The role of mandatory dispute resolution in federal environmental law: Lessons from the Clean Air Act

Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-45

  Van de Wetering, Sarah B ^a,b,c   McKinney, Matthew ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; NATURAL RESOURCE;

EID: 33947138764     PISSN: 10490280     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (314)

1. For an introduction to this topic, see Society of Professional in Dispute Resolution, Mandated Participation and Settlement Coercion: Dispute Resolution as it Relates to the Courts (1990);
2. and Benjamin Sokoly, Institutoinalization of Court-Annexed ADR: An Examination of Five States' Provisions (unpublished and undated manuscript on file with the authors).
3. In Montana, for example, the Montana Supreme Court adopted Rule 54 in 1996, requiring mediation in worker's compensation cases, specific domestic-relations disputes, and civil cases seeking a money judgment or monetary damages. Mont. R. App. P. 54. During the three-year period from 1997 to 1999, 1820 cases were appealed to the court, and 698 of those cases were referred to mediation under Rule 54. Matthew McKinney & William Harmon, The Western Confluence: A Guide to Governing Natural Resources 162-63 (2004).
4. Of the 698 cases, 169 were settled, for a success rate of about 24 percent; other studies demonstrate a similar degree of success. See id. at 163.
5. In the summer of 2000, wildfires burned more than 300,000 acres in the Bitterroot National Forest, situated along the border of western Montana and Idaho. Id. at 162.
6. To expedite the implementation of a forest-restoration plan, the U.S. Forest Service limited public participation and bypassed its own internal appeals process. Id.
7. In December 2001, Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey approved a plan to remove 176 million board feet of timber from 46,000 acres on the Bitterroot. Id.
8. Shortly after the restoration plan was approved, seven environmental groups, decrying the plan's impact on watersheds and wildlife habitat, filed a lawsuit contesting the Agency's refusal to accept administrative appeals. Id.
9. A U.S. district court judge sided with the plaintiffs, holding that the process violated the public's right to be involved in decision making: "It is presumptuous to believe that the agency's final decision has a perfection about it that would not be illuminated by interested comment, questioning, or requests for justification of propositions asserted in it." Id.
10. (quoting Katharine Q. Seelye, Judge Over-rules Decision Allowing Logging of Burned Trees, N.Y. Times, Jan. 9, 2002, at A14, available at http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/news_01102002_us2.htm).
11. The court granted a temporary injunction against the logging plan to continue until the Forest Service complied with its own established appeals process. Id. at 162.
12. When the Forest Service appealed that decision, the court ordered the Agency to enter into mediation with the Undersecretary and the regional forester present in Missoula. Id.
13. Thereafter, environmental groups and loggers negotiated a new plan with the U.S. Forest Service to salvage 55 million board feet of timber, prohibiting removal of any trees more than twenty-two inches in diameter and protecting 15,000 acres of roadless area. Id.
14. As the timber sale moved forward, the Forest Service filed a motion requesting clarification of the settlement agreement, arguing that the twenty-two-inch size limit applied only to living trees, and that loggers should be allowed to cut 199 dead trees in the larger-size class. Id.
15. In June 2003, a federal judge denied the Agency's request. Id.;
16. see also Sherry Devlin, Ruling Protects Dead Bitterroot Trees, Missoulian, June 28, 2003, available at http://www.missoulian.com/ articles/2003/06/27/news/local/news03.txt.
17. 42 U.S.C. § 7474(e) (2006).
18. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, 91 Stat. 685.
19. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 1-2 (1977), reprinted in 4 Library of Congress, Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, at 2468-69 (1978) [hereinafter Legislative History of 1977].
20. 40 C.F.R. § 52.1382(c) (2006).
21. 40 C.F.R. § 52.2497(b)-(c) (2006).
22. 40 C.F.R. § 52.150(a)-(b) (2006).
23. Joseph Kreye, The Forest County Potawatomi Request Redesignation Under the Clean Air Act, 4 Wis. Envtl. L.J. 87, 87 (1997).
24. Craig N. Oren, The Protection of Parklands from Air Pollution: A Look at Current Policy, 13 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 313, 363 (1989).
