### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

***Collaboration in NEPA***

**A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners**

**Revised DRAFT -- March 16, 2007**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.4993055555555554in"
height="2.303472222222222in"}

This handbook presents the results of research and consultations by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) concerning the consideration of
collaboration in analyses prepared under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). It introduces the NEPA practitioner and other
interested parties to the issue of collaboration, outlines general
principles, presents useful steps, and provides information on methods
of collaboration. The handbook does not establish new requirements for
collaboration or public involvement. It is not and should not be viewed
as formal CEQ guidance on this matter, nor are the recommendations in
the handbook intended to be legally binding.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[I. INTRODUCTION 2](#i.-introduction)

[II. COLLABORATION AND ITS BENEFITS
3](#ii.-collaboration-and-its-benefits)

[A. Collaboration: The Focus of the Handbook
3](#a.-collaboration-the-focus-of-the-handbook)

[B. The Benefits of Collaboration 4](#b.-the-benefits-of-collaboration)

[III. THE CONTEXT FOR COLLABORATION
5](#iii.-the-context-for-collaboration)

[A. When Collaboration Works Best 6](#a.-when-collaboration-works-best)

[1. Collaboration in General 6](#collaboration-in-general)

[2. Collaboration Between Agencies and other Parties
7](#collaboration-between-agencies-and-other-parties)

[B. When Collaboration Works Less Well
7](#b.-when-collaboration-works-less-well)

[IV. BASIC APPROACH TO DESIGNING A COLLABORATIVE NEPA PROCESS
8](#iv.-basic-approach-to-designing-a-collaborative-nepa-process)

[A. Spectrum of Engagement in NEPA Decision-Making
8](#a.-spectrum-of-engagement-in-nepa-decision-making)

[B. The Phases and Extent of Collaboration
10](#b.-the-phases-and-extent-of-collaboration)

[V. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION WITHIN THE NEPA PROCESS
12](#v.-opportunities-for-collaboration-within-the-nepa-process)

[A. The Proposed Action / Development of Proposal
12](#a.-the-proposed-action-development-of-proposal)

[1. Development of Statement of Purpose and Need for Agency Action
12](#development-of-statement-of-purpose-and-need-for-agency-action)

[2. Coordinating with other Planning Processes
13](#coordinating-with-other-planning-processes)

[B. The Role of Cooperating Agencies
13](#b.-the-role-of-cooperating-agencies)

[C. Notice of Intent 14](#c.-notice-of-intent)

[D. Scoping 14](#d.-scoping)

[E. Alternatives Development / Preferred Alternative
15](#e.-alternatives-development-preferred-alternative)

[F. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Analyzing
Impacts)
15](#f.-affected-environment-and-environmental-consequences-analyzing-impacts)

[G. Addressing Mitigation 16](#g.-addressing-mitigation)

[H. Managing Draft and Final Reviews
16](#h.-managing-draft-and-final-reviews)

[I. Record of Decision (ROD) / Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
17](#i.-record-of-decision-rod-finding-of-no-significant-impact-fonsi)

[J. Implementing and Monitoring Decision
17](#j.-implementing-and-monitoring-decision)

[K. Guide to Collaborative Engagement during NEPA
17](#k.-guide-to-collaborative-engagement-during-nepa)

[VI. ADDRESSING CHALLENGES TO NEPA COLLABORATION
22](#vi.-addressing-challenges-to-nepa-collaboration)

[A. Resource Requirements 22](#a.-resource-requirements)

[B. Managing Conflict while Practicing Collaboration
22](#b.-managing-conflict-while-practicing-collaboration)

[C. Federal Agency Culture 23](#c.-federal-agency-culture)

[D. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
24](#d.-the-federal-advisory-committee-act-faca)

[VII. CONCLUSION 25](#vii.-conclusion)

**APPENDICES**

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING

APPENDIX B: SELECTED CASE STUDIES

APPENDIX C: RESOURCES

##### APPENDIX D: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTING CONFLICTS

APPENDIX E: FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

APPENDIX F: ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS THAT ENHANCE COLLABORATION

APPENDIX G: ACRONYMS

APPENDIX H: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

# I. INTRODUCTION

One of the primary goals of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)[^1] is to encourage meaningful public input and involvement in
the process of evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed federal
actions. This once innovative feature of the 1970 landmark legislation
has become routine practice for most NEPA review processes. However, the
full potential for more actively engaging other agencies, affected and
interested parties, and the public at large in collaborative
environmental analysis and federal decision-making is rarely realized.

The purpose of this handbook is to assist those within federal agencies
who are responsible for conducting environmental reviews in expanding
the effective use of collaboration as part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process, as called for by the NEPA Task Force Report
to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), *Modernizing NEPA
Implementation* (available at http://www.ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf). Among its
many conclusions, the NEPA Task Force found that collaborative
approaches to engaging the public and assessing the impacts of federal
actions under NEPA can improve the quality of decision-making and
increase public trust and confidence in agency decisions.

This handbook discusses how federal agencies can benefit by working
collaboratively with others in the NEPA process. Collaboration often
requires hard work, commitment, agency leadership, different kinds of
skills and resources, and a new way of approaching environmental review
processes. The cases referenced throughout the handbook show that
federal managers have successfully used collaborative processes in a
variety of contexts and that its benefits can be well worth the
investment.

The NEPA Task Force found collaborative practices to be synonymous with
good government. These practices are also consistent with the national
policy objectives set forth in Section 101 of NEPA. In this section,
Congress declared it to be "the continuing policy of the Federal
Government ...to create conditions under which man and nature can exist
in productive harmony." To carry out this policy, Section 101 of NEPA
makes it the responsibility of the federal government to take measures
so that "the Nation may -

1)  fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
    environment for succeeding generations;

2)  assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and
    aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

3)  attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
    without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable
    and unintended consequences;

4)  preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our
    national heritage, and maintain, whenever possible, an environment
    which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice;

5)  achieve a balance between population and resource use which will
    permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
    amenities; and

6)  enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
    attainable recycling of depletable resources."

The principles underlying Section 101 are in large part the central
tenets of environmental conflict resolution and collaborative
problem-solving. For example, environmental conflict resolution and
collaborative problem-solving emphasize:

-   including in processes diverse interests and affected communities;

-   addressing all key issues of concern to public welfare;

-   basing choices and recommendations on the best available
    information;

-   analyzing impacts and consequences;

-   weighing social, economic and environmental values; and

-   working toward agreements with long term efficacy for future
    generations

These overlapping principles from environmental conflict resolution,
collaborative problem-solving, and Section 101 of NEPA can help parties
work through issues within the NEPA process. Whether the issue involves
air quality, the economic health of communities, endangered species, the
scarcity of water resources, or how we recreate on public lands, the
application of these principles can anticipate and turn conflict into
constructive problem-solving.

# II. COLLABORATION AND ITS BENEFITS 

Collaboration is a broadly used term that describes how people work
together, literally meaning "co-labor." There are many ways for people
to collaborate: informally or formally, as partners or in teams, in
advisory capacities or as joint decision-makers.

When we collaborate with someone we allow that person a relatively high
level of influence in our decision-making. This distinguishes
collaboration from other degrees of influence in decision-making, which
will be discussed in greater detail in Section IV.

## A. Collaboration: The Focus of the Handbook

One of the hallmarks of NEPA is that it requires the federal government
to involve the public in the environmental review process. To this end,
the CEQ implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. parts 1500-1508) require
agencies to make diligent efforts to involve the public in NEPA
processes and to give the public notice of NEPA-related public meetings
and hearings. The regulations also encourage agencies to actively
identify parties that might be interested in a federal action, to hold
public hearings and meetings, and to give notice to the public through a
variety of media such as the Federal Register, local newspapers, or
direct mailing. The regulations allow agencies to determine the details
of each public involvement process.

Public involvement practices and techniques have evolved considerably
since Congress passed NEPA in 1970. Today, practitioners of public
involvement usually complement or modify the traditional public hearing
with more informal meetings that encourage citizens to interact with
agency officials on a one-to-one basis. These practitioners also use
innovative and pro-active methods to identify and communicate with
individuals and groups that might be interested in particular
governmental decisions. Many also use interest based processes to help
people with divergent views to find common ground and collaborate with
one another.

Collaboration applies in many contexts and can include a broad range of
activities, from information sharing to joint decision-making; however,
there is no set definition. This handbook focuses on collaboration in
the context of NEPA where an agency engages other governmental entities
and/or a balanced set of affected and interested parties in seeking
agreements at one or more stages of the NEPA process by cultivating
shared vision, trust, and communication. The main goal of the handbook
is to encourage collaboration where appropriate by showing how agencies
have collaborated with parties in the past and how agencies can better
collaborate with parties in the future throughout a NEPA process.

The extent of collaboration between any two parties in a NEPA process
can vary considerably depending on the phase of the NEPA process and the
roles assigned to each party by the lead agency. However, regardless of
the level of collaboration between parties, agencies retain the
responsibility for obtaining and considering the views of the general
public even while collaborating under NEPA.

The lead federal agency is the agency charged with conducting the NEPA
process. A lead agency might find opportunities to collaborate
throughout the NEPA process, whether it is preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA). The lead
agency might wish to collaborate in defining the purpose and need for a
project, in developing a proposal for an action; in identifying impacts
and issues; in generating alternatives; in analyzing alternatives; or in
determining a preferred alternative. A lead agency can collaborate with
others in one or more discrete stages, or in every aspect of the NEPA
process. Documents prepared by a collaborative group in a NEPA process
may become part of the NEPA administrative record.

While collaborating with others lead agencies retain decision making
authority and responsibility throughout the NEPA process, including the
formulation and issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) in the EIS
process, or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in the EA
process. Collaboration takes place without an agency abdicating its
statutory responsibilities, it enables decision makers to give
appropriate weight to any consensus that may have been reached among the
interested and affected stakeholders.

## B. The Benefits of Collaboration

The collaborative process can offer a lead agency many benefits,
including:

**Information.** By engaging relevant expertise, including scientific
and technical expertise, and knowledge of a local resource, a
collaborative body can reach a more informed agreement and advise
decision-makers accordingly. Similarly, the diversity of perspectives,
transparency and openness of collaborative processes tend to encourage
creative thinking, which can also lead to more informed decisions.

**A fair process**. Effective collaboration involves most or all
interests involved in an issue. This increases the likelihood that
important interests, particularly those from traditionally disadvantaged
or under-represented communities, will be invited to participate in a
process.

**Integration**. Since collaboration emphasizes a sharing of ideas,
opinions, and sometimes resources, it can also enhance integration and
coordination among jurisdictions. For example, NEPA's interdisciplinary
framework has the potential to allow agencies to integrate, coordinate,
and streamline the multiple reviews and analyses associated with
different legal and permitting requirements.

**Conflict Prevention**. Parties working collaboratively on a NEPA
analysis can surface and resolve differences as they arise, thus
preventing conflict or at least mitigating its impact.

**Fact-Finding**. Innovative tools such as joint fact-finding (an
inclusive and deliberative process to foster mutual learning and resolve
disputes over scientific and technical issues), collaborative monitoring
(where the collaborative group participates in the monitoring of
environmental impacts), adaptive management (emphasizes learning from
the outcomes of management actions), and others can bring parties to a
common understanding of the facts that underlie issues being tackled by
a collaborative group. If the parties cannot agree on a decision, they
may at least be able to agree on the methodology for producing technical
information.

**Social Capital**. Collaboration can produce long-lasting intangible
benefits like social capital. Collaborative processes can build trust
between people who will work together on other projects, lead to the
formation of partnerships, and increase public confidence in government.

**Implementation**. Collaboration also can enhance and ease the
implementation of a decision. If stakeholders feel vested in a decision,
they will have a stake in its implementation. They can also bring the
knowledge they gained during the collaborative process to bear on
decisions relating to monitoring, enforcement, and other issues.

**Reducing Litigation**. Collaboration can reduce the likelihood of
litigation by including key stakeholders early and often, solving
problems at the lowest possible level as they arise, and building
agreements between stakeholders. Even if litigation ensues, the
collaborative process may help narrow issues and make them more amenable
to agreement.

# III. THE CONTEXT FOR COLLABORATION

Context is important in collaborative efforts under NEPA. An agency
might be unable to (or might not want to) seek agreement with every
party during every phase of NEPA. In some cases collaboration is clearly
called for; in other cases, a level of engagement offering stakeholders
lesser degrees of influence, like public input or an outreach effort,
may be most appropriate. Lead agencies should be sure, however, to
communicate with each party about their role in the process to avoid
setting expectations that cannot be met.

## A. When Collaboration Works Best 

Collaboration works best when interested and affected parties believe
they can individually and collectively achieve better outcomes by
working together instead of independently. Some situations are more
conducive to a collaborative process than others.

### 

### 1. Collaboration in General 

Collaboration requires hard work, focused attention, adequate time, and
considerable dedication of staff and funding resources by all
participants. Private citizens in particular often serve in volunteer
roles in collaborative processes. Consequently, the parties to a process
must give it high priority to justify the time and resources needed to
do a good job.

Collaborative approaches often work best when there is sufficient
decision space among alternatives --- room for parties to mold the
solution that meets their needs. Similarly, parties have more incentive
to collaborate if the "best" outcome is truly unknown. For example,
joint fact-finding may be helpful if the lead agency lacks the
information necessary to make an informed decision. Similarly, an agency
might opt for an adaptive management approach when the effects of its
decisions cannot be known for certain until they are implemented at the
field level. The likelihood of litigation, with its costly delays, may
also strengthen the desire to collaborate.

Support from lead agency leadership is essential for a collaborative
process to have credibility with external parties and legitimacy with
agency staff. For example, agency leadership was the driving force
behind the twelve agency partnership to develop the recent I-73 project
in North and South Carolina (See Appendix B-15). Agency support should
include a good faith commitment (within the parameters of its authority)
to sincerely consider incorporating the recommendations that are
developed during the process into the agency's final decision. The
success of a collaborative effort often requires an active, internal
agency advocate with sufficient authority or persuasive ability to
ensure support and buy-in from agency leadership.

Collaboration is often an ideal process for parties that are likely to
have a continuing relationship beyond the immediate issue in which they
are involved. Federal land managers, for instance, often deal with the
same people (community leaders, property owners, advocacy groups) on a
variety of issues over a long period of time. The respect and trust
established in one project often carries forward to other projects,
increasing their chances of success.

The prospects for collaboration improve when parties need to rely on one
another. In the 1995 *Swan Valley Conservation Agreement*, the USDA
Forest Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Plum Creek
Timber Company agreed on measures to protect grizzlies in the Bob
Marshall Wilderness and on private land (See Appendix, B-14). For the
agreement to be effective, each party to the agreement had to rely on
the good faith and performance of the other parties. Collaboration is
more likely to succeed when parties believe that working toward a joint
solution will produce a better outcome than taking unilateral action
(i.e., through the legislature, the courts, or the media).

### 2. Collaboration Between Agencies and other Parties

Lead agencies often find that the NEPA action they wish to undertake
affects other governmental agencies. This gives the lead agency an
opportunity to collaborate with these other agencies and draw upon their
experience and expertise. NEPA, its implementing regulations, and CEQ
guidance encourage lead agencies to designate federal, state, local and
tribal agencies that share jurisdiction, authority, or subject matter
expertise as "cooperating agencies" (discussed in greater detail in
Section V.B.). When a lead agency engages the public or representatives
of specific interests, there are a variety of authorities besides NEPA
that can influence the design of the collaborative approach, including
the Administrative Procedures Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (See Section VI.D.
and Appendix E for further FACA discussion). When the lead agency
engages other government agencies (federal, state, local, or tribal
government agencies) in interagency meetings, for purposes of meeting
their NEPA responsibilities, any such meetings held exclusively among
government agencies are not subject to the requirements of FACA.

## B. When Collaboration Works Less Well

Parties have little motivation to collaborate if they believe they have
better ways to achieve their interests. If a party believes it can
achieve its goals through unilateral action, the courts, or the
legislature, it might not be motivated to collaborate with others.

Collaboration in the NEPA process may not work as well if there is
strong internal resistance within the lead agency to using the approach.
Impediments like scheduling delays, lack of resources, and insufficient
staff experience and knowledge might make project managers think twice
about designing a collaborative process, particularly if it would
involve engaging highly polarized and skeptical interested parties.

In addition, lead agencies sometimes fear relinquishing control over
their statutory responsibilities. Ambiguity in an agency's commitment
might also hinder participation in a process. Participants in a
collaborative process are unlikely to dedicate their time and effort to
an enterprise if they perceive that the lead agency is not whole
heartedly behind the effort.

Parties might also have conflicting views on the meaning and
significance of data. If they cannot agree on the underlying facts, they
are much less likely to agree on substantive issues. Collaborative
processes are also more likely to fail where a high level of distrust
exists among the parties. Distrust can stem from simple personality
conflict between individuals to conflict between the aims of
organizations, as expressed through their representatives.

