulations and 

DOI NEPA regulations require managers to 

invite eligible agencies and governments to 

become CAs on RMPs and EISs. Managers 

are expected to make a reasonable effort to 

identify Federal, State, local, and tribal entities 

possessing jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise concerning an RMP or EIS. Once 

these entities are identifi ed, managers must 

extend invitations to eligible agencies and 

governments (43 CFR 1610.3-1 and 43 CFR 

46.225(b)). 

In accordance with DOI regulations (43 CFR 

46.225(c)), the Responsible Offi cial for the 

lead bureau must consider any request by 

a government entity to participate as a CA. 
10BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

The request must be evaluated against CA 

eligibility criteria—jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise. If the Responsible Offi cial for the 

lead bureau denies a request, or determines it 

is inappropriate to extend an invitation, he or 

she must state the reasons in the EIS. 

The BLM’s Division of Decision Support, 

Planning and NEPA (WO-210) conducts 

an annual CA data call on behalf of the 

DOI’s Offi ce of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance. This information is subsequently 

provided to the CEQ. Authorized offi cers 

(AOs) should keep records of all CA 

participation for planning and NEPA activities 

to support this effort. In addition to the 

annual data call, CEQ regulations require 

any CA, in response to the lead agency’s 

request for assistance in preparing the EIS 

to reply that other program commitments 

preclude the requested involvement and to 

provide a copy of said reply to CEQ (40 CFR 

1501.6(c)). In accordance, BLM offi ces are 

instructed to submit immediately a copy of any 

correspondence from the BLM declining an 

invitation to participate as a cooperator to the 

Division Chief of WO-210; WO-210 will in turn 

submit this information to the CEQ. 

Note that the requirement to invite eligible 

government and tribal entities to become a CA 

applies to all RMPs and EISs. This includes 

implementation actions and projects analyzed 

in an EIS, and new plans, plan revisions, or 

plan amendments prepared in conjunction with 

an EIS. The requirement does not apply to 

plan amendments or other activities prepared 

through an EA, although the CEQ and DOI 

have affi rmed that the CA relationship may 

also be used for preparation of EAs (CEQ 

Memorandum on Cooperating Agency Reports, 

May 26, 2006; 43 CFR 46.225(e)).

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.

43 CFR 46.155 (DOI)

Inviting participation.

The Responsible Offi cial must whenever 

possible consult, coordinate, and 

cooperate with relevant State, local, and 

tribal governments and other bureaus 

and Federal agencies concerning the 

environmental effects of any Federal action 

within the jurisdictions or related to the 

interests of these entities.

43 CFR 46.225 (DOI)

Inviting participation.

 (b)...the Responsible Offi cial for 

the lead bureau must invite eligible 

governmental entities to participate as 

cooperating agencies when the bureau 

is developing an environmental impact 

statement.

 (c) The Responsible Offi cial for the 

lead bureau must consider any request 

by an eligible governmental entity to 

participate in a particular environmental 

impact statement as a cooperating agency. 

If the Responsible Offi cial for the lead 

bureau denies a request, or determines 

it is inappropriate to extend an invitation, 

he or she must state the reasons in the 

environmental impact statement. Denial of 

a request or not extending an invitation for 

cooperating agency status is not subject 

to any internal administrative appeals 

process, nor is it a fi nal agency action 

subject to review under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.
11Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship

How To Establish Participation

Under DOI regulations at 43 CFR 46.225(d), 

bureaus should work with CAs to develop and 

adopt an MOU that describes their respective 

roles, assignment of issues, schedules, and 

staff commitments so that the planning and/or 

NEPA process remains on track and on time. 

An MOU must be used in the case of nonFederal agencies and must include a 

commitment to maintain the confi dentiality of 

documents and deliberations to the extent 

legally permissible during the period before the 

bureau’s public release of any planning and/or 

NEPA document, including drafts. Again note 

that under 43 CFR 46.225(e), MOUs may be 

developed when CAs are involved in preparing 

an EA. See Section 3 (Preparation of an 

MOU) for additional information. 

It is important that MOUs establishing a 

CA relationship be completed in a timely 

manner—preferably before the Notice of Intent 

(which formally initiates the planning and 

NEPA processes) is published in the Federal 

Register. This will require a prompt response 

by the BLM to any requests for CA status. The 

CA relationship may be established later in the 

planning or NEPA process, but it then becomes 

particularly important that the MOU clearly 

identify expectations and responsibilities within 

an already established schedule. 

The Role of CAs in the

NEPA Process

In accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR 

1501.6) and DOI regulations (43 CFR 46.230), 

throughout the development of an EIS, the 

lead bureau will collaborate, to the fullest 

extent possible, with all CAs concerning those 

issues relating to their jurisdiction and special 

expertise. CAs may, by agreement with the 

lead bureau, assist in doing the following:

• Identifying issues to be addressed

• Arranging for the collection and/or 

assembly of necessary resource, 

environmental, social, economic, and 

institutional data

• Analyzing data

• Developing alternatives

• Evaluating alternatives and estimating the 

effects of implementing each alternative

• Carrying out any other tasks necessary 

for the development of the environmental 

analysis and documentation

DOI regulations include the requirement 

to offer CA status to eligible parties on all 

proposed actions or projects that will be 

analyzed through an EIS (43 CFR 46.225(b)). 

While the BLM is not required to offer 

cooperating agency status on EAs, there must 

be some like form of public involvement in the 

preparation of all EAs (BLM Manual Handbook, 

H-1790-1, Sec. 8.2). Public involvement on 

EAs should include the participation of Federal, 

state, and local government and tribal entities. 

Where the activities to be analyzed under an 

EA are complex or large in scale, the AO may 

decide to involve government partners through 

a formal CA relationship (43 CFR 46.225(e)) 

and should carefully consider any requests for 

CA status on such efforts. 

Participating as a CA in the NEPA process 

does not negate an agency’s or government’s 

rights to comment, protest, or appeal the 

analysis or a decision.

The Role of CAs in the

Planning Process

The BLM land use planning regulations (43 

CFR 1600) provide a role for CAs at most 

steps of the planning process. The regulations 

and suggested roles for CAs during each of 

the steps are summarized here. (Note: Some 

of these steps take place as part of EISs for 

implementation actions and projects as well.) 
12BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

1. The BLM develops a

preparation plan.

The RMP’s preparation plan should include 

a list of potential CAs and a preliminary 

assessment of the role of each entity based 

on jurisdiction by law or special expertise. 

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 as 

appropriate. The BLM works with the potential 

CAs to prepare an MOU to establish CA 

relationships. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Identify relevant local and regional 

organizations and interest groups. Sponsor 

public forums in conjunction with the 

lead agency. Identify coordination needs 

associated with Federal, State, local, and 

tribal land use plans, policies, and controls. 

Begin to identify signifi cant issues. Work 

with the appropriate BLM offi ce to develop an 

MOU. Participate in the development of the 

preparation plan, as appropriate. For example, 

it would be appropriate for CAs to help in 

identifying data and inventory needs as well as 

anticipated management issues and concerns. 

It is expected that CAs would be involved to a 

lesser extent on some aspects of a preparation 

plan, such as schedule and budget. 

2. The BLM conducts scoping and 

identifi es issues. 

This process provides a major opportunity for 

BLM and CA discussion. The issues selected 

will guide the planning process. To the extent 

consistent with other BLM responsibilities, 

these issues should include matters signifi cant 

to CAs. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Sponsor public forums in conjunction with the 

lead agency. Collaborate in assessing scoping 

comments. Identify coordination needs 

associated with Federal, State, local, and tribal 

land use plans, policies, and controls. Identify 

signifi cant issues. Identify connected, similar, 

and cumulative actions.

43 CFR 1610.4-1 (BLM) 

Identifi cation 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.]

3. The BLM develops planning 

criteria. 

At the start of the planning process the 

fi eld offi ce planning team determines the 

parameters that will guide development of the 

plan consistent with statutory and regulatory 

requirements. These planning criteria aid in 

tailoring plans to identifi ed issues and help 

eliminate unnecessary data collection and 

analysis. The BLM has an obligation to seek 

consistency with Federal, State, local, and 

tribal plans, 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. 

Identify pertinent elements of Federal, State, 

local, and tribal plans (such as transportation 

and environmental regulations). Identify legal 

requirements that shape Federal, State, local, 

and tribal CA policies and responsibilities. 

43 CFR 1610.4-2 (BLM) 

Development of planning criteria. 

 (a) The Field Manager will prepare 

criteria to guide development of the 

resource management plan or revision, to 

ensure:
13Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship

 (1) It is tailored to the issues previously 

identifi ed....

 (b) 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.

4. The BLM collects inventory data. 

The planning team identifi es available data 

that can be used to characterize the physical, 

biological, social, and economic characteristics 

of the resource area; assesses the data; and 

identifi es 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. 

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.

5. The BLM analyzes baseline data 

and prepares the 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 offi ce personnel are encouraged to make 

this document (or a summary) available to 

the public. A summary of current conditions 

and trends appears in the plan’s “Affected 

Environment” section. 

