 |
|
|
September 3, 2008
Committee members favor continuing negotiated rulemaking
By IRENE NOLAN  The National Park Service intends to proceed with the negotiated rulemaking process and has released an assessment that says the majority of committee members want to continue sitting at the table. In 2007, the Park Service convened the negotiated rulemaking committee (often referred to as “RegNeg” Committee) to assist in the formulation of a regulation that will govern off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The committee’s first official meeting was in Avon in January. Its next meeting is scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, Sept. 8-9, also in Avon. Under the terms of a consent decree, which now governs management of the beaches, the committee must finish its work by January. The meetings have been at times contentious and the stakeholders – those who want more ORV access and those who want less access and more resource closures—have remained polarized on the most important issues that must be negotiated, such as ORV access routes and resource management. In June, 2008, seashore Superintendent Mike Murray asked the Department of the Interior Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution (CADR) to survey the 30 members of the committee and get their opinions on how they believed the committee was progressing. The Park Service, in consultation with committee facilitators Patrick Field and Robert Fisher, developed the following questions for this survey: 1. How would you characterize the progress of the committee to this point? 2. What would you recommend to make the committee more productive? 3. Should NPS continue to use the committee to develop the ORV plan? 4. If the committee shifted its role to an advisory or consultative role rather than a consensus-seeking role, would that be constructive? 5. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about this? In early July, Murray notified committee members by e-mail that the survey would soon be under way and that members should expect phone calls from David Emmerson of the CADR Office and Shayla Simmons, Senior Counsel for CADR, who were assigned to conduct the survey. They spoke to 29 of the 30 committee members and concluded the survey at the end of July. The report provides a summary of responses from the committee members. “Despite the perceived lack of progress,” the report writers said, “members overwhelmingly support continuing the negotiated rulemaking process.” Their reasons varied, according to the report. “Several members felt it was the only forum through which local interests could be expressed. Other members said they believe the committee process gives NPS better insight into the issues associated with visitor use of the National Seashore. Several members said they had devoted too much of their time to the process for it to be abandoned.” Four members suggested that the Park Service abandon the committee process. The report says that members gave these reasons for continuing the Reg Neg process: • It gives NPS the opportunity to learn from the committee. • It is a voice for local stakeholders. • There are some areas where consensus can be reached. • Traditional NEPA public comment processes are merely “exercises in paperwork.” • The committee started to make more progress in the last two meetings. • Whatever NPS can glean from the process is better than nothing. • If the process were abandoned, people would lose faith in the overall plan and NPS in general. • Members have devoted too much of their time and effort to abandon the process now. • It is a way for NPS to learn about how the public uses this park. While NPS has a broad understanding of the park, it does not have a nuanced understanding of how the various interests are impacted by its decisions. The report also addresses reasons why the four members did not want to continue. “Two members said they did not believe there was enough time for the committee to accomplish its objectives. Two other members said that with such little progress it is too much to ask members to give up time at their jobs to participate in the process. Another member said he did not think it was appropriate to negotiate without a proper foundation of information.” The report also covers the members’ views on the progress of the committee (or lack thereof), whether the committee should change its role, and how the facilitators, the Park Service, and the members can make the committee more effective. FOR MORE INFORMATION To view the entire text of the assessment survey, click here |
|
  |
|
|
|