FOREST SERVICE APPEALS PROCESS 



THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1996 



House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Na- 

 tional Parks, Forests and Lands, Committee on 

 Resources, 



Washington, DC. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen 

 (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 



STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTA- 

 TIVE FROM UTAH; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA- 

 TIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 



Mr. Hansen. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Sub- 

 committee on National Parks, Forests and Lands convenes today 

 for our sixth hearing on oversight on national forest management 

 issues. Today, we will review the effectiveness of the U.S. Forest 

 Service's administrative appeal procedures. 



There are now three different procedures for appealing agency 

 land management decisions, and we would like to determine how 

 each of those are working. We are also hoping to learn how much 

 each procedure is costing the taxpayers so that we can better com- 

 pare their effectiveness. 



When Congress got involved in this issue in 1992, we concluded 

 that, too often, appeals were filed by appellants who did not inform 

 the agency of their legitimate concerns before decisions were made. 

 Instead, they waited until after a decision was made before filing 

 an appeal. 



At that time, Congress directed the Forest Service to provide an 

 early notice and comment period for all project decisions and to 

 streamline the procedures for appeal of those decisions. 



After two-and-one-half years under this procedure. Congress 

 should assist the agency in reevaluating the effectiveness of the re- 

 quirements we established. In addition, we need to ask why the 

 Forest Service does not streamline its procedures for appealing for- 

 est plans. Several plan appeals have been pending for over nine 

 years, since 1987, which points to a problem with a process that 

 takes too long to resolve fundamