Supporting Statement A and B_Roster Services 33200005_02 03 2012

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
(PART A AND B)

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
for the
Evaluation of the Roster Program
(Control Number 3320-0005, Expiring 12/31/2011)
of
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

November 14, 2011

Table of Contents
A. Justification .................................................................................................................... 3
1. Circumstances that Make the Collection of Information Necessary. ....................... 3
2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose the Information is to Be Used. .................. 4
3. Collection Technology.............................................................................................. 4
4. Duplication................................................................................................................ 5
5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities................................................ 5
6. Consequences of Not Conducting Collection ........................................................... 5
8. Federal Register Notice............................................................................................. 6
9. Payment/Gifts to Respondents.................................................................................. 6
10. Confidentiality Protocols .......................................................................................... 6
11. Justification of Questions of a Sensitive Nature ....................................................... 7
12. Hours Burden of the Collection of Information........................................................ 7
13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden..................................................................... 8
14. Annualized Costs to the Federal Government .......................................................... 8
14a. Total Capital and Start-Up Costs ....................................................................... 8
14b. Total Operational and Maintenance and Purchase of Services Component...... 9
15. Reasons for Program Changes/Adjustments........................................................... 10
16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication...................................................................... 10
17. Display of Expiration Date for OMB Approval ..................................................... 11
18. Explanations to "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions".......... 11
B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods......................................... 11
1. Respondent Universe and Sample Size/Selection Methods.................................... 11
2. Procedures for the Collection of Information ......................................................... 11
3. Testing Procedures.................................................................................................. 11
4. Statistical Consultants............................................................................................. 12
Appendix A. Statutes and Regulations Authorizing the Collection of Information ......... 14
Appendix B. Roster Program Evaluation Design Overview ............................................ 25
Appendix C. Public Comments in Response to the First Federal Register Notice........... 27

2

A. Justification
1. Circumstances that Make the Collection of Information Necessary.
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (the U.S. Institute) is a
federal program established by the U. S. Congress to assist parties in resolving
environmental, natural resource, and public lands conflicts. The U.S. Institute was
created by the Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998 (P.L. 105156) and is part of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, an
independent federal agency of the executive branch overseen by a board of trustees
appointed by the President (A copy of P.L. 105-106 is included Attachment A1). 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 third-party
facilitator or mediator might be helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to reach
consensus or to resolve the conflict. In addition, the U.S. Institute maintains a roster
of qualified facilitators and mediators with substantial experience in environmental
conflict resolution, and can help parties in selecting an appropriate neutral. (See
www.ecr.gov for more information about the U.S. Institute.)
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (U.S. Institute) evaluates all
of its program and services to facilitate performance reporting and improvement
through reflective practice. The Roster Program is one of the key program areas
managed through the U.S. Institute.
The U.S. Institute has a Roster Manager who supervises a Roster Program consisting
of two main components: development and management of the Roster and overseeing
the associated referral and advising system. The information collected in the
application for the National Roster of Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR)
Practitioners (OMB No. 2010-0030) is the basis for an on-line database, searchable
by a combination of criteria designed to locate appropriate practitioners by matching
desired characteristics with the information in the application. The National Roster of
ECR Practitioners became operational in February 2000 and currently includes over
300 members.
The U.S. Institute uses the roster as a resource when locating appropriate ECR
practitioners with whom to partner via contract for projects in which the U.S. Institute
is involved, particularly in the locale of the project or dispute (as required by the U.S.
Institute’s enabling legislation). The U.S. Institute also uses the roster as a resource
when making referrals to those searching for ECR practitioners with specific
experience, backgrounds or expertise. The roster search and referral service is
available directly to the public through the Internet and direct assistance is also
available by contacting the Roster staff at the U.S. Institute.