These are just some of the reasons a collaborative approach might not
work in a particular situation. However, as stressed throughout this
handbook, practitioners of collaborative problem-solving often find that
these obstacles can be overcome through education and the application of
a collaborative problem-solving approach.[^2]

# IV. BASIC APPROACH TO DESIGNING A COLLABORATIVE NEPA PROCESS

## A. Spectrum of Engagement in NEPA Decision-Making

The "Spectrum of Engagement in NEPA Decision-Making", adapted from the
International Association for Public Participation's *Public
Participation Spectrum* (available at http://www.IAP2.org), shows four
levels of potential engagement for a lead agency with other governmental
and non-governmental entities. From the left side of the spectrum and
beginning with the level of least shared influence with parties, they
are to: *Inform, Consult, Involve*, and *Collaborate*.

At the ***Inform*** level, the agency informs the parties of its
activities. At the ***Consult*** level, the agency keeps parties
informed and considers their concerns and suggestions on the NEPA
process. Here the agency consults with parties without intending to
reach agreement with them. At the ***Involve*** level, the agency works
closely with parties to address their concerns within the agency's legal
and policy constraints. At the ***Collaborate*** level, parties exchange
information and work together towards agreement on one or more issues at
one or more stages in the NEPA process. The focus of this handbook is on
the ***Collaborate*** end of the spectrum; however, all levels may be
used in a given NEPA process, and tend to reinforce, in a cumulative
manner, the potential for effective collaboration. In designing a
collaborative process under NEPA, the lead agency should:

1.  Determine the parties with whom the agency wishes to collaborate.

2.  Determine how it will involve each party within each phase of the
    NEPA process, and avoid creating expectations it cannot fulfill. The
    mistrust created by promising collaboration and only delivering
    information, for example, can ruin an agency's relationships with
    parties and potentially undermine the agency's credibility.

3.  In situations where collaboration is inappropriate or infeasible,
    determine whether to engage parties at the Inform**,** Consult, or
    Involve levels of influence.

## B. The Phases and Extent of Collaboration

Most NEPA processes proceed smoothly from the development of a proposal
to the issuance of a ROD or FONSI. However, in complex and controversial
NEPA processes, lead agencies often find themselves dealing with parties
asserting competing interests\-- the underlying causes of environmental
conflict. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Some degree of conflict
is healthy, forcing parties to examine and think deeply about issues,
which often leads to better solutions. What is critical is how conflict
is managed. Practitioners of collaborative problem-solving often use the
following approach to managing conflict in multi-party public policy
disputes. This approach typically involves these five phases:

1.  Assessment and Planning;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Convening and Initiating;

2.  Sharing Interests and Exchanging Information

3.  Negotiating to Seek Agreement; and

4.  Decision-making, and Implementing (including Monitoring and
    Evaluation).

This approach has been used successfully in many NEPA processes.

In the **assessment and planning phase** (often referred to as
"conflict" or "situation" assessments) agencies clarify the issues and
assess the opportunity for collaboration. (See Deborah Shmueli,
*Conflict Assessment: beyond intractability*, Conflict Research
Consortium, University of Colorado 2003). Complex or controversial
issues might warrant a rigorous assessment. The lead agency might want
to engage a neutral party to identify and interview stakeholders, and
submit a written report on whether the conflict was amenable to
resolution through a collaborative process. Less controversial or
complex conflict can often be planned for and assessed through less
formal means. Through the assessment process agencies can educate
parties about the benefits of collaboration and begin building trust
between parties. Lead agencies that enter into collaborative processes
without undertaking an assessment risk pursuing an approach that is
inappropriate under the circumstances and being surprised by unexpected
issues as the process unfolds.

After reviewing the assessment, the lead agency determines whether the
collaborative process should proceed to the **convening and initiation
phase.** In this phase the lead agency brings parties together to
educate them about the process and to develop a plan for how they can
work together. The lead agency or convener might choose a casual or
structured approach to convening, depending on the complexity of the
issues at hand, and the history of conflict between parties, among other
things. The lead agency clarifies expectations and the roles and
responsibilities during this phase. The agency might consider providing
training to the collaborative group, which is what the National Park
Service did in the GGNRA example discussed above.

Groups typically begin to work together during convening by jointly
establishing ground rules. They identify additional participants that
need to be engaged; clarify areas in need of agreement; determine
resource and funding sources; choose appropriate meeting times and
venues; enter into memoranda of understanding, identify needs for
information and technical expertise; and select an independent
facilitators or mediators as appropriate.

During convening and initiation, groups should determine how they will
make decisions. The lead agency should explain to the group the range of
its decision space, particularly the statutory authorities that may
restrict its options. Practitioners of collaborative problem-solving
tend to encourage group decision-making that is based on consensus
rather than majority rule. Consensus decisions can be defined in
different ways; as full and unanimous endorsement within the group for
example, or as a range of graduated levels of support with no outright
vetoes. Some consensus rules require parties to develop alternative
solutions that would meet collective needs before opting out. Many
groups will set up a default decision-making process if they cannot
reach consensus, such as decisions based on super-majority or majority
votes or provide for minority reports. Third-party neutrals can often
help groups devise the decision-making process that is right for them.

Following the initial convening, parties usually begin **sharing
interests and exchanging information** that will last throughout the
entire process. There are many ways to introduce discussions about
interests, from carefully managed presentations, to informal
brainstorming sessions. Parties might also identify gaps in knowledge
during this phase or agree to methodologies (for data gathering, like
joint fact-finding, and for data analysis) that help them reach a common
understanding of the facts that underlie the issues.

Often considered the heart of the collaborative process, yet in many
respects the culmination of an effective collaboration, is the next
phase where participants **negotiate through a deliberative
agreement-seeking process.** This phase could involve a discrete
negotiation over one finite set of issues or proceed in an iterative
fashion over a period of time; for example, throughout an entire NEPA
process. During this phase, the lead agency and interested parties
consider possible options that would best meet all parties' needs and
interests, and work toward agreements that maximize "joint gains" and
minimize costs and losses for all parties.

The **decision-making and** **implementation phase** is the final phase
of collaboration. The primary goal for collaboration in the NEPA process
is to arrive at an alternative that can be implemented. The lead agency
will find itself in a more justifiable position when adopting a
consensus-based recommendation. Additionally, the lead agency can draw
on the increased capacity for cooperation that has developed through the
collaboration to expedite implementation. During the implementation
phase, there may be ongoing benefits for the parties to continue working
together on some or all parts of the action plan.

# V. OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION WITHIN THE NEPA PROCESS

This handbook encourages lead agencies to consider, where appropriate,
going further than the minimum requirements in engaging the public
throughout the NEPA process. Section 102 of NEPA and the CEQ
implementing regulations specify minimum requirements for engaging the
public in the development of an EIS. The regulations require agencies to
engage in forms of public participation such as notice and comment
procedures, and public outreach (40 C.F.R. §§1503.1(a), and 1506.6).

Agencies are also required to involve the public to the extent
practicable in developing EAs (40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), and 1506.6), and
may choose to apply the public involvement processes available for
preparing an EIS to the development of an EA. This is important, as CEQ
in its 1997 report "*The National Environmental Policy Act, a study of
its effectiveness after twenty-five years"* and its 2005 "*Report on
Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act"*
(http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/coop_agency_status.htm) concluded that
agencies issue far more EAs than EISs.

This chapter provides advice and examples of how to collaborate more
fully within and across the different phases of the NEPA process. NEPA
practitioners can use the matrix that follows this discussion as a tool
to explore approaches to collaboration at different stages in the NEPA
process.

## A. The Proposed Action / Development of Proposal 

Lead agencies can begin using collaborative processes at the start of
the process that leads to the development of a proposed action.

### 1. Development of Statement of Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

Before identifying alternatives including the proposed action, agencies
must determine the purpose and need for the action. To develop a purpose
and need statement, agencies collect information, define the problem,
and often brainstorm for possible solutions. For example, a land
management agency might be concerned about traffic congestion in an
environmentally sensitive area of public land. Before it can begin to
solve this problem it must collect data on the extent of the traffic
problem, its impact on resources, the desires of visitors to the area,
and possible solutions to the problem. This information could support a
NEPA purpose and need statement. Agencies can work together during this
phase to reach a common understanding of operational, regulatory and
fiscal constraints that impact the implementation process. The purpose
and need are key in developing alternatives including the proposed
action. When several agencies have a role in alternatives and the
proposed action they can collaboratively develop a NEPA analysis and
documentation that meets their collective needs. For example,
collaboratively developing the purpose and need with agencies that have
regulatory authority for the proposed action can help ensure that the
subsequent development and analysis of alternatives results in a NEPA
process upon which the permitting agencies can rely.

### 2. Coordinating with other Planning Processes

CEQ regulations encourage agencies to integrate the NEPA process with
other processes at the earliest possible time (40 C.F.R. § 1501.2). For
example, federal land management agencies often use planning procedures
developed initially by the USDA Forest Service to collaboratively
develop the desired conditions of areas of federal land ("Plan
Implementation/Public Involvement Triangle", available at
http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/planning/guide/howorganized.html). In many
planning processes desired conditions are rolled into subsequent
proposed actions that initiate the NEPA process. This is an opportune
time for engaging the public through a variety of means such as
workshops, focus groups, informal meetings. Early collaborative
involvement like this can minimize the contentiousness of issues that
might surface during scoping.

If the proposed action is likely to generate controversy, the lead
agency may want to conduct an assessment during the early NEPA phases to
determine the extent of hostility to the action. The lead agency could
also consider (consistent with authorities such as FACA) engaging a
representative group of parties to help form the proposed action
statement.

## B. The Role of Cooperating Agencies

At the outset of any NEPA process, the lead agency needs to consider the
degree to which it wishes to seek agreement at the various stages of the
NEPA process with cooperating agencies as well as with other parties
that aren't cooperating agencies. Seeking agreement from a cooperating
agency is not required, but as part of collaboration it is recommended.

As noted in Chapter III, CEQ regulations implementing NEPA provide that
the lead agency may designate other federal, state, local and tribal
agencies that have legal jurisdiction or special expertise with respect
to any environmental impact involved in a proposal to be cooperating
agencies (40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.6 and 1508.5). The lead agency must
determine how, if at all, it will collaborate with the cooperating
agency. It is helpful to remember that working with cooperating agencies
is not subject to FACA so long as the group of cooperating agencies is
composed exclusively of federal officials and elected officials from
federal, state, and local governments or tribes (or their designated
employees with authority to speak on their behalf).

The lead agency should also consider how it wishes to work with other
parties that are not deemed cooperating agencies. It is possible to
develop arrangements to structure consistent communications,
coordination, and information sharing.

The more promising the process is for mutual benefit, the more likely
cooperating agencies and other parties will engage in it. Memorandums of
Understanding (such as those in Appendix A) can clarify roles and a
situation assessment can be helpful in clarifying expectations for
partner agencies in the process.

## C. Notice of Intent

The publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register is the
first formal step in an EIS process. The lead agency could use the
Notice of Intent to emphasize its commitment to collaboration and how it
intends to engage interested parties throughout the analysis. Lead
agencies can supplement the Federal Register notice (as well as provide
notice for an EA process) with other forms of notice such as
announcements on websites, newspapers, newsletters, and other forms of
media.

## D. Scoping

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the breadth of
issues to be addressed in an EIS and for identifying the significant
issues related to a proposed action. By collaborating with others at
this point, the lead agency can help ensure that the analysis adequately
addresses those issues of importance to affected stakeholders and
interested parties. A situation assessment here (if not conducted in an
earlier phase) will help determine who should be involved in the scoping
process\-- to what extent, and for what purpose. Collaboration during
scoping can help define study boundaries, identify possible effects of
various actions, and establish a schedule for the analysis. The lead
agency can be innovative in how it reaches the public during scoping by
means such as setting up project websites, distributing periodic
newsletters, and holding meetings in diverse locales.

The lead agency can use scoping to clarify the roles of participants,
determine gaps in resources, establish dispute resolution procedures,
reach agreement with parties on meeting protocols and ground rules, and
clarify project goals and objectives. The lead agency can conduct an
assessment through individual interviews to identify the key issues and
concerns expressed by stakeholders. In addition, public workshops to
generate dialogue and prioritize issues, and continued meetings among
cooperating agencies to further identify and prioritize issues, can be
useful techniques during scoping.

If the lead agency decides to establish a representative group to work
toward consensus agreements during scoping, it should also consider an
appropriate legal procedural framework for this, including applicability
of FACA (see Section VI. D. and Appendix E).

## E. Alternatives Development / Preferred Alternative

NEPA requires lead agencies to develop and assess reasonable
alternatives that meet the purpose and need for agency action. The
development of alternatives can be conceptually challenging and laden
with value judgment and assumptions, either unspoken or even
unrecognized. The selection of alternatives drives the remainder of the
NEPA process by framing the issues, the possible solutions, and the
analysis. Thus, if agencies desire broader agreement in identifying the
preferred alternative, engaging in effective collaboration at this stage
of NEPA is absolutely essential.

Lead agencies often find it challenging to develop alternatives through
their internal process. When the process is expanded to include external
parties, the challenge is even greater. Parties often need to be
educated about the many ways in which objectives (purpose and need) can
be met and how alternatives can be structured before they can begin
deliberating and considering options. Collaboratively developed
alternatives are likely to withstand external challenges and enable
stakeholders to focus on the choices among alternatives when
deliberating over the draft EIS. Agencies can use a range of techniques
to enhance collaboration during alternatives development, such as:

-   Public workshops to discuss draft alternatives and how they can be
    improved, and identify any new alternatives that are viable.

-   Working with cooperating agencies to identify and refine
    alternatives,

-   Working with advisory committees or other existing stakeholder
    groups to identify and refine alternatives, and

-   Working with groups organized by others (Chambers of Commerce,
    environmental coalitions) to identify and refine alternatives.

## F. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Analyzing Impacts)

The analysis of the affected environment and the environmental impacts
of alternatives can also be challenging. Parties may challenge the
technical analysis --- its assumptions, its data, its methodology, its
conclusions, and even the credentials of the analysts. Collaboration can
not only improve the credibility of the technical analysis, but also its
legitimacy in the eyes of diverse stakeholders. Collaboration may also
decrease the risk of project delay later in the process. Collaborative
groups may find expert panels useful to engage as part of a joint
fact-finding process when confronted by complex scientific or technical
issues. For example, the CALFED Bay Delta collaborative group in
Northern California regularly utilizes expert panels to address water
issues in the San Francisco Bay area.

An agency might also consider:

-   Holding a public "state of the science" workshop(s) where experts
    discuss available information -- what is known, not known, what can
    be studied easily or not, what assumptions rest within certain
    analysis, and what uncertainties exist.

-   Convening experts from cooperating agencies, including tribes and
    local municipalities, to jointly undertake the analysis, thus
    bringing in additional expertise as well as increasing opportunities
    for agreement on the results.

-   Collaborating with other agencies or parties to determine the
    appropriate methodologies for scientific analysis (e.g., assessing
    existing conditions). For example, all parties could agree on the
    geographic and temporal boundaries to be used in a cumulative impact
    analysis.

-   Engage expert panels in workshops open to the public where
    stakeholders can pose questions and make comments.

## G. Addressing Mitigation

Similar to the affected environment and environmental consequences
phase, the lead agency could collaborate with other agencies or parties
to determine the appropriate methodologies and criteria to use for
assessing mitigation strategies.

## H. Managing Draft and Final Reviews

At these stages, collaboration is more focused and likely more
formalized, especially if effective collaboration has been used in all
stages leading up to the formal public comment and review periods. The
public review and comment periods and their concurrent public engagement
for the Draft or Final EIS or EA might involve:

-   A series of focused workshops to get more detailed feedback than
    standard public meetings.

-   Meetings with individual groups to explain the draft NEPA document,
    and to obtain feedback.

-   Multiple means to receive public comment such as letters, and
    electronic (internet) comments.

-   Receiving feedback from organized groups such as the cooperating
    agencies, resource advisory councils or advisory groups.

The public review phase might also provide an opportunity to establish
and build internal and interagency leadership commitment. Once comments
are received, the lead/proposing agency could collaboratively consider
comments received on a Draft or Final EIS or EA with other cooperating
agencies and collaborating entities before issuing the final ROD or
FONSI.

## I. Record of Decision (ROD) / Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

The lead agency cannot share or delegate its legal authority for issuing
a ROD or FONSI. However, the degree of collaboration in a particular
NEPA process will probably be reflected, either explicitly or
implicitly, in the ROD or FONSI.

## J. Implementing and Monitoring Decision

The lead agency can work closely with other agencies or interested
parties to collectively monitor implementation of the ROD or FONSI.
Collaborative monitoring will enable the lead agency to determine
whether objectives have been achieved, and whether adjustments to the
action or any mitigation measures are in order. Lead agencies can
leverage the resources and expertise of the collaborative group to
achieve results they might be unable to achieve on their own.

## K. Guide to Collaborative Engagement during NEPA 

The following guide depicts some of the factors agencies can take into
account when considering how to collaborate with other agencies,
entities, or individuals during the NEPA process.

