24156 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

2. Update on data for the Federal whitecollar pay setting process

3. Employee Benefits Survey: status and

data availability

4. Data on working conditions from BLS

5. Bonuses, lump-sum payments, and

other forms of variable pay

6. Topics for the next meeting

Wednesday, June 6, 2001

9:30 a.m.—Committee on Prices and

Living Conditions—Meeting Room 9

1. Update on program developments

a. Consumer Price Index

b. International Price Indexes

c. Producer Price Indexes

2. Topics for the next meeting

1:30 p.m.—Committee on Occupational

Safety and Health Statistics—Meeting

Room 9

1. Report on worker and case

circumstances data from the 1999

Survey of Occupational Injuries and

Illnesses

2. Discussion of changes to the Survey

of Occupational Injuries and

Illnesses resulting from the revision

of the OSHA record keeping rule

3. Report on the status of the Survey of

Respirator Use and Practices

4. Update on the introduction of the

North American Industry

Classification System into the

Survey of Occupational Injuries and

Ilnesses and the Census of Fatal

Occupational injuries

5. Proposed FY 2002 budget

6. Topics for the next meeting

The meetings are open to the public.

Persons planning to attend these

meetings as observers may want to

contact Wilhelmina Abner on 202–691–

5970.

Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of

April, 2001.

Katharine G. Abraham,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 01–11907 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–P

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP

AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

FOUNDATION

The United States Institute for

Environmental Conflict Resolution

National Environmental Policy Act

Pilot Projects; Comment Request;

Announcement of Workshop

AGENCY: Morris K. Udall Scholarship

and Excellence in National

Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S.

Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution.

ACTION: Meeting notice and request for

public comment.

SUMMARY: At the request of U.S.

Senators Max Baucus, Mike Crapo,

Harry Reid, and Craig Thomas, the U.S.

Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution is exploring how pilot

projects can be used to determine how

collaboration, consensus building, and

appropriate dispute resolution processes

can improve the implementation of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) in the context of federal lands

and natural resource management

issues. In the past months, the U.S.

Institute, with the assistance of the

Meridian Institute, has sought input

from a diverse group of individuals

representing environmental

organizations, resource users, federal,

state and local governments, tribes,

participants in local and regional

collaborative processes, and NEPA

experts. The purpose of these individual

conversations was to learn more about

(1) What specific concerns or issues

should be addressed by pilot projects,

(2) what parameters should define the

pilot projects initiative, (3) what criteria

should be used to select pilot projects,

(4) what institutional mechanisms

would be needed to assure project

oversight, implementation, and

evaluation, and (5) how to maximize the

likelihood that positive lessons learned

from the pilots can be mainstreamed

and begin to influence the

implementation of NEPA in the future.

A number of perceived problems with

both NEPA implementation and

collaborative processes were identified

through these early conversations.

Among the reported problems with

NEPA implementation were:

• Inconsistent implementation of

NEPA’s statutory requirements,

implementing regulations and agency

guidelines;

• Inadequate coordination among

federal agencies with overlapping

jurisdictions and inadequate

intergovernmental coordination with

state agencies;

• Overemphasis on NEPA

documentation and litigation protection,

rather than sounder strategic planning

and decision-making;

• Inefficient and duplicative

processes; and

• Inadequate attention to realizing the

goals laid out in Section 101 of NEPA.

The issues relating to collaborative

processes and conflict resolution can be

placed into four organizational contexts:

• Interagency collaboration,

• Intergovernmental collaboration,

• Governmentally organized multistakeholder collaboration, and

• Privately organized collaborative

processes.

Across these contexts, various

problems were raised, such as:

• A lack of guidance on options for

agencies and inconsistent approaches to

collaboration resulting in confusion;

• The resource intensive nature of

such processes and inadequate process

funding;

• Lack of clarity on stakeholder roles

and responsibilities, and inadequate

stakeholder guidance;.

• Maintaining balanced stakeholder

representation; and

• Overemphasis on process of

collaboration as an end itself and

inadequate attention to planning

outcomes, decision-making, and

implementation.

The U.S. Institute proposes that pilot

projects may be useful in addressing the

perceived challenges of NEPA

implementation and providing clearer

guidance regarding the use of

collaborative processes in NEPA

implementation to agencies, state and

local governments, tribes and nongovernmental interests with respect to

public lands and natural resources

management issues. Specifically, pilot

projects could:

• Clearly distinguish problems and

concerns related to NEPA and the

manner in which NEPA is being

implemented from concerns about other

environmental statutes and/or broader

societal concerns;

• Demonstrate innovative and

practical solutions to clearly delineated

NEPA implementation problems; and

• Provide information about the

conditions under which collaborative

problem solving, consensus-building,

and dispute resolution processes can

improve implementation of NEPA.

There are differing views regarding

the effectiveness of NEPA

implementation, reflecting legitimate

underlying differences in values and

perspectives about the nature and extent

of the environmental impacts of

proposed projects and how these

impacts can best be avoided or

mitigated. Most would agree, however,

there is room for improvement in the

application of NEPA procedures and in

the achievement of its substantive

objectives articulated in Section 101.

Collaborative processes and conflict

resolution strategies often involve or

implicate NEPA review and analysis

activities. Well-managed and highly

visible pilot projects may bring to light

important lessons for better integrating

effective collaboration into NEPA

activities and improving the quality and

durability of management decisions

informed by NEPA analyses.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24157

The U.S. Institute recommends four

basic features for a pilot projects

initiative. First, there must be a

sufficient number of pilot projects from

which to draw reliable lessons across

the four different contexts of

collaborative processes (i.e.,

interagency, intergovernmental,

governmentally organized, and privately

organized) and across a spectrum of

agencies that have responsibility for

lands and natural resource management

issues.