3

Effective program evaluation will provide information on how well the roster
functions are performed, and will stimulate improvement in performance as needed.
Furthermore, the Government Performance and Reporting Act (GPRA) requires all
Federal agencies to report annually on their performance by, in essence, answering
the following questions: What is your program or organization trying to achieve?
How will its effectiveness be measured? How well is it meeting its objectives? (A
copy of the relevant part of GPRA is included in Appendix A2)
2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose the Information is to Be Used.
As part of the comprehensive evaluation process for the U.S. Institute’s National
Roster of ECR Practitioners, two questionnaires will be administered primarily
electronically. Roster staff in consultation with the U.S. Institute's Evaluation
Coordinator will administer the questionnaires.
The questionnaires will go to: (1) Roster members - once per year, and (2) Roster
users - once at the end of a search to evaluate the users experience with the service.
Response to each of the questionnaires is voluntary.
The U.S. Institute’s evaluation of its National Roster of ECR Practitioners has and
will continue to provide the basis for evaluating performance and improving and
enhancing the Roster and associated services. The information collected by the U.S.
Institute to-date has been used to comply with the Government Performance and
Results Act and to report to roster members and user on the performance of the
Roster.
The U.S. Institute is required to produce an Annual Performance Plan (Performance
Budget), linked directly to the goals and objectives outlined in the U.S. Institute’s
five-year Strategic Plan. The U.S. Institute is also required to produce an Annual
Performance and Accountability Report, evaluating progress toward achieving its
performance commitments. Results of evaluating each of the U.S. Institute’s program
areas have and will continue to be included in its Annual Performance Reports.
Simple summaries and tabulations of information will be used. In addition, the
evaluation results have and will continue to be made available to wide audiences of
practitioners, users, program managers and other interested parties.
3. Collection Technology
The evaluation system for the National Roster of ECR Practitioners is designed to
maximize use of available electronic collection techniques. Roster questionnaires will
be administered on-line. Since the National Roster of ECR Practitioners is accessible
at the U.S. Institute’s website, all members and self-searchers must have Internet
access. Hard copies will be provided to any users without access to the web or email. Experience with the current system indicates that on-line and e-mail
administration of the questionnaires is feasible, convenient and efficient.

4

4. Duplication
No other source currently exists that can be used to obtain information on the quality
of the U.S. Institute’s Roster program.
5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities
Although some of the members and users of the National Roster of ECR Practitioners
may be small entities, many will be government staff and individuals. Moreover, the
total number of expected responses per year is estimated to be relatively small –
approximately 550 per year, and the financial burden is estimated to be modest – less
than $3.00 per respondent.
6. Consequences of Not Conducting Collection
Evaluation would not be possible without the information that can be only obtained
by administering questionnaires to members and users of the National Roster of ECR
Practitioners. Only descriptive information about the Roster Program is available
from other sources (e.g., the number of referrals). Such information cannot be used
as a surrogate for program/service quality, and cannot substitute for information
obtained through surveys of members and users.
With respect to the frequency of information collection, the information will be
collected only once a year for members. For users, collection will occur once
immediately after a roster search.
This is the minimum collection activity needed to capture the information necessary
to evaluate the various aspects of the Roster program.
7. Special Circumstances of Information Collection
This ICR does not require respondents to:





report information to the Agency more often than quarterly,
prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days
after receipt of a request,
submit more than an original and two copies of any document, or
retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid or
tax records, for more than three years.

Nor will information be collected in a manner:
 connected with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and
reliable results than can be generalized to the universe of study,
 requiring use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and
approved by OMB,

5





requiring a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority
established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and
data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which
unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible
confidential use, or
requiring proprietary, trade secret or other confidential information unless the
Agency can demonstrate that it has procedures to protect the information's
confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