25. See Arnold W. Reitze, Jr., Air Pollution Control Law: Compliance and Enforcement 111 (2001).
26. See, e.g., discussion infra Part I.A.2.
27. 42 U.S.C. § 7474(e) (2006).
28. H.R. Res. 733, 95th Cong. (1977), reprinted in 3 Legislative History of 1977, supra note 4, at 326.
29. 42 U.S.C. § 7474(e).
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. See Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,450-02,56,454 (Nov. 1, 1996), for a summary of this portion of the legislative history.
33. Id.
34. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, at 1-2, 146-47 (1977), reprinted in 4 Legislative History of 1977, supra note 4, at 2468-69, 2613-14.
35. H.R. Res. 733, 95th Cong. (1977), reprinted in 3 Legislative History of 1977, supra note 4, at 326.
36. Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. at 56,454 n.2.
37. Timothy J. Sullivan, The Difficulties of Mandatory Negotiation (the Colstrip Power Plant Case), in Resolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes 56,74 (Lawrence Susskind et al. eds., 1983).
38. William H. Gelles, Tribal Regulatory Authority Under the Clean Air Act, 3 Envtl. Law. 373, 377 (1997).
39. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(d)(2)(B) (2006).
40. Id. § 7475(d)(2)(A).
41. Id. § 7475(d)(2)(C)-(D)(i).
42. Id. § 7475(d)(2)(D)(ii).
43. Id. § 7474 (b)(1)(B).
44. Id.
45. Id. § 7474(b)(2).
46. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Program: Permit Review Procedures for Sources That May Adversely Affect Air Quality in Non-Federal Class I Areas, 62 Fed. Reg. 27,158 (May 16, 1997).
47. See id.
48. Id. at 27,162.
49. Id. at 27,165.
50. The Flathead and Fort Peck Reservations in Montana and the Spokane Indian Reservation in Washington. For descriptions of their redesignation processes, see Kreye, supra note 8 at 93-99.
51. See generally Sullivan, supra note 22 (providing a detailed account of the Northern Cheyenne-Colstrip negotiations that this case study summarizes).
52. Id. at 56.
53. Id.
54. Id. at 56-59.
55. An early analysis predicted that the town's population would double with the influx of new workers. See Sullivan, supra note 22, at 57.
56. Id. at 59.
57. See id. at 59-62.
58. See id. at 65.
59. See Conditional Permit to Commence Construction and Operate, The Montana Power Company Colstrip Units #3 and #4, Envtl. Prot. Agency Region VIII, 1 (Sept. 11, 1979) (on file with the authors) [hereinafter Conditional Permit].
60. See Sullivan, supra note 22, at 65-66.
61. Id. at 66.
62. Id.
63. Conditional Permit, supra note 43, at 2.
64. Id.
65. Id.
66. Sullivan, supra note 22, at 67.
67. The EPA was represented by Regional Administrator Roger Williams; the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council was represented by Phil Sunderland, a lawyer from Washington, D.C.; and Montana Power was represented by Jack Peterson, a lawyer from Butte, Montana. Id. at 67.
68. Id. at 66-72.
69. Id. at 74.
70. Id. at 68.
71. Id. at 67.
72. Id.
73. Id. at 67-68.
74. Id. at 68.
75. See id. at 68-69.
76. Id. at 69.
77. Id. at 71.
78. Id.
79. Id. at 72.
80. Id.
81. See id at 67, 71-72.
82. Id.
83. Id. at 73.
84. Id.
85. Id.
86. Id. at 74-77.
87. Id. at 77.
88. See discussion infra Part I.B.4.
89. See case studies in this article.
90. Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,450, 56,452 (Nov. 1, 1996).
91. See id.
92. Id.
93. Id.
94. See Arizona v. EPA, 151 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 1998).
95. Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. at 56,452.
96. Id.
97. Id.
98. Id.
99. Id.
100. Id.
101. Id.
102. Id.
103. Id. at 56,452-53.
104. Id.
105. Id.
106. Id.
107. Id.
108. Id.
109. Id. at 56,453-54.
110. Id. at 56,454.
111. Id.
112. 40 C.F.R. § 52.150 (2006).
113. Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. at 56,454-55.