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. Identify management 

opportunities to respond to the gathered data 

and the planning issues. Review draft AMS.

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 identifi ed 

issues and opportunities.

6. The BLM formulates alternatives. 

Each planning alternative consists of desired 

outcomes (goals and objectives) and the 

allowable uses and management actions 

anticipated to achieve those outcomes. 

Formulating alternatives is a key decision item 

that determines the range of management 

choices to be subsequently analyzed and 

considered for adoption in the plan. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Suggest goals and objectives 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.

7. The BLM estimates effects

of alternatives.

The analysis in the plan 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 long-term perspectives, at various 

geographic scales. 
14BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Suggest models and methods for impact 

analyses. Develop and review direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects analysis 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.

8. The BLM selects preferred 

alternative and issues the draft RMP. 

The various planning alternatives must be 

evaluated in relation to planning issues and 

criteria and the analysis of effects. The AO 

selects a preferred alternative and forwards 

the resulting draft plan to the State Director for 

approval and publication. The draft plan must 

be available for public comment for a minimum 

of 90 days. 

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Collaborate with the BLM’s AO in evaluating 

alternatives. Provide information for 

preliminary (internal) draft RMP. Review the 

preliminary (internal) draft RMP. After public 

release of the draft RMP/draft EIS, CAs may 

provide written comment, if desired, just as 

non-CAs and members of the public are 

allowed.

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 State Director 

for approval, publication, and fi ling 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 offi cials of other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments and Indian 

tribes that the State Director has reason to 

believe would be concerned.

9. The BLM responds to comments 

and issues the fi nal RMP. 

The BLM is required to respond to substantive 

comments submitted on a draft RMP/draft 

EIS that reveal new information, missing 

information, or fl awed analysis that could 

substantially change the conclusions. The AO 

then forwards the fi nal plan, revised as needed 

to refl ect 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 the BLM in preparing responses. 

Review the preliminary (internal) draft of 

the proposed RMP. State agency CAs may 

contribute to the Governor’s consistency 

review.

43 CFR 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 fi nal environmental impact statement. 

After supervisory review of the proposed 

resource management plan, the State 

Director shall publish the plan and fi le the 

related environmental impact statement. 

See 43 CFR 1610.3-2(e) for requirements of 

the Governor’s consistency review.
15Section 2. Implementation of the Cooperating Agency Relationship

10. The BLM responds to protests and 

signs the Record of Decision. 

The fi nal RMP is subject to a 30-day protest 

period. Any party (including a CA) that 

participated in the planning process and that 

may be adversely affected by approval of the 

resource management plan may fi le a protest 

with the Director of the BLM. On approval of 

the fi nal RMP, 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 in protest resolution 

and ROD development. Reviewing protests 

and signing the ROD are actions reserved to 

the BLM. The protest procedures provide 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 

clarifi cation.

See 43 CFR 1610.5-2 for protest procedures 

for resource management plans.

11. The BLM implements the RMP. 

Formal CA status for a plan ends when the 

ROD is signed. Federal, State, local, and 

tribal entities may work with the BLM as the 

plan is implemented through assistance with 

on-the-ground projects. Such actions range 

from the identifi cation of roads and trails within 

designated open and limited areas, to approval 

of small projects with few effects (such as 

improving campgrounds), to large projects 

with the potential for signifi cant effects 

(such as establishing a right-of-way for the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline). Implementation 

actions and projects will receive a level of 

NEPA analysis commensurate with their 

potential effects. Those expected to have 

signifi cant effects require an EIS. Actions and 

projects that are unlikely to generate signifi cant 

effects will normally be analyzed through an 

EA.

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Opportunities exist for Federal, State, 

local, and tribal entities to participate as 

cooperating agencies in future NEPA efforts 

for implementation actions. See subsection, 

The Role of CAs in the NEPA Process. CAs 

may also assist the BLM in performing 

implementation tasks such as monitoring, 

enforcement, or even project work. 

12. The BLM monitors the RMP.

Monitoring is the process of collecting data 

and information to determine whether or not 

desired outcomes in the RMP (expressed as 

goals and objectives) are being met as the 

allowable uses and management actions in 

the plan are being implemented. A monitoring 

strategy, developed as part of the plan, 

identifi es 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.

Suggested roles for CAs: 

Federal, State, local, and tribal 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.
16

The BLM has developed a Model 

MOU, which provides guidance 

for developing a comprehensive, 

mutually respectful framework to 

guide the CA relationship. 
17Section 3. Preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding

Section 3

Preparation of a Memorandum

of Understanding 

Key to the CA relationship is the negotiation 

of an effective MOU that acknowledges 

the interests, expertise, and jurisdictional 

responsibilities of both the BLM and its CA 

partners and that outlines their respective roles 

and responsibilities in the planning and NEPA 

processes. DOI policy states that bureaus 

should develop and adopt an MOU to establish 

a CA relationship and that an MOU must be 

used in the case of non-Federal agencies (43 

CFR 46.225(d)). An MOU will also provide 

for continuity despite changes in priorities and 

personnel within the BLM and its CA partners. 

While the framework for a CA relationship is 

established by an MOU, its utility is limited 

if open and honest communication does not 

exist among the cooperating agencies. An 

MOU may transform a diffi cult relationship into 

a productive one, by reducing the chance for 

friction and misunderstanding by describing 

in suffi cient detail each participant’s goals 

and expectations and how the CAs will work 

together. Positive results will come from the 

willingness of all parties to pursue sound 

resource management on America’s public 

lands.

The BLM should ensure that cooperators 

are engaged in drafting the MOU. There is 

no required format for an MOU, but there 

are certain essential elements that should 

be included in all MOUs as a basis for an 

effective CA relationship. The BLM has 

developed a Model MOU, which provides 

guidance for developing a comprehensive, 

mutually respectful framework to guide the 

CA relationship. A summary of the BLM’s 

Model MOU is included below (a copy of 

the complete Model MOU can be found on 

the BLM’s Cooperating Agencies webpage 

at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/nepa/

cooperating_agencies.html. 

Please note: The Model MOU is intended 

to be used only as a guide. The BLM and 

CAs should work together to ensure that the 

agreed on MOU refl ects their unique working 

relationship and the tasks at hand. 

Introduction

• Describe the planning or NEPA effort 

and the major statutory and regulatory 

requirements it fulfi lls.

• Identify the government entities assuming 

CA status through the MOU and their 

qualifi cations: jurisdiction by law, special 

expertise, or both.

• If the CA is a tribal entity, specify the 

government-to-government consultation 

provision, including applicable laws and 

directives.

Purpose

• Describe what the MOU will accomplish.

• Designate cooperating agency(ies) in the 

planning or NEPA process.

• Identify the lead agency that has 

responsibility for the completion of the 

planning or NEPA effort.

• Establish a framework for cooperation 

and coordination between the lead 

agency and the cooperating agency(ies) 
18BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

that will ensure successful completion of 

the planning or NEPA effort in a timely, 

effi cient, and thorough manner.

• Describe the respective responsibilities, 

jurisdictional authority, and expertise of 

each of the parties in the planning or NEPA 

process.

Authorities for the MOU

• Identify the principal statutory authorities 

that authorize the parties to enter into 

the MOU (such as the NEPA of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.); Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations on implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Part 1501 et seq.); BLM planning 

regulations (43 CFR 1601 et seq.); and 

other authorities).

Roles and Responsibilities

• Identify the roles of each party in the 

planning or NEPA process, and outline the 

responsibilities each party will assume.

• Describe the BLM’s responsibility for the 

content of the planning or NEPA document, 

including the BLM’s obligation to consider 

CA input, particularly in those areas where 

the CA is deemed to possess jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise.

• Describe those areas where the CA will 

provide information, comments, and 

technical expertise to the lead agency 

regarding those elements of the planning or 

NEPA effort in which the CA has jurisdiction 

or special expertise or for which the lead 

agency requests the CA’s assistance.

• Specifi cally address any matters of 

compensation (monetary or in-kind) for 

CAs providing technical analysis or data. 

The BLM should consult the Department’s 

Offi ce of the Solicitor to determine if any 

matters of compensation require a more 

formalized agreement than an MOU.

• Describe the schedule for any tasks 

assigned through the MOU.

Other Provisions

• Include standard legal stipulations to 

indicate, for example, that authorities 

are not altered and that immunities and 

defenses of all parties are retained.

• Include provisions to address issues such 

as confl icts of interest, the management 

and documentation of disagreements, and 

procedures that will be employed when 

parties disagree on matters of scientifi c 

information, data collection, or analysis.

• Describe procedures for handling 

confi dential and predecisional information, 

while paying particular attention to state 

“sunshine” laws, requirements of the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and 

other pertinent laws.

• Include a confl ict resolution provision, 

which may include options for facilitation 

and joint factfi nding. The lead agency 

and CAs may consider retaining an 

independent facilitator to foster clear 

communication among the parties. The 

parties may stipulate in the MOU that a 

facilitator be used for a specifi c period and 

may agree to review the need for such 

assistance at designated intervals. A costsharing agreement (monetary, or in-kind) to 

pay for the facilitator should be detailed in 

the MOU.