Second, it is important not to

‘‘reinvent the wheel.’’ The use of

collaboration and dispute resolution on

environmental issues, of which NEPA

implementation is a subset, is not new.

For this reason, the pilot projects under

this initiative should be oriented less

toward introducing a new concept or

approach and more toward solving

specific problems regarding the use of

collaboration and dispute resolution in

NEPA implementation. At the same

time, the initiative should include

research and a retrospective analysis of

past and present NEPA projects

involving collaborative and dispute

resolution processes, in parallel with

current projects in the pilot program.

Third, pilot projects are not enough in

and of themselves. Evaluation of the

results of the pilot projects is essential

in order to learn from both the successes

and the failures. Articulating the criteria

for assessing the outcomes of these pilot

projects will be central to such an

initiative. Dissemination of the results

of the evaluations is essential to ensure

that the lessons learned from these pilot

projects are broadly understood and

utilized.

Finally, a transparent, open, and

public process must be designed and

managed to build consensus on the

desired outcomes for this pilot projects

initiative in relation to NEPA

implementation in connection with

federal lands and natural resource

management issues. The interviews

conducted thus far, along with this

request for public comment, are a step

toward laying the initial foundation for

such a process.

The U.S. Institute would like

comments on how it can assure a

balanced and effective approach to

developing and managing such pilot

projects. The U.S. Institute seeks written

public comment and direct input at two

public workshops on the approach it

proposes to take to the NEPA pilot

projects initiative. Based on the

comments received from this notice and

the public workshops, in addition to the

feedback from earlier meetings and

interviews, the U.S. Institute will

provide a report and recommendations

to the Senators for their consideration.

The supplemental information below

provides greater detail on the

preliminary concepts under

consideration.

Based on the interviews conducted

thus far and a review of the literature,

the supplemental information provides

a review of the perceived problems with

NEPA implementation and collaborative

processes, as well as the preliminary

recommendations for the design of a

pilot projects initiative to address the

request of the Senators.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 25, 2001. The public

workshops will be held in Denver,

Colorado on June 8, 2001 and

Washington, DC on June 14, 2001. A

balanced set of stakeholder

representatives will be invited to attend

the workshops, which will also be open

to the public. An opportunity will be

provided for public comment. The

meetings will begin at 8:30 a.m. and

conclude at approximately 4 p.m.

Members of the public who wish to

attend one of the meetings are requested

to contact the Meridian Institute (see

ADDRESSES section) by June 1, 2001 so

that a sufficient number of materials can

be prepared and directions to the

facility can be provided. Space may be

limited, thus a RSVP is strongly

encouraged.

ADDRESSES: Direct comments to:

Meridian Institute, Attn. Tutti Tischler,

P.O. Box 1829, Dillon, Colorado, 80435.

Fax: 970–513–8348, e-mail:

ttischler@merid.org by no later than

June 25, 2001.

The meeting locations are:

June 8, 2001—Embassy Suites at Denver

Airport, Conference Center, 4444

North Havana, Denver, CO

June 14, 2001—GSA National Capitol

Region Training Center, Rooms A & B,

490 L’Enfant Plaza, Suite 3207,

Washington, D.C.

If you are interested in attending

either public workshop, please contact

Ms. Tutti Tischler by June 1, 2001,

Meridian Institute, P.O. Box 1828,

Dillon, Colorado 80435, phone: 970–

513–8340 ext. 252, fax: 970–513–8348,

or e-mail: ttischler@merid.org. Ms.

Tischler can provide directions to both

meeting locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Logistical Information: Tutti Tischler,

Meridian Institute, P.O. Box 1828,

Dillon, Colorado 80435, phone: 970–

513–8340 ext. 252, fax: 970–513–8348,

or e-mail: ttischler@merid.org for

directions to either meeting location and

other related information.

Substantive Information: Sarah

Palmer, U.S. Institute for Environmental

Conflict Resolution, 110 South Church

Avenue, Suite 3350, Tucson, Arizona

85701, fax: 520–670–5530, phone: 520–

670–5299, e-mail: palmer@ecr.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

A. The Senators’ Request

At the request of U.S. Senators Max

Baucus, Mike Crapo, Harry Reid, and

Craig Thomas, the U.S. Institute for

Environmental Conflict Resolution is

exploring how pilot projects can be used

to determine how collaboration,

consensus building, and appropriate

dispute resolution processes can

improve the implementation of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). The Senators have asked

specifically about the potential

application of collaborative approaches

to NEPA activities in the context of

natural resources management and

public lands issues. In order to respond

to this request, and at the suggestion of

the Senators, the U.S. Institute is

seeking input from those with interest

and experience in NEPA review

activities and collaborative processes.

B. The U.S. Institute for Environmental

Conflict Resolution

Congress established the U.S. Institute

in 1998 in the Environmental Policy and

Conflict Resolution Act (Pub. L. 105–

156). The Institute’s primary purpose is

to assist parties in resolving

environmental, natural resource, and

public lands conflicts. It was also

charged with assisting in achieving the

substantive goals of NEPA laid out in

Section 101. The U.S. Institute is part of

the Morris K. Udall Foundation, an

independent federal agency of the

executive branch located in Tucson,

Arizona and overseen by a board of

trustees appointed by the President. The

U.S. Institute serves as an impartial,

non-partisan institution providing

professional expertise, services, and

resources to all parties involved in such

disputes, regardless of who initiates or

pays for assistance. The U.S. Institute

helps parties determine whether

collaborative problem solving is

appropriate for specific environmental

conflicts, how and when to bring all the

parties to the table, and whether a thirdparty facilitator or mediator might be

helpful in assisting the parties in their

efforts to reach consensus or to resolve

the conflict.

