57 



grazing on the allotment. As a result, all interested public appeals, including CCA's, were 

 dismissed. The appeals officer in this case (the Forest Supervisor) was also the individual 

 responsible tor the decision which generated the appeals. The permittees' appeal was 

 forwarded to the R5 level, where the Forest's decision was upheld with the directive that 

 the Forest worl< more closely with the permittees in implementing the new decision than 

 it had in the past. 



These two examples highlight a number of problems with the current appeals 

 process. First, successful appeals require vast financial and lime resources on the part of 

 appellants. FS regulations have become so cumbersome that legal counsel is often required. 

 Furthermore, CCA believes that it is inherently wrong for the individual official who is 

 responsible for a decision to also be responsible for ascertaining the relevance of appeals 

 of that decision. We feel that this policy infringes upon the right of grazing permittees and 

 other appellants to due process. Congress does not decide if the laws it passes are 

 constitutional; the Supreme Court and the rest of the judicial branch of our government 

 performs this role. Finally, while we applaud new efforts to resolve appeals informally, 

 these efforts appear to be too little, too late. Efforts to involve all interested parries in broad 

 scale planning efforts under NEPA should take place up front, not after a decision has been 

 rendered. Furthermore, informal disposition hearings that do not involve all appellants are 

 a waste of time. 

 ludicial Proceedings involving the Forest Service; 



In 1994, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, representing a coalition of preservation 

 groups, filed suit against the Sierra National Forest for failure to complete NEPA 



l:\lECiSLAT\USFSAPPI. TST 