**GUIDE TO COLLABORATION DURING NEPA**

**A tool to help NEPA practitioners identify opportunities and options
for collaboration.**

+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| **   | **Col      | **Com     | **Option  | **       | **Case    |
| NEPA | laboration | mitment** | s/Tools** | Issues** | E         |
| Ac   | Goal**     |           |           |          | xamples** |
| tivi |            |           |           |          |           |
| ty** |            |           |           |          |           |
+======+============+===========+===========+==========+===========+
| De   | Inform and | Directly  | Community | With     | *Coll     |
| velo | shape      | engage or | or        | whom is  | aborative |
| ping | optimal    | partner   | regional  | it       | Envi      |
| the  | proposed   | with      | in        | app      | ronmental |
| Prop | action     | ap        | formation | ropriate | and       |
| osed | from       | propriate | exchange  | or       | Trans     |
| Ac   | outset.    | agencies, | m         | feasible | portation |
| tion |            | sta       | eetings/w | to       | Agreement |
|      |            | keholders | orkshops. | col      | for       |
|      |            | or        |           | laborate | Str       |
|      |            | i         | Meetings  | with at  | eamlining |
|      |            | nterested | with      | this     | (CETAS):* |
|      |            | parties   | sta       | phase?   |           |
|      |            | in the    | keholders |          | Trans     |
|      |            | proposal  | and       | Appli    | portation |
|      |            | de        | interest  | cability | and       |
|      |            | velopment | groups.   | of FACA  | resource  |
|      |            | process.  |           |          | agencies  |
|      |            |           | Situation |          | in Oregon |
|      |            |           | as        |          | discuss   |
|      |            |           | sessment. |          | issues    |
|      |            |           |           |          | early in  |
|      |            |           | Initiate  |          | the NEPA  |
|      |            |           | multi-st  |          | process   |
|      |            |           | akeholder |          | through   |
|      |            |           | forums or |          | regular   |
|      |            |           | co        |          | working   |
|      |            |           | mmittees. |          | group     |
|      |            |           |           |          | meetings, |
|      |            |           |           |          | fostering |
|      |            |           |           |          | rela      |
|      |            |           |           |          | tionships |
|      |            |           |           |          | built on  |
|      |            |           |           |          | trust.    |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Esta | Adjust and | Frame the | Identify  | Identify | *Spring   |
| blis | strengthen | purpose   | other     | p        | Mountain  |
| hing | jus        | and need  | agencies  | otential | National  |
| Pur  | tification | statement | with      | value    | R         |
| pose | for        | based on  | jur       | and      | ecreation |
| and  | proposed   | shared    | isdiction | risks of | Area*: In |
| Need | action by  | unde      | by law or | in       | 1994,     |
|      | addressing | rstanding | special   | itiating | Forest    |
|      | needs and  | of        | expertise | or not   | Service   |
|      | concerns   | issues,   | and       | in       | (lead)    |
|      | of         | as well   | consider  | itiating | and Fish  |
|      | affected   | as any    | ap        | colla    | and       |
|      | sta        | r         | propriate | boration | Wildlife  |
|      | keholders, | egulatory | coll      | at this  | Service   |
|      | interested | and       | aboration | point.   | (co       |
|      | parties,   | fiscal    | f         |          | operator) |
|      | and public | co        | ramework. | Think    | enter     |
|      |            | nstraints |           | through  | into      |
|      |            | that must | Situation | clearly  | in        |
|      |            | be        | as        | to avoid | teragency |
|      |            | satis     | sessment. | unat     | agreement |
|      |            | factorily |           | tainable | which     |
|      |            | addressed | Identify  | expec    | enables   |
|      |            | in        | early in  | tations. | them to   |
|      |            | d         | process   |          | jointly   |
|      |            | eveloping | interests | Appli    | develop   |
|      |            | a viable  | that      | cability | EIS,      |
|      |            | solution. | would be  | of FACA  | including |
|      |            | Explain   | affected  |          | Purpose   |
|      |            | the       | by agency |          | and Need  |
|      |            | purpose   | action.   |          | and       |
|      |            | and need  |           |          | s         |
|      |            | for       | Convene   |          | ubsequent |
|      |            | agency    | balanced  |          | steps of  |
|      |            | action in | array of  |          | process.  |
|      |            | a way     | interests |          |           |
|      |            | that      | to        |          |           |
|      |            | reflects  | co        |          |           |
|      |            | the needs | llaborate |          |           |
|      |            | and       | on        |          |           |
|      |            | concerns  | de        |          |           |
|      |            | of        | velopment |          |           |
|      |            | affected  | of the    |          |           |
|      |            | stak      | purpose   |          |           |
|      |            | eholders, | and need  |          |           |
|      |            | i         | s         |          |           |
|      |            | nterested | tatement. |          |           |
|      |            | parties,  |           |          |           |
|      |            | and the   |           |          |           |
|      |            | public.   |           |          |           |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Coo  | Determine  | Work in   | Granting  | What is  | *Eve      |
| pera | extent of  | pa        | co        | the      | rglades*: |
| ting | i          | rtnership | operating | agency   | Starting  |
| with | nteragency | with      | agency    | level of | in late   |
| O    | col        | agencies  | status to | interest | 1990's,   |
| ther | laboration | through a | agencies  | in the   | US Army   |
| Agen | and        | clearly   | and       | p        | Corps of  |
| cies | clarify    | ar        | tribes.   | roposal? | Engineers |
|      | roles and  | ticulated |           |          | develops  |
|      | respons    | structure | Other     | Are      | Sup       |
|      | ibilities. | and       | arr       | agencies | plemental |
|      |            | process   | angements | willing  | EIS to    |
|      |            | for       | for       | to be    | protect   |
|      |            | coll      | in        | coo      | e         |
|      |            | aborative | teragency | perating | ndangered |
|      |            | decisio   | co        | agencies | Sparrow   |
|      |            | n-making. | operation | or enter | with      |
|      |            |           | and       | into     | Co        |
|      |            |           | coor      | ag       | operators |
|      |            |           | dination. | reements | after     |
|      |            |           |           | to       | initial   |
|      |            |           | In        | coll     | effort    |
|      |            |           | teragency | aborate? | that      |
|      |            |           | meetings/ |          | lacked    |
|      |            |           | forums/co | What is  | Co        |
|      |            |           | mmittees. | the need | operators |
|      |            |           |           | and      | was not   |
|      |            |           | Situation | fea      | su        |
|      |            |           | as        | sibility | ccessful. |
|      |            |           | sessment. | for      |           |
|      |            |           |           | resource |           |
|      |            |           |           | sharing  |           |
|      |            |           |           | among    |           |
|      |            |           |           | a        |           |
|      |            |           |           | gencies? |           |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Iss  | Delineate  | Clarify   | Outline   | Watch    | *Las      |
| uing | and        | goals and | in NOI to | out for  | Cienegas  |
| No   | publicize  | initial   | the       | expe     | National  |
| tice | agency     | plans for | extent    | ctations | R         |
| of   | commitment | coll      | feasible  | that     | ecreation |
| In   | to         | aborating | how lead  | cannot   | Area*:    |
| tent | coll       | with      | agency    | be met.  | EIS       |
| (    | aboration. | other     | intends   |          | issued in |
| NOI) |            | agencies, | to        |          | 2003      |
|      |            | sta       | proceed.  |          | refers to |
|      |            | keholders |           |          | multi-st  |
|      |            | and       | S         |          | akeholder |
|      |            | parties.  | upplement |          | coll      |
|      |            |           | NOI with  |          | aborative |
|      |            |           | public    |          | effort    |
|      |            |           | meetings  |          | that led  |
|      |            |           | /d        |          | to        |
|      |            |           | iscussion |          | a         |
|      |            |           | forums.   |          | greements |
|      |            |           |           |          | on use    |
|      |            |           |           |          | and       |
|      |            |           |           |          | p         |
|      |            |           |           |          | rotection |
|      |            |           |           |          | of Las    |
|      |            |           |           |          | Cienegas  |
|      |            |           |           |          | National  |
|      |            |           |           |          | R         |
|      |            |           |           |          | ecreation |
|      |            |           |           |          | Area.     |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Sco  | Assure     | Work      | Use       | Appli    | *Spring   |
| ping | com        | collab    | fa        | cability | Mountain  |
|      | prehensive | oratively | cilitator | of FACA  | National  |
|      | scoping of | with      |           |          | R         |
|      | issues to  | other     | I         | Are all  | ecreation |
|      | inform     | agencies  | ndividual | i        | Area*: In |
|      | a          | and/or    | i         | nterests | 1994,     |
|      | ppropriate | parties   | nterviews | repr     | Forest    |
|      | analysis   | to        | or        | esented? | Service   |
|      | of         | identify  | situation |          | (lead)    |
|      | alt        | nature    | a         | Is issue | and Fish  |
|      | ernatives. | and       | ssessment | ri       | and       |
|      |            | extent of | to detail | pe/ready | Wildlife  |
|      |            | issues    | issues    | for      | Service   |
|      |            | and       | and       | collab   | (co       |
|      |            | impacts   | concerns. | oration? | operator) |
|      |            | to be     |           |          | enter     |
|      |            | addressed | Worksh    | Time     | into      |
|      |            | in the    | ops/field | cons     | in        |
|      |            | EIS.      | tr        | traints. | teragency |
|      |            |           | ips/study |          | agreement |
|      |            |           | forums to | R        | which     |
|      |            |           | generate  | esources | enables   |
|      |            |           | dialogue  | r        | them to   |
|      |            |           | and set   | equired. | jointly   |
|      |            |           | pr        |          | develop   |
|      |            |           | iorities. | Is all   | EIS,      |
|      |            |           |           | relevant | including |
|      |            |           | Visioning | inf      | scoping   |
|      |            |           | exercises | ormation | and       |
|      |            |           | or        | av       | s         |
|      |            |           | coll      | ailable, | ubsequent |
|      |            |           | aborative | acc      | steps of  |
|      |            |           | planning  | essible, | process.  |
|      |            |           | p         | being    |           |
|      |            |           | rocesses. | used?    |           |
|      |            |           |           |          |           |
|      |            |           | Joint     |          |           |
|      |            |           | fac       |          |           |
|      |            |           | t-finding |          |           |
|      |            |           | or        |          |           |
|      |            |           | mapping   |          |           |
|      |            |           | e         |          |           |
|      |            |           | xercises. |          |           |
|      |            |           |           |          |           |
|      |            |           | Repre     |          |           |
|      |            |           | sentative |          |           |
|      |            |           | st        |          |           |
|      |            |           | akeholder |          |           |
|      |            |           | group.    |          |           |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| De   | Jointly    | Work      | Use       | Appli    | *W        |
| velo | develop    | collab    | fac       | cability | isconsin: |
| ping | al         | oratively | ilitator. | of FACA. | Karner    |
| Alte | ternatives | on        |           |          | Blue      |
| rnat | that       | alt       | Joint     | Does     | B         |
| ives | address    | ernatives | fact      | range of | utterfly: |
|      | the array  | de        | -finding. | alte     | In mid    |
|      | of         | velopment |           | rnatives | 1990's    |
|      | c          | with      | Repre     | reflect  | multi-st  |
|      | onditions, | other     | sentative | full     | akeholder |
|      | issues and | agencies/ | st        | spectrum | group     |
|      | concerns   | parties   | akeholder | of       | develops  |
|      | raised,    | involved  | group.    | views?   | combined  |
|      | presenting | in        |           |          | Habitat   |
|      | viable     | colla     | Topical   | Are all  | Con       |
|      | options    | boration. | study     | i        | servation |
|      | and        |           | groups,   | nterests | Plan/EIS. |
|      | choices    |           | working   | rep      | Group     |
|      | for        |           | subco     | resented | discusses |
|      | cons       |           | mmittees, | and      | all       |
|      | ideration. |           | or public | concerns | alte      |
|      |            |           | adviso    | taken    | rnatives. |
|      |            |           | ry/review | into     | Group's   |
|      |            |           | groups.   | account? | preferred |
|      |            |           |           |          | al        |
|      |            |           | Publi     |          | ternative |
|      |            |           | c/private |          | becomes   |
|      |            |           | par       |          | basis for |
|      |            |           | tnerships |          | ROD.*     |
|      |            |           | for       |          |           |
|      |            |           | sharing   |          |           |
|      |            |           | resources |          |           |
|      |            |           | and       |          |           |
|      |            |           | e         |          |           |
|      |            |           | xpertise. |          |           |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| A    | Strengthen | Co        | Expert    | Extent   | *San Juan |
| naly | rigor and  | llaborate | panels as | of       | National  |
| zing | c          | with      | part of   | c        | Forest,   |
| Imp  | redibility | other     | joint     | ertainty | Southern  |
| acts | of impact  | agencies  | fact      | or       | C         |
| and  | assessment | or        | -finding. | c        | olorado - |
| Ad   | and        | parties   |           | onsensus | USDA      |
| dres | mitigation | to        | Mu        | about    | Forest    |
| sing | s          | determine | lti-party | tech     | Service:* |
| Mi   | trategies. | the       | review    | nical/sc |           |
| tiga |            | ap        | group.    | ientific | Working   |
| tion |            | propriate |           | data and | groups    |
|      |            | meth      |           | method   | focused   |
|      |            | odologies |           | ologies. | on        |
|      |            | and       |           |          | p         |
|      |            | criteria  |           | Co       | articular |
|      |            | to use    |           | nnection | s         |
|      |            | for       |           | between  | cientific |
|      |            | s         |           | t        | or        |
|      |            | cientific |           | echnical | technical |
|      |            | analyses  |           | issues   | issues;   |
|      |            | (         |           | and      | outside   |
|      |            | assessing |           | policy   | experts   |
|      |            | existing  |           | choices. | were      |
|      |            | co        |           |          | brought   |
|      |            | nditions) |           | How      | in to     |
|      |            | and       |           | analyses | explain   |
|      |            | m         |           | and      | the state |
|      |            | itigation |           | findings | of        |
|      |            | st        |           | can be   | s         |
|      |            | rategies. |           | comm     | cientific |
|      |            |           |           | unicated | k         |
|      |            |           |           | to lay   | nowledge, |
|      |            |           |           | people.  | then      |
|      |            |           |           |          | fa        |
|      |            |           |           | Appli    | cilitated |
|      |            |           |           | cability | small     |
|      |            |           |           | of FACA. | groups    |
|      |            |           |           |          | would     |
|      |            |           |           |          | discuss   |
|      |            |           |           |          | how it    |
|      |            |           |           |          | applied   |
|      |            |           |           |          | to the    |
|      |            |           |           |          | plan      |
|      |            |           |           |          | revision. |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Mana | Assure     | Shared    | Int       | Appli    | *W        |
| ging | adequate   | process   | er-agency | cability | isconsin: |
| D    | time and   | for       | working   | of FACA  | Karner    |
| raft | breadth of | review of | group to  |          | Blue      |
| and  | outreach   | and       | review    |          | Bu        |
| F    | for        | response  | comments. |          | tterfly*: |
| inal | so         | to public |           |          | Multi     |
| Rev  | licitation | comments  | In-depth  |          | St        |
| iews | and        | with      | public    |          | akeholder |
|      | collection | other     | comment   |          | group     |
|      | of public  | agencies  | w         |          | (Fish and |
|      | comments   | and       | orkshops. |          | Wildlife  |
|      | and for    | parties   |           |          | Service   |
|      | analysis   | in        | Meetings  |          | lead)     |
|      | and        | colla     | with      |          | collab    |
|      | con        | boration, | issue     |          | oratively |
|      | sideration | ensuring  | groups.   |          | considers |
|      | before ROD | comments  |           |          | comments  |
|      | or FONSI.  | from      |           |          | on draft  |
|      |            | parties   |           |          | EIS to    |
|      | Build      | are       |           |          | jointly   |
|      | internal   | u         |           |          | produce   |
|      | and        | nderstood |           |          | final     |
|      | i          | and       |           |          | EIS.      |
|      | nteragency | addressed |           |          |           |
|      | leadership | in Final  |           |          | *Eve      |
|      | c          | EIS/ROD   |           |          | rglades*: |
|      | ommitment. | or        |           |          | In late   |
|      |            | EA/FONSI. |           |          | 1990's    |
|      |            |           |           |          | In        |
|      |            |           |           |          | teragency |
|      |            |           |           |          | group     |
|      |            |           |           |          | refines   |
|      |            |           |           |          | preferred |
|      |            |           |           |          | al        |
|      |            |           |           |          | ternative |
|      |            |           |           |          | based on  |
|      |            |           |           |          | comments  |
|      |            |           |           |          | to EIS    |
|      |            |           |           |          | for       |
|      |            |           |           |          | purpose   |
|      |            |           |           |          | of        |
|      |            |           |           |          | p         |
|      |            |           |           |          | rotecting |
|      |            |           |           |          | e         |
|      |            |           |           |          | ndangered |
|      |            |           |           |          | sparrow.  |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
| Impl | Share      | Work      | In        | Appli    | *Glen     |
| emen | impl       | collab    | teragency | cability | Canyon    |
| ting | ementation | oratively | or        | of FACA  | National  |
| and  | and        | with      | mu        |          | R         |
| Mo   | monitoring | other     | lti-party |          | ecreation |
| nito | expertise, | agencies  | m         |          | Area*:    |
| ring | resources  | and       | onitoring |          | EIS       |
| Deci | and        | parties   | or        |          | issued in |
| sion | accou      | in        | adaptive  |          | 1995 on   |
|      | ntability. | m         | m         |          | operation |
|      |            | onitoring | anagement |          | of Glen   |
|      |            | imple     | group.    |          | Canyon    |
|      |            | mentation |           |          | Dam       |
|      |            | of ROD.   |           |          | indicated |
|      |            |           |           |          | that      |
|      |            |           |           |          | there was |
|      |            |           |           |          | much      |
|      |            |           |           |          | un        |
|      |            |           |           |          | certainty |
|      |            |           |           |          | regarding |
|      |            |           |           |          | the       |
|      |            |           |           |          | d         |
|      |            |           |           |          | ownstream |
|      |            |           |           |          | impact of |
|      |            |           |           |          | water     |
|      |            |           |           |          | releases  |
|      |            |           |           |          | from Glen |
|      |            |           |           |          | Canyon    |
|      |            |           |           |          | Dam. The  |
|      |            |           |           |          | Glen      |
|      |            |           |           |          | Canyon    |
|      |            |           |           |          | Dam       |
|      |            |           |           |          | Adaptive  |
|      |            |           |           |          | M         |
|      |            |           |           |          | anagement |
|      |            |           |           |          | Group has |
|      |            |           |           |          | been set  |
|      |            |           |           |          | up to     |
|      |            |           |           |          | perform   |
|      |            |           |           |          | this      |
|      |            |           |           |          | function. |
+------+------------+-----------+-----------+----------+-----------+

# VI. ADDRESSING CHALLENGES TO NEPA COLLABORATION

Agencies will often find it challenging to collaborate with others in
NEPA processes. This chapter addresses four common challenges relating
to resource requirements, conflict dynamics, internal federal culture,
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Agencies that are committed to a
collaborative process stand the best chance of turning these challenges
into opportunities.