C. Background and Context of the NEPA

Pilot Projects Initiative

This project builds on the results of a

workshop co-sponsored by the Institute

for Environment and Natural Resources

24158 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

at the University of Wyoming and the

O’Connor Center for the Rocky

Mountain West at the University of

Montana in March of 1999 and reported

on in ‘‘Reclaiming NEPA’s Potential:

Can Collaborative Processes Improve

Environmental Decision Making?’’ The

workshop focused on the potential for

improving NEPA through the use of

collaborative processes.

Chief among the important questions

raised at this workshop were:

• How can both national and local

interests be properly considered and

appropriately balanced through

collaborative NEPA processes?

• To what extent may multistakeholder collaborative groups

participate in NEPA reviews and affect

natural resource management decisions?

• When should cooperating agency

status be granted to state and local

governments and how can such

cooperation be managed most fairly and

productively?

• How can collaborative processes be

used to improve the implementation of

NEPA and in particular help achieve the

substantive goals stated in Section 101?

In 1995, coinciding with the twentyfifth anniversary of the passage of

NEPA, the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) undertook a study of the

effectiveness of NEPA implementation.

This report, which refers to NEPA as a

‘‘framework for collaboration,’’ focused

on five critical areas within which

improvements could be made to the

implementation of NEPA, including:

• Strategic planning—the extent to

which agencies integrate NEPA goals

into their internal planning processes at

an early stage;

• Public information and input—the

extent to which an agency provides

information to and takes into account

the views of the surrounding

community and other interested

members of the public during its

planning and decision-making

processes;

• Interagency coordination—how

well and how early agencies share

information and integrate planning

responsibilities with other agencies;

• Interdisciplinary place-based

approach to decision making that

focuses the knowledge and values from

a variety of sources on a specific place;

and

• Science-based and flexible

management approaches once projects

are approved.

This current effort is guided by an

interest in soliciting broad-based and

balanced feedback on a pilot projects

initiative, designing a well-managed and

transparent project, and providing

timely and useful information. Based on

the Senators’ request and with the

assistance of the Meridian Institute, the

U.S. Institute is seeking input from

those with interest and experience in

NEPA review activities and multistakeholder collaborative processes. To

date, the U.S. Institute and Meridian

staff have conducted approximately fifty

interviews with individuals

representing a diversity of interests and

perspectives on this initiative.

D. Working Definitions

For the purpose of this draft

document, the following working

definitions will be used:

Collaboration and Collaborative

Processes involve people who represent

diverse interests, perspectives, and

institutions that agree to work together

to identify problems, share information,

and, where possible, develop mutually

acceptable solutions. Collaborative

processes frequently take place prior to

a formal decision being made by the

responsible institution. The term

collaboratives is sometimes used to refer

to privately organized rather than

governmentally organized collaborative

processes.

Consensus-Building Processes

constitute a form of collaboration that

explicitly includes the goal of reaching

a consensus agreement on policy

matters, environmental conflicts, or

other issues in controversy. Consensus

is often, although not always, defined as

‘‘no dissent.’’ Consensus building

processes often, although not always,

involve the assistance of a neutral

convenor, facilitator, or mediator.

Dispute Resolution Processes aim to

resolve specific and definable disputes

over formal agency decisions that have

been or are about to be made. The

parties to a dispute resolution process

are typically entities that can be granted

standing to participate in the dispute

resolution process. Under this

definition, litigation is a form of dispute

resolution process. The terms

appropriate or alternative dispute

resolution refer to non-adversarial

processes that take place in advance of

or in conjunction with formal litigation

usually involving a neutral mediator to

assist the parties in their negotiations.

Non-governmental interests refer

broadly to non-governmental

organizations (NGOs), such as national

environmental groups, local citizens

groups, and other public interest

oriented groups, as well as companies,

associations, and organizations

representing commercial and private

sector interests. Given the focus on

federal lands and natural resource

management issues in this document,

non-governmental interests also include

resource users such as ranchers, loggers,

timber companies, miners, mining

companies, oil and gas companies, etc.

Stakeholders refers to the individuals,

organizations, and institutions that have

a stake in the outcome of a decision

because they are either directly affected

by the decision or have the power to

influence or block the decision.

II. Findings From Preliminary Research

and Interviews

A. Introduction

Based on a review of currently

available literature and the results of the

interviews described above, a number of

challenges appear to be associated with

NEPA implementation, as well as with

the use of collaborative processes

initiated in conjunction with NEPA

implementation (whether the

collaborative process is before or early

in a NEPA process or, alternatively, after

the NEPA process has begun and actual

or potential disputes have emerged).

The challenges with both NEPA

implementation and collaborative

approaches, which are reviewed below,

should be considered as the basis for

focusing the pilot projects.

B. Reported Problems Related to NEPA

Implementation

Some of the stakeholders interviewed

expressed concern about whether the

Senators who initiated the request or the

U.S. Institute believe ‘‘NEPA is broken

and needs to be fixed’’ and, if so,

whether there is a belief that the use of

collaboration and dispute resolution is

the way to fix the problem. It is

important to point out that almost

without exception the stakeholder

representatives interviewed indicated

they do not believe there is a problem

with the statute itself, but many felt

there are concerns with how the statute

is being implemented.