• If necessary, include detailed provisions for 

engaging contractors as representatives for 

the CAs.

Agency Representatives

• Designate a representative and alternate 

representative for each party to ensure 

coordination between the cooperating 

agency(ies) and the lead agency during the 

planning or NEPA process.
19Section 3. Preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding

Administration of the MOU

• Describe MOU approval authority. For 

the BLM, the MOU shall be signed by the 

authorized offi cer in accordance with BLM 

Manual 1203 and appropriate delegations 

of authority. For CAs, the MOU shall be 

signed by a similarly authorized offi cial.

• Describe how the MOU may be amended 

or modifi ed.

• Describe how and under what 

circumstances the MOU may be 

terminated. 
20

Some expertise is based

on informal rather than

technical knowledge.
21Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

revising an RMP or preparing an EIS. It is 

the AO’s responsibility, however, to determine 

which entities possess special expertise 

relative to a proposed plan or project and the 

nature of their expertise, subject to review 

by the State Director. The claimed expertise 

should be demonstrated (not merely asserted), 

and it should be relevant to the decisions to be 

made. 

40 CFR 1508.26 (CEQ)

Special expertise means statutory 

responsibility, agency mission, or related 

program experience.

► How is expertise demonstrated?

In most cases, a government entity’s expertise 

is demonstrated through staff capabilities and 

an appropriate program focus. For example, 

a local government that routinely conducts 

transportation planning and road maintenance 

may be assumed to have special expertise on 

these topics whether the work is carried out by 

permanent staff and/or contractors. There are 

many small governments that cannot afford to 

keep full- or part-time staff for every resource 

area and consequently rely on consultants 

for help. A government entity without regular 

programmatic responsibilities for a given 

resource area, however, cannot establish 

special expertise for the CA relationship by 

hiring a consultant or specialist in that area. 

Note: Some expertise is based on informal 

rather than technical knowledge. (See the 

discussion of knowledge of local “custom and 

culture” by tribal and local government offi cials 

below.)

Qualifying Organizations

Criteria for CA eligibility

► What types of organizations may 

serve as CAs?

The CA relationship is limited to government 

entities: State agencies, local governments, 

tribal governments, and other Federal 

agencies.

► 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 refl ected 

in the MOU?

A CA is entitled to collaborate as part of an 

RMP or EIS ID team in those areas for which 

the MOU acknowledges the CA’s jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise. A CA’s formal 

involvement on other issues occurs at the 

discretion of the BLM’s AO. In practical terms, 

the scope and nature of a CA’s participation 

is a matter for negotiation that takes into 

account the CA’s policy concerns, the staff and 

resources it can reasonably contribute to the 

effort, the schedule, and other constraints.

► What discretion does the BLM have 

to determine the scope of a CA’s 

special expertise? 

The criterion of special expertise emphasizes 

the relevant capabilities or knowledge that a 

CA may contribute to the planning and NEPA 

process. Managers are required to offer 

CA status to potentially eligible government 

entities, including tribes, when preparing or 

Section 4

Cooperating Agency Relationships:

Frequently Asked Questions
22BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

► What are some considerations 

in determining whether expertise 

is relevant?

Relevance in this context means not only that 

the topic of the expertise has importance for 

the plan or project, but that the government 

entity claiming the expertise can speak to 

foreseeable effects on the people, property, 

or resources for which it has responsibility. 

For example, one county requested CA 

status on the basis of special expertise in 

air quality modeling. While air quality was a 

relevant issue and the county had program 

responsibility and technical skills on this topic, 

the county was so distant from the project area 

that it would not be infl uenced by any projectgenerated air quality impacts. For this reason 

the county’s expertise was not relevant to 

the project, and its request for CA status was 

denied. 

► Is knowledge of local “custom 

and culture” a suffi cient basis for 

including local governments as CAs 

under the special expertise criterion? 

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. 

► How should the criterion of special 

expertise be applied to tribes? 

Because American Indian tribes have culturally 

distinctive uses and understandings of land 

and resources, a tribe’s special expertise may 

be wide-ranging. Examples include the effects 

of a proposed planning decision on tribal 

employment and income, the need for access 

to ceremonial places, and the medicinal 

value of certain plant species. Sharing tribal 

knowledge of “custom and culture” through 

the CA role may create special challenges in 

managing information appropriately, as public 

disclosure of certain tribal information may be 

inappropriate. 

Guidelines for Conducting Tribal 

Consultation, BLM Manual Handbook, 

H-8120-1, Sec. IV(E) 

Native Americans may be reluctant to 

share sensitive information regarding 

resource locations and values with agency 

offi cials. 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. 

Federal agencies

► What discretion do Federal 

agencies have when requested to 

serve as CAs?

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 may choose whether 

or not to serve as a CA when so requested. A 

State, local, or tribal 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 of the 

lead agency. An agency may request the 

lead agency to designate it a cooperating 

agency [emphasis added].

► What should the BLM do if a 

Federal agency with jurisdiction by 

law refuses/declines an invitation to 

be a CA?

It is important to document the request and 

denial of the request in writing and include it 

as part of the project fi le. A copy of the denial 

letter should also be forwarded immediately 

to the Washington Offi ce Division of Decision 

Support, Planning and NEPA and submitted as 

part of the BLM’s annual CA data call. While 
23Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

a formal CA agreement may not be reached 

between the parties in some instances, there 

are other informal methods of engagement 

that may be pursued. The goal is to work 

together to the extent practicable to develop 

analysis acceptable to the lead agency and 

any agency(ies) with jurisdiction by law. 

State agencies

► Can more than one State agency 

be granted CA status for a given RMP 

or EIS? 

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 offi ce) coordinate all comments 

and analyses from State CAs to ensure the 

BLM benefi ts from a consistent perspective. 

This working arrangement should be described 

as part of the MOU.

Jack Morrow Hills Final Coordinated 

Activity Plan–Final EIS

Chapter 5, Sec. 5.1.2, July 2004 (Green 

River RMP Amendment)

The Wyoming Offi ce 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 [Department of Environmental 

Quality]–Water, 4. Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Commission ... [includes 16 agencies]. 

Local governments

► What is a “local government” for 

purposes of CA requirements?

A local government is defi ned 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. 

Special-purpose districts (such as conservation 

districts) will qualify if State law defi nes 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. 

Tribal governments

► Does inviting a tribe’s participation 

as a CA satisfy the BLM’s obligation 

to consult on a government-togovernment basis regarding land use 

planning or other actions?

No. Consultation is particularly important 

in the BLM’s government-to-government 

relationship with tribes. Once formal 

consultation has been initiated, tribal offi cials 

may decide to use the CA role as a convenient 

way to communicate their views or contribute 

their expertise. However, this is at the tribe’s 

request, 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.) 
24BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

► Must a native group be federally 

recognized to be eligible to serve as 

a CA?

Yes. Only government 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 agencies’ offi cial interactions with tribes, 

including consultation, are distinguished by 

unique legal relationships. The sovereign 

status of Indian tribes and special provisions 

of their law set Native Americans apart from 

all other U.S. populations and defi ne a special 

level of Federal agency responsibilities.

► Do reservation lands need to be 

affected for a tribe to serve as a CA?

No. The CEQ’s NEPA regulations allow 

tribes to serve as CAs “when the effects [of 

a proposed action] are on a reservation” (40 

CFR 1508.5). (In its guidance, the CEQ has 

supported extending CA status to federally 

recognized Alaska Native villages and tribes 

when the proposed action would affect 

tribal interests.) In contrast, both DOI NEPA 

regulations and BLM planning regulations 

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 a considerable 

distance from contemporary centers of tribal 

settlement. 

Guidelines for Conducting Tribal 

Consultation, BLM Manual Handbook, 

H-8120-1, Sec. 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 issues and 

concerns regarding the public lands.

Intergovernmental organizations

► May an intergovernmental 

organization serve as a CA? 

No. Many regional intergovernmental 

associations exist to provide technical 

assistance or other services to member 

governments. The terminology varies: the 

Rogue Valley Council of Governments, the 

Uintah Basin Association of Governments, 

and the Genesee–Finger Lakes Regional 

Planning Council, are all intergovernmental 

associations. These organizations are 

not themselves units of government. An 

intergovernmental association may not, 

therefore, serve as a CA. Some regional 

government bodies, such as regional planning 

authorities, are defi ned 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.

► May an intergovernmental 

organization represent a CA in the 

BLM’s planning process?

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 identifi ed in the MOU. 

Please be aware that such representation 

will likely preclude the use of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act exemption to FACA (see 

FACA compliance below for more information). 
25Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

The Establishment of

Working Relationships

Consensus and collaboration in 

the CA relationship

► Does a CA relationship require the 

BLM and the cooperators to make 

decisions by consensus?

No. Consensus may not always be achievable 

or consistent with the BLM’s legal obligations 

or policy decisions. However, the DOI’s 

NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.110(c) 

require that the Responsible Offi cial must, 

whenever practicable, use a consensus-based 

management approach to the NEPA process.