## A. Resource Requirements

**Challenges:** Collaboration is rarely inexpensive, easy, or a quick
fix to a problem. The high stakes of complex environmental conflict -
whether it involves property rights, the economic health of communities,
endangered species, or fragile ecosystems---often trigger deeply held
views in people. Groups need time to work out a process, to develop a
shared vision, and to develop trust and respect between members. If the
meaning, availability or credibility of data is at issue, the group
might need to gather and exchange information (as in a joint
fact-finding process) to assess the relevance and significance of the
data. If the group discovers that some interests are unrepresented, it
should consider inviting representatives of those missing interests to
participate. These and other considerations can lengthen a process, as
well as require funding and the time and skill of agency personnel.

**Opportunities**: The additional time and expense that a collaborative
process might add to a stage of the NEPA process can be worthwhile if it
results in an preferred action that can be implemented, increased trust
and social capital, and relationships that can work constructively on
this and future projects. For help in weighing these factors, federal
agencies can turn to the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution (http://www.ecr.gov), which was established for the purpose
of assisting agencies in assessing collaboration opportunities and
resolving the types of environmental conflict often involved in NEPA
processes. Several agencies have established similar programs to promote
the use of collaborative problem-solving such as EPA's Conflict
Prevention and Resolution Center and DOI's Office of Collaborative
Action and Dispute Resolution.

Additionally, agencies might be able to find ways to maximize and
leverage their funding through means such as cost-sharing, video and
teleconferencing, and employee details.

## B. Managing Conflict while Practicing Collaboration

**Challenges:** Because passions often run deep in environmental
conflict, discussion between parties can become hostile. Parties might
question the good faith of other parties, as well as the federal agency
convening the process. Conflict is often embedded in historical
relationships (good and bad), and framed by advocates and interest
groups, often at the expense of interested parties who have not made
their interests known. Conflicts may be exacerbated by poor
communication, conflicting interests, competing values, changing
demographics, and poor relationships. One of the challenges in carrying
out a successful collaborative process is to recognize and address these
dynamics, so that competing interests can be discussed in a constructive
manner.

**Opportunities:** One way to address these complex dynamics is to
follow the best practices of collaborative problem-solving. The
*transparency* of a process should give skeptical parties the assurance
that there is nothing happening behind the scenes and therefore beyond
their control. A *focus on interests instead of positions* can get
parties to talk more openly with one another about what they hope to
achieve through the process. An emphasis on *inclusivity and balance of
interests* can give comfort to parties who might be concerned that the
process will favor one interest over another. A group that has
*autonomy* will have the confidence that it is not under the control of
a particular agency or party. A group whose members are *committed to
working through the issues* and with one another toward a common goal
will have confidence that they are engaged in a worthwhile endeavor. In
addition, the use of a third-party neutral can give all parties the
assurance that the process will be fair and impartial. Most of these
practices are discussed in a November 28, 2005 Office of Management and
Budget and President's Council on Environmental Quality Joint Memorandum
on Environmental Conflict Resolution (Joint Memorandum). (See Appendix
C-3).

For more detailed strategies for preventing conflicts in the context of
collaboration, see Appendix D.

## C. Federal Agency Culture

**Challenges:** The NEPA Task Force found that "the decision to bring
people to the NEPA table and not proceed with the analysis until
everyone is comfortable with their role, the process, and the projected
products seems to contradict agency objectives to expedite analyses and
decisions", and that "although many (respondents) agreed with the
concept of collaboration, only a few claimed a collaborative
experience." These observations underscore the importance of educating
agencies on the value of collaborative processes to increase their
familiarity and comfort level with their use.

Agencies will sometimes find that there is tension between traditional
NEPA practices and collaborative approaches. Agencies on a strict
deadline to complete a NEPA process might be deterred by projections of
the length or costs associated with a collaborative approach. However,
the time savings an agency might achieve by forgoing a collaborative
process are often illusory, if the failure to collaborate exposes the
NEPA process to subsequent legal challenges.

**Opportunities:** As collaborative processes become increasingly
ingrained in an agency's culture, more of its personnel will have
stories to tell of its use -- successes and challenges. The transmittal
of first-hand knowledge from one NEPA practitioner to another will help
demystify the concept of collaboration and enable managers to make
informed decisions about the use of collaborative processes.

Ultimately, the principles of collaboration need to seep into the
everyday work environment before they become part of an agency's
culture. As the Task Force noted, "(i)f integrating more agencies into
NEPA processes is a goal of the Federal government, time must be spent
instilling the values underlying that goal." Federal agencies can
benefit from dedicating resources to training, and by creating and
supporting an agency culture that supports collaboration.

To this end, the Joint Memorandum discussed above directs federal
agencies to increase the effective use of environmental conflict
resolution and to build institutional capacity for collaborative
problem-solving. The implementation of this policy will provide
additional opportunities for agencies to integrate environmental
conflict resolution into agency missions, performance goals, and
strategic planning.

## D. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

FACA governs the establishment, management, and termination of advisory
committees within the executive branch of the federal government. FACA
applies to groups that include individuals who are not federal employees
if the group is established, managed, or controlled by a federal agency
to obtain collective advice. FACA does not apply when the group is
composed exclusively of federal officials and elected officials from
federal, state, and local governments or tribes (or their designated
employees with authority to speak on their behalf) and the purpose of
the group is to exchange views, information, or advice relating to
issue(s) of intergovernmental responsibility and administration, as is
the case when working collaboratively throughout the NEPA process. FACA
requires, among other things, that such groups be chartered, their
meetings be noticed in advance and open to the public, the membership be
balanced in the points of view represented, and the public have an
opportunity to submit comments.

**Challenges:** FACA can present procedural and structural challenges to
agencies wishing to collaborate with groups that include non-federal
organizations or private citizens. Among other things, to determine
whether a group needs to be chartered under FACA several questions need
to be answered, including what is the membership of the group (are
non-federal organizations or private citizens involved?), what is the
product of the group (is it giving group advice?), and who controls or
manages the group (a federal agency?). The answers to these questions,
addressed in more detail in Appendix E, are oftentimes fact and
situation-specific.

**Opportunities:** Questions relating to FACA can be more easily
answered by clearly determining the purpose of the collaborative effort
and then exploring the most appropriate forum or structure to support
that effort. Depending on the goals of the parties, collaborative
processes can be designed that both meet the interests of all members of
a group and satisfy FACA. In some cases, existing FACA committees can
become the "parent" committee; in other cases, an independent forum
under non-federal leadership may be more appropriate. In many instances,
chartering a FACA committee can be expedited and serve the purposes of
collaboration perfectly. Because FACA provides for several of the best
practices of collaborative problem-solving, FACA committees are often
ideal vessels for carrying out a collaborative process. There are
several ways to approach the challenges posed by FACA, particularly if
they are viewed as opportunities to design the best possible process for
the intended purpose. These concepts are discussed in greater detail in
Appendix E.

# VII. CONCLUSION

People are interested in and care about proposed governmental actions
that are evaluated through the NEPA process. Proposals that might impact
air and water quality, wildlife, property rights, and the economic
well-being of communities, among others, can trigger fervent and
conflicting views.

Two of the major goals of the NEPA environmental analysis process are
better informed decisions and enhanced citizen involvement. The CEQ NEPA
Task Force found that federal agencies can perform this function more
effectively by working collaboratively with representatives of
interested and affected parties. Collaborative processes, though, can be
a challenge to implement successfully. It is often difficult to bring
together people who are asserting competing interests that result in
environmental conflict.

Federal managers need tools that can allow them to turn competing
interests into a constructive force. The information provided in this
handbook will enable federal managers to learn about some of these tools
for working collaboratively with others in NEPA processes for the
purpose of accomplishing their missions more effectively.

**APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING**

Appendix A contains Memoranda of Understanding from several projects
that used a collaborative approach for operating plans, roles and
responsibilities for conducting NEPA preparation and review and/or
solving problems that arose during the NEPA process. Please note that
these samples are not intended to be templates or to demonstrate
appropriate MOU language. Agency counsel should be consulted regarding
appropriate content of and legal issues relating to MOUs.

**APPENDIX A1**

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

**between**

**United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District;**

**and**

# NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK;

# SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT;

**United States Fish and Wildlife Service, SOUTH Florida Field Office**

# Agreement to Jointly Sponsor Collaborative

# Combined Structural and Operating Plan ("CSOP")

# Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") Process

### A. PARTIES 

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is hereby entered into by,
between, and among the United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District (the "Corps"), the National Park Service,
Everglades National Park (the "Park"), the South Florida Water
Management District (the "District"), and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, South Florida Field Office (the "Service").

### B. PURPOSES

As established in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), under
which this CSOP EIS process is being conducted, it is the continuing
policy of the federal government, in cooperation with State and local
governments, Tribes, and other concerned public and private
organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including
technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the
general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and
nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans.

Accordingly, the purposes of this MOU are:

1.  To establish the parties' agreement and commitment in jointly
    sponsoring a collaborative Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS")
    process under NEPA in the development of a Combined Structural and
    Operating Plan ("CSOP") for Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades
    National Park (Mod-Waters) and the Canal 111 Project ("C-111").

2.  To establish the Park, the District, and the Service as cooperating
    agencies in the CSOP process.

3.  To affirm that the Corps has sole and ultimate decision-making
    authority for the Record of Decision and primary responsibility for
    NEPA compliance and preparation of the EIS.

4.  To establish the commitment of the parties to seek agreement on key
    steps in the EIS process, including: development of the Purpose and
    Need Statement for the proposed action, development of the Goals and
    Objectives for the proposed action, development of a range of
    alternatives, modeling and analysis of the alternatives,
    consideration of public comments, and development of a preferred
    alternative.

5.  To affirm the commitment of the Corps to fully consider the views of
    the Park, the District, and the Service in developing its Record of
    Decision and to work with the agencies to collaboratively monitor
    the impacts of its decision.

6.  To affirm the agencies' agreement to jointly sponsor a
    multi-stakeholder process in which they will collectively consult
    with and seek the involvement of other entities that may have an
    interest in participating in the CSOP EIS process.

## AUTHORITIES

This MOU is based on and consistent with the authorities provided in the
following laws, regulations, orders, decisions and documents:

## Everglades Preservation and Expansion Act of 1989, Public Law 100-229

-   National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 USC § 4321
    [et seq.]{.underline}

-   The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 USC § 1531 [et
    seq.]{.underline}

-   Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998, Public Law
    105-156

-   Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Public Law 104-320

## Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 320

-   Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500-1508

-   Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, May 24, 1977

-   Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977

-   Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas, May 26, 2000

-   Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, February 3, 1999

-   Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection, June 11, 1998

-   Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
    Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February
    11, 1994

-   Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
    Quality, March 5, 1970, as amended May 24, 1977

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Modified Waters General Design Memorandum (GDM), 1992

-   Draft Supplemental Modified Waters GDM, April 2000

-   C-111 General Reevaluation Report (GRR) Environmental Impact
    Statement, 1994

-   Real Estate Memorandum (REDM), November 1994

-   8.5 Square Mile Area Record of Decision, December 2000

-   Supplemental C-111 GRR Environmental Impact Statement, 2002

#### 

####  D. RELEVANT GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ)

The establishment of this MOU is consistent with the following guidance
provided by the Council on Environmental Quality:

-   Memorandum for Heads of Federal Agencies, "Cooperating Agencies in
    Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National
    Environmental Policy Act" with Attachment 1: "Factors for
    Determining Whether to Invite, Decline, or End Cooperating Agency
    Status", January 30, 2002

#### Memorandum for Heads of Federal Agencies, "Designation of Non-Federal Agencies to be Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act", July 28, 1999

-   "The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of its Effectiveness
    After Twenty-five Years", January 1997

-   "Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental
    Policy Act", December 10, 1997

-   "Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations Into Environmental Impact
    Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act", January 1993

-   "Council on Environmental Quality Guidance Regarding NEPA
    Regulations", 1983

-   CEQ's Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning NEPA Regulations, March
    21, 1981

#### 

####  E. STATEMENT OF MUTUAL INTERESTS AND BENEFITS

All parties recognize they can benefit from collaboration on the CSOP
EIS process, as well as from increased communication, disclosure of
relevant information early in the analytical process, sharing of
available data and staff expertise, improved coordination, avoidance of
duplicated efforts, and proactive resolution of interagency disputes.
Additionally, the parties can benefit from engaging in collaboration to
help achieve better outcomes for all parties while ensuring that each
agency's key mandates and legal requirements are adequately and
appropriately met.

#### 

####  F. IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY ALL PARTIES THAT:

I.  **BASIC ROLES.**

-   The **U.S. Army Corps of Engineers** is the lead agency for the CSOP
    EIS process with the sole and ultimate decision-making authority for
    the Record of Decision and primary responsibility for NEPA
    compliance, as well as preparation of the environmental impact
    statement. The Corps mission is to provide engineering services to
    the nation, including the planning, designing, building, and
    operating of water resource and civil works projects. In accordance
    with this mission, the Corps began investigating the hydrologic
    problems in south Florida in the 1940's which resulted in their
    design and construction of a complex multi-purpose water management
    system designed to meet the needs of the region with regards to
    flood control, regional water supply for agricultural areas, urban
    areas and Everglades National Park, the preservation of fish and
    wildlife resources, the prevention of salt-water intrusion,
    navigation and recreation. The Corps has special expertise in all
    aspects of water resource engineering and management that includes
    meteorology, hydrology, planning, design, construction, the
    integration of project features and operations, and a detailed
    understanding of the operational capabilities and limitations of the
    water management system to contribute to a well-informed decision on
    CSOP.

-   **Everglades National Park**, as the primary funder of the Modified
    Waters project, is a principal benefactor of the CSOP process. The
    Park's mission is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural
    values of Everglades National Park for the enjoyment, education, and
    inspiration of this and future generations, including a permanent
    wilderness preserving essential primitive conditions including the
    natural abundance, diversity, behavior, and ecological integrity of
    its flora and fauna. The Park has special biological, ecological,
    and hydrology expertise to contribute toward a well-informed
    decision on CSOP.

-   The **South Florida Water Management District** is the local sponsor
    of the C-111 project and primary operational implementer of the CSOP
    decision. The mission of the South Florida Water Management District
    is to manage and protect water resources of the region by balancing
    and improving water quality, flood control, natural systems, and
    water supply. The District has special biological, ecological, and
    hydrology expertise, as well as detailed understanding of the
    capabilities and limitations of the regional water management
    system, to contribute toward a well-informed decision on CSOP.

-   The **U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service** has legal responsibility to
    enforce the Endangered Species Act and to review proposed actions to
    determine whether they would result in jeopardy to any endangered
    species; and if so, how to mitigate or avoid that jeopardy
    situation. The Service has the responsibility to communicate its
    determinations to the lead agency through a Coordination Act Report,
    which is incorporated into the environmental impact statement. The
    Service has special biological and ecological expertise to
    contribute toward a well-informed decision on CSOP.