The interviews also evidenced

concerns about the underlying authority

and standards for agency decisions

contained in other environmental

statutes. In some cases the criticisms

initially leveled at the NEPA process

were found to be based primarily on

concerns with requirements of other

substantive laws. In the case of federal

lands and natural resource management

issues, the statutes that intersect with

NEPA include but are not limited to the

Endangered Species Act (ESA), the

Federal Lands Policy and Management

Act (FLPMA), the National Forest

Management Act (NFMA), and the

Clean Water Act (CWA).

Since the focus of this effort is on the

use of collaborative processes and

appropriate dispute resolution in NEPA

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24159

implementation, it will be important to

clearly distinguish between perceived

problems and concerns with the

authority and standards of decision

making contained in other statutes, and

perceived problems and concerns with

how agencies are fulfilling their NEPA

duties and obligations. While this will

be a challenge when identifying criteria

for selecting pilot projects, it will be

even more of a challenge in evaluating

the effectiveness of the pilot projects

and translating any new insights from

the pilots to concrete suggestions for

improving NEPA implementation.

Some stakeholders have suggested

that the U.S. Institute undertake a

systematic retrospective analysis of

collaboration and NEPA

implementation to help inform the

development of clearly delineated

problem statements with respect to the

pilot projects initiative. The U.S.

Institute agrees with the need to have

clearly delineated problem statements

that can be used to develop criteria for

selecting and evaluating pilot projects.

However, it appears that there is

sufficient clarity regarding problems

reported with NEPA implementation to

proceed with the development of a pilot

initiative, which would include a

systematic retrospective analysis in

parallel with the pilot projects.

From its interviews and a preliminary

review of the literature, the U.S.

Institute has compiled the following list

of perceived problems with NEPA

implementation.

1. Inconsistent NEPA Implementation.

Inconsistent implementation and

interpretation by lead federal agencies

of the statutory requirements of NEPA

and the CEQ implementing regulations

and guidelines.

2. Efficiency and Effectiveness. How

to ‘‘streamline’’ NEPA implementation

by making it more efficient, less time

consuming, and equally, if not more,

effective.

3. Inappropriate Timing of

Interagency or Intergovernmental

Coordination. Many times a lead agency

consults with other agencies with

overlapping regulatory authority after

alternatives have been identified and

publicly discussed with stakeholders,

only to find that one or more of the

alternatives under consideration is

unacceptable to the agency with

overlapping jurisdiction.

4. Overemphasis on Documentation

with Insufficient Attention to Planning

and Decision Making. There is an

excessive focus on NEPA

documentation and efforts to make

NEPA documents ‘‘litigation proof’’

rather than using NEPA to improve

strategic planning and decision-making.

5. Inadequate Attention to Section

101. CEQ’s regulations for implementing

the procedural provisions of NEPA (40

CFR 1502.2(d)) states that an

environmental impact statement:

Shall state how alternatives considered in it

and decisions based on it will or will not

achieve the requirements of sections 101 and

102(1) of the Act and other environmental

laws and policies.

Section 101 of the Act includes the

declaration of environmental policy that

is the cornerstone of NEPA. Section

102(1) of the statute directs that,

To the fullest extent possible the policies,

regulations, and public laws of the United

States shall be interpreted and administered

in accordance with the policies set forth in

this Act.

Some stakeholders believe there has

been inadequate attention paid to the

requirements of NEPA and its

implementing regulations.

C. Reported Problems Associated With

But Not Limited to NEPA

Implementation

Both the interviews and the NEPArelated literature cite two additional

issues that influence the NEPA

implementation process but are not

exclusive to that process. The first is

information management and use of

technical information. The second issue

is the role of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act in the NEPA process.

1. Information and Information

Technology Related Problems

The quality of NEPA analysis depends

in large part on the quality of

information that is available to and

considered by decision-makers and the

general public. As a consequence, a

number of reported information and

information technology related

problems may warrant consideration in

the design of pilot projects. These

include:

a. Lack of Baseline Data. The lack of

high quality baseline environmental

data, especially for land management

agencies, that can be periodically

updated and used as the basis for NEPA

analysis, often results in the re-creation

of high quality data on a case-by-case

basis.

b. Insufficient Utilization of

Information Technology. Information

technology, especially decision-support

tools and geographic information

systems are not widely available or are

under-utilized.

c. Excessive Data Demands. Guidance

is needed on how to identify what data

would be useful in improving the

quality of the decision. While thorough

documentation and requests for

additional information are often

warranted, excessive data generation

and reporting can overwhelm the ability

of decision makers and the public to

understand the key points.

2. The Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)

Federal agencies have the option of

utilizing citizen advisory committees

and work groups to advise agencies

during the NEPA process. However,

many report real and perceived

limitations to the use of a federal

advisory committee.

a. Limitations and Perceptions. Most

federal agencies are limited in the

number of advisory committees they can

establish. In addition, there is a

widespread perception that the FACA

can be an impediment to undertaking

governmentally organized multistakeholder collaboration. These real

and perceived limitations can create

incentives to circumvent the

requirement to establish an official

advisory committee when in reality a

FACA-chartered committee may be the

best course of action.

b. Advisory vs. Decisional. Federal

advisory committees advise agencies on

specific issues. There is a need for

clearer guidance about how to ensure

governmentally organized multistakeholder collaboration processes

maintain this advisory role and yet,

where appropriate, strive to achieve a

consensus that includes commitments

from the sponsoring agency (akin to

what takes place in a regulatory

negotiation).

