52 



When this was presented back to the judge in Georgia, she said 

 she didn't care. She didn't want the Hfe of one bird lost. So she is- 

 sued her restraining order. This is Htigation, and in response to 

 something that Mr. Vento had said eariier, I agree. I think the ap- 

 peals process for project level decisions has been improved and is 

 probably more efficient. And I think that the environmental com- 

 munity would come to the same conclusion. 



And so in Region 8, where I am from, at the time when we have 

 seen a reduction in administrative appeals, we have seen a three- 

 time increase in litigation. So basically as the appeals process 

 failed to serve what they were trying to accomplish, they have 

 turned to the courts now to try to do the same thing. 



Mr. Hansen. I couldn't agree more. Mr. Williams, based on your 

 discussion with Forest Service managers, can you estimate to what 

 degree the appeals process has added cost to timber sales? Any way 

 you could take a stab at that? 



Mr. Williams. I don't have any figures in terms of dollars that 

 it has caused. But also in response to that concern and Mr. Vento's 

 earlier concern about, you know, that the appeals are taken care 

 of in a timely fashion from his perspective, and maybe that is true. 

 I think on the average and on the Kootenai, for example, which is 

 a major timber producer in the West, the appeals are resolved one 

 way or another in an average of about 80 days. 



And that seems reasonable except in visiting with the Forest 

 Service personnel on the ground, their concern is more about cost, 

 which is significant, of dealing with those appeals and subsequent 

 court action, but the cost to the consumers, the cost to the industry, 

 and the cost to the American public of the nonproductivity that re- 

 sults during that timeframe. They aren't getting anything else 

 done. 



It is like the Region 1 supervisor is fond of saying, so I think he 

 would be not uncomfortable with me quoting him on this, in his ob- 

 servation, "the Forest Service personnel are spending two-thirds of 

 their time dealing with the fear of litigation and the fear of ap- 

 peals, and only a third of the time getting their job done." And he 

 wants to see that flip-Hopped. 



They should be spending at least two-thirds of their time getting 

 productive work done in the forest and preparing for a lot more 

 work and a lot more management being done by industry in the 

 forest. And I agree. It needs to be flip-flopped. 



That proportion — that two-thirds/one-third does need to be flip- 

 flopped, and I think you would see perhaps not a considerable re- 

 duction in cost of operations, but a huge increase in productivity 

 of our Federal lands for the same amount of money. 



Mr. Hansen. I appreciate that. We notice you have all given us 

 some good suggestions on the appeal process. It is kind of intrigu- 

 ing what Mr. Phelps brought up about NEPA, which I see where 

 you are coming from — a tough decision. I think one of you used the 

 statement NEPA instead of protecting the environment has some- 

 what fouled up the process of getting things done. I guess in my 

 many years on this committee I believe that more every day just 

 in minor things like land swaps and other things — how difficult it 

 becomes. 