Consensus-based Management

43 CFR 46.110(a)

Consensus-based management 

incorporates direct community involvement 

in consideration of DOI bureau activities 

subject to NEPA analyses, from initial 

scoping to implementation of the bureau 

decision. It seeks to achieve agreement 

from diverse interests on the goals of, 

purposes of, and needs for bureau plans 

and activities, as well as the methods 

anticipated to carry out those plans 

and activities. . . . Consensus-based 

management involves outreach to persons, 

organizations, or communities that may be 

interested in, or affected by, a proposed 

action, with an assurance that their 

input will be given consideration by the 

Responsible Offi cial in selecting a course 

of action.

43 CFR 46.110(b)

In incorporating consensus-based 

management in the NEPA process, the 

bureaus should consider any consensusbased alternative(s) put forth by those 

participating persons, organizations or 

communities who may be interested in or 

affected by the proposed action. While 

there is no guarantee that any particular 

consensus-based alternative will be 

considered to be a reasonable alternative 

or be identifi ed as the bureau’s preferred 

alternative, the bureaus must be able to 

show that the reasonable consensusbased alternative, if any, is refl ected in 

the evaluation of the proposed action and 

discussed in the fi nal decision. To be 

selected for implementation, a consensusbased alternative must be fully consistent 

with NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and 

all applicable statutory and regulatory 

provisions, as well as Departmental and 

bureau written policies and guidance.

43 CFR 46.110(e) 

If the Responsible Offi cial determines 

that the consensus-based alternative, 

if any, is not the preferred alternative, 

he or she must state the reasons for 

this determination in the environmental 

document (43 CFR 46.110(d)). When 

practicing consensus-based management 

in the NEPA process, bureaus must 

comply with all applicable laws, including 

any applicable provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

Collaboration mandates methods, not 

outcomes. It brings diverse parties together 

to seek broadly acceptable solutions to (what 

are usually) complex problems. It does not 

guarantee the parties will achieve consensus, 

and the BLM remains the fi nal decisionmaker 

on matters within its jurisdiction. 

► How does the involvement of CAs 

affect the role of the BLM’s AO in the 

development of an RMP or EIS? 

CA involvement makes the AO’s leadership of 

the land use planning process essential. In 

guiding planning efforts, fi eld managers are 

challenged to reconcile bureau-wide policy 

objectives with the needs and values of local, 

regional, and national constituencies. To 

be successful, the fi eld manager must be 

committed to collaborative problem solving. 
26BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

► In working collaboratively with 

CAs on a plan, should the AO limit the 

range of issues and solutions to be 

considered? 

Since a key reason to involve other units 

of government is to benefi t 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 AO is responsible for 

clarifying for CAs the general goals of the 

RMP. The goals include, where appropriate, 

the range of potential land use allocations 

as consistent with statutory and regulatory 

requirements. Such limits are best established 

through clear planning criteria and a welldeveloped statement of purpose and need.

► Does the potential CA partner 

also have a say in determining the 

objectives and ground rules of the CA 

relationship? 

Yes, the MOU establishing the CA relationship 

should refl ect the views of all signatories. 

► What if the parties cannot agree on 

the terms of an MOU? 

The AO should make a good faith effort to 

negotiate the terms of an MOU with the 

potential CA partner, consistent with applicable 

statutes, regulations, and this Guide. If this 

effort is unsuccessful, the CA relationship has 

not been established. 

► Is it appropriate to use a thirdparty facilitator to help CAs and BLM 

staff collaborate when preparing an 

RMP or EIS? 

Yes. CAs and BLM staff may differ signifi cantly 

not only in their policy orientations but also in 

their knowledge, skills, style of interaction, and 

experience with NEPA and the BLM planning 

process. An effective facilitator may help 

the parties negotiate the MOU, focus efforts 

productively, and resolve disagreements as 

they arise. CAs should participate in the 

selection of a facilitator. However, using a 

facilitator does not alter the decisionmaking 

responsibilities of the BLM or CAs.

► What should the BLM and 

CAs do if they cannot agree on 

substantive elements of an RMP or 

EIS—for example, the designation 

of alternatives or the analysis of 

effects?

Where the BLM and one or more CAs disagree 

on substantive elements of an RMP or EIS and 

these disagreements cannot be resolved, the 

BLM should include a summary of the CAs’ 

views in the draft and fi nal documents.

CA relationships and schedules 

► Is it appropriate to extend 

a planning or EIS schedule to 

accommodate the needs of CAs?

Normally, no. The preferences of CAs 

regarding the pace and direction of 

collaborative efforts do not supersede the need 

to adhere to established schedules. Those 

schedules should be included in the MOUs 

establishing CA relationships. Whenever 

possible, the AO and CA representatives 

should develop a mutually agreeable planning 

or EIS schedule while negotiating their 

MOUs. It is important to discuss with CAs 

what acceptable timeframes are for meetings, 

requests for information, and requests for 

reviews. Appropriate timelines should be 

incorporated into the MOU and adhered 

to throughout the process to the extent 

practicable by all parties. 

► If effective collaboration with CAs 

would be compromised by adhering 

to an established planning or EIS 

schedule, what are some solutions?

AOs and their CA partners have a number of 

options, including: 

• Vary the level of a CA’s involvement. Both 

CEQ and BLM regulations make it clear 
27Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

that the CAs may negotiate a level of 

involvement consistent with their available 

staffi ng 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 or 

EIS schedule for greater effi ciency, without 

modifying the deadline for completion. 

• Improve the effi ciency of collaboration 

among the CAs and 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, the Washington Offi ce may 

consider a change in the planning 

schedule, or the Responsible Offi cial may 

change the schedule for completion of a 

NEPA document. 

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.

CA roles in preparing

RMPs and EISs 

► May the CAs use their expertise to 

prepare (rather than merely review 

and comment on) sections of an RMP 

or EIS or the technical analyses on 

which either is based? 

Yes, where appropriate, when the CA 

possesses expertise and resources to 

complete the task in a timely manner, the BLM 

may agree to include the CA’s analysis as 

part of an RMP or EIS. Work developed by 

the CA becomes the BLM’s work, however, 

and the BLM is responsible for all content 

within the planning or NEPA document and the 

supporting materials, which must be included 

in the administrative record.

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. 

► May a CA participate in the review 

of protests to a plan? 

No. Protest resolution is an internal review 

process conducted by the BLM Washington 

Offi ce, to determine if in preparing a plan 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies were 

followed. However, a CA that has provided 

information relevant to an issue raised in a 

protest may be asked for clarifi cation.

► What is the role of a CA once the 

Record of Decision (ROD) is signed?

While formal CA status ends once the ROD 

is signed, CA expertise may be valuable in 

implementing plans and projects, as well 

as in monitoring outcomes and assisting 

with enforcement. Both the BLM and 

local communities may benefi t from an 

ongoing relationship. In addition, after the 

establishment of a new or revised RMP, CA 

relationships may be formed around the NEPA 
28BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

processes for subsequent implementation 

activities.

CAs and multistate projects

► What are some tips for dealing with 

CAs on multistate projects?

The project manager should take responsibility 

for drafting key documents, such as letters 

of invitation and the MOU, to ensure that 

all agencies and governments receive a 

consistent message about the nature of the 

project and their opportunity for signing on as 

a CA. Correspondence to potential CAs is 

usually best issued by the appropriate state 

offi ce over the State Director’s signature. 

Managing the administrative record can be 

particularly challenging on multistate projects. 

The project manager should ensure that 

procedures are in place for maintaining a 

complete administrative record, including 

correspondence with potential and actual CAs. 

► How does the potential role of a 

CA differ when participating in an EIS 

for a multistate project as compared 

with participation in a localized plan 

or project?

The CA role involves a signifi cant commitment 

of time and resources. Local governments 

may not fi nd it advantageous to participate as 

cooperators in large projects that encompass 

issues not specifi c to their interests. The 

interest of local governments in a multistate 

project such as an electric transmission 

line, for example, may be limited to a few 

miles of the right-of-way that affects their 

jurisdiction, but may not include discussions 

about endangered species in a distant State. 

This type of concern may be addressed by 

speaking with project staff or the local fi eld 

manager in a meeting specifi cally called to 

address these issues, rather than requesting 

CA status. 

The creation of MOUs

► Is a single MOU or are multiple, 

separate MOUs preferable for large 

projects involving many cooperators?

While a single MOU signed by multiple 

CAs may be a very effi cient approach 

to establishing CA relationships, it does 

have limitations. If a single MOU is to be 

effective, CAs must have similar roles and 

responsibilities that can be adequately 

described in the single agreement, and all 

parties must be willing to sign jointly. In some 

instances, CAs may have unique or specifi c 

circumstances that would be better described 

in individual MOUs. Some CAs may also be 

unwilling to sign a joint MOU with other CAs.

► Are variations in the BLM’s Model 

MOU acceptable?

Yes, in fact adapting the Model MOU is 

encouraged. CAs should be fully engaged 

in the drafting of an MOU. The BLM’s Model 

MOU is intended to be used only as a guide. 

The BLM’s Model MOU outlines certain 

essential elements that should be included 

in all MOUs as a basis for an effective CA 

relationship. The BLM and CAs should work 

together to ensure that the agreed on MOU 

refl ects their unique working relationship and 

the tasks at hand. 