114. Id. at 56,454.
115. Id. at 56,455.
116. James M. Grijalva, Where Are the Tribal Water Quality Standards and TMDLs? 18 Nat. Resources & Env't 63, 64 (Fall, 2003).
117. Arizona v. EPA, 151 F.3d 1205, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998).
118. Id.
119. Telephone interview with Doug McDaniel, Tribal Air Program Coordinator, EPA Region 9 (April 28, 2004).
120. See Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,450, 56,453 (Nov. 1, 1996).
121. See id. at 56,450.
122. See id. at 56,453.
123. See id.
124. Kreye, supra note 8, at 100.
125. Notice of Class III Gaming Compact Taking Effect, 71 Fed. Reg. 5068 (Jan. 31, 2006).
126. Kreye, supra note 8, at 105.
127. Redesignation of the Forest County Potawatomi Community to a PSD Class I Area, 60 Fed. Reg. 33,779-02, 33,780 (June 29, 1995).
128. Id.
129. Id.
130. Id.
131. Kreye, supra note 8, at 103.
132. Id.
133. Id. at 87.
134. Arizona v. EPA, 151 F.3d 1205, 1207 (9th Cir. 1998).
135. Kreye, supra note 8, at 103.
136. See also Ryan Tracey-Mooney, Tribal Environmental Regulation: Assertions of Sovereignty and Political Responses: A Case Study of the Forest County Potawatomi Airshed Redesignation Proposal 25 (May 2000) (unpublished Honors B.A. thesis, University of Chicago), available at http://environment.uchicago.edu/studies/thesis/papers/ryan.pdf.
137. Telephone Interview by Maureen Hartmann with Martin Burkholder, Tribal Specialist, Wisc. Dep't of Natural Res., Div. of Air & Water (July 14, 2003).
138. Tracey-Mooney, supra note 119, at 25.
139. Id.
140. Martin Burkholder, supra note 120.
141. Tracey-Mooney, supra note 119, at 49 (providing a reference list which indicates the date this agreement was signed).
142. For a detailed summary of the agreement provisions, see id. at 26-30.
143. Id. at 29.
144. Id. at 26, 29.
145. Id. at 28.
146. Id. at 28-29.
147. Id. at 29-30.
148. Agreement Concerning Northern Cheyenne-Roundup PSD Permit, Northern Cheyenne Indian Tribe, Mont. Dep't of Envtl. Quality & Envtl. Prot. Agency (Feb. 13, 2004 (State of Montana), Feb. 27, 2004 (EPA), Apr. 22, 2004 (Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council)) (on file with the authors) [hereinafter Final Agreement].
149. See supra text accompanying notes 36-43.
150. Final Agreement, supra note 130, at 1.
151. PPL Corporation, PP&L Global and Montana Power Company Finalize PP&L's Acquisition of Generation Assets in Montana, Dec. 17, 1999, http://www.pplweb.com/newsroom/newsroom+quick+links/archived-ews/1999/ December/12_17_1999_1.htm.
152. Final Agreement, supra note 130, at 1.
153. Id.
154. Id. at 1-2.
155. Id. at 2-3.
156. Id. at 3.
157. Id.
158. Id.
159. Id.
160. Jennifer McKee, Suit Targets Permits for Power Plant, Billings Gazette, June 12, 2003, available at http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2003/ 06/12/local/export109906.txt at B1.
161. Direct observation by the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
162. Letter from Richard R. Long, Director, EPA Air and Radiation Program, to Steven T. Wade, Attorney, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry & Hoven (May 29, 2003) (on file with the authors).
163. The objective of a conflict assessment, sometimes referred to as "situation assessment," is to develop a common understanding of the problem's substance, the needs and interests of the parties, and the risks associated with different procedures for resolving the issues. See Lawrence Susskind & Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, Conducting a Conflict Assessment, in The Consensus Building Handbook 101, 104 (Lawrence Susskind et al. eds., 1999);
164. see also McKinney & Harmon, supra note 1, at 261. A situation assessment does not limit other dispute-resolution or agreement-building processes from moving forward.