8. Federal Register Notice
A comprehensive Federal Register Notice was published at the end of July 2011. It
opened a 60-day public comment period. The notice described in detail the need for
and use of the information. The notice also provided access to copies of the proposed
questionnaires via the Institute’s website:
http://ecr.gov/Resources/EvaluationProgram.aspx
In mid-October 2011 a second Federal Register Notice was published to announce that
the U.S. Institute forwarded seven information collection requests to OMB. The
second notice opened a 30-day public comment period.
One comment was received in response to the 60-day public comment notice. This
comment expressed concern about the funding of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L.
Udall Foundation and the U.S. Institute generally (Appendix C). This comment did
not provide any specific feedback on the evaluation instruments or the burden
estimates pertaining to the instruments.
9. Payment/Gifts to Respondents
The collection of information does not provide any payment or gift to respondents.
10. Confidentiality Protocols
The information collected will be reported only in summary fashion; neither
individual respondents nor their answers to questions will be identified. Social
Security numbers and company tax identifiers will not be requested as part of the
evaluation.
In the event of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the U.S. Institute takes
the general position that names and other information that could lead to identification
of roster members and users, or the invasion of the personal privacy of individuals
about whom evaluation information is collected, are exempt from disclosure under
the personal privacy exemption (5. U.S.C. 552(b)(6)). The use of the personal privacy
exception is subject to passing a balancing test to determine if the public interest in

6

disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interest. FOIA requests will be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.
11. Justification of Questions of a Sensitive Nature
This information collection request does not involve collecting any information of a
sensitive nature or any information commonly considered private.
12. Hours Burden of the Collection of Information
Burden means the total time and financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This
section focuses on the time to read instructions and answer questions on the
appropriate questionnaire. Hour burdens are then monetized using fully burdened
labor rates for appropriate occupations derived from Bureau of Labor Statistics tables
(U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation”, Table 2: Civilian Workers, by Occupational and Industry
Group – March, 2011. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm).
The following table is based on several assumptions:


The total number of members will average 300 per year.



The number of users requesting referrals will average 250 per year.



The average cost per response is less than $3.00.

The time estimates to complete each questionnaire are based on the results of
experience with prior information collection authorized under OMB control number
3320-0005 (Expiring 12/31/2011).
The costs in the table below are average annual costs for the next three years. The
total annualized respondent burden is 1,488.
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
Respondent Burden and Cost (Annualized)
Roster Services (3320-0005)
Agency

Annual
Number
of
Cases

Average
Number of
Respondents
per Case

Annual
Number
of
Responses

Average
Minutes
per
Response

Annual
Number
of
Minutes

Annual
Number
of
Hours

Labor
Rate Per
Hour
($)

Annual
Cost
($)

3

900

15

47

705

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
Annual Survey of
Roster Members

-

-

300

7

Roster System
Survey - Users End
of Search
Total

-

-

250

4

550

1,000

17

47

32

13. Estimate of Total Annual Cost Burden
There are no capital or start-up costs. Although all Roster members and self-search
users must have access to the Internet (for access to the Roster website) via a
computer, it is assumed that a computer would neither be purchased nor maintained
for the primary purpose of accessing the U.S. Institute’s website. The incremental
costs of using a computer for this purpose is insignificant. In addition, any member
or self-searcher who requests a hard copy of the questionnaires and all referral
requesters will be sent copies via the U.S. Postal Service.
14. Annualized Costs to the Federal Government
14a. Total Capital and Start-Up Costs
Start-up costs for the refined evaluation system (revisions to a previously approved
collection 3320-0005 involve labor only).

8

783

1,488

U.S. Institute For Environmental Conflict Resolution:
Evaluation of the National Roster of ECR Practitioners
Agency Cost - Start-up (One-Time Costs)
Position
Management
Program Coordinator
Administrative Staff

Activity
Oversight
Design and
Management
Administrative
support

TOTAL

Total
Hours

Labor Rate
per Hour

5
20

$75
$42.50

$375
$850

6

$32.50

$195

31

Cost

$1,420

14b. Total Operational and Maintenance and Purchase of Services Component
Once the revised evaluation system is in operation, the U.S. Institute will bear annual
operation and maintenance costs.
The following table contains estimates of annual costs to operate the evaluation
system for the National Roster of ECR Practitioners. The estimating assumptions are
consistent with those in Section 12. Labor rates are fully burdened and reflect wage
rates at the U.S. Institute for applicable job categories.