► Are there other uses for MOUs 

besides establishing CA 

relationships?

Yes. The BLM has used MOUs for many 

purposes. For example, MOUs have 

described the relationship between the BLM 

and other Federal, State, local, or tribal entities 

on land use plan implementation. Such 

MOUs outline roles, priorities, and timelines 

for actions needed to implement land use plan 

decisions and to monitor the effectiveness of 

those actions at meeting established goals 

and objectives. In a few instances, MOUs 

have also described the coordination between 

the BLM and other units of government as 

provided under FLPMA for the BLM’s land 
29Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

use planning process. These MOUs focus 

on defi ning a coordination framework that is 

acceptable to both parties. 

Informal alternatives to the CA 

relationship

► Are there ways to engage agencies 

and governments other than through 

formal CA relationships?

Sometimes agencies and governments are 

unwilling to enter into formal CA agreements 

due to concerns about confl ict of interest, 

capacity/workload issues, or lack of 

understanding. When those situations arise, 

there are many ways to engage potential 

partners in close working relationships 

without their becoming a formal cooperator. 

For example, the AO may maintain informal 

communication on key issues, relevant 

information, and the partners’ preferred 

outcomes. 

► How should the BLM treat 

government partners that wish to be 

closely involved in a plan or project 

assessment and that are eligible for 

CA status, but that are unwilling to 

sign an MOU?

By DOI regulation, an MOU must be used to 

establish the CA relationship in the case of 

non-Federal agencies, and this agreement 

must include a commitment to maintain the 

confi dentiality of documents and deliberations 

during the period before the bureau’s public 

release of any NEPA document, including 

drafts to the extent permitted by law (43 CFR 

46.225(d)). As noted above, when other 

agencies or local governments are unwilling to 

sign an MOU, the AO may maintain informal 

communication on key issues, relevant 

information, and the partners’ preferred 

outcomes. In nearly all cases, however, it 

is inappropriate to provide the same level of 

involvement in a plan or project analysis for 

an entity unwilling to formalize its participation 

as provided to formal CAs. For example, 

the MOU should specify how the parties will 

control the dissemination of predecisional 

documents, whether prepared by the BLM 

or one of the CAs. The MOU is intended to 

protect the interests of all parties and provides 

a set of mutually agreeable procedures guiding 

the collaboration. 

The role of a joint lead agency 

► Under what circumstances should 

a Federal, State, local, or tribal 

government entity be invited to serve 

as a joint lead agency, as opposed to 

participating as a CA? 

The DOI NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.220 

provide guidance on establishing joint lead 

agency relationships. In most cases, the 

Responsible Offi cial should designate one 

Federal agency as the lead, with the remaining 

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments 

assuming roles as CAs. In this manner, the 

other Federal, State, local, and tribal entities 

may work to ensure that the NEPA document 

will meet their needs for adoption and 

application to their related decision(s). 

In some cases, a non-Federal agency 

(including a tribal government) must comply 

with State or local requirements that are 

comparable to the NEPA requirements. In 

these cases, the Responsible Offi cial may 

designate the non-Federal agency as a 

joint lead agency. (See 40 CFR 1501.5 and 

1506.2 for a description of the selection of 

lead agencies, the settlement of lead agency 

disputes, and the use of joint lead agencies.) 

In some cases, the Responsible Offi cial may 

establish a joint lead relationship among 

several Federal agencies. If there is a joint 

lead, then one Federal agency must be 

identifi ed as the agency responsible for fi ling 

the environmental impact statement with the 

Environmental Protection Agency.
30BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

Financial support for the CA 

relationship

► Will the BLM compensate the CAs 

for their participation? 

The CAs normally assume the costs of 

their own participation, including salary, 

travel, and other expenses. A fi eld offi ce 

should reimburse the costs of any studies 

it specifi cally 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.

► Are CAs required to fund, staff, or 

prepare analyses if requested? 

No. CAs are not required to fund, staff, or 

prepare analyses. CAs may elect to do so, but 

the decision is theirs. 

Termination of the CA relationship 

► Under what circumstances may a 

CA relationship be terminated? 

If the BLM and one or more of its CA partners 

fi nd 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 

identifi ed by the CEQ as suggesting the 

need to consider termination include a CA’s 

unwillingness to accept the lead agency’s 

key decisions; deliberate violation of key 

procedural agreements (such as the restricted 

release of predecisional documents); and 

deliberate misrepresentation of the planning 

and NEPA process or its fi ndings. 

Factors Supporting Termination of the 

CA Relationship

• The cooperating agency cannot accept 

the lead agency’s fi nal decisionmaking 

authority regarding the scope of the 

analysis, including authority to defi ne 

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 

fi nal analyses. 

• The cooperating agency consistently 

misrepresents the process or the 

fi ndings 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 MOU should include provisions for 

termination, as well as other ground rules, 

such as procedures for dispute resolution.

► Is a disagreement about 

substantive matters that is raised 

in the planning or NEPA process a 

valid basis for terminating the CA 

relationship? 

No. While the BLM remains the decisionmaker 

for matters within its jurisdiction, the CAs 

are not required to concur on all fi ndings; 

for example, the effects anticipated from 

a particular planning alternative. Working 

through disagreements within the planning or 

NEPA team often results in stronger, better 

justifi ed fi ndings and decisions. 
31Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

Other Requirements

and Challenges

Meeting coordination and 

consistency requirements 

► What is the scope of the BLM’s 

coordination responsibilities in 

developing and revising RMPs? 

The BLM has a responsibility to coordinate 

with other government units. To the extent 

practicable, the BLM will seek to maximize 

consistency with the plans and policies of 

other government entities. This responsibility 

applies whether or not a CA relationship has 

been established. 

FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1712(c) (BLM)

In the development and revision of land 

use plans, the Secretary shall...

 (9) to 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...and of 

or for Indian tribes by, among other things, 

considering the policies of approved State 

and tribal land resource management 

programs. In implementing this directive, 

the Secretary shall, to the extent he fi nds 

practical, keep apprised of State, local, 

and tribal land use plans; assure that 

consideration is given to those State, local, 

and tribal plans that are germane in the 

development of land use plans for public 

lands; assist in resolving, to the extent 

practical, inconsistencies between Federal 

and non-Federal Government plans, 

and shall provide for meaningful public 

involvement of State and local government 

offi cials, both elected and appointed, in the 

development of land use programs, land 

use regulations, and land use decisions for 

public lands, including early public notice 

of proposed decisions which may have a 

signifi cant impact on non-Federal lands.

43 CFR 1610.3-1 (BLM) 

Coordination of planning efforts.

 (a) In addition to the public involvement 

prescribed by §1610.2, the following 

coordination is to be accomplished with 

other Federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and federally recognized 

Indian tribes....

 (1) Keep apprised of non-Bureau of 

Land Management plans;

 (2) Assure that BLM considers those 

plans that are germane in the development 

of resource management plans for public 

lands;

 (3) Assist in resolving, to the extent 

practicable, inconsistencies between 

Federal and non-Federal government 

plans;

 (4) Provide for meaningful public 

involvement of other Federal agencies, 

State and local government offi cials, 

both elected and appointed, and 

Federally recognized Indian tribes, in the 

development of resource management 

plans ... and

 (5) Where possible and appropriate, 

develop resource management plans 

collaboratively with cooperating agencies.

► Is there a “coordinating agency 

status” designation? 

No. There is no such designation as 

“coordinating agency status.” 

► Is an MOU required between a 

local government and the BLM to 

defi ne coordination? 

No. While there are a few examples where 

the BLM has used MOUs for this purpose, an 

MOU is not required. However, a framework 

is needed to defi ne the coordination and how 

it will occur. An MOU may be a useful tool to 

establish these terms. Such an MOU should 

be negotiated and agreed on by both parties. 
32BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

► Can the BLM meet its coordination 

responsibilities through a CA 

relationship? 

The BLM has a duty to coordinate even if 

a formal CA relationship is not established. 

In accordance with FLPMA, the BLM’s 

coordination responsibilities include 

maximizing consistency with the plans and 

policies of other government entities and 

providing for meaningful public involvement 

of other Federal, State, local, and tribal 

government offi cials in the development of 

land use decisions (see above). The CA 

relationship provides an excellent opportunity 

to meet, and exceed, these coordination 

responsibilities under FLPMA. The CA 

relationship goes beyond coordination by 

facilitating a close collaboration in sponsoring 

public involvement, reviewing resource data, 

formulating alternatives, analyzing potential 

impacts, and sharing internal draft documents. 

The BLM encourages the establishment of a 

CA relationship if this type of collaboration is 

expected. 

43 CFR 46.155 (DOI) 

Consultation, coordination, and 

cooperation with other agencies.

The Responsible Offi cial must whenever 

possible consult, coordinate, and 

cooperate with relevant State, local, and 

tribal governments and other bureaus 

and Federal agencies concerning the 

environmental effects of any Federal action 

within the jurisdictions or related to the 

interests of these entities.

43 CFR 1610.3-1 (BLM)

Coordination of planning efforts.

 (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. 

► Does coordination under 

FLPMA require the BLM to share 

predecisional documents?

No. FLPMA does not require the sharing 

of predecisional documents as part of a 

coordination-based relationship. However, 

during the planning process, a key element of 

the cooperating agency relationship includes 

BLM sharing of predecisional documents with 

cooperators. Absent extraneous factors such 

as protection of proprietary or contractual 

information or ensuring compliance with State 

public records or public meetings requirements 

(“sunshine laws”), predecisional documents 

can be shared with cooperating agencies in 

accordance with the terms of the MOU that 

directs the activities within the relationship. 

Sharing of predecisional documents may occur 

as part of the BLM’s coordination activities 

at the discretion of the AO. However, if it is 

deemed critical to the coordination process, 

sharing of predecisional documents should 

be guided by a detailed written agreement or 

MOU between the parties. Such an agreement 

or MOU should specify that predecisional 

documents will remain confi dential to the 

extent allowed by law.

► To what extent is the BLM 

obligated to follow local plans and 

policies? 

By regulation, the BLM has an obligation 

to keep apprised of non-BLM plans; assure 

consideration is given to those plans that 

are germane to the development of the 

BLM RMPs; assist in resolving, to the extent 

practicable, inconsistencies between Federal 

and non-Federal plans; provide for meaningful 

public involvement of other Federal agencies, 

State, local, and tribal government offi cials 

in the development of the BLM’s RMPs; and 

where possible and appropriate, develop 

the BLM’s RMPs collaboratively with CAs. 

Furthermore, the BLM’s RMPs must be 

consistent with offi cially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans, and the policies and 

programs contained therein, of other Federal, 

State, local, and tribal governments, so long 

as those plans and policies/programs are also 
33Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

consistent with the purposes, policies, and 

programs of Federal laws and regulations. 

43 CFR 1610.3-2 (BLM)

Consistency requirements.

 (a) Guidance and resource 

management plans and amendments ... 

shall be consistent with offi cially 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, a county’s capital improvement 

plan might identify a parcel of BLM land 

for acquisition to build a fi re station or a 

community center. Under the Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act, such a transfer of 

land could be consistent with Federal law. In 

revising its RMP, the local fi eld offi ce would 

need to consider this request, weighed against 

other relevant management objectives, 

such as the need to protect critical habitat 

for threatened or endangered species or to 

minimize confl icts with existing uses, such as 

a nearby shooting range already permitted by 

the BLM. 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act, 43 

U.S.C. 869 (a)

The Secretary of the Interior ... may ... 

dispose of any public lands to a State, 

Territory, county, municipality, or other 

State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality 

or political subdivision for any public 

purposes, or to a nonprofi t corporation or 

nonprofi t association for any recreational 

or any public purpose consistent with its 

articles of incorporation or other creating 

authority. 

► When inconsistencies between a 

proposed action and a local plan or 

policy cannot be resolved, should 

they be acknowledged in the RMP 

or EIS? 

Yes. The CEQ regulations require that 

inconsistencies between the proposed action 

and other Federal, State, local, or tribal land 

use plans and policies be documented in the 

EIS.

40 CFR 1502.16 (CEQ)

[The environmental consequences section 

of the EIS] shall include discussions of... 

 (c) Possible confl icts 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. 

40 CFR 1506.2 (CEQ)

 (d) To better integrate environmental 

impact statements into state and local 

planning processes, statements shall 

discuss any inconsistency of a proposed 

action with any approved state or local 

plan or laws (whether or not federally 

sanctioned). Where an inconsistency 

exists, the statement should describe the 

extent to which the agency would reconcile 

its proposed action with the plan or law.

► What if a State or local plan is

inconsistent with a Federal law 

or policy?

In such cases, the BLM does not have an 

obligation to seek consistency. For example, 

in preparing RMPs the BLM is required 

to designate and protect areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACECs). The BLM 

could not honor a request from a county 

government that only ACECs consistent with 

the county’s general plan be designated in 

the RMP, if this would prevent the BLM from 

complying with its statutory obligation. 

FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1712(c) (BLM)

In the development and revision of land 

use plans, the Secretary shall ...
34BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

 (3) give priority to the designation and 

protection of areas of critical environmental 

concern.

Information sharing

► May the BLM share predecisional 

planning documents with the CAs? 

Yes. Unless constrained by other factors, such 

as a State public records requirement or the 

need to protect the confi dentiality of proprietary 

or contractual information, predecisional 

documents should be freely shared with 

the CAs. If the AO does not intend to make 

predecisional documents publicly available, 

the MOU establishing the CA relationship 

should specify that such documents will remain 

confi dential to the extent allowed by law.

► Are documents provided by CAs or 

to CAs subject to disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552)?

It depends on the nature and content of the 

document. FOIA includes a provision that 

allows an agency to exempt from release 

documents involving “inter-agency or intraagency 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 or joint lead agencies 

that contributed to the development of an 

RMP or EIS. Such documents may satisfy 

both requirements of FOIA exemption 5: they 

are predecisional and they are part of the 

lead agency’s deliberative process. Although 

FOIA exemption 5 may be applicable, in many 

instances documents that meet this exemption 

are released. In response to a FOIA request, 

the BLM should review each document that 

responds to the request under FOIA and any 

applicable FOIA policies and guidance to 

determine whether release is appropriate. 

Note that the release of a document by 

a CA may be considered a waiver of the 

lead Federal agency’s deliberative process 

privilege, potentially precluding withholding 

documents under FOIA exemption 5. The 

AO should consult with the FOIA offi cer or the 

Department’s Offi ce of the Solicitor if there are 

questions about whether releasing a sensitive 

document would waive applicable privileges 

and subject the document to disclosure under 

FOIA.

► Are there exceptions to FOIA 

exemption 5?

Yes. Communications from a CA will 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, which will almost always be 

the case here. 

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 

benefi t at the expense of others. This 

may include Indian tribes under limited 

circumstances. However, the bureau 

should conclude that documents generated 

outside of the Federal Government meet 

the “intra- or inter-agency” threshold 

requirement only after consulting with 

its designated FOIA attorney [emphasis 

added]. (U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Freedom of Information Act Handbook, 383 

DM 15, Sec. 5.7(A)(2), 2004.) 

► How should the BLM work with 

a CA whose actions are governed 

by a State open records 

(“sunshine”) requirement?

The BLM can successfully enter and has 

successfully entered into CA relationships 

with partners in states that have open records 

(“sunshine”) requirements. Such requirements 
35Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

vary from State to State. The AO and the CA 

must decide on the best ways to work together 

and describe that approach in the MOU 

establishing the CA relationship. Keeping 

predecisional material from public view if 

permitted under the law may encourage candid 

discussion among all members of the planning 

or project team, including CA representatives. 

FACA compliance

► Are meetings between the 

BLM staff and CAs subject to the 

requirements of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA, 5 U.S.C. App. 2)?

As a general matter many meetings between 

BLM staff and CAs are exempt from FACA 

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. This intergovernmental exemption to 

FACA applies to meetings between Federal 

offi cials and elected State, local, or tribal 

government offi cials “or their designated 

employees with authority to act on their behalf” 

acting in their offi cial capacity (2 U.S.C. 

1534(b)). The criteria below must be met 

for the intergovernmental exemption to be 

applicable. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 

U.S.C. 1534(b)

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 offi cials and elected 

offi cers of State, local, and tribal 

governments (or their designated 

employees with authority to act on their 

behalf) acting in their offi cial 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.

Further, even if the requirements of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act are not 

met, FACA will not apply to the group if the 

sole purpose of the meeting is to “exchange 

facts or information” (41 CFR 102-3.40(f)). 

Additionally, FACA will not apply if a group 

meeting occurs with a Federal offi cial where 

advice or recommendations are sought from 

the attendees on an individual basis and not 

from the group as a whole (41 CFR 102-

3.40(e)). These FACA considerations are 

particularly important at key decision points 

in a planning or project assessment process, 

such as the designation of alternatives 

for analysis or the selection of a preferred 

alternative. 

The BLM’s Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement and Appropriate Dispute 

Resolution Program has developed guidance 

on FACA, which is available online at http://

www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_

and_Renewable_Resources/adr_confl ict_

prevention.Par.24269.File.dat/facaguide.

► May a CA be represented by a 

contractor instead of an offi cial or 

employee of the CA?

Yes, but only if the appropriate relationship 

between the CA and the contractor is 

established. Meetings in which a CA is 

represented by a contractor who is not an 

offi cial or employee of the CA with authority 

to act on behalf of the CA acting in its offi cial 

capacity are generally not covered by the 

intergovernmental FACA exemption (2 U.S.C. 

1534(b)). In some situations, State law may 

treat the contractor as an employee, and the 

intergovernmental exception to FACA may 

apply. See the question on FACA above for 

more guidance.

It is important to emphasize that the CA 

relationship is intended to facilitate the 

exchange of views and expertise between 

BLM personnel and other government 

offi cials and staff. The BLM recognizes that 

limited local government staff and potentially 

heavy time demands of the CA role may 

make it necessary in some instances to 

designate contractors to participate in some 
36BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

interdisciplinary team or work group meetings. 