##### THE CORPS SHALL:

1.  Serve as the lead agency for the CSOP EIS process with sole and
    ultimate decision-making authority for the Record of Decision and
    primary responsibility for NEPA compliance, as well as preparation
    of the environmental impact statement.

2.  Designate the Park, the District, and the Service as cooperating
    agencies in the CSOP EIS process.

3.  Fully utilize the relevant data and assessments provided by the
    Park, the District, and the Service in support of the
    decision-making process.

4.  Seek agreement with the Park, the District, and the Service on key
    steps of the NEPA process, including: development of the Purpose and
    Need Statement for the proposed action, development of the Goals and
    Objectives for the proposed action, development of a range of
    alternatives, modeling and analysis of the alternatives,
    consideration of public comments, and development of a preferred
    alternative.

5.  Utilize mediation to resolve important disagreements among the four
    sponsoring agencies involving issues during the NEPA process.

6.  Elevate unresolved issues to the next highest level of
    decision-making within the District, the state, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, or Everglades National Park when three of the four
    agencies have agreed that they are at an impasse, which requires
    elevation to resolve.

7.  Exercise its independent authority regarding issues of key
    importance to the other parties to this agreement only after
    mediation and elevation efforts, pursued according to a mutually
    agreed upon schedule and deadline, have failed to resolve an
    impasse.

8.  Fully consider the views of the Park, the District, and the Service
    in developing its Record of Decision.

9.  Work with the Park, the District, and the Service to collaboratively
    monitor the impacts of its decision.

##### THE PARK, THE DISTRICT, AND THE SERVICE SHALL:

1.  Serve as cooperating agencies and joint sponsors with the Corps of a
    collaborative CSOP EIS process.

2.  Contribute data and information relevant to the CSOP decision-making
    process.

3.  Cooperate with the Corps in providing neutral facilitation and
    mediation support for the CSOP EIS process, as mutually determined
    is required.

4.  Provide adequate staff resources to ensure active participation on
    the interagency CSOP Core Planning Team ("Team") and its Sub-Teams
    to provide for timely development and review of draft documents.

##### THE CORPS, THE PARK, THE DISTRICT, AND THE SERVICE SHALL:

1.  Work collaboratively with each other through the Team to seek
    agreement on detailed ground rules for their interaction, a
    statement of the purpose and need for the proposed action, the goals
    and objectives for the proposed action, the process for scoping
    relevant issues, the process for involving other interested and
    affected entities, the schedule for completion of milestones,
    development of a range of alternatives, modeling and analysis of
    alternatives, consideration of public comments, development of a
    preferred alternative, and monitoring the impacts of the decision.

2.  Designate appropriate representatives with relevant technical and
    policy expertise and delegated provisional negotiating authority to
    the Team and any Sub-Teams established, which will seek to develop
    consensus-based recommendations for consideration by agency policy
    decision-makers in accordance with the respective decision-making
    requirements of each agency.

3.  Seek the endorsement and active support for their participation in a
    collaborative CSOP EIS process within their own hierarchies and up
    any relevant chains-of-command or necessary levels of review and
    approval for decisions during the CSOP process.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  **INTERAGENCY CSOP CORE PLANNING TEAM.**

> Each party shall designate representatives with relevant technical and
> policy expertise and delegated provisional negotiating authority to
> the Team and any Sub-Teams established, which will seek to develop
> consensus-based recommendations for consideration by agency policy
> decision-makers in accordance with the respective decision-making
> requirements of each party.

VI. **GROUND RULES FOR INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION ON CSOP.**

> Within 60 days following the effective date of this MOU, the parties
> shall develop and agree upon a detailed set of ground rules for their
> interagency collaboration on CSOP. Among the elements to be addressed
> and clarified in these ground rules shall be:

-   Purpose and Need for CSOP

-   Goals and Objectives of CSOP

-   Schedule and deadlines for the overall CSOP process and key
    milestones

-   Modeling strategy for CSOP

-   Base condition for modeling

-   Purpose, need, and use of the Flood Study

-   Protocols for sharing information

-   Lead agency roles and responsibilities

-   Cooperating agency roles and responsibilities

-   How to handle a withdrawal from the collaborative process

-   Representation on the Team

-   Role, responsibilities, delegated decision-making authority, and
    constraints on agency representatives the Team

-   Decision making rules of the Team

-   Policy review and ratification process for interim recommendations
    developed by the Team

-   Use of facilitation and mediation assistance to help resolve
    interagency disagreements during the NEPA process

-   Elevation process within and among parties for policy questions that
    need to be resolved during key steps in the NEPA process

-   Process for resolution and/or peer review of technical issues

-   Frequency, schedule, length, agendas, location, organization,
    planning, conduct, and documentation of Team meetings

-   Expectations regarding access to information, confidentiality of
    interagency dispute resolution sessions, and disclosure

-   Communications with the media, the public, the courts, political
    institutions

-   Expectations regarding costs and expenses for participants and for
    facilitation and mediation services

-   Role and responsibilities of any other cooperating agencies

-   How to handle new participants

-   Role and responsibilities of other partnering entities

-   Constituent outreach and communication plan

-   Stakeholder participation plan

-   Public participation plan

> This MOU shall be amended to incorporate the ground rules for the
> parties' collaboration on the CSOP EIS process once they are
> developed.

####  G. STANDARD CONDITIONS:

I.  **Authorities.** Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to extend
    the jurisdiction or decision-making authority of any party to this
    MOU beyond that which exists under current laws and regulations.
    Nothing in this MOU shall be construed as limiting or affecting the
    authority or legal responsibility of any party, or as binding any
    party to perform beyond the respective authority of each, or to
    require any party to assume or expend any specific sum of money. The
    provisions of this MOU are subject to the laws and regulations of
    the State of Florida, the laws of the United States, and the
    regulations of the Department of the Army and the Department of the
    Interior, as they may be applicable. Nothing in this MOU shall be
    construed as affecting the decision-making requirements of any party
    or impairing the independent judgment of each party regarding policy
    decisions.

II. **Legal Rights and Remedies.** Nothing in this MOU shall be
    construed to alter the legal rights and remedies that each party
    would otherwise have. No party waives any legal rights or defenses
    by entering into this MOU or participating in the process
    contemplated hereby. This MOU may not be used as evidence by or
    against any party in any legal proceeding, whether now existing or
    subsequent.

III. **Sovereign Immunity.** The State of Florida and the agencies of
     the federal government do not waive their sovereign immunity by
     entering into this MOU, and each fully retains all immunities and
     defenses provided by law with respect to any action based on or
     occurring as a result of this MOU.

IV. **SEVERABILITY.** Should any portion of this MOU be judicially
    determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the MOU
    shall continue in full force and effect, and any party may
    renegotiate the terms affected by the severance.

V.  **THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY RIGHTS.** The parties do not intend to
    create in any other individual or entity the status of third party
    beneficiary, and this MOU shall not be construed so as to create
    such status. The rights, duties and obligations contained in this
    MOU shall operate only among the parties to this MOU, and shall
    inure solely to the benefit of the parties to this MOU. The
    provisions of this MOU are intended only to assist the parties in
    determining and performing their obligations under this MOU.

VI. **NON-FUND OBLIGATION DOCUMENT.** This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a
    funds obligation document. Any endeavor or transfer of anything of
    value involving reimbursement or contribution of funds between the
    parties to this instrument will be handled in accordance with
    applicable laws, regulations, and procedures including those for
    Government procurement and printing. Such endeavors will be outlined
    in separate agreements that shall be made in writing by
    representatives of the parties and shall be independently authorized
    by appropriate rules, policies, and statutory authority. This MOU
    does not provide such authority. Specifically, this MOU does not
    establish authority for noncompetitive award to the cooperator of
    any contract or other agreement. Nothing herein constitutes a
    binding commitment to fund any of the proceedings encompassed by the
    MOU. Any specific cost sharing or funding shall be executed
    separately through other funding mechanisms, as deemed necessary and
    appropriate by each of the signatories.

VII. **PARTICIPATION IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER ENTITIES.** This
     MOU in no way restricts any of the parties from participating in
     similar activities with other public or private agencies,
     organizations, and individuals.

VIII. **MODIFICATION.** Any party may request changes in this MOU. Any
      changes, modifications or amendments to this MOU which are
      mutually agreed upon by and among the parties to this MOU shall be
      incorporated by written instrument, executed and signed by all
      parties to this MOU.

IX. **TERMINATION.** Any party to this MOU may terminate in writing its
    participation in this agreement in whole, or in part, at any time
    before the date of expiration, with 30 days notice to the other
    parties.

X.  **ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT.** This MOU, consisting of nine (9) pages,
    represents the entire and integrated agreement among the parties and
    supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements,
    whether written or oral.

XI. **PRIMARY CONTACTS.** The primary agency contacts for carrying out
    the provisions of this MOU are the CSOP Project Managers for each
    agency:

> Kim Taplin for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
>
> Dave Sikkema for Everglades National Park
>
> Dave Swift for the South Florida Water Management District
>
> Dan Nehler for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

XII. **EFFECTIVE DATE.** The effective date of this MOU is the date of
     the signature last affixed to these pages.

XIII. **COMPLETION DATE.** Unless terminated sooner, this MOU is
      effective through December 31, 2005, at which time it will expire
      unless renewed by the parties through a duly executed amendment
      hereto.

###### 

###### SIGNATURES

In witness whereof, the parties to this MOU through their duly
authorized representatives have executed this MOU on the dates set out
below, and certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the
terms and conditions of this MOU, as set forth herein.

## U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Everglades National Park

**[\_\_\_*Signed*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_10/15/02]{.underline}
[\_\_\_*Signed*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 9/4/02]{.underline}**

**Col. Greg May Date Maureen Finnerty Date**

**Jacksonville District Commander Superintendent**

## South Florida Water Management District U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

**[\_\_\_*Signed*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_8/15/02]{.underline}
[\_\_\_*Signed*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_8/29/02]{.underline}**

**Trudi Williams Date Jay Slack Date**

## Chair, SFWMD Governing Board Florida Field Supervisor

**SFWMD PROCUREMENT APPROVED:**

**[*Signed* 8/7/02]{.underline}**

**SFWMD OFFICE OF COUNSEL APPROVED:**

**[*Signed* 8/7/02]{.underline}**

**APPENDIX A2**

**OPERATING AGREEMENT**

**FOR THE ST. CROIX CROSSING**

**PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS**

**PURPOSE**

1.  To facilitate a common understanding of the transportation,
    environmental and historic preservation issues among the government
    and non-government stakeholders;

2.  To define the various solutions (including transportation
    alternatives) to these issues by exploring the advantages and
    disadvantages of each solution

3.  To arrive, if possible, at a consensus

4.  To reach agreement among permitting/cooperating/core agencies on the
    components of the supplemental draft environmental impact statement
    for the long-term bridge project and on the related regulatory
    conclusions, among them:

Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic River Act

Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act

Section 4f of the USDOT ACT

Local concurrence

Specific issues under consideration include, but will not be limited to:

> New Bridge Alternatives
>
> Long-Term Alternatives for Lift Bridge
>
> Criteria for Selecting a Preferred Alternative
>
> Integration of Federal Mandates
>
> Mitigation Associated with Alternatives
>
> Local Concurrence for Transportation Projects

**ROLES**

**[Group Members]{.underline}**

The group members will:

-   engage in a thoughtful, thorough deliberation

-   advocate for the interests of his/her agency

-   share relevant information with the other group members

-   keep constituencies informed and advocate within constituent
    organizations for support of the group's work

-   keep the group informed about constituent perspectives

-   work to identify promising options

-   openly discuss and evaluate those options

-   refrain from undermining group recommendations and reports

-   secure approval within the organization for permission (within
    limits) to negotiate an agreement

-   explicitly inform the group when the limits of authority are reached

-   elevate issues within the organization as a way of addressing the
    limitation

**[Membership]{.underline}**

The group will include:

Minnesota Department of Transportation\*

Wisconsin Department of Transportation\*

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources\*

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources\*

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office\*

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office\*

City of Stillwater\*

City of Oak Park Heights\*

National Park Service\*

Federal Highway Administration\*

US Army Corps of Engineers\*

US Coast Guard\*

US EPA\*

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation\*

US Fish and Wildlife Service\*

Preservation Alliance of Minnesota

Stillwater Historic Preservation Commission

St. Croix River Association

Friends of the St. Croix

Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce

Sierra Club

St Croix Alliance for an Interstate Bridge

St Croix County Highway Commission

Town of St. Joseph

Stillwater Lift Bridge Association

Board of Realtors

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

Those named above will attend the meetings and will not send alternates
unless absolutely necessary, and then only if the alternate is fully
advised of the group's work and the group is advised in advance.

If the full group -- permitting/cooperating/core agency members and
other stakeholders -- cannot reach consensus, the
permitting/cooperating/core agency representatives, as enumerated above
(\*), are expected to participate in the final consensus-building effort
as indicated in the schedule.

Should any organization or representative wish to withdraw from the
process, they will provide a written explanation to the group.

**[Mediators]{.underline}**

Mediators from RESOLVE will design work session agendas and conduct the
meetings. The mediators will remain impartial -- not favoring any
particular outcome. The mediators are responsible to the whole group and
not to one member or interest. RESOLVE will distribute draft meeting
summaries and provide an opportunity for the group to review and
finalize each summary. Final summaries will be made available to the
public.

**[Public Input]{.underline}**

The group will work with the lead transportation agencies (Minnesota
Department of Transportation and Wisconsin Department of Transportation)
to hold public meetings that satisfy NEPA, WEPA and MEPA public
involvement requirements and the public involvement requirements of
other laws and regulations. These include scoping meetings; meetings to
discuss alternatives prior to selection of a preferred alternative and
the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); public
meetings to present and take feedback about the preferred alternative;
and a formal public hearing on the DEIS. The group may advise the
agencies to conduct additional public involvement.

**DECISION-MAKING AND DELIBERATION**

The group's highest goal is consensus. A consensus agreement is one that
all group members can support, built by identifying and exploring all
parties\' interests and by developing an outcome that satisfies these
interests to the greatest extent possible. [To enhance creativity during
meetings, individuals are not expected to restrict themselves to the
prior positions held by their organizations, agencies or
constituencies.]{.underline} The goal of the meetings is to have frank
and open discussion of the topics in question and the options to address
the topics. Therefore, ideas raised in the process of the dialogue,
prior to agreement by the whole group, are for discussion purposes only
and should not be construed to reflect the position of a member or to
prematurely commit the group.

If consensus is not possible, the permitting/cooperating/core agencies
will work to build a consensus of their own, using the whole group's
deliberation as the basis for their work. Finally, if full agency
consensus is not possible, the lead agencies may use the group's work to
make decisions in line with their regulatory authority and in keeping
with the limitations of that authority.

The participants agree to use this venue to attempt to resolve all
questions associated with the St. Croix Crossing. At the same time, the
participants recognize that there are other venues for addressing their
concerns, including the formal comment periods associated with state and
federal environmental review processes. Participation in this
problem-solving process does not preempt participation in any other
venue.

Federal environmental streamlining offers the opportunity for federal
agencies to coordinate their work and to resolve differences that could
impede the consensus-building work. In addition, state agencies are
expected to coordinate their efforts and resolve differences at the
highest levels of state government. The policy advisory group, specified
below, is one venue for resolving any differences.

**COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER GROUPS, INDIVIDUALS AND THE MEDIA**

Group members wish to maintain an environment that promotes open, frank
and constructive discussion. Members recognize that such an environment
must be built on mutual respect and trust, and each commits to avoid
actions that would damage that trust. Therefore, the meeting sessions of
the full group and subcommittees are closed working sessions unless the
group decides otherwise.

In communicating about the group's work, including communicating with
the press, each member agrees to speak only for herself or himself; to
avoid characterizing the personal position or comments of other
participants; and to always be thoughtful of the impact that specific
public statements may have on the group and its ability to complete its
work. No one will speak for any group as a whole without the consensus
of that group. Should anyone wish the group to release information to
the press, the group will do so only through a mutually agreeable
statement, drafted by consensus of all of that group's members.

The mediators and the technical advisory team will assist the group in
scheduling and conducting press briefings and public involvement events.
The problem-solving schedule includes milestones for public
participation. The group will also work to keep elected officials
informed of the progress of the problem-solving process, including
periodic electronic updates.

**DISCUSSION GUIDELINES**

The following guidelines encourage productive deliberation. Group
members will commit to best efforts at following them and will give the
mediators the authority to enforce them:

OPENNESS

To other points of view

To outcome

To all representatives

LISTENING

Focus on each speaker rather than prepare your response

No interruptions

FAIRNESS

Speak briefly

Everyone participates

RESPECT

Disagree without being disagreeable

No personal attacks

COMMITMENT

Prepare for each session

Attend each session

Honor the agenda and make agenda changes with the whole group

Begin and end on time

Get up to speed if didn't attend

All parties agree to act in good faith in all aspects of the group
deliberations, to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes joint
problem-solving and collaboration, and to consider the input and
viewpoint of other participants.  Members agree not to use specific
offers, positions, or statements made by another member during
non-public discussions for any other purpose not previously agreed to in
writing by the Members involved.  Personal attacks will not be
tolerated.  Negative generalizations are not productive and have the
potential to impede the ability of the group to reach consensus.  All
members will be given an equal opportunity to be heard with the
intention of encouraging the free and open exchange of ideas, views, and
information prior to achieving consensus.