9

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution - Evaluation of the National Roster of ECR
Practitioners Agency Cost (Annualized)
Questionnaire/Activity

Administer Questionnaires
Roster Member
Roster User - End of
Search
Enter and Verify Data
Roster Member
Roster User - End of
Search
Analysis and Reporting
Performance reporting at
6-month intervals
Oversight
Program Manager
Management

Minutes per
Questionnaire

Number of
Questionnaires

Total
Hours

Labor
Rate per
Hour

Cost

3
2

300
300

15
10

$32.50
$32.50

$488
$325

2
3

300
300

10
15

$32.50
$32.50

$325
$488

N/A

N/A

5

$42.5

$213

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

2
2

$62.5
$75

$125
$150

Total

$2,114

The costs in the table above are average annual costs for the next three years once the
evaluation system is operational.
15. Reasons for Program Changes/Adjustments
Burden change due to change in agency estimate.
For the roster member/practitioner instrument the time estimate was revised
downward given respondent input. The total number of questions remains the same.
For the roster user instrument the time estimate was revised downward given
respondent input, and because of a reduced estimate of the annual number of
responses. The total number of questions remains the same.
16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication
To comply with the Government Performance and Results Act, the U.S. Institute, as
part of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, is required to produce
an Annual Performance Plan (Performance Budget), linked directly to the goals and
objectives outlined in the U.S. Institute’s five-year Strategic Plan. The U.S. Institute
is also required to produce an Annual Performance and Accountability Report,
10

evaluating progress toward achieving its performance commitments. Results of
evaluating each of the U.S. Institute’s program areas will be included in its Annual
Performance and Accountability Report. Simple summaries and tabulations of
information will be used.
17. Display of Expiration Date for OMB Approval
The OMB approval number and expiration date will be displayed on each evaluation
questionnaire.
18. Explanations to "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions"
This collection of information is in full compliance with the provisions of the
"Certificate for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions".
B. Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods
1. Respondent Universe and Sample Size/Selection Methods
The intent is to collect information from every member and user of the National
Roster of ECR Practitioners. This section is not applicable since a census will be
conducted.
2. Procedures for the Collection of Information
As noted in one above, all roster members and users will be surveyed. The average
burden on respondents (roster members and users) is minimal at less than 4 minutes
per response (3 minutes for members and 4 minutes for users) at an average cost of
less than $3.00 per respondent. The annual evaluation of roster members keeps the
respondent burden to a minimum.
3. Testing Procedures
Experience with the previously approved collection (3320-0005 expiring 12/31/2011)
provided the opportunity to extensively assess and improve on the previous version of
the evaluation design, instruments, administration, data entry and data processing
procedures.

11

4. Statistical Consultants
Agency Contact:
Patricia Orr
Director of Policy, Planning, and Budget
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
520-901-8548
Bridget Radcliff
Coordinator for ECR Support Programs
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
520-901-8572

12

List of Appendices
Appendix A. Statutes and Regulations Authorizing the Collection of Information
Appendix B. Roster Program Evaluation Design Overview
Appendix C. Public Comments in Response to the First Federal Register Notice

13

Appendix A. Statutes and Regulations Authorizing the Collection of Information

1. Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act
2. Government Performance and Reporting Act

14

[DOCID: f:publ156.105]
[[Page 8]]
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION ACT OF 1998
[[Page 112 STAT. 9]]
Public Law 105-156
105th Congress
An Act

To amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 to
establish
the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to
conduct environmental conflict resolution and training, and for other
purposes. <>
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress <> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT <>

TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Policy and Conflict
Resolution Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 4 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5602) is amended-(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (5), (9), (7), and (8), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) the term `environmental dispute' means a dispute or
conflict relating to the environment, public lands, or natural
resources;'';
(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(6) the term `Institute' means the United States
Institute
for Environmental Conflict Resolution established pursuant to
section 7(a)(1)(D);'';
(4) in paragraph (7) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) in paragraph (8) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), by
striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(6) in paragraph (9) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))-(A) by striking ``fund'' and inserting ``Trust
Fund''; and
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and

15

inserting a period.
SEC. 3. BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
Section 5(b) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5603(b)) is amended-(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) of the second
sentence, by striking ``twelve'' and inserting ``thirteen'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page 112 STAT. 10]]
``(7) The chairperson of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, who shall serve as a nonvoting, ex
officio member and shall not be eligible to serve as
chairperson.''.
SEC. 4. PURPOSE.
Section 6 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5604) is amended-(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``an Environmental
Conflict Resolution'' and inserting ``Environmental Conflict
Resolution and Training'';
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) establish as part of the Foundation the United States
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to assist the
Federal Government in implementing section 101 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331) by providing
assessment, mediation, and other related services to resolve
environmental disputes involving agencies and instrumentalities
of the United States; and
``(9) complement the direction established by the President
in Executive Order No. 12988 (61 Fed. Reg. 4729; relating to
civil justice reform).''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY.
Section 7(a) of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992
(20
U.S.C. 5605(a)) is amended-(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Institute for environmental conflict
resolution.-``(i) In general.--The Foundation shall-``(I) establish the United States
Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution as part of the Foundation;

16

and
``(II) identify and conduct such
programs, activities, and services as
the Foundation determines appropriate
to
permit the Foundation to provide
assessment, mediation, training, and
other related services to resolve
environmental disputes.
``(ii) Geographic proximity of conflict
resolution provision.--In providing assessment,
mediation, training, and other related services
under clause (i)(II) to resolve environmental
disputes, the Foundation shall consider, to the
maximum extent practicable, conflict resolution
providers within the geographic proximity of the
conflict.''; and
(2) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``and Training '' after
``Conflict Resolution''.
SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.
(a) Redesignation.--Sections 10 and 11 of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5608, 5609) are redesignated as
sections 12 and 13 of the Act, respectively.
[[Page 112 STAT. 11]]
(b) Environmental Dispute
Scholarship and Excellence in
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20
subsection (a)) is amended by

Resolution Fund.--The Morris K. Udall
National Environmental and Native
U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (as amended by
inserting after section 9 the following:

``SEC. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION <>
FUND.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of the
United States an Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to be
administered by the Foundation. The Fund shall consist of amounts
appropriated to the Fund under section 13(b) and amounts paid into the
Fund under section 11.
``(b) Expenditures.--The Foundation shall expend from the Fund such
sums as the Board determines are necessary to establish and operate the
Institute, including such amounts as are necessary for salaries,
administration, the provision of mediation and other services, and such
other expenses as the Board determines are necessary.
``(c) Distinction From Trust Fund.--The Fund shall be maintained
separately from the Trust Fund established under section 8.
``(d) Investment of Amounts.-``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of
the Secretary, required to meet current withdrawals.
``(2) Interest-bearing obligations.--Investments may be
made