D. Reported Problems Associated With

Collaborative Processes and Dispute

Resolution

From the literature surveyed and the

interviews conducted, the U.S. Institute

and Meridian Institute staff identified a

number of perceived problems with the

use of collaborative and appropriate

dispute resolution processes. It was

apparent from the interviews that it is

useful to distinguish between among

four types of collaborative processes

based on their organizational context:

• Interagency collaboration and

coordination involving affected agencies

within the federal government;

• Intergovernmental collaboration

and coordination involving the lead

federal agency and affected agencies

from other levels of government,

including tribal, state, and local

government;

• Governmentally organized multistakeholder collaboration that is

initiated and organized by the lead

federal agency, or a cooperating

governmental agency, and involves

24160 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

representatives of affected nongovernmental interests; and

• Privately organized collaborative

processes that are initiated, organized,

and conducted by non-governmental

interests who have a stake in the

outcome of agency decisions where

there is limited or no direct involvement

of the lead federal agency.

While specific issues and concerns

were raised within each of these

contexts, there were several crosscutting problems reported, including:

1. Problems That Arise When Initiating

Collaborative Processes

a. Lack of Guidance for Deciding How

to Collaborate. Agencies lack guidance

on whether and how to engage in multistakeholder collaborative processes,

separate one-on-one consultations with

stakeholder representatives, or standard

public participation techniques. In some

cases, such processes are initiated after

an agency decision has already been

made, for example, which undermines

the efficacy of the collaboration.

b. Inadequate Stakeholder

Representation. Lead agencies often do

not involve all government agencies

and/or non-governmental interests that

have a stake in the outcome of the

collaborative process. There is a lack of

awareness and practical guidance for

determining the major stakeholders who

need to be represented in a collaborative

process.

c. Lack of Resources. Agencies have

limited financial and personnel

resources to undertake and organize a

multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Similarly, the lack of financial and

personnel resources may limit some

stakeholder groups from effectively

participating in multi-stakeholder

collaboration.

d. Involving Nationally Oriented

Groups in Locally Oriented Processes.

Where locally oriented, federally

organized multi-stakeholder

collaborative processes include issues

that are of a broader national interest, it

is difficult to involve national groups

directly in the collaborative process.

2. Problems That Arise During

Collaborative Processes

a. Roles and Responsibilities of

Agency Representatives. Lack of clarity

regarding the decisionmaking roles,

responsibilities, and authority of agency

representatives who are ‘‘at the table’’ in

relation to those who are at ‘‘higher’’

levels. This is especially problematic in

locally oriented processes that require

decisions to be made at the regional

and/or national levels.

b. Maintaining Balanced Stakeholder

Representation. It can be difficult to

maintain balanced involvement of all

major stakeholder interests throughout

the course of the collaborative process.

There is a need for guidance on how to

handle instances where stakeholder

representatives participate in a

collaborative process until they feel

their interests are not being fully

satisfied and then pullout and resort to

traditional adversarial strategies.

c. Length of Time Needed to Complete

Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration. The

time it takes to complete multistakeholder collaborative processes,

especially consensus-based processes.

d. Goal Confusion. In some cases, the

process of collaboration itself may

develop into the primary goal of the

participants rather than focusing on

improved and informed decisions and

designing a process that will effectively

achieve this end.

3. Problems That Arise When Agency

Decisions Are Made

a. Unrealistic Stakeholder

Expectations. Nongovernmental

stakeholders can be disappointed if the

decision making framework is not

specified. When non-governmental

stakeholders participate in collaborative

processes or assisted negotiations,

sometimes the decision rules within the

group are not clarified at the outset and

the legal duties and obligations of the

agency representatives for specific

decisions or actions are not fully

understood.

b. Inconsistent Decisions. Sometimes

agency decision makers choose courses

of action different from those arrived at

by consensus in a collaborative process

or by assisted negotiation in a conflict

resolution process. The value of such

participatory processes can be

undermined. Guidance is needed to

minimize this occurrence by assuring

consistent communication within

agencies during their participation.

c. Implementation Challenges.

Recommendations from collaborative

processes or conflict resolution

processes may not always take into

account their feasibility or resource

requirements. Institutional structures

may not exist or be limited to assure

appropriate follow-through and

monitoring to ensure implementation.

Mechanisms for assuring the practicality

of implementation requirements should

be developed.

4. Problems Associated With Privately

Organized Collaborative Processes

In addition to the cross-cutting issues

raised in the sections above, there are

some specific concerns reported

regarding privately organized multistakeholder collaborations. Some

examples of issues that may need to be

addressed include:

• What should agency personnel do

when the process explicitly excludes

certain stakeholder interests?

• How should they respond when

there is clear evidence of an attempt to

include representation of all stakeholder

interests but not everyone chooses to

participate?

• What should the agency do when

the process includes a balanced

representation of the diverse

stakeholders that have an interest in the

issues being discussed?

• Should federal agency staff

participate in such processes if they are

requested to do so and, if so, to what

degree?

• Should the results of privately

convened collaborative processes be

given special weight or consideration by

agencies and, if so, how and under what

conditions?

III. The Potential Value of Pilot Projects

The results of the interviews and the

preliminary review of the literature

indicate there is some dissatisfaction

with how agencies are implementing

NEPA. These concerns are reflected in

the list of reported problems outlined

above. At the same time, many of the

concerns that are attributed to NEPA

implementation reflect broader concerns

about the role of the federal government

in public lands and natural resource

management issues and with

environmental decision-making in

general.

Notwithstanding Congress’

declaration more than 30 years ago of a

national environmental policy in

Section 101 of NEPA, it is clear the

value conflicts that underlie

environmental issues remain

pronounced. Collaborative problem

solving, consensus building, and

dispute resolution processes have been

used to address these value conflicts in

a variety of situations since the mid1970s. While these processes have been

utilized in increasingly sophisticated

ways and in a wide variety of

circumstances by virtually every federal

agency, as is evident from the problem

statements outlined above, there is still

much that can be learned about how to

more effectively utilize these processes.