Members and other participants are requested not to bring beepers or
cellular telephones into the meetings.

**SUBCOMMITTEES**

It will be necessary for the groups to establish subcommittees to
explore topics, develop proposals, resolve differences, etc.

**[Process Advisory Committee]{.underline}**

The mediator will establish a Process Advisory Committee to assist the
mediators to develop agendas and guide the decision-making process.

**[Technical Advisory Team (Project Staff Team)]{.underline}**

The staff team, including transportation, historic preservation and
environmental interests and any consultants hired to assist in the
problem-solving process, will work to provide important information to
the group to successfully accomplish meeting agendas.

**[Policy Advisory Team]{.underline}**

A high-level team of agency representatives will convene periodically to
measure the progress of the consensus-building efforts, assess the
relationship between the negotiation outcomes and the regulatory and
policy requirements. The team will work to resolve policy differences
that the group may elevate to them.

**[Other Meetings and Discussions]{.underline}**

Meetings in support of the process (whether a meeting among a subset of
agencies or a meeting of advocates with a shared perspective) are
expected and are encouraged so long as they do not preempt the group's
deliberations.

**DRAFT SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES**

As part of this process, all participating organizations recognize that
they are part of a decision-making process and not a study or data
collection effort. Further, they accept that funds used for study come
from the same source as the funds for the transportation project and for
mitigation. In keeping with this perspective, all agree to use existing
information whenever possible, to streamline necessary data collection
efforts, to allocate financial resources carefully and to work
diligently to make the following schedule possible:

+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| **Problem-Solving Group Process**                  |                 |
+====================================================+=================+
| **Activity**                                       | **Dates**       |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Opening Meeting                                    | June 10, 2003   |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Affirm purpose, process, participation, etc.   |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Meeting schedule                               |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #2                                         | June 30, 2003   |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Range of Options                               |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #3                                         | July, 2003      |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Transportation Options -- New and Lift Bridges |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Environmental Review                           |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #4                                         | September, 2003 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Transportation Options                         |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Environmental Review                           |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Mitigation Options                             |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Review -- Updated Draft Scoping Document       |                 |
|     (Revised, Amended, Supplemental) and Scoping   |                 |
|     Decision Document                              |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #5                                         | October, 2003   |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Evaluating Options                             |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #6                                         | November, 2003  |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Alternatives Evaluation                        |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #7                                         | January, 2004   |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Alternatives Evaluation                        |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Building on the Most Viable Options            |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #8                                         | February, 2004  |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Consensus Building -- Preferred Alternative    |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #9                                         | March, 2004     |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Consensus Building -- Preferred Alternative    |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #10                                        | July, 2004      |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Consensus Building -- Preferred Alternative    |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Meeting #11                                        | October, 2004   |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Revisions Based on Public Comment              |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Implementation Issues                          |                 |
|                                                    |                 |
| -   Final Agreement                                |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+

**APPENDIX A-3**

**MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING**

**NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVIEWS AND PERMITTING FOR THE
PROJECT**

**Between**

**(Lead Agencies)**

**\
And**

**(Cooperating Agencies)**

**And**

**(Applicant)**

I.  **Statement of Intent**

> State that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth
> responsibilities and schedules that will lead to effective and timely
> National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review involving an
> environmental impact statement (EIS) or supplemental environmental
> impact statement (SEIS) and agency permitting decisions for
>
> *Applicant's*
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> *Project* ( \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Project)

II. **Background and Purpose**

> Describe the background and purpose of the project. Provide language
> for the draft Purpose and Need section of the EIS or SEIS.

III. **Scope**

> State that the MOU covers the analysis of the environmental impacts of
> the project under the NEPA process, sets forth the processes and
> procedures that will be followed for related permits and
> consultations, and establishes how permitting actions and schedules
> will be coordinated.

IV. **Authorities**

> List all legal authorities that will be covered by the MOU, including
> NEPA.

V.  **Lead and Cooperating Agencies and Applicants**

> Identify the lead and cooperating agencies and applicant and set forth
> the concept of an interagency coordinating committee.

VI. **Responsibilities**

> **A. Lead Agency Responsibilities**
>
> This section should list the principal responsibilities of the lead
> agency or agencies. The lead agency or agencies shall:

1.  Commit to adhering to a schedule, as set forth in an exhibit to the
    MOU, unless modified by agreement of cooperating agencies and
    applicant;

2.  Identify project manager;

3.  Identify cooperating agencies and establish duty to include all such
    entities early in the NEPA process to avoid delays;

4.  Define role of lead agency or agencies for making final
    determination on EIS/SEIS content, including data, analyses, and
    conclusions;

5.  Establish good faith effort responsibility of lead agency to
    identify and achieve timely completion of consultations and
    coordination under other applicable laws, including preparation of
    schedules to guide such reviews;

6.  Specify lead agency or agencies\' consultation responsibilities
    under other laws, including duty to designate applicant as
    nonfederal representative for appropriate roles (e.g., Endangered
    Species Act) and to include applicant, as appropriate, in meetings;

7.  Confirm responsibility of lead agency to make a good faith effort to
    achieve full and timely participation of cooperating agencies in
    accordance with established schedule;

8.  Define procedures for ensuring confidentiality of sensitive
    information submitted by applicant;

9.  Develop in consultation with the applicant and third-party EIS
    contractor (if applicable) a request for information (RFI) process
    specifying the criteria and documentation for obtaining information
    from the applicant to ensure timely, focused and efficient
    information gathering;

10. Develop and maintain documentation procedures for the administrative
    record; and

11. State that nothing in this MOU shall be construed as altering, or in
    any way limiting, any agency\'s ability or responsibility to act in
    accordance with all applicable federal and state laws and
    regulations.

> **B. Cooperating Agency Responsibilities**
>
> This section of the MOU should define the responsibilities of
> cooperating agencies. The cooperating agencies shall:

1.  Identify any actions or consultation requirements applicable to the
    action early in the NEPA process;

2.  Designate the lead official responsible for participating in the
    EIS/SEIS process;

3.  Commit to adhere to schedule established in the MOU, subject to
    change in accordance with defined procedures;

4.  Commit to confidentiality requirements;

5.  Commit to coordinating public notice requirements with corresponding
    steps in NEPA process; and

6.  Establish good faith effort commitment to raise all issues early in
    NEPA process to avoid delay and inefficiency.

> **C. Applicant Responsibilities**
>
> This section should define the duties of the applicant to submit all
> required applications and data, to participate effectively throughout
> the NEPA review, and to pay all appropriate NEPA costs. The applicant
> shall:

1.  Provide a sufficient application, including any accompanying
    environmental report;

2.  Identify project coordinator for applicant;

3.  Serve as designated nonfederal representative under ESA and prepare
    a biological assessment;

4.  Serve in the defined role for other procedures, such as preparation
    of essential fish habitat assessment, historic preservation review,
    etc.;

5.  Commit to providing all reasonably justifiable, nonprivileged
    technical or environmental information needed to prepare an
    EIS/SEIS, as determined by lead agency, in consultation with
    cooperating agencies;

6.  Commit to necessary funding;

7.  Commit to provide timely responses to data requests and provide
    comments on draft documents; and

8.  Serve the defined role of applicant in public meeting coordination.

**VII. EIS Procedures**

> This section would establish key steps in the EIS/SEIS preparation
> process. The objective is to ensure adequate information gathering,
> full and careful agency and public review, objective EIS/SEIS
> preparation, adherence to a defined schedule, and an appropriate role
> for the applicant.
>
> **A. Coordinating Committee**
>
> A \"coordinating committee\" will be established to guide EIS/SEIS
> preparation for large-scale projects. This committee will consist of
> the lead agency, project coordinators for cooperating agencies, and
> the applicant (except on issues not appropriate for applicant
> involvement). The coordinating committee shall:

1.  Establish a regular schedule for coordinating committee meetings;

2.  Define duties of coordinating committee to include: tracking
    EIS/SEIS in relation to established schedule; reviewing draft
    documents; selecting EIS/SEIS contractor; and coordinating public
    review, etc.; and

3.  Identify issues not appropriate for applicant involvement, and
    relevant authority for this conclusion.

> **B. EIS Contractor**

1.  Require applicant to prepare a list of qualified contractors and
    submit to lead agency;

2.  Require lead agency to forward list to coordinating committee for
    review, bidding process, and ranking;

3.  Require coordinating committee to recommend a preferred EIS/SEIS
    contractor or to reject all contractors on the list to applicant
    through lead agency;

4.  Provide that applicant will decide whether to accept recommendation
    or seek further review of additional contractors by coordinating
    committee;

5.  Require that, once the EIS/SEIS contractor has been selected, the
    lead agency will secure conflict of interest statements from the
    contractor;

6.  Define procedures to ensure proper communication between applicant
    and EIS/SEIS contractor; and

7.  Provide that the contract between the Applicant and the contractor,
    and any subcontracts thereunder, shall be consistent with the
    provisions of the MOU and shall specifically incorporate the
    provisions herein which address the conduct of the contractor.

> **C. Scoping Process**
>
> After the contractor is selected, the lead agency, in consultation
> with cooperating agencies, the contractor, and the applicant, will
> conduct and finalize scoping, if required, for the EIS/SEIS. The lead
> agency shall:

1.  Publish a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS/SEIS in the Federal
    Register and local publications;

2.  Establish a reasonable schedule for meetings among cooperating
    agencies;

3.  Establish a reasonable schedule for public hearings to obtain public
    input on the appropriate scope of the EIS/SEIS early in the NEPA
    process;

4.  Define the necessary baseline studies; and

5.  Publish a scope of work that includes a detailed description of all
    work to be performed, the persons responsible for performing the
    work, the estimated work hours required for each task, and the
    schedule for performing each task.

> **D. EIS/SEIS Availability**

1.  Define procedures to be followed for draft and final EIS/SEIS
    availability and distribution including public meetings;.

2.  Establish website arrangements;

3.  Define procedures to be used for assembling and reviewing all public
    comments on scoping and the draft EIS/SEIS;

4.  Provide for applicant to have an appropriate role in responding to
    comments on draft EIS/SEIS.

**APPENDIX B: SELECTED CASE STUDIES**

This appendix provides case examples of situations in which
collaboration has been used in the context of NEPA. It is provided here
for the convenience of the reader.

**Case: Everglades Interim Operating Plan Interagency Collaboration -**

> **U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
> Wildlife Service, South Florida Water Management District**

**Brief Case Description**

In early 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had already completed a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for an Interim Operational
Plan (IOP) to protect the endangered sparrow until the Combined
Structural and Operational Plan (CSOP) for the long-delayed Modified
Water Deliveries to the Everglades National Park and C-111 Canal
projects could be completed. The DEIS had not been well received by
other agencies, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) asked the Corps to complete a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) within a
nine-month timeframe. The other agencies involved included Everglades
National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the South Florida
Water Management District; the Corps needed their cooperation to
complete the SEIS. Several months of negotiations facilitated by the
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution and a team of
contracted mediators led to an interagency agreement on a preferred
alternative, which was incorporated into a Supplemental EIS that was
then issued for public comment. The preferred alternative was refined
based on stakeholder comments, and an FEIS and ROD were issued.

The collaborative group agreed on protocols for monitoring. The agencies
involved agreed that a high-quality decision resulted that is being
implemented even while under litigation. Continued mediation assistance
is provided on an as-needed basis to deal with clarification that are
required in implementing the plan. Specific on-the-ground improvements
have resulted, since the Corps has expedited the construction of some
features to enhance the existing water delivery system.
Institutionalized interagency teams have resulted facilitating much
better working relationships between the agency staff.

The four agencies are currently engaged (Fall 2006) in a
multi-stakeholder EIS process for the CSOP that will actively involve
other state, local, and tribal governments, as well as concerned
stakeholders and nongovernmental organizations. The four agencies
collaboratively developed a scope of work to produce a new hydrologic
model for use on the CSOP.

## Scope of Case

Regional Ecosystem-level

**Themes of Interest**

Conflict emerged in a NEPA process.

Interagency conflict over the use and interpretation of hydrologic
modeling results relating to emergency water management decisions
designed to protect the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow.

Existing long-standing interagency conflict relating to use and
interpretation of hydrologic modeling results. As part of the process,
parties have begun a collaborative multi-stakeholder EIS process for the
CSOP.

**Key Stakeholders**

Federal Agencies:

-   Army Corps of Engineers

-   Everglades National Parks

-   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State/Local Agencies:

-   South Florida Water Management District

**Environmental Conflict Resolution Principles Exemplified**

-   Informed Commitment -- Agency leadership and staff from federal
    state and local levels committed to engage in a collaborative
    process.

-   Balanced Representation -- This interagency collaborative process
    engaged all the federal agency stakeholders and the state water
    management district. From the initial assessment, it was determined
    that the agencies themselves needed to work together and address
    internal issues before taking the next step to engage external
    stakeholders in a broader public collaborative effort (which is now
    underway).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Informed Process -- The focus of the interagency collaborative
    effort was to seek agreement on how to share, test and apply
    relevant information and resolve disagreements on the appropriate
    hydrologic modeling for the project.

## Results and Accomplishments

-   The agency participants determined to limit involvement to
    government employees and that FACA did not apply. However, FACA, as
    well as state "government-in-the-sunshine" requirements have been
    raised as issues in subsequent unsuccessful litigation challenging
    the resulting NEPA decision. While there may be advantages to
    limiting negotiations to agencies with jurisdictional authority,
    there are also disadvantages of inadequate engagement of other
    external governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders.

-   While the draft EIS prepared by the lead agency gave the
    participants a starting point to work from, the parties determined
    that it would have been better for them to work on developing
    alternatives together from the start.

-   More intensive coaching and collaborative skills development with
    participants could have improved the process.

-   Strategic leadership changes and staff assignments enhanced the
    likelihood for a successful outcome; unanticipated personnel changes
    interfered with progress.

-   Encouragement by CEQ was a decisive factor in the agencies pursuing
    a conflict resolution approach using the assistance of third-party
    neutrals.

-   Several key staff with effective collaborative problem-solving
    skills were crucial in successfully forging agreements with their
    counterparts.

######### **Contact Information**

For more information contact U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution,

520-670-5299, at http://www.ecr.gov.

See also the National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory
Committee's Final Report to the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution, April 2005, at
http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**Case: St. Croix River Crossing Controversy -- 2001-2006 -**

**Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior,
States of Minnesota and Wisconsin**

**Brief Case Description**

In the 1950s, the towns of Stillwater, MN, and Houlton, WI, began
discussing how to improve transportation between the two towns, which
are connected by an historic lift bridge over the St. Croix River, a
waterway within the Wild and Scenic River System. In 1995, a proposal to
build a new bridge and remove the lift bridge was accepted, that was
successfully challenged in court.

By 2000, the intersection of three public policy goals---enhancement of
transportation services, preservation of historic resources, and
protection of a wild and scenic river---had produced gridlock among the
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast
Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and the Depts. of Transportation, Depts. of Natural Resources, and State
Historic Preservation Offices of both MN and WI.

In 2001, the affected parties requested the assistance of the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. The Institute conducted
an initial assessment to determine if a negotiated agreement would be
feasible and, if so, how to proceed.

Based on recommendations from the assessment, the parties agreed to
participate in a collaborative problem-solving process. In 2002, a group
of 27 agency and non-agency stakeholders began meeting to find a
transportation solution.

**Scope of Case**

Minnesota & Wisconsin

**Themes of Interest**

The mediated agreement is innovative in that many of the non-agency
stakeholders will continue to be involved in collaborative governance
via oversight and implementation of the mitigation measures associated
with the final agreement.

This case highlights both the importance and the challenges of
effectively integrating collaborative problem-solving into NEPA review
processes.

**Key Stakeholders**

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office

Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office

City of Stillwater

City of Oak Park Heights

National Park Service

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Preservation Alliance of Minnesota

Stillwater Historic Preservation Commission

St. Croix River Association

Friends of the St. Croix

Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce

Sierra Club

St Croix Alliance for an Interstate Bridge

St Croix County Highway Commission

Town of St. Joseph

Stillwater Lift Bridge Association

Board of Realtors

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

**Results and Accomplishments**

The five-and-a-half-year long process resulted in an agreement to retain
the lift bridge as a pedestrian and bicycle crossing and construct a new
bridge for vehicular traffic. To address the natural, social, and
cultural impacts of the new bridge, a comprehensive mitigation package
was developed.

The mitigation measures went significantly beyond compensating for the
direct impacts of the new bridge (wetland replacement, relocation of
threatened and endangered species, and bluffland restoration), to
include removal of visual intrusions from the waterway, addition of a
river access point, funding for lift bridge preservation, designation of
Stillwater as a historic district, capacity-building for growth
management in St. Croix County, and a basin-wide water quality study.