The use of contractors should be the exception 

rather than the rule and must be undertaken 

consistent with the requirements of FACA.

CA meetings

► Should CA meetings be opened or 

closed to the public?

Decisions about opening or closing CA 

meetings to the public and the level of public 

participation at CA meetings are within the 

AO’s discretion. Opening CA meetings to the 

public is consistent with the general direction 

of the BLM’s public involvement policy, 

refl ected, for example, in the BLM’s publication 

Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and 

Appropriate Dispute Resolution (2009). In 

support of these goals, it is recommended 

that the option of opening CA meetings to the 

public receive serious consideration. Opening 

CA meetings to the public does not mean that 

the public must be allowed to participate in the 

discussions. The public’s role at CA meetings 

may be limited to that of observer. 

There may also be good reason for closing 

some or all CA meetings to the public. Closed 

meetings may support a deliberative process 

where CAs explore and evaluate ideas and 

options. In making the decision to open or 

close CA meetings to the public, any applicable 

Federal or State open meeting (“sunshine”) 

laws should be considered. 

If FACA applies, all meetings should be held 

consistent with the requirements of FACA.

► Is it acceptable for the lead 

agency to hold meetings with some 

cooperators but not others?

The lead agency should limit meetings that 

involve some cooperators but not others on 

substantive topics to the extent practicable. 

While it may not always be possible to meet 

with all cooperators at the same time or in 

the same location, the lead agency should 

seek input from all CAs on substantive issues, 

such as changing the preferred alternative or 

proposing new special designations.

Protests and appeals

► Does participation as a CA prevent 

that agency from protesting or 

appealing the fi nal decision?

No. A CA may protest a fi nal land use planning 

decision as long as it meets the requirements 

of BLM protest procedures. Similarly, a CA 

may appeal a decision as long as it meets 

the requirements for appeal under applicable 

laws. By becoming a CA, a government 

entity does not forfeit any rights otherwise 

available to it, including the right to protest a 

land use planning decision or to fi le an appeal 

on implementation actions or project level 

decisions.

43 CFR 1610.5-2(a) (BLM)

Protest procedures. 

Any person who participated in the 

planning process and has an interest 

which 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.

Procedures for protest and appeal of 

implementation actions and project level 

decisions are explained in 43 CFR Part 4, 

Subpart B, 4.21 and Subpart E. Any special 

provisions regarding the application of the 

general procedures for protests and appeals 

are explained in the CFRs for the specifi c 

program that applies to the decision.

The BLM’s role as a CA

► If requested, must the BLM 

participate as a CA?

If another agency asks the BLM to be a CA in 

the preparation of a NEPA document for an 

action in which the BLM has jurisdiction by law, 

the BLM must accept (40 CFR 1501.6). If on 

the other hand an agency asks the BLM to be 

a CA in the preparation of a NEPA document in 

which the BLM has special expertise, the BLM 

may elect to be a CA. 
37Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

Unfortunately, requests for the BLM to be a 

CA are not always made in a timely manner. 

In some instances, the BLM has received 

requests to be a CA after the development of 

an administrative draft of a NEPA document. 

In these cases, the potential effectiveness 

of engaging in a CA relationship should 

be evaluated, and alternative strategies 

for working together and meeting the 

requirements of NEPA may need to be 

considered.

► What factors should go into the 

BLM’s decision whether or not to 

become a CA?

In deciding whether to become a CA, the 

BLM should consider any BLM decisions 

to be made and any BLM actions that are 

separate from, but connected to, the lead 

agency’s proposal. Consideration should 

be given to the level of BLM expertise with 

respect to reasonable alternatives or any 

signifi cant environmental, social, or economic 

impacts associated with a proposed action. 

Consideration should also be given to what 

resources the BLM has to commit to the 

process and document preparation.

► What are the benefi ts to the BLM of 

participating as a CA?

Participation as a CA in the preparation of 

an EIS or EA provides the BLM with many 

benefi ts (as described below) and should 

receive serious consideration.

• The BLM may adopt the EIS without 

recirculating the document when, after an 

independent review of the analysis, the 

agency concludes that its comments and 

suggestions have been satisfi ed (40 CFR 

1506.3(c)).

• The BLM, and the lead agency, may 

save staff time and dollars through such 

cooperation, as compared with each 

agency preparing its own document.

• The BLM may provide suffi cient input so 

that the NEPA analysis document meets all 

DOI and BLM requirements or standards.

• Expanding the scope of a NEPA analysis to 

consider connected and cumulative actions 

of all CAs into a single document improves 

overall interagency coordination.

• Agencies working cooperatively help 

the public to participate effectively and 

effi ciently, with fewer meetings to attend 

and fewer letters to write. Participation of 

multiple agencies in a single NEPA process 

may help the public better understand the 

entire scope of a proposal, rather than 

learning a piece of it now and another 

piece later. 

• The BLM may provide suffi cient input 

so that the NEPA analysis specifi cally 

addresses the action that the agency must 

consider before making its decision. This 

helps to avoid the struggle of adapting 

another agency’s documentation to fi t the 

BLM’s proposed action.

• The BLM may benefi t from a single NEPA 

analysis that simultaneously considers 

actions separate from, but connected to, 

the lead agency proposal.

► What are BLM’s roles and responsibilities as a cooperator? Where/how 

should the BLM capture those roles 

and responsibilities in writing?

As a CA, the BLM should collaborate to the 

fullest extent possible concerning those issues 

relating to its jurisdiction and special expertise. 

This may include, but is not limited to, helping 

to identify issues to be addressed; arranging 

for the collection and/or assembly of necessary 

resource, environmental, social, economic, 

and institutional data; analyzing data; 

developing alternatives; evaluating alternatives 

and estimating the effects of implementing 

each alternative; and carrying out any other 

task necessary for the development of the 

environmental analysis and documentation.

The BLM is strongly encouraged to enter into 

an interagency MOU with the lead agency, one 

that formally acknowledges their respective 
38BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

interests, expertise, and jurisdictional 

responsibilities and outlines their roles and 

responsibilities in the planning and/or NEPA 

process. The MOU should identify a BLM 

contact and specify any special resource 

needs, data requirements, and issues that the 

analysis must address. The MOU should also 

describe how confl icts will be communicated 

and resolved if they arise between the BLM 

and the lead agency. See Section 3 and the 

questions and answers on MOUs under “The 

Establishment of Working Relationships” in 

Section 4 for additional information.

► Should the BLM, as a CA, be named 

in the Notice of Intent for an EIS or 

the NEPA document itself?

It is recommended that the Notice of Intent 

published in the Federal Register identify the 

BLM as a CA and that the NEPA analysis 

document also identify the BLM as a CA, 

preferably on the cover sheet.

► When the BLM participates as a 

CA, what role does it play in selecting 

and approving a NEPA contractor?

When the BLM is a CA, its role in selecting 

a NEPA contractor may vary. According to 

the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1506.5(c)), the 

contractor may be chosen by the lead agency 

solely, by the lead agency in cooperation 

with CAs, or, when appropriate to avoid any 

confl ict of interest, by a CA. Therefore, as 

a CA, the BLM may not be involved in the 

selection of the contractor (lead agency only); 

may participate in the selection of a contractor; 

or may be assigned the role of selecting the 

contractor. This role should be discussed and 

described as part of the development of an 

MOU between the lead agency and the BLM 

(see above). The MOU should also outline 

the process for selecting a NEPA contractor. 

No matter the level of its involvement, the 

BLM should share with the lead agency any 

relevant knowledge that could contribute to the 

selection of a NEPA contractor.

► Must the BLM, as a CA, adopt an 

EIS before making a decision based 

on it?

Yes. The BLM may use another agency’s EIS 

for decisionmaking, but only after adopting the 

EIS. If the BLM is a CA in the preparation of 

an EIS, the BLM may adopt an EIS without 

recirculating it if the agency concludes that the 

BLM’s comments and suggestions have been 

satisfi ed (40 CFR 1506.3(c)).

► Must the BLM, as a CA, issue its 

own decision?

Yes. After adopting the NEPA document, 

the BLM must issue its own decision (and a 

Finding of No Signifi cant Impact for an EA). 

This may be done in an individual decision 

document or in a decision document signed 

by more than one agency, as long as it is clear 

that only the BLM decisionmaker is making 

a decision regarding resources under BLM 

authority.

► When should the BLM, as a CA, 

issue its decision?

The BLM, as a CA, should not sign any 

decision before the lead agency signs its 

own decision. A lead agency and a CA may, 

however, sign their respective decisions at the 

same time. Such an approach can allow the 

protest and appeal periods for both agencies 

to run concurrently. In some cases, it is 

advisable to allow suffi cient time for completion 

of any administrative review process offered 

by the lead agency before signing a BLM 

decision. For example, under Forest Service 

Handbook 1909.15, the U.S. Forest Service 

provides a 45-day appeal period between a 

Record of Decision and implementation of a 

proposed action. If the BLM is cooperating 

with the Forest Service on an action, the BLM 

may defer its decision until the end of the 

45-day period if no protests are received, or 

until resolution of any protests on the Forest 

Service decision. If the BLM and the Forest 

Service issued concurrent decisions, there 

might be two appeals with different timeframes 

and outcomes.
39Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions

► What should the BLM do if it 

disagrees with the lead agency’s 

selection of a preferred alternative 

or disagrees with the scope of the 

issues or impacts analyzed?