165. See id. at 261. In this case, the Public Policy Research Institute reviewed appropriate documents and interviewed people representing different viewpoints. Matthew McKinney, Summary of Conflict Assessment on Regional Air Quality, Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation 1 (July 2, 2003) (on file with the authors). Based on this information, the Public Policy Research Institute prepared a short report summarizing the various parties' interests and concerns and their options for a negotiation process.
166. Id. The report was distributed to all of the interviewees for review and comment, and served as a "convening" report for the first meeting. Based on the convening report and the first meeting, the participants jointly designed a negotiation process - consistent with their joint understanding of section 164(e) - to meet their specific needs and interests.
167. Id.
168. Final Agreement, supra note 130, at 3.
169. Clean Air Act 164(e) Negotiation, Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Suggested Work Plan and Ground Rules (Draft of July 10, 2003) (on file with the authors) [hereinafter Negotiation Work Plan].
170. Id. at 1.
171. Direct observation by the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
172. For illustrations of the various ways in which these processes unfold, see the case studies of multiparty negotiations in The Concensus Building Handbook, supra note 145, at 685-1050.
173. Direct observation by the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
174. Id.
175. Id.
176. Id.
177. Id.
178. Based on personal knowledge of the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
179. Final Agreement, supra note 130, at 17.
180. Id. at 7-9.
181. Id. at 10-11.
182. Confidential information on file with the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
183. Id.
184. Id.
185. Id.
186. Id.
187. For a recent review of the degree to which negotiation and collaboration are being integrated into natural-resource decision-making, see generally McKinney & Harmon, supra note 1.
188. 42 U.S.C. § 7474(e) (2006).
189. See Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pct.) 1, 17-18 (1831).
190. Sullivan, supra note 22, at 66-67.
191. Id. at 67.
192. See Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,450, 56,453 (Nov. 1, 1996).
193. Id.
194. Id.
195. W.L. Ury et al., Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict 66-57 (1988).
196. Id.
197. See also Ann L. MacNaughton & Jay G. Martin, Environmental Dispute Resolution: An Anthology of Practical Solutions 49-51 (2002) (discussing the application of "med-arb" to environmental disputes).
198. Arizona Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,461, 56,468-69 (Nov. 1, 1996) (codified at 40 C.F.R. § 52.150).
199. See supra text accompanying notes 119 and 143.
200. Id.
201. Id.
202. 42 U.S.C. § 7474(e) (2006).
203. Sullivan, supra note 22, at 66-72.
204. Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. at 56,454.
205. See supra text accompanying notes 122, 146-156.
206. See Negotiation Work Plan, supra note 147, at 1.
207. Direct observation of the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
208. Lawrence Susskind, An Alternative to Robert's Rules of Order for Groups, Organization, and Ad Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate By Consensus, in The Consensus Building Handbook, supra note 145, at 3-57.
209. Sullivan, supra note 22, at 67.
210. Based on personal knowledge of the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
211. Arizona v. EPA, 151 F.3d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1998).
212. Negotiation Work Plan, supra note 147, at 3.
213. We define a "stakeholder" as any person or organization interested in or affected by an issue, any decision-making body or institution needed to implement the outcome of a dispute-resolution process, or any person or organization that may challenge the process and/or its outcomes.
214. Negotiation Work Plan, supra note 147, at 1-2.
215. For specific strategies on getting the right people to the table, see Susskind, supra note 185, at 38-39.
216. 42 U.S.C. § 7474(e) (2006).
217. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) Program: Permit Review Procedures for Sources that May Adversely Affect Air Quality in Non-Federal Class I Areas, 62 Fed. Reg. 27,158, 27,165 (May 16, 1997).
218. See discussion accompanying notes 51-52, 93.
219. Sullivan, supra note 22, at 68-73.
220. Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,450, 56,456 (Nov. 1, 1996).
221. Id. at 56,457.
222. Interview with Marty Burkholder, supra note 120, on May 5, 2004.
223. Tracey-Mooney, supra note 119, at 28-29.
224. Direct observation by the mediator, Matthew McKinney.
225. See Appendix 1 for a review of alternative statutory models to prevent and resolve disputes.
226. See Ury et al., supra note 173, at 171.
227. See id.
228. Id. at 4-8.
229. Id. at 11-19.
230. Id. at 12-13.
231. Id. at 15.
232. Id.
233. Id. at 42.
234. For good examples of how to do this, see International Association for Public Participation, Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation, http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=4 (last visited August 21, 2006),
235. and USFS Committee of Scientists, Sustaining the People's Lands: Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century, 83-144 (1999), available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ emc/nfma/includes/cosreport/Committee%20of%20Scientists%20Report.htm.
