18 



Mr. Unger. The number of appeals in 1995 was approximately 

 1,000, which was about half the number that had been filed in fis- 

 cal year 1994. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you. Well, the length of time for ap- 

 peals has been reduced? 



Mr. Unger. Yes. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. I am very pleased about that, and I applaud 

 your efforts in that. However, what really concerns me is the 

 project and activity appeals process found in 36 CFR 215, which is 

 currently implemented. And it appears that anyone can appeal for 

 just about any reason. In my mind, that is totally wasteful. I think 

 probably you might agree too. 



But right now, any interested person can appeal, and this is 

 what really concerns me, the definition of interested person. There 

 is no definition. I want to ask you two questions. What is the For- 

 est Service's definition of who is an interested person, and would 

 the Forest Service be willing to work with this committee in bring- 

 ing about a congressional definition of what an interested person 

 is? 



Mr. Unger. As I was saying to the Chairman earlier, we would 

 definitely be happy to work with the committee and staff on wheth- 

 er there can be a more adequate definition of that provided. I did 

 read from the law itself their defirjition of persons who are eligible 

 to appeal, and it is broad. 



A person who is involved in the public comment process through 

 submission of written or oral comments or by otherwise notifying 

 the Forest Service of their interest in the proposed action. So that 

 is a broad definition. Now, let me ask Ms. Yahn-Shepherd toward 

 the section of the regulations where we define that further. It is 

 roughly the same. Would you like to read that to 



Mr. Hansen. While you are looking for it now, would the 

 gentlelady yield? 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Hansen. I think the answer you received regarding one per- 

 cent outside of the area is technically correct. However, a lot of 

 these people move into an area from another area, establish them- 

 selves, and they are the ones who appeal. 



To give you an example, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

 has been most of the appeals on the Dixie. They don't come from 

 Utah. They have established themselves in that area but have re- 

 cently moved into the area to do it. As I have talked to forest su- 

 pervisors, that is what they are finding. So, yes, the answer is tech- 

 nically correct, one percent, but, no, they are not natives of the 

 area if I may respectfully correct that. 



Mrs. Chenoweth. While the research is going on, I do want to 

 say that I happen to have taken a great deal of interest in the life 

 and times and writings and thoughts of Gifford Pinchot. And even 

 from the time he was Governor of Pennsylvania — and, you know, 

 it is interesting, but Gifford Pinchot stated that we should never 

 let the working forests, the national forests — not the national for- 

 ests, but the national forests be used for just one use. 



Mr. Unger. Be used what? 



Mrs. Chenoweth. Just for a single use because it would amount 

 to no use. And, you know, as we look at the vision of Gifford Pin- 