17

only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
``(3) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be acquired-``(A) on original issue at the issue price; or
``(B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the
market price.
``(4) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the market
price.
``(5) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund
shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.''.
SEC. 7. USE OF THE INSTITUTE BY A FEDERAL AGENCY.
The Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National
Environmental and Native American Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5601 et
seq.) (as amended by section 6) is amended by inserting after section
10
the following:
``SEC. 11. USE OF THE INSTITUTE BY A FEDERAL <>
AGENCY.
``(a) Authorization.--A Federal agency may use the Foundation and
the Institute to provide assessment, mediation, or other related
services in connection with a dispute or conflict related to the
environment, public lands, or natural resources.
``(b) Payment.-``(1) In general.--A Federal agency may enter into a
contract and expend funds to obtain the services of the
Institute.
``(2) Payment into environmental dispute resolution fund.-A
payment from an executive agency on a contract entered into
under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the Environmental
Dispute
Resolution Fund established under section 10.
``(c) Notification and Concurrence.-[[Page 112 STAT. 12]]
``(1) Notification.--An agency or instrumentality of the
Federal Government shall notify the chairperson of the
President's Council on Environmental Quality when using the
Foundation or the Institute to provide the services described
in
subsection (a).
``(2) Notification descriptions.--In a matter involving two
or more agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government,
notification under paragraph (1) shall include a written
description of-``(A) the issues and parties involved;
``(B) prior efforts, if any, undertaken by the

18

agency to resolve or address the issue or issues;
``(C) all Federal agencies or instrumentalities
with
a direct interest or involvement in the matter and a
statement that all Federal agencies or
instrumentalities
agree to dispute resolution; and
``(D) other relevant information.
``(3) Concurrence.-``(A) In general.--In a matter that involves two or
more agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government (including branches or divisions of a single
agency or instrumentality), the agencies or
instrumentalities of the Federal Government shall
obtain
the concurrence of the chairperson of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality before using the
Foundation or Institute to provide the services
described in subsection (a).
``(B) Indication of concurrence or nonconcurrence.The chairperson of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality shall indicate concurrence or
nonconcurrence under subparagraph (A) not later than 20
days after receiving notice under paragraph (2).
``(d) Exceptions.-``(1) Legal issues and enforcement.-``(A) In general.--A dispute or conflict involving
agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal Government
(including branches or divisions of a single agency or
instrumentality) that concern purely legal issues or
matters, interpretation or determination of law, or
enforcement of law by one agency against another agency
shall not be submitted to the Foundation or Institute.
``(B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) does not
apply to a dispute or conflict concerning-``(i) agency implementation of a program or
project;
``(ii) a matter involving two or more
agencies
with parallel authority requiring facilitation
and
coordination of the various Government agencies;
or
``(iii) a nonlegal policy or decisionmaking
matter that involves two or more agencies that
are
jointly operating a project.
``(2) Other mandated mechanisms or avenues.--A dispute or
conflict involving agencies or instrumentalities of the Federal
Government (including branches or divisions of a single agency
or instrumentality) for which Congress by law has mandated
another dispute resolution mechanism or avenue to address or
resolve shall not be submitted to the Foundation or
Institute.''.

19

[[Page 112 STAT. 13]]
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy
Act of 1992 (as redesignated by section 6(a)) is amended-(1) by striking ``There are authorized to be appropriated
to
the Fund'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Trust Fund.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Trust Fund''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund
established under section 10-``(1) $4,250,000 for fiscal year 1998, of which-``(A) $3,000,000 shall be for capitalization; and
``(B) $1,250,000 shall be for operation costs; and
``(2) $1,250,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999 through
2002 for operation costs.''.
SEC. 9. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) The second sentence of section 8(a) of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5606) is amended-(1) by striking ``fund'' and inserting ``Trust Fund''; and
(2) by striking ``section 11'' and inserting ``section
13(a)''.
(b) Sections 7(a)(6), 8(b), and 9(a) of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native
American
Public Policy Act of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5605(a)(6), 5606(b), and 5607(a))
are each amended by striking ``Fund'' and inserting ``Trust Fund'' each
place it appears.
Approved February 11, 1998.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3042 (S. 399):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 143
(1997):
Nov. 13, considered and passed
House.
Vol. 144
(1998):
Jan. 29, considered and passed
Senate.

