Now, moving on to the forest planning and the permit processes 

 under Section 217 and Section 251, the appeals on forest plans 

 have created a very, very substantial workload and have resulted 

 in a backlog of appeals as these plans were developed and amended 

 over the past many years. 



It is not surprising that there has been this kind of response to 

 the forest plans because they are complex and broad documents, 

 very important to the overall management of the forest and grass- 

 lands. And at the end of last year, we had 115 of those appeals still 

 pending, some of them that had been pending for some years. 



As of June 10, we had reduced that number of pending appeals 

 to 15. Today, I am informed by Mr. Sagovia that it is 12 through 

 a very strong effort on the part of our planning staff to bring folks 

 in from the field and help us in reducing that backlog. And we ex- 

 pect to see further reductions by year's end. So although that is 

 very difficult and complex, we have been able to draw the backlog 

 down to a reasonable number. 



The appeals of permits and authorizations under Section 251 are 

 different than both the project appeals and forest plan appeals be- 

 cause they relate to our decisions on permits and authorizations, 

 and so the appellants to the appeal process are limited to the par- 

 ties who are directly involved and affected by the decision on ap- 

 peal. Everything that we see indicates that that appeals process is 

 working in a reasonably effective and expeditious manner. 



But there are some changes that we will be proposing to that 

 process. One substantial one is in response to a new law by the 

 Congress having to do with mediation of livestock grazing disputes 

 on National Forest System lands. And we need to find a way to in- 

 corporate that requirement into the process, and we have some 

 other proposals for streamlining the process that we want to bring 

 forward in a couple of months. 



I would just like to close by saying that in my testimony in the 

 Senate last year we felt that the changes that the Congress had 

 put forth in the project level appeals process were being realized 

 at that time. We think that this process is working with good re- 

 sults, and after the 15 months that we have now, we have no rea- 

 son to change our assessment of that process. Thank you. 



[Statement of Mr. Unger may be found at end of hearing.] 



Mr. Hansen. Thank you very much, Mr. Unger. The gentleman 

 from Colorado. 



Mr. Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some questions 

 that are rather specific to my State of Colorado, and if you can't 

 answer them specifically, well, maybe you can get something in the 

 written record back to the committee. But I am interested in your 

 perception of the appeal process and what you actually — maybe 

 more accurately — are experiencing is happening in Colorado. 



My perception on the appeals process in Colorado is not so much 

 that we are trying to resolve individual problems, but it is individ- 

 uals or groups who are coming in to try and change mandates or 

 Federal law that has come out of the Congress and that somehow 

 or other they are going to try to use that appeals process to change 

 them. Do you feel that that is happening in the State of Colorado? 

 And if it is or if it isn't, is that happening in other States? 