236. For detailed insight into the role and value of public participation, see McKinney & Harmon, supra note 1;
237. Thomas C. Beierle & Jerry Cayford, Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions (2002);
238. and Julia Wondolleck & Steven L. Yaffee, Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management (2000).
239. The Compact provides an institutional framework for managing the interstate river. See McKinney & Harmon, supra note 1, at 243-44.
240. Id. at 244.
241. For example, who will be allowed to initiate the process and under what circumstances? Who will participate in the process? Should negotiation sessions be open to the public? What is the status of information and proposals exchanged during the dispute-resolution process? What are the fallback procedures if the dispute-resolution process fails? How might mandatory dispute-resolution procedures influence the relative distribution of power?
242. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2006).
243. McKinney & Harmon, supra note 1, at 241-42;
244. See also Matthew Taylor, Patrick Field, Lawrence Susskind, & William Tilleman, Using Mediation in Canadian Environmental Tribunals: Opportunities and Best Practices, 22 Dalhousie L.J., 51, 61-62 (1999).
245. Envtl. Appeals Board, Alta. (CAN.) Dep't of Env't & Ministry of Env't, 2003-04 Envtl. Appeals Board. Ann. Rep. 21;
246. See also McKinney & Harmon, supra note 1, at 242.
247. See, e.g., Gail Bingham, Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience 149-50 (1986);
248. see also Jonathan Brock, Mandated Mediation: A Contradiction in Terms, 14 Vill. Envtl L.J. 57 (1991) (discussing the features of successful institutionalized dispute-resolution systems);
249. Matthew McKinney, Designing a Dispute Resolution System for Water Policy and Management, Negot. J. 153, 160-61 (April 1992).
250. Bingham, supra note 219, at 53.
251. Id.
252. Brock, supra note 219, at 84.
253. For a good start on this body of knowledge, see Alfred Rest, Enhanced Implementation of International Environmental Treaties by Judiciary - Access to Justice in International Environmental Law for Individuals and NGOs: Efficacious Enforcement by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, 1 Macquarie J. Int'l & Compar. Envtl. L. 1 (2004).
254. Robert L. Fischman, Predictions and Prescriptions for the Endangered Species Act, 34 Envtl. L. 451, 456 (2004).
255. 16 U.S.C. § 662(a) (2006).
256. Id. § 662(b).
257. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (2006).
258. Id. § 4332(C)(v).
259. Margaret A. Shannon, Will NEPA be 'An Agenda for the Future' or will it Become 'A Requiem for the Past'?: A Book Review of the National Environmental Policy Act: An Agenda for the Future, 8 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 143, 151 (2000).
260. See infra Table 1, for suggestions on more collaborative approaches to implementing NEPA.
261. U.S. Inst. For Envtl. Conflict Resolution, Environmental Conflict Resolution Advisory Committee Report 46 (2005), available at www.ecr.gov/ necrac/reports.htm.
262. Id. at 9, 26-27.
263. 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (2006).
264. Id. § 1536(b)(3)(A). Such determinations are exceedingly rare: a 1995 study found that only 0.005% of a total of 100,000 consultations yielded jeopardy opinions that halted federal actions.
265. Jeffrey A. Lockwood, The Intent and Implementation of the Endangered Species Act: A Matter of Scale, in Private Property and the Endangered Species Act: Saving Habitats, Protecting Homes 73, 73 (Jason F. Shogren ed., 1998)
266. (citing U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Facts About the Endangered Species Act (1995)).
267. Fischman, supra note 224, at 456.
268. See, e.g., John F. Turner & Jason C. Rylander, The Private Lands Challenge: Integrating Biodiversity Conservation and Private Property, in Private Property and the Endangered Species Act: Saving Habitats, Protecting Homes, supra note 233, at 92-137 (describing, among other examples, a conservation agreement between Plum Creek Timber, and federal and state officials to allow timber harvest in Montana's Swan Valley while enhancing grizzly bear habitat, thus preventing the need for a section 7 consultation).