Undertaking a carefully designed pilot

projects program will permit the U.S.

Institute and those who have an interest

in improving the quality of federal

agency NEPA analyses and decisionmaking processes on public lands and

natural resource management issues to:

• Clearly distinguish problems and

concerns related to NEPA and the

manner in which NEPA is being

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24161

implemented from concerns about other

environmental statutes and/or broader

societal concerns;

• Demonstrate innovative and

practical solutions to clearly delineated

NEPA implementation problems; and

• Learn more about the conditions

under which collaborative problem

solving, consensus-building, and

dispute resolution processes can

improve implementation of NEPA.

There are differing views regarding

the effectiveness of NEPA

implementation, reflecting legitimate

underlying differences in values and

perspectives about the nature and extent

of the environmental impacts of

proposed projects and how these

impacts can best be avoided or

mitigated. Most would agree, however,

there is room for improvement in the

application of NEPA procedures and in

the achievement of its substantive

objectives articulated in Section 101.

Collaborative processes and conflict

resolution strategies often involve or

implicate NEPA review and analysis

activities. Well-managed and highly

visible pilot projects may bring to light

important lessons for better integrating

effective collaboration into NEPA

activities and improving the quality and

durability of management decisions

informed by NEPA analyses.

As indicated by the interviews and

preliminary review of the literature,

pilot projects could yield important

insights into possible improvements in

NEPA implementation and guidance

with respect to:

• CEQ regulations and implementing

NEPA;

• Federal agency regulations;

• Tribal, state, and local government

guidance; and

• NGO guidelines and practices for

participating in NEPA implementation.

IV. Designing a Pilot Projects Initiative

A. Challenges

The design and implementation of a

pilot projects initiative raises a number

of challenges, including how to best:

• Ensure that all interests will be

fairly represented in the selection,

evaluation, and analysis of such

projects,

• Identify and respond to potential

institutional barriers,

• Address concerns on the one hand

that this initiative might lead to

unanticipated changes in NEPA

implementation, and on the other, that

reform of NEPA implementation may

not be forthcoming, and

• Manage the projects with

appropriate public oversight.

To address these challenges, the U.S.

Institute recommends establishing some

fundamental conditions for undertaking

a pilot projects initiative, identifying a

set of criteria for selecting the pilot

projects, and establishing a separate set

of criteria for evaluating the results of

the pilot projects.

B. Basic Features of a Pilot Projects

Initiative

The U.S. Institute recommends four

basic features for a pilot projects

initiative. First, there must be a

sufficient number of pilot projects from

which to draw reliable lessons across

the four different types of collaborative

processes (i.e., interagency,

intergovernmental, governmentally

organized, and privately organized) and

across a spectrum of agencies that have

responsibility for federal lands and

natural resource management issues.

Second, it is important not to

‘‘reinvent the wheel.’’ The use of

collaboration and dispute resolution on

environmental issues, of which NEPA

implementation is a subset, is not new.

For this reason, the pilot projects under

this initiative should be oriented less

toward introducing a new concept or

approach and more toward solving

specific problems regarding the use of

collaboration and dispute resolution in

NEPA implementation. At the same

time, the initiative would include

research and a retrospective analysis of

past and present NEPA projects

involving collaborative and dispute

resolution processes, in parallel with

current projects in the pilot program, in

order to broaden the information gained.

Third, pilot projects are not enough in

and of themselves. Evaluation of the

results of the pilot projects is essential

in order to learn from both the successes

and the failures. Articulating the criteria

for assessing the outcomes of these pilot

projects will be central to such an

initiative. Dissemination of the results

of the evaluations is essential to ensure

that the lessons learned from these pilot

projects are broadly understood and

utilized.

Finally, a transparent, open, and

public process is needed to build

consensus regarding the desired

outcomes of this pilot projects initiative

in relation to NEPA implementation on

federal lands and natural resource

management issues. The interviews

conducted thus far along with this

request for public comment are a step

toward laying the initial foundation for

such a process.

C. Input Sought on How To Interpret the

Suggestion of the Senators To Focus on

Federal Lands and Natural Resource

Management Issues

The U.S. Institute seeks input on how

broadly or narrowly it should interpret

the suggestion from the Senators to

focus on ‘‘federal lands and natural

resource management’’ issues. This

question should be considered in light

of the work to ‘‘streamline’’ NEPA

implementation in several agencies such

as the Federal Highway Administration

as well as in specific situations such as

the U.S.D.A. Forest Service’s and the

Department of the Interior’s National

Fire Plan. There are concerns that NEPA

streamlining efforts should seek to

retain NEPA’s effectiveness and at the

same time improve its efficiency.

Streamlining efforts will likely require a

significant level of collaboration and

dispute resolution planning to meet

these ends. The need for effective

collaboration, particularly interagency

and intergovernmental collaboration,

may be even more significant in

instances where efforts are being made

to streamline NEPA implementation.

The U.S. Institute would value input

on how broadly this initiative should

define its focus on federal lands and

natural resource management issues.

The strictest interpretation might limit

the focus to NEPA reviews conducted

by land management agencies such as

the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Bureau of

Land Management, and National Park

Service. Alternatively, a broader focus

would include federal agencies whose

mission includes, but not exclusively,

the management of a natural resource,

e.g., military reserves, or the mitigation

of impacts on natural resources, e.g.,

transportation projects, airport

expansions. It might also include

opportunities to work with tribal

governments with resource management

issues impacting tribal lands and

adjacent federal or state lands.