Relationships and communication among the stakeholders improved
remarkably during the problem-solving process. In the words of one
stakeholder, *"We were able to spend the time necessary to get over our
natural inclination to not trust people from the other side. \[...\] We
had enough time and enough space to come to a conclusion that everybody
could feel comfortable with."*

######### **Contact Information**

For more information contact U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution,

520-670-5299, at http://www.ecr.gov.

**Case: US 93 Corridor -- Montana -**

> **U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration**

**Brief Case Description**

The US 93 Corridor consists of a series of complex reconstruction
projects along the existing US 93 Corridor between Hamilton and
Whitefish, Montana. The highway traverses national and State forestland,
national wildlife refuges, and ecosystems with regionally and nationally
important wildlife and habitat resources. The route travels through
several Rocky Mountain valleys, crosses the Flathead Indian Reservation,
and links major recreational areas to major population centers. Montana
began work on upgrading US 93 in the 1980s, and key issues to resolve
have included induced growth, adverse impacts to the natural
environment, impacts to tribal cultural and spiritual sites, wildlife
linkage areas, wetlands, right-of-way acquisition on tribal land, and
access control.

## Scope of Case

US 93 Corridor was selected as a Priority Project under Executive Order
13274 (Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Project Reviews),
and as such receives national focus by not only DOT, but other Federal
agencies.

**Themes of Interest**

Stakeholders continue to be involved in collaborative oversight and
implementation at the project-specific level. The 1996 ROD deferred
construction until the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT),
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) could agree on the appropriate design that would
address social, economic, and environmental impacts. This was an
explicit "adaptive management" strategy that allowed decision-making
under NEPA but conditioned project implementation on post-approval
collaboration. In 2000, part of the three governments' shared vision was
the understanding that environmental and cultural issues had to be
linked to highway safety and capacity. It was agreed that the new
highway would be designed with the idea that the road is a visitor and
should respond to and be respectful of the land and Spirit of Place (a
continuum of everything on the reservation that is seen and unseen,
touched and felt and traveled through). Rebuilding trust, honor, and
mutual respect among the governments allowed place-sensitive design
strategies to be successful. Current issues to be addressed center on
the requirements for wetland mitigation resulting from construction on
the Flathead Indian Reservation of the CSKT. Specifically, discussions
are ongoing between CSKT and the Army Corps of Engineers relating to
obtaining assurances that wetland mitigation sites will be protected in
perpetuity.

**Key Stakeholders**

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Montana DOT (MDT), FHWA, USFS,
EPA, USACE, BIA, USFWS, Counties, private parties and stakeholders, and
the public

**Environmental Conflict Resolution Principles Exemplified**

-   Balanced Representation

-   Group Autonomy

-   Accountability

## Results and Accomplishments

MDT has learned that a collaborative environmental review process can
produce safe, higher capacity highways that are welcomed by communities.
US-93 could have been a standard straight four-lane highway with
destructive impacts on the community, yet MDT, federal agencies, tribes,
citizen groups, and consultants did an exemplary job of developing this
road to fit more harmoniously into the landscape. During the
discussions, the connection between the tribal culture and wildlife
habitat preservation became very evident; this led to innovative
wildlife crossings being incorporated into the project. The US 93
corridor could become a model for delivering timely, environmentally
sound transportation projects.

**Contact Information**:

Sheila Ludlow, MDT Program manager, 406-444-9193, sludow@mt.gov;
website: http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/us93corridor/overview.shtml.

**Case: Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for
Streamlining (CETAS) -**

> **Federal Highway Administration**

**Brief Case Description**

After the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21), the number of transportation projects in Oregon doubled. To
streamline the review process, in 1996 Oregon merged its NEPA and
Section 404 processes. The Collaborative Environmental and
Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) Group, formed in June
2000, committed to promoting environmental stewardship while providing
for a safe and efficient transportation system.

Transportation and resource agencies in Oregon discuss issues early in
the NEPA process through regular working group meetings, fostering
relationships built on trust. Decision-making is by consensus. Elevation
to the next level of decision-makers within the agencies occurs on the
rare occasion when consensus is not reached. The group does not have a
neutral facilitator; meetings are led by the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT).

Early resource agency involvement accelerates the NEPA process by
avoiding agency conflicts and subsequent permit delays during final
design, allowing projects to be completed in budget and on time.
Efficiency in the project permitting process is achieved without
compromising agency missions. Obstacles had to be overcome. For example,
some resource agencies did not have the staff to participate. ODOT now
funds three TEA-21 coordinator positions at the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), one position at the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and three positions at the Oregon State Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).

**Scope of Case**

Transportation projects in Oregon

**Themes of Interest**

The CETAS process covers the whole NEPA spectrum, beginning with purpose
and need, continuing through alternatives, criteria for selection of a
preferred alternative, and identification of the preferred alternative.
Beginning with purpose and need is a key point in the success of the
project. So far in the process, there has been one example of the group
not being able to reach consensus, and this was on identification of a
preferred alternative. The group had agreed on criteria for selection,
but thought that it would lead to a different outcome. For this
disagreement, an elevation process was developed whereby the next level
of decision-makers within the agency attempts to reach consensus; this
process will now be used if lack of consensus occurs in the future.

**Key Stakeholders**

Participating agencies include the federal and state Departments of
Transportation, as well as a variety of other state and federal
agencies.

**Environmental Conflict Resolution Principles Exemplified**

-   Clear goals, objectives, and expectations defined

-   Responsible and sustained engagement of all parties

-   Structured process design to facilitate timely productive and
    effective engagement

-   Process consistent with existing laws and regulations, agency
    missions, policies and legislative parameters

## Results and Accomplishments

ODOT was able to obtain permits in one week to build a temporary culvert
in place of a failing bridge, allowing emergency equipment such as fire
trucks to reach a part of eastern Oregon. The culvert was removed in
time for local endangered fish to spawn, and the bridge repaired in an
environmentally sound manner.

**Contact Information**:

Michelle Eraut, FHWA OR Division Office, 503-587-4716,
michelle.eraut@fhwa.dot.gov

**Case: San Juan National Forest, Southern Colorado -**

**USDA Forest Service**

**Brief Case Description**

This multi-stakeholder process was convened by the USDA Forest Service
along with county governments, the Ft. Lewis College Office of Community
Services (OCS) and others, for the purpose of developing a land use plan
for the San Juan National Forest in southwestern Colorado. While the
process was open to the public at large, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), as well as several State and local agencies have been involved in
the effort. The process built on an earlier collaborative effort for
ponderosa pine restoration that involved many of the same partners.

The process began during the pre-NEPA and scoping stages, and is
continuing to evolve all the way through the NEPA process for the San
Juan National Forest Plan revision. Two types of working groups were
formed---three groups that addressed geographically focused issues, and
eight groups that addressed topical areas (timber, old growth,
prescribed fire, recreation management, travel management, wildlife,
range and aquatic issues). All groups were facilitated by the Ft. Lewis
College Office of Community Services. Working groups recommended ideas
to include in one or more NEPA alternatives. Those with wide support
would appear in more alternatives, those with fewer advocates in only
one. People kept showing up for the study groups. Afterwards, many of
them joined the working groups for another six months to a year. Many
have gone on to participate in project-level analyses and decisions, and
volunteering to help with implementation. Participants are also willing
to come back to the table after a long hiatus. This effort helped spawn
a great deal of public participation in a later Fire Plan effort. A
National Monument was recently designated in this area, and though many
in the community were opposed, planning for the new monument has been a
productive community process in part due to all of the collaborative
efforts that preceded it.

The process aims to build knowledge and understanding of issues and the
interactions between the community and public land management, along
with encouraging commitments to stewardship. The meetings had a
roundtable format, and all input was recorded.

The process promoted community-based stewardship. When the National Fire
Plan came along, the same partners developed community fire plans in the
five counties. The plans are very comprehensive, including an integrated
Regional strategy, a strong education component, and collaborative
mapping of interface areas.

**Scope of Case**

National Forest level; regional

**Themes of Interest**

The San Juan Initiative conveners now know how to do the front end, and
are still learning how to follow it all the way through to an outcome
that incorporates all the perspectives. Once the NEPA work has been
done, it should not be used just for that plan or project; agencies need
to carry forward what was learned to future issues and decisions.
Another suggestion is not to start on the hardest, most complex project.
In this community, the process was used on more localized projects
first, which led to confidence in the process when it was then applied
to the highly complex plan revision.

Local organizations were well positioned with national counterparts.
State-level environmental groups declined to participate based on
request of the local groups, who kept them informed of progress.

County and Ft. Lewis College participation in the convening granted a
lot of legitimacy to the process; the college is institutionally
neutral, and the county is highly accessible and credible to
constituents and to the political chain. Because of the success of the
preceding ponderosa pine restoration initiative, this kind of
collaborative effort had legitimacy with the local public from the
start.

This group tries to stay away from "dueling scientists" and instead
builds a common knowledge base and common set of accepted facts. The
meeting structure focused on a particular scientific or technical issue;
outside experts were brought in to explain the state of scientific
knowledge, then facilitated small groups would discuss how it applied to
this plan revision. Field trips sometimes followed these meetings, such
as one on fire ecology. The eventual intent is for outcomes to be openly
monitored to adapt management when necessary.

**Key Stakeholders**

USDA Forest Service

U.S. Department of the Interior -- Bureau of Land Management

State and local agencies

Public stakeholders

**Environmental Conflict Resolution Principles Exemplified**

-   Participants have access to best available information

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Process is voluntary, informal, and flexible

-   Process design is transparent to parties

-   Neutral facilitation

## Results and Accomplishments

The NEPA Section 101 concept of "productive harmony" was discussed
during this process. People will take care of the environment and its
habitats if it makes sense to them and meets their needs. The community
considered providing information on social and economic resources to be
their "field work". A social/economic assessment was prepared, built
around productive harmony. It included things such as the relationship
of settlement patterns to public lands, and correlations of changes in
the local economy with changes in public land management.

Both the short- and long-term were considered throughout the process,
seeking solutions that will benefit future generations. One focus is to
understand the trends that are at work, e.g. new development occurring
against the Forest boundary - two counties now require fire hazard
mitigation plans in order to get approval for subdivisions.

Immediate suggestions for on-the-ground improvements were passed on and
implemented. In one example, a request from the District Ranger for
people to not use a specific trail, to help the elk during a hard
winter, was complied with even without regulation and enforcement.
Another example of a pragmatic solution is the manner in which the group
analyzed sage grouse management. After all the factors were considered
the group realized that it was not cattle grazing that had caused a
decline in sage grouse, but rather that the brush component had been
removed by land managers over the years. This led to trying some
reintroduction of sage grouse in likely places as a first step in
adaptive management.

######### **Contact Information**

For more information contact: Thurman Wilson, Planning & Public Services
Staff, San Juan Public Lands Center, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, CO
81301; phone: (970) 385-1246; email: twilson02@fs.fed.us; or Mike
Preston, Associate Director, Office of Community Services, Fort Lewis
College, Durango CO; phone: (970) 565-8525; email:
mpreston@co.montezuma.co.us

**Bibliography of Additional Cases**

**Applegate Partnership.** See the National Environmental Conflict
Resolution Advisory Committee's Final Report to the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, April 2005, available at
http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**[Channel](../Channel) Islands Marine Reserve Working Group Case
Report**. See the National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory
Committee's Final Report to the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution, April 2005, available at
http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**Cape Cod National Seashore**. available at www.nps.gov/caco.

**Cape Hatteras National Seashore.** available at www.nps.gov/caha.

**Corridor H Case Report.** See the National Environmental Conflict
Resolution Advisory Committee's Final Report to the U.S. Institute for
Environmental Conflict Resolution, April 2005, available at
http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**Fire Island National Seashore.** www.nps.gov/fis.

**Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group.** See the National
Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee's Final Report to
the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, April 2005,
available at http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**Golden Gate National Recreation Area.** available at www.nps.gov/goga.

**Grand Canyon National Park.** available at www.nps.gov/grca.

**Hanford Comprehensive Land Use Plan Case Report.** See the National
Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee's Final Report to
the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, April 2005,
available at http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**I-73 Project in North Carolina and South Carolina**. FHWA's Office of
Project Development and Environmental Review, Ruth.rentch@fhwa.dot.gov.

**Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Project - U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.** See the National
Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee's Final Report to
the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, April 2005,
available at http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**Spring Mountains National Recreation Area of Toynbee National Forest
in Nevada**. See the National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory
Committee's Final Report to the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution, April 2005, available at
http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**Swan Valley Conservation Agreement**. See the National Environmental
Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee's Final Report to the U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, April 2005, available
at http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

**West Eugene Parkway** in Oregon. FHWA's Office of Project Development
and Environmental Review, ruth.rentch@fhwa.dot.gov

**Wisconsin Karner Blue Butterfly**. See the National Environmental
Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee's Final Report to the U.S.
Institute. For Environmental Conflict Resolution, April 2005, available
at http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/reports.htm.

##### 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

**APPENDIX C: RESOURCES**

This appendix provides a compendium of resources for collaboration and
environmental conflict resolution and selected resources on public
involvement.

**WEBSITES OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROGRAMS**

[Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, ADR
Page](http://www.ferc.gov/legal/adr.asp):
<http://www.ferc.gov/legal/adr.asp>

[Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group Enforcement &
Regulatory](http://www.adr.gov/civil-enf.htm):
<http://www.adr.gov/civil-enf.htm>

[U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, National Partnership
Program](http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/partnership/index.shtml):
<http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/partnership/index.shtml>

[U.S. Department of the Air Force Environmental
ADR](http://www.adr.af.mil/afadr/environmental.htm):
<http://www.adr.af.mil/afadr/environmental.htm>

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution:
http://www.gc.doe.gov/adr.html

U.S. Department of the Interior

> [Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution
> (CADR)](http://www.doi.gov/cadr/): <http://www.doi.gov/cadr/>
>
> [Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resources Alternative Dispute
> Resolution (ADR) and Conflict
> Prevention](http://www.blm.gov/adr/adrNR.html)
> [Partnerships](http://www.doi.gov/partnerships/index.html):
> <http://www.blm.gov/adr/adrNR.html>

[U.S. Department of the Navy, Alternative Dispute
Resolution](http://adr.navy.mil/): <http://adr.navy.mil/>

[U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Environmental Streamlining/Stewardship - Conflict
Resolution](http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/es2conflict.asp):
<http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/es2conflict.asp>

[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center](http://www.epa.gov/adr/): <http://www.epa.gov/adr/>

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution: http://www.ecr.gov

## 

## SELECTED REFERENCES ON COLLABORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION

[Cooperative Conservation](http://cooperativeconservation.gov/):
http://cooperativeconservation.gov

Council on Environmental Quality - Executive Office of the President*. A
Citizen's Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act-Having Your
Voice Heard*. Under Review. 2006.

Council on Environmental Quality -- Executive Office of the President.
NEPA Task Force. Compendium of Useful Practices:
<http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf/compendium/toc.html>.

Council on Environmental Quality -- Executive Office of the President.
NEPA Task Force, M*odernizing NEPA Implementation.* September 2003:
http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ntf/report/index.html.

National Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee, Final
Report. Submitted to the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution of the Morris K. Udall Foundation. April 2005:
[http://www.ecr.gov/necrac/pdf/NECRAC_Report.pdf.]{.underline}

Office of Management and Budget and President\'s Council on
Environmental Quality

Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution, November 28, 2005:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/joint-statement.html>.

Reclaiming NEPA's Potential -- Can Collaborative Processes Improve
Environmental Decision-Making? O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain
West, University of Montana; Institute for Environment and Natural
Resources, University of Wyoming. March 2000.

U.S. Department of Energy Guidance on Public Participation:
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/guidance/volume2/4-1-pubpart.html

[U.S. Government Accountability Office Report on Interagency
Cooperation](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0615.pdf):
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0615.pdf>.

## SELECTED WEBSITES ON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Federal Highway Administration. Public Involvement Techniques for
Transportation Decision-Making.
http://www.planning.dot.gov/Pitool/toc.asp

The International Association for Public Participation.
http://www.iap2.org

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement;

http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/eap_report.pdf

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/guide/pi.html

U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Secretary.
http://oepc.doi.gov/ESM/ESM03-7.pdf and

http://www.doi.gov/cadr

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### 

##### APPENDIX D: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTING CONFLICTS

Challenging and controversial issues arise throughout the NEPA process,
many of which ripen into conflicts or are conflicts that can intensify
over time. In many instances, these can be anticipated and agencies can
prevent unnecessary conflict and take actions to minimize the escalation
of conflict when it arises. The following strategies are offered for
consideration under a range of potential types of conflicts.

Strategies for Preventing Conflicts due to Differing Missions and
Mandates

-   Conduct orientation sessions to build mutual understanding of each
    agency's mission, mandates, and procedures.

-   Consider and seek to accommodate each participating agency\'s
    procedural requirements.

-   Create opportunities for management-level discussions or reviews to
    distinguish between personal interpretations and agency policies.