269. 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1782 (2006).
270. 43 U.S.C. § 1712(c)(9).
271. Id.
272. Id.
273. See id.
274. Jeffrey L. Beyle, A Comparison of the Federal Consistency Doctrine Under FLPMA and the CZMA, 9 Va. Envtl. L.J. 207, 222 (1989).
275. Hope M. Babcock, Dual Regulation, Collaborative Management, or Layered Federalism: Can Cooperative Federalism Models from Other Laws Save Our Public Lands? 3 Hastings W.-Nw.J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 193, 206 (1996).
276. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451-66 (2006).
277. 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(A).
278. See id. § 1456(c)(3)(A).
279. See id.
280. See, e.g., Beyle, supra note 241, at 212.
281. See id.
282. 16 U.S.C. § 1456(h).
283. Id.
284. 15 C.F.R. § 923.54(a) (2006).
285. Id. § 923.54(b).
286. Id. § 923.54(c).
287. Id. § 923.54(d).
288. Id. § 923.54(e).
289. Id. § 923.54(f).
290. 33 U.S.C. § 1377(e)(2006).
291. Id. § 1377(e)(3).
292. This is sometimes referred to as the "Tribes as States" provision. See Redesignation of the Yavapai-Apache Reservation to a PSD Class I Area; Dispute Resolution, 61 Fed. Reg. 56,450, 56,455 (Nov. 1, 1996).
293. See 40 C.F.R. § 131.7 (2006). These are far more detailed provisions than have been adopted to guide implementation of CAA section 164(e).
294. Id. § 131.7(c)(2).
295. Id. § 131.7(d).
296. Id. § 131.7(g)(2).
297. Id. § 131.7(f).
298. For a similar dispute-resolution system, see the Yellowstone River Compact Commission, described in McKinney & Harmon, supra note 1, at 243-44.
299. Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian Reservations, 56 Fed. Reg. 64,876, 64,888 (Dec. 12, 1991) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 131).
300. Denise D. Fort, State and Tribal Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act: A Case Study, 35 Nat. Resources. J. 771, 792 (1995).
301. Id. at 792 n.109.
302. Robin Kundis Craig, Borders and Discharges: Regulation of Tribal Activities Under the Clean Water Act in States with NPDES Program Authority, 16 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 1, 2 (1997-98).
303. See infra Part II.B.
304. Albuquerque v. Browner, 97 F.3d 415, 429 (10th Cir. 1996).
305. Id. at 427.
306. See Pub. L. No. 108-148, 117 Stat. 1887 (2003) (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 6511-6591 (2006)).
307. 16 U.S.C. § 6511(3)(A).
308. 16 U.S.C. § 6514(f).
309. See, e.g., Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-393, § 205 114 Stat. 1607 (2000).
310. The Act established Resource Advisory Committees as the primary means of funding special projects through federal payments to support counties, and required the provision of "early and continuous coordination with appropriate land management agency officials." Id. § 205(b)(3).
311. The Act also required the provision of "frequent opportunities for citizens, organizations, tribes, land management agencies, and other interested parties to participate openly and meaningfully, beginning at the early stages of the project development process." Id. § 205(b)(4).
312. See, e.g., U.S. Forest Service, Forest Service Handbook 2409.19, Renewable Resources Handbook, Chapter 60, Stewardship Contracting § 61.12(a) at 21 (2005), available at http://www.fs.fed.us/ forestmanagement/projects/stewardship/direction/index.shtml.
313. This chapter includes a list of "Principles of Collaboration," which include: (1) identify and involve relevant stakeholders, (2) design a strategy to conduct an open, inclusive, and transparent process, and (3) plan for implementation and evaluation as part of the collaborative effort." Id.
314. For an excellent analysis of both the benefits and limitations of collaboration in addressing public-land conflicts, see Martin Nie, Governing the Tongass: National Forest Conflict and Political Decision Making, 36 Envtl. L. 385, 469-76 (2006).