D. The U.S. Institute’s Role

The U.S. Institute proposes to serve as

the lead agency for the purpose of

administering the NEPA Pilot Projects

Initiative consistent with its mission to

assist with the implementation of the

provisions of Section 101 of NEPA. This

role would include:

• Providing program administration

and oversight;

• Making the final decisions on the

criteria for selecting the pilot projects;

• Selecting the pilot projects;

• Collaborating with participating

agencies as necessary and appropriate to

select and oversee neutral third party

service providers such as conveners,

24162 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

facilitators, fact-finders, trainers,

mediators, etc.;

• Identifying the criteria by which to

evaluate the outcome of the pilot

projects;

• Selecting and overseeing the work

of independent evaluators;

• Reporting on the lessons that are

learned from a retrospective analysis

and prospective pilot projects; and

• Establishing and managing a federal

advisory committee that will be used to

provide input on all of the above.

Several commenters strongly

recommended the use of a federal

advisory committee to help guide the

U.S. Institute on these matters to assure

transparency and build trust in the

NEPA pilot projects initiative. The U.S.

Institute proposes to form a federal

advisory committee made up of a

balanced but manageable number of

individuals representing organizations

that have an interest in the initiative.

E. Criteria for Selecting Pilot Projects

A preliminary list of the criteria the

U.S. Institute proposes to use in

selecting the pilot projects is as follows:

• Geographic balance (while it is

expected that a majority of projects will

be drawn from the Western U.S., an

attempt should be made to select

projects from the entire nation);

• Diversity of agency participation

from lead federal agencies, states,

counties, and tribes;

• Diversity of the federal lands and

natural resource management issues to

be addressed;

• Balance of projects across the four

different categories of collaboration (i.e.,

interagency, intergovernmental,

governmentally organized multistakeholder, and privately organized

multi-stakeholder) as well as projects

that employ dispute resolution

processes;

• Projects of local, state, regional, and

national scale representing the spectrum

of issues that are the focus of the NEPA

analysis and collaborative process;

• Projects that are occurring at a

variety of different stages in the NEPA

review and decision-making process

(where a range of collaborative and

dispute resolution processes could or

are occurring).

In addition, the U.S. Institute is

considering giving priority to pilot

projects that:

• Are explicitly designed to address

one or more of the NEPA

implementation and/or collaborative

process problems identified above;

• Have a genuine potential for

success (e.g., for collaborative processes,

decisions have not been predetermined,

adequate incentives exist for

collaboration or dispute resolution,

etc.); and

• Emphasize innovative approaches

to the integration of the substantive

aspirations of Section 101 of NEPA with

the implementing procedures of Section

102.

The U.S. Institute encourages

comments on this list.

F. Evaluation and Reporting

In order to have value, the proposed

NEPA pilots project initiative must

include both an evaluation component

and a reporting component. The

evaluation component will include

evaluations of the results and outcomes

of the pilot projects by independent and

professionally qualified evaluators. A

concerted effort will be made with the

guidance of the federal advisory

committee to establish agreed upon

criteria for assessing the efficacy and

effectiveness of the pilot projects. At the

conclusion of the initiative, the U.S.

Institute will report on lessons learned,

taking into consideration the findings of

the independent evaluations and the

retrospective analysis of the research,

and make recommendations for

changes, if any, that might be made to

existing NEPA policies, guidelines or

regulations.

As noted above, the U.S. Institute

proposes to establish a federal advisory

committee to advise the Institute on

critical components of the NEPA pilot

projects initiative, including the criteria

for conducting evaluations of the pilot

projects and how to best select and

oversee the independent evaluators. The

proposed role for the advisory

committee includes the review and

interpretation of the evaluation results

and the identification of what it sees as

key findings that the U.S. Institute

should consider.

V. Conclusion

In order to explore the proposal for

pilot projects more fully, the U.S.

Institute is holding two public

workshops which will be facilitated by

the Meridian Institute. The workshops

are scheduled for June 8, 2001 in

Denver, Colorado and June 14, 2001 in

Washington, DC Representatives of

resource user groups, environmental

organizations, academia, state, local,

and tribal governments, and federal

agencies are being invited in order to

participate in a balanced and

constructive discussion on this

initiative. These participants will not

act as a committee and there will not be

any attempt to seek a group

recommendation on any issue.

Additional seats will be available for

members of the public, who will be

given limited time on the agenda to

provide comments.

If you would like to attend the

workshop, please contact the Meridian

Institute (see ADDRESSES section) by

June 1, 2001 so that it can determine the

amount of interest and prepare

sufficient materials.

Based on the input provided at this

workshop and any written comments

received, as well as the information

summarized in this document, the U.S.

Institute will prepare formal

recommendations to the Senators on a

NEPA pilot projects initiative. Further

development of such an initiative relies

on the feedback of the public, interested

stakeholders, and the Senators who

requested the information.

Public Comments Solicited

The U.S. Institute will take into

consideration any comments and

additional information received on or

prior to the close of the 45-day comment

period.

Selected References

National Environmental Policy Act 42

U.S.C. 4321–4337.

Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the National

Environmental Policy Act. 40 CFR

1500–1508 (1992).

‘‘The National Environmental Policy

Act. A Study of its Effectiveness After

Twenty-five Years.’’ January, 1997.

Executive Office of the President,

Council on Environmental Quality.

‘‘Reclaiming NEPA’s Potential: Can

Collaborative Processes Improve

Environmental Decision Making?’’

March 1999. Workshop Proceedings. Cosponsored by the Institute for

Environment and Natural Resources at

the University of Wyoming and the

O’Connor Center for the Rocky

Mountain West at the University of

Montana.

Bingham, Gail and Lee M. Langstaff.