20

21

Government Performance and Reporting Act
(Relevant Portions)


United States Code
o TITLE 31 - MONEY AND FINANCE
 SUBTITLE II - THE BUDGET PROCESS
 CHAPTER 11 - THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET,
AND PROGRAM INFORMATION

U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1115. Performance plans
(a) In carrying out the provisions of section 1105(a)(29),
(FOOTNOTE 1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
shall require each agency to prepare an annual performance plan
covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such
agency. Such plan shall (FOOTNOTE 1) See References in Text note below.
(1) establish performance goals to define the level of
performance to be achieved by a program activity;
(2) express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and
measurable form unless authorized to be in an alternative form
under subsection (b);
(3) briefly describe the operational processes, skills and
technology, and the human, capital, information, or other
resources required to meet the performance goals;
(4) establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or
assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of
each program activity;
(5) provide a basis for comparing actual program results with
the established performance goals; and
(6) describe the means to be used to verify and validate
measured values.
(b) If an agency, in consultation with the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, determines that it is not feasible to
express the performance goals for a particular program activity in
an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget may authorize an alternative
form. Such alternative form shall (1) include separate descriptive statements of (A)(i) a minimally effective program, and
(ii) a successful program, or
(B) such alternative as authorized by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget,
with sufficient precision and in such terms that would allow for
an accurate, independent determination of whether the program
activity's performance meets the criteria of the description; or
(2) state why it is infeasible or impractical to express a
performance goal in any form for the program activity.
(c) For the purpose of complying with this section, an agency may

22

aggregate, disaggregate, or consolidate program activities, except
that any aggregation or consolidation may not omit or minimize the
significance of any program activity constituting a major function
or operation for the agency.
(d) An agency may submit with its annual performance plan an
appendix covering any portion of the plan that (1) is specifically authorized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy; and
(2) is properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.
(e) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently Governmental functions. The drafting
of performance plans under this section shall be performed only by
Federal employees.
(f) For purposes of this section and sections 1116 through 1119,
and sections 9703 (FOOTNOTE 2) and 9704 the term (FOOTNOTE 2) See References in Text note below.
(1) ''agency'' has the same meaning as such term is defined
under section 306(f) of title 5;
(2) ''outcome measure'' means an assessment of the results of a
program activity compared to its intended purpose;
(3) ''output measure'' means the tabulation, calculation, or
recording of activity or effort and can be expressed in a
quantitative or qualitative manner;
(4) ''performance goal'' means a target level of performance
expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which
actual achievement can be compared, including a goal expressed as
a quantitative standard, value, or rate;
(5) ''performance indicator'' means a particular value or
characteristic used to measure output or outcome;
(6) ''program activity'' means a specific activity or project
as listed in the program and financing schedules of the annual
budget of the United States Government; and
(7) ''program evaluation'' means an assessment, through
objective measurement and systematic analysis, of the manner and
extent to which Federal programs achieve intended objectives.

U.S. Code as of: 01/05/99
Section 1116. Program performance reports
(a) No later than March 31, 2000, and no later than March 31 of
each year thereafter, the head of each agency shall prepare and
submit to the President and the Congress, a report on program
performance for the previous fiscal year.
(b)(1) Each program performance report shall set forth the
performance indicators established in the agency performance plan
under section 1115, along with the actual program performance
achieved compared with the performance goals expressed in the plan
for that fiscal year.
(2) If performance goals are specified in an alternative form
under section 1115(b), the results of such program shall be
described in relation to such specifications, including whether the
performance failed to meet the criteria of a minimally effective or
successful program.
(c) The report for fiscal year 2000 shall include actual results