-   Respect each agency\'s unique mission and mandate for serving the
    public interest and, as appropriate, accept joint responsibility to
    help other agencies fulfill their mandates.

-   Create a partnership or team approach to work together to address
    all aspects of the public interest.

Strategies for Preventing Conflicts Concerning Interpretation of Terms

-   Develop jointly derived definitions that can apply across projects.

-   Share copies of guidance documents that define the terms.

-   Hold joint education sessions conducted by specialists or policy
    makers.

Strategies for Preventing Conflicts Concerning Information

-   Jointly identify key questions that must be addressed (such as
    anticipated impacts), prior to gathering the information.

-   Agree on a methodology to be used for data collection and analysis.

-   Respect each other\'s expertise and the variety of relevant
    expertise.

-   Accept the validation of information by the agency having
    jurisdictional authority.

Strategies for Preventing Conflicts Arising From Differences in
Personality and Communication Styles

-   Participate in training to understand different communication
    styles, issue-processing approaches, and motivational factors. Apply
    this understanding by becoming more tolerant of differences.

-   Become more effective by modifying one's own behavior to be more
    accommodating of others.

-   Build relationships through opportunities for informal conversation
    and interaction.

-   Avoid making assumptions about the motives of others. Examine
    assumptions before reacting.

-   Learn -- through training and conversation -- about other agencies\'
    cultures and operating styles.

Strategies for Preventing Conflicts Related to Insufficient Agency
Resources

-   Work to solve problems jointly to make the review process easier and
    more efficient.

-   Prioritize projects so agencies can focus attention where needed.

-   Adjust meeting times and venues to accommodate limited staff
    resources. Use teleconferencing when travel funds are not available.

-   Determine resources needed (staffing, GIS mapping) to streamline
    projects.

Strategies for Preventing Conflicts Caused by Failure to Deliver Timely
Comments and Responses

-   Clarify each agency representative's level of authority. Seek as
    much delegation of authority as is practical and appropriate.

-   Keep higher levels of authority informed of progress on a project
    and the rationale for decisions made.

-   Use technology as appropriate to expedite reviews (e.g., electronic
    submissions, teleconferencing, etc.)

-   Circulate meeting minutes that are approved by all participants.

-   Establish signed written agreements upon completion of negotiations.

Strategies for Preventing Conflicts Caused by Failure to Fulfill a
Commitment

-   Clarify each agency representative's level of authority. Seek as
    much delegation of authority as is practical and appropriate.

-   Clarify the level and specific elements of the commitment up front
    and document, as appropriate. Examine assumptions when a commitment
    appears to be broken.

-   Establish parameters/conditions for revisiting issues, and avoid
    revisiting unless those conditions are present.

-   Keep higher levels of authority informed of progress on a project
    and the rationale for decisions made.

-   Use technology as appropriate to expedite reviews (e.g., electronic
    submissions, teleconferencing, etc.)

-   Circulate meeting minutes that are signed off on by all participants

-   Establish signed written agreements upon completion of negotiations.

**APPENDIX E: FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT**

What Is The Federal Advisory Committee Act?

The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA or Act),[^3] governs the
establishment, management, and termination of advisory committees within
the executive branch of the federal government. FACA ensures that these
federal advisory committees are accountable to the public by maximizing
public access to advisory committee deliberations through open meetings
and availability of documents and minimizing the influence of special
interests through balanced committee membership. In addition, the Act
seeks to reduce wasteful expenditures and improve the overall
administration of advisory committees.

Federal advisory committees can significantly strengthen the federal
agency's collaboration processes. Establishing a federal advisory
committee can be the best approach for achieving NEPA's Section 101
objectives. It also ensures that advice provided to the federal agency
is developed through a structured, transparent, and inclusive public
process. Agency managers and outside interested parties generally view
the advice provided by federal advisory committees as highly credible
due to the thorough vetting and selection process used to ensure
balanced membership of the committees, formal opportunities for members
of the public to provide written (and oral) public comment, and
transparency of the meeting process. While FACA sets up requirements
that federal advisory committees must follow, those requirements
generally are similar to the best practices normally used in
collaborative processes.[^4]

Although FACA has had a profound influence on participation in
government decision-making, agencies can be reluctant to form advisory
committees under the Act[^5]. This "fear of FACA" results from confusion
about FACA requirements, the perception that it is a time-consuming
process to establish a FACA committee and comply with public notice
requirements, and the fact that agencies have been directed by Congress,
the President and the Office of Management and Budget to limit the
number of advisory committees that they are allowed to establish.

FACA Requirements Are Best Practice for Public Involvement

The chart below shows how the best practices of public involvement are
similar to the FACA requirements. Requirements relating to balanced
representation, transparency of process, clarity of objectives, public
access, assessment of need, and others, are best practices in conducting
public involvement, as well as FACA requirements.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Best Practices for Public **FACA Process**
  Involvement**               
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------
  Involves all affected       Requires balanced membership § 5
  parties                     

  Charge states goals,        Charter states objective, scope, funding
  schedule, resources,        resources, and estimated number and
  members                     frequency of meetings § 9

  Meetings held in public     Requires open meetings unless Agency head
  whenever feasible           determines that meeting can be closed § 10

  Provisions made for public  Requires opportunity for written public
  input                       comment and oral public comment when
                              appropriate § 10

  Meetings planned and        Meetings generally announced 15 days in
  announced in advance        advance in the Federal Register -- GSA
                              Federal Advisory Committee Management Rule
                              41 CFR § 102-3.150

  Meeting summaries open to   Meeting minutes are required and are
  public scrutiny             publicly available § 10

  Convening a group involves  Agencies analyze need & membership when
  early contact & assessment  establishing committee
  with parties                

  Operating rules are common  Charter may be supplemented with ground
                              rules

  Potential conflicts of      Conflict of interest and ethics rule apply
  interest are discussed      to members who are federal government
                              employees (regular of special)
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

How Does FACA Affect Collaborative Approaches Used In The NEPA Process?

In general, FACA applies to collaborative efforts when all of the
following criteria are met:

1.  A federal agency establishes the group (that is, organizes or forms
    it) or utilizes an outside group by exerting "actual management or
    control" over the group;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  The group includes one or more individuals who are [not]{.underline}
    full-time or permanent part-time federal employees or elected
    officials of state, tribal, or local government or their designated
    employees with authority to speak on their behalf; [and]{.underline}

5.  The product of the collaboration is group or collective advice to
    the federal agency. (Note that the advice is not required to be
    consensus advice for FACA to apply.)

Thus, for example, if an agency formed a group that included private
interested parties to obtain collective advice on the alternatives that
should be included in an EIS, the group would be subject to FACA. If,
however, the agency did not seek group advice, but rather the individual
advice of the participants, the assembled group would not be subject to
FACA. For assistance in determining whether FACA applies to a particular
group, contact your agency's FACA attorney.

How Does The NEPA Practitioner Ensure Compliance With FACA?

To help agency personnel, including NEPA project managers, meet all of
the FACA requirements, the General Services Administration Federal
Advisory Committee Management Secretariat issued a final rule that
explains how to set up, manage and terminate a federal advisory
committee. GSA also provides FACA training several times a year. In
addition, most federal agencies have developed guidance on FACA
management that includes agency-specific processes. FACA requirements
that apply to all agencies include the following:

1.  Develop a charter and publish notice of the establishment of the
    committee. FACA § 9. A charter is a two- to three-page document that
    specifies the mission and general operational characteristics of the
    committee.

    2\. Balance the points of view represented by the membership of the
    committee in relation to the function the committee is to perform.

    3\. Announce meetings in the Federal Register in advance of the
    meeting.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  Open the meetings to the public unless the agency head determines
    that the meeting can be closed and allow the public to send in or
    present comments.

7.  Keep minutes of each meeting, make committee documents available to
    the public, and maintain the committee's records for the life of the
    committee.

8.  Appoint a Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to manage the committee.

Are There Collaborative Problem-Solving Activities That Are Not Subject
To FACA?

The following processes are not subject to FACA:

1\. An agency seeks advice and recommendations from the participants on
an individual basis and not from the group as a whole;

2\. The group is composed exclusively of federal officials and elected
officials from federal, state, and local governments or tribes (or their
designated employees with authority to speak on their behalf) and the
purpose of the group is to exchange views, information, or advice
relating to issue(s) of intergovernmental responsibility and
administration;

3\. The group is formed or assembled by a non-federal entity (such as a
non-federal government, a contractor or a private organization) provided
that the group is not actually managed or controlled by the federal
government;

4\. The purpose of the group is to develop advice for non-federal
entities (such as States or industry sectors);

5\. The purpose of the group is to exchange information.

Pre-collaboration *situation assessments* (See Section IV. B. of this
handbook) can assist NEPA managers and staff by providing information to
assist the agency in determining whether a collaborative approach should
be used, and, if so, what collaboration approach is appropriate. If the
selected collaboration effort would be subject to FACA, agency managers
and staff should consult with the office in their agency responsible for
FACA for guidance on setting-up and operating a federal advisory
committee. If there are any questions as to whether FACA might apply,
managers and staff should consult with the FACA attorney in their Office
of General Counsel or Solicitor's Office.

Alternatives to FACA-Chartered Groups

Agencies should also consider potential alternatives to establishing a
FACA committee in determining the most appropriate approach and
procedural framework for convening a collaborative process, depending on
the specific situation and desired outcomes.

-   Agencies can establish a collaborative working group solely with
    other governmental entities, e.g., other federal, state, and local
    government or tribal employees working in their official capacities.

-   One of the non-federal entities involved or interested in a NEPA
    process can take the lead in organizing and setting up a
    collaborative group. This could be a trusted stakeholder group or an
    independent, impartial organization or convening group. FACA only
    applies to federal agencies. If a tribe, state, county, or local
    agency or public interest group puts a collaborative group together,
    controls membership, sets the agenda, funds the work of the group,
    and sets up meetings, the federal agency can participate without
    violating FACA, providing the federal members do not manage or
    control the group.

-   In some situations, the federal agency can form a working group as a
    subcommittee of an existing committee, such as a Resource Advisory
    Committee (RAC) or other FACA-chartered advisory committee. Make
    sure the working group always reports to the RAC or chartered
    committee and not directly to the federal agency. In most federal
    agencies, subcommittees that advise a parent committee rather than a
    federal agency are not subject to the FACA openness requirements.

-   Sometimes group advice is not the desired purpose. It may be that
    the federal agency only wants individual advice from public parties.
    Or sometimes a federal agency needs to provide information to
    educate the community about the agency's programs and decisions. In
    this case, the best approach may be to hold town hall-style public
    meetings with open public participation and opportunities to respond
    to questions. Such meetings do not violate FACA as long as the
    federal agency is not seeking group advice, but rather is sharing
    information or seeking advice from individuals.

**Appendix F: Attitutudes and Behaviors that Enhance Collaboration**

Attitudes and behaviors that are conducive to applying a collaborative
approach vary. One practitioner, Louise Smart of CDR Associates in
Boulder CO, prepared the following examples of individual attitudes and
behaviors to assist participants in collaborative processes based on her
observations of interagency deliberations on transportation projects
going through the NEPA process and on interagency discussions on how to
coordinate NEPA and permitting processes. .

> [Attitudes]{.underline}

a.  Being open to others' views that may differ with ones own
    professional judgment.

b.  Embracing a wider range of needs and concerns than ones own or ones
    agency's.

c.  Respecting and accommodating other agencies' or stakeholders'
    decision-making hierarchies or processes, including allowing time
    and opportunity for communication with constituents, colleagues, or
    managers.

d.  Being willing to consider the trade-offs among competing mandates,
    interests, and concerns.

e.  Being realistic about what is achievable and allowing this
    sensibility to temper positions, hopes, or expectations.

f.  Being committed to improvement of decisions through learning from
    others.

g.  Being willing to share power in decision making without abdication
    of authority and responsibility.

h.  Accepting the risk of failure that comes with the opportunity of
    seeking mutual agreement.

i.  Resistance to the temptation to take differing views as personal
    affronts.

> [Behaviors]{.underline}

a.  Disclosing information -- whether favorable or unfavorable.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Having a transparent decision making process, within which each
    collaborative partner can understand his/her/their (agency/entity)
    role.

b.  Spending time talking with people -- whether singly, in groups, or
    in structured committees.

c.  Exercising and keeping commitments to: attend meetings; speak up
    with ideas and concerns; provide information; read information and
    be prepared; talk with constituents, colleagues, and managers; keep
    others abreast of progress; listen to others and seriously consider
    different points of view; work towards mutually acceptable
    solutions.

d.  Engaging in mutual education about collaborative partners' missions,
    mandates, decision-making processes, plans, goals, visions.

e.  Raising concerns as they occur rather than waiting until late in the
    process.

f.  Advocating for a need, interest, or responsibility with a tone that
    invites reflection from rather than alienates those who think
    differently.

g.  Asking questions from a desire to learn rather than a desire to
    confront.

h.  Addressing concerns that are raised, as early as possible or
    identifying when and how the concern will be addressed.

i.  Focusing on what matters rather than small sticking points that are
    not really important to the decision at hand.

j.  Asking others for solution suggestions as well as for expressions of
    concerns.

k.  Seeking and finding the flexibility that may be inherent in
    regulations or commonly accepted standards.

l.  Facing up to political or managerial pressure in order to advocate
    for a collaboratively-achieved outcome.

m.  Framing the decision-making task in terms that encompass a broad
    range of identified needs.

n.  Seeking out the views of others even when the individuals are not
    able to participate.

o.  Knowing when to narrow deliberations in order to move forward.

p.  Directly addressing or elevating unresolved issues in an agreed-to
    manner rather than allow them to fester and result in a permanent
    breakdown of a collaborative process and rather than unilaterally
    going over someone's head within his/her organization or seeking
    political clout to prevail.

q.  Knowing when collaboration has produced all that it reasonably can
    and exercising decision-making authority without forgetting about
    what was learned in the collaborative process.

r.  Reaching agreement about the meaning and applicability of terms,
    such as "reasonable, prudent, feasible, and practicable" and how to
    apply these terms to the NEPA decisions at hand.

**APPENDIX G: ACRONYMS**

#  

> **Acronyms**
>
> **BLM** Bureau of Land Management
>
> **CEQ** Council on Environmental Quality
>
> **CETAS** Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for
> Streamlining
>
> **DOI** United States Department of the Interior
>
> **DOT** United States Department of Transportation
>
> **EA** Environmental Assessment
>
> **EIS** Environmental Impact Statement
>
> **EPA** Environmental Protection Agency
>
> **FACA** Federal Advisory Committee Act
>
> **FHWA** Federal Highway Administration
>
> **FONSI** Finding of No Significant Impact
>
> **FWS** United States Fish and Wildlife Service
>
> **GGNRA** Golden Gate National Recreation Area
>
> **NEPA** National Environmental Policy Act
>
> **NOI** Notice of Intent
>
> **NPS** National Park Service
>
> **NRA** National Recreation Area
>
> **ROD** Record of Decision
>
> **SAFETEA-LU** Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
> Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
>
> **USDA** U.S. Department of Agriculture

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# APPENDIX H: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This handbook was developed through the collaborative effort of the
Council on Environmental Quality's Interagency Work Group on
Collaboration.

Horst G. Greczmiel, CEQ Point of Contact

Associate Director for NEPA Oversight

Council on Environmental Quality

Kirk Emerson, Co-Lead

Director

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Morris K. Udall Foundation

Elena Gonzalez, Co-Lead

Director

Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution

U.S. Department of the Interior

Cliff Rader, Co-Lead

Environmental Protection Specialist

Office of Federal Activities

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Valerie Nottingham, Co-Lead

Chief

Environmental Quality Branch

National Institutes of Health

Department of Health and Human Services

Laura Bachle

Conflict Resolution Specialist

Office of General Counsel

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

David Emmerson

Natural Resource Program Coordinator

Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution

Department of the Interior

Michael Eng

Senior Program Manager

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Morris K. Udall Foundation

David Lankford

Senior Attorney

Office of General Counsel

National Institutes of Health

Department of Health and Human Services

Shelby Mendez\
Environmental Protection Specialist\
Office of Program Planning and Integration\
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\
Department of Commerce

Ruth Rentch

Environmental Protection Specialist

Project Development and Environmental Review

Federal Highway Administration

Department of Transportation

Lee Salviski

National NEPA Program Manager

General Services Administration

Martha Twarkins

NEPA specialist

Ecosystem Management Coordination staff

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

And with editorial assistance from:

Gail Brooks

Program Associate

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

[^1]: 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347

[^2]: Attitudes and behaviors that are conducive to applying a
    collaborative approach vary. One practitioner's examples are
    presented at Appendix F.

[^3]: 5 USC App. 2

[^4]: For more information on federal advisory committees, see the
    General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat's
    website at: http://www.gsa.gov/.

[^5]: See Rebecca J. Long and Thomas C. Beierle. 1999. *The Federal
    Advisory Committee Act and Public Participation in Environmental
    Policy*. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
    http://www.rff.org.