‘‘Alternative Dispute Resolution in the

NEPA Process’’. Resolve Center for

Environmental and Public Policy

Dispute Resolution. http://

www.resolv.org/Resources/pubs/

default.htm

Caldwell, Lynton H. 1998. ‘‘The

National Environmental Policy Act. An

Agenda for the Future.’’ Indiana

University Press. 210 pp.

Miller, Anne Norton. 2000. ‘‘NEPA

Where are we? Where are we going? ‘‘

Environmental Practice. 2(4): 275–279.

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 5601–5609.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24163

Dated: May 7, 2001.

Christopher L. Helms,

Executive Director, Morris K. Udall

Foundation.

[FR Doc. 01–11898 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–FN–P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION

Records Schedules; Availability and

Request for Comments

AGENCY: National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of

proposed records schedules; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The National Archives and

Records Administration (NARA)

publishes notice at least once monthly

of certain Federal agency requests for

records disposition authority (records

schedules). Once approved by NARA,

records schedules provide mandatory

instructions on what happens to records

when no longer needed for current

Government business. They authorize

the preservation of records of

continuing value in the National

Archives of the United States and the

destruction, after a specified period, of

records lacking administrative, legal,

research, or other value. Notice is

published for records schedules in

which agencies propose to destroy

records not previously authorized for

disposal or reduce the retention period

of records already authorized for

disposal. NARA invites public

comments on such records schedules, as

required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

DATES: Requests for copies must be

received in writing on or before June 25,

2001. Once the appraisal of the records

is completed,NARA will send a copy of

the schedule. NARA staff usually

prepare appraisal memorandums that

contain additional information

concerning the records covered by a

proposed schedule. These, too, may be

requested and will be provided once the

appraisal is completed. Requesters will

be given 30 days to submit comments.

ADDRESSES: To request a copy of any

records schedule identified in this

notice, write to the Life Cycle

Management Division (NWML),

National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA), 8601 Adelphi

Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001.

Requests also may be transmitted by

FAX to 301–713–6852 or by e-mail to

records.mgt@nara.gov. Requesters must

cite the control number, which appears

in parentheses after the name of the

agency which submitted the schedule,

and must provide a mailing address.

Those who desire appraisal reports

should so indicate in their request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marie Allen, Director, Life Cycle

Management Division (NWML),

National Archives and Records

Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road,

College Park, MD 20740–6001.

Telephone: (301) 713–7110. E-mail:

records.mgt@ nara.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year

Federal agencies create billions of

records on paper, film, magnetic tape,

and other media. To control this

accumulation, agency records managers

prepare schedules proposing retention

periods for records and submit these

schedules for NARA’s approval, using

the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for

Records Disposition Authority. These

schedules provide for the timely transfer

into the National Archives of

historically valuable records and

authorize the disposal of all other

records after the agency no longer needs

them to conduct its business. Some

schedules are comprehensive and cover

all the records of an agency or one of its

major subdivisions. Most schedules,

however, cover records of only one

office or program or a few series of

records. Many of these update

previously approved schedules, and

some include records proposed as

permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for

destruction without the approval of the

Archivist of the United States. This

approval is granted only after a

thorough consideration of their

administrative use by the agency of

origin, the rights of the Government and

of private persons directly affected by

the Government’s activities, and

whether or not they have historical or

other value.

Besides identifying the Federal

agencies and any subdivisions

requesting disposition authority, this

public notice lists the organizational

unit(s) accumulating the records or

indicates agency-wide applicability in

the case of schedules that cover records

that may be accumulated throughout an

agency. This notice provides the control

number assigned to each schedule, the

total number of schedule items, and the

number of temporary items (the records

proposed for destruction). It also

includes a brief description of the

temporary records. The records

schedule itself contains a full

description of the records at the file unit

level as well as their disposition. If

NARA staff has prepared an appraisal

memorandum for the schedule, it too

includes information about the records.

Further information about the

disposition process is available on

request.

Schedules Pending

1. Department of Agriculture, Food

Safety and Inspection Service (N1–462–

01–2, 15 items, 12 temporary items).

Working papers, including drafts and

reference materials, relating to the

preparation of plans and reports

stemming from the Government

Performance and Results Act. Also

included are electronic copies of records

created using electronic mail and word

processing. Proposed for permanent

retention are recordkeeping copies of

strategic plans, annual performance

plans, and annual performance reports.

2. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service (N1–95–01–1, 3 items, 3

temporary items). Records relating to

agency Y2K activities, including risk

assessments, the testing and

modification of automated systems,

briefings, and training. Electronic copies

of documents created using electronic

mail and word processing are included.

3. Department of the Army, Armywide (N1–AU–01–17, 1 item, 1

temporary item). Master file of the

Central Issue Facility System, an

electronic information system

containing information concerning the

receipt, storage, issue, exchange, and

turn-in of clothing and equipment at

installations.

4. Department of the Army, Agencywide (N1–AU–00–39, 2 items, 2

temporary items). Master file and

outputs of the Hazardous Substance

Management System, an electronic

information system used to support and

facilitate the tracking and reporting of

hazardous materials at installations. The

system includes such data as quantities

of hazardous chemicals and information

concerning their location, handling,

storage, disposal, release, and transfer.

Copies of reports generated by this

system that pertain to the release of

hazardous material are sent to the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and incorporated into an EPA system

that was previously approved for

permanent retention.

5. Department of Defense, Defense

Logistics Agency (N1–361–01–2, 1 item,

1 temporary item). The Safety and

Health Information Reporting System,

an electronic information system

consisting of employee exposure records

used to produce an occupational safety

and health log and summary. Included

are reports on hazards, accident

investigations, and surveys and

inspections. Records are proposed for

retention for 30 years, as required by 29

CFR 1910.