Consensus may not always be achievable on 

key elements of a NEPA analysis. The CA 

relationship 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 should provide its views and input 

through the CA relationship as described in the 

MOU. 

It is important to keep in mind that engaging 

in a CA relationship neither augments nor 

diminishes the BLM’s jurisdiction or authority. 

Even when participating as a CA, the BLM 

remains the fi nal decisionmaker on any and 

all matters within its jurisdiction. In addition, 

by becoming a CA, an agency does not forfeit 

the right to comment, protest, or appeal the 

analysis or decision advanced by the lead 

agency.

Regarding the scope of the NEPA analysis, 

the BLM will have to determine independently 

if the NEPA analysis in which it cooperated 

is appropriate to cover any proposed actions 

and decisions that the BLM wants or needs 

to make. If it deems the analysis suffi cient, 

the BLM will need to adopt the lead agency’s 

NEPA document (see above). If it determines 

that the analysis is not suffi cient, the BLM will 

have to initiate new or supplemental NEPA 

analysis to support the Bureau’s proposed 

action and decision.

► To what extent does the lead 

agency’s NEPA document need

to analyze impacts to

BLM-administered lands?

The scope of the NEPA analysis should fully 

consider connected and cumulative actions 

that may take place on BLM-administered 

lands.

BLM Manual Handbook, H-1790-1, 

Sec. 6.5.2.1 

Connected actions are those actions 

that are “closely related” and “should be 

discussed” in the same NEPA document.... 

Actions are connected if they automatically 

trigger other actions that may require an 

EIS; cannot or will not proceed unless 

other actions are taken previously or 

simultaneously; or if the actions are 

interdependent parts of a larger action 

and depend upon the larger action for 

their justifi cation.... Connected actions 

are limited to actions that are currently 

proposed (ripe for decision). Actions that 

are not yet proposed are not connected 

actions, but may need to be analyzed 

in cumulative effects analysis if they are 

reasonably foreseeable. 

BLM Manual Handbook, H-1790-1, 

Sec. 6.5.2.2 

Cumulative actions are proposed actions 

which potentially have a cumulatively 

signifi cant impact together with other 

proposed actions and “should be 

discussed” in the same NEPA document.

► How does the BLM determine if a 

NEPA analysis provides a suffi cient 

basis for its decision? When should 

the BLM pursue a separate EIS or 

prepare a supplemental EIS?

Before making a decision based on another 

agency’s NEPA document, the BLM must 

determine that the NEPA document has 

adequately analyzed the BLM’s proposed 

action. The BLM must determine if the 

proposed action is a feature of or essentially 

similar to an alternative analyzed in the 

NEPA document. The BLM must consider if 

the proposed action is located in the same 

analysis area. The BLM must also determine if 

the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that 

would result from implementation of the BLM’s 

proposed action are covered or are similar 

(both quantitatively and qualitatively) to those 

analyzed in the NEPA document. 

Active participation as a CA may afford 

suffi cient input so that the NEPA document 
40BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

contains an appropriate level of analysis to 

support the BLM’s decision. If the analysis 

is not suffi cient to support the BLM’s 

proposed action, additional NEPA analysis 

will be required. In these cases, tiering and 

incorporation by reference should be used to 

the extent practicable to avoid paperwork and 

redundant analysis. 

► When should the BLM choose to be 

a joint lead agency rather than a CA?

The BLM should consider being a joint lead 

agency when it and another agency have 

approximately equal pieces of a proposal 

under consideration. An MOU must be signed 

by both agencies serving as joint leads, clearly 

defi ning the roles and responsibilities of each. 

Only one agency must be identifi ed as the 

agency fi ling the EIS with the Environmental 

Protection Agency.
41Section 4. Cooperating Agency Relationships: Frequently Asked Questions
42

Working effectively in the CA 

relationship requires BLM 

and CA staff to understand the 

relevant organization and 

policies of their partners. 
43Section 5. Resources and Training

Section 5

Resources and Training 

Working effectively in the CA relationship 

requires BLM and CA staff to understand 

the relevant organization and policies of 

their partners. Each can benefi t from the 

lessons learned in other CA relationships (for 

example, lessons gained from working within 

the constraints of tight planning schedules, or 

from resolving a disagreement over methods 

of impact analysis). The CAs will be more 

effective participants when armed with a 

sound grasp of planning and NEPA concepts 

and procedures. DOI regulations direct the 

bureaus, including the BLM, to provide, where 

practicable, any appropriate community-based 

training to reduce costs, prevent delays, and 

facilitate and promote effi ciency in the NEPA 

process (43 CFR 46.200(c)). 

Here are some sources of information and 

training that can help—

Resources

The BLM’s website on CA status provides links 

to land use planning and NEPA regulations, 

BLM handbooks, a Model MOU, and other 

information useful to BLM staff and their CA 

colleagues. You can fi nd that information 

at: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/nepa/

cooperating_agencies.html.

For those without Internet access, key 

documents helpful for cooperators are 

available from any BLM state offi ce or fi eld 

offi ce. These documents include the following:

• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–

1508) 

• Council on Environmental Quality’s Forty 

Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s 

NEPA Regulations (46 FR 18026, 1981, 

questions 14a–14d) 

• BLM Planning Regulations (43 CFR 1600)

• BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

(Section I) 

• BLM NEPA Handbook (Chapter 9 and 12) 

• DOI NEPA Regulations (43 CFR Part 46)

Training

Planning- and NEPA-related Training 

The BLM’s National Training Center (NTC) 

provides in-person and online courses on 

planning and NEPA concepts and procedures, 

collaboration, and alternative dispute 

resolution. The in-person course, Kick-start 

Your RMP (1610-10), and all of the online 

courses (such as Planning Nuts and Bolts 

[1610-09], NEPA Concepts [1620-17], and the 

NEPA Analysis Process for the BLM [1620-02]) 

are open to Federal, State, local, and tribal 

government offi cials and staff. Many of the 

online courses and other resources may be 

found through the NTC’s Knowledge Resource 

Center (www.ntc.blm.gov/krc).

CONTACT: The BLM’s National Training 

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

5536) for further information or a copy of the 

planning- and NEPA-related courses and other 

online resources.
44BLM • A Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners • 2012

BLM Cooperating Agency Training

The BLM’s Washington Offi ce provides training 

on CAs’ roles and responsibilities in the 

planning and NEPA processes. By request, 

the training is provided in two formats: 

• 1- to 2-hour workshop overviews for 

internal and external audiences

• 1- to 2-day training sessions, offered 

in various locations for BLM staff and 

cooperators

CONTACT: The BLM’s Communications 

Directorate (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

info/directory.html, 202-208-6913) for further 

information.

Economic Strategy Workshops

These 1-day workshops bring together 

community leaders and BLM staff to explore 

regional social and economic conditions, 

trends, and opportunities relevant to the 

BLM’s planning process and community 

development goals. The BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook requires that at least one 

such workshop be conducted at the beginning 

of each RMP/EIS (Appendix D).

CONTACT: The BLM’s Washington Offi ce 

Division of Decision Support, Planning and 

NEPA (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/

planning.html, 202-912-7215). 

Collaboration and Appropriate 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training

The BLM’s Collaborative Stakeholder 

Engagement and Appropriate Dispute 

Resolution Program and the NTC provide 

in-person and online training on collaborative 

stakeholder engagement and ADR for BLM 

employees and managers. Many of the inperson classes and all of the online courses 

and resources are open to Federal, State, 

local, and tribal government offi cials and staff. 

Collaborative stakeholder engagement 

and ADR encompass a broad spectrum of 

“upstream” and “downstream” processes 

for preventing, managing, and resolving 

disputes outside the conventional arenas of 

the courts, the legislature, or administrative 

channels. Upstream collaborative stakeholder 

engagement processes are designed to 

prevent a confl ict or dispute from arising 

or to manage confl ict at an early stage. 

Downstream ADR processes involve managing 

and resolving an existing confl ict or dispute, 

often by use of a third-party neutral. 

The acronym “ADR” traditionally has been 

used to stand for “alternative dispute 

resolution.” The substitution of “appropriate” 

in more recent literature addresses various 

differences in connotation, and, in the BLM, 

refl ects Bureau involvement in a broader 

spectrum of confl ict prevention, confl ict 

management, and confl ict resolution processes 

than are included in the traditional defi nition 

of ADR. “Appropriate dispute resolution” 

includes the traditional “alternative dispute 

resolution” processes.

CONTACT: The BLM’s Collaborative 

Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate 

Dispute Resolution Program (http://www.blm.

gov/adr, 202-912-7215) or the BLM’s National 

Training Center (http://www.ntc.blm.gov, 

602-906-5536).
BLM/WO/AE-11/008+1780

Bureau of Land Management

Division of Decision Support, Planning and NEPA

20 M Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003

Editing, design, and production services provided by

the BLM National Operations Center,

Information and Publishing Services Section.