23

for the preceding fiscal year, the report for fiscal year 2001
shall include actual results for the two preceding fiscal years,
and the report for fiscal year 2002 and all subsequent reports
shall include actual results for the three preceding fiscal years.
(d) Each report shall (1) review the success of achieving the performance goals of
the fiscal year;
(2) evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal year
relative to the performance achieved toward the performance goals
in the fiscal year covered by the report;
(3) explain and describe, where a performance goal has not been
met (including when a program activity's performance is
determined not to have met the criteria of a successful program
activity under section 1115(b)(1)(A)(ii) or a corresponding level
of achievement if another alternative form is used) (A) why the goal was not met;
(B) those plans and schedules for achieving the established
performance goal; and
(C) if the performance goal is impractical or infeasible, why
that is the case and what action is recommended;
(4) describe the use and assess the effectiveness in achieving
performance goals of any waiver under section 9703 (FOOTNOTE 1)
of this title; and
(FOOTNOTE 1) See References in Text note below.
(5) include the summary findings of those program evaluations
completed during the fiscal year covered by the report.
(e) An agency head may include all program performance
information required annually under this section in an annual
financial statement required under section 3515 if any such
statement is submitted to the Congress no later than March 31 of
the applicable fiscal year.
(f) The functions and activities of this section shall be
considered to be inherently Governmental functions. The drafting
of program performance reports under this section shall be
performed only by Federal employees.

24

Appendix B. Roster Program Evaluation Design Overview

Roster Program
Evaluation Design Overview
The U.S. Institute has a full-time Roster Manager who supervises a Roster Program
consisting of two main components: design and operation of the National Roster of
Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professionals and an
associated referral system. Membership on the roster remains open to new applicants at
all times. Potential members apply on-line and are required to provide information that
demonstrates a level of training and experience adequate to meet specific, objective entry
criteria. First constituted in February 2000, the roster currently includes over 300
members nationwide. When making referrals and locating neutral practitioners for subcontracting, the U.S. Institute uses the roster as a primary source to identify experienced
individuals, particularly in the locale of the project or dispute (as required by the
Institute’s enabling legislation). The public now has direct access to the roster search
system via the Internet. When requested by any party, the Roster Manager also provides
advice and assistance regarding selection of appropriate practitioners.
The U.S. Institute has designed an evaluation system to (a) measure and report on the
performance of the roster program and (b) to facilitate continual learning and
improvement when evaluation information is gathered, analyzed, and shared with roster
members, users, managers/administrators, and other appropriate audiences.

25

Design Elements and Data Collection
On an annual basis roster members will be surveyed to evaluate their perceptions of the
roster and to solicit their feedback on how the roster program can be improved. This
voluntary questionnaire contains two questions, requiring fill-in-the blank and openended responses. Information from this questionnaire will permit U.S. Institute staff to
evaluate how well the Roster is performing in meeting the needs of roster members.
Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are roster members.
Users who search the roster will be surveyed once for each new roster search. This
voluntary questionnaire contains four questions, requiring simple fill-in-the blank and
open-ended responses. Information from this questionnaire will permit U.S. Institute staff
to evaluate how well the Roster is performing in meeting the needs of those searching the
roster. Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are individuals who
use the roster search system.
Data Use and Audiences
Information from the questionnaires will facilitate the (a) measurement and reporting of
performance for the roster program and (b) learning and improvement when the feedback
is used to improve roster services. The evaluation audiences include the roster members,
roster users, project managers/administrators, and the Office of Management and Budget.

For more information contact:
Patricia Orr, Program Evaluation Coordinator
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
130 South Scott Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Telephone (520) 901-8548 or Fax (520) 670-5530

26

Appendix C. Public Comments in Response to the First Federal Register Notice
IT IS TIME TO DOWNSIZE GOVT. I THINK IT IS TIME TO SUNSET THIS
BUDGET OF THIS FOUNDATION, ETC. TO ZERO. IT SEEMS LIKE A HUGE
BUREAUCRACY THAT IS NTO NEEDED. THIS IS A 1950 CREATION, THIS IS
2011. IT NEEDS TO BE SUNSET.
JEANPUBLIC ADDRESS IF REQUIRED
>Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ON FEDERAL REGISTER W: cut budget of udall
bureaucracy to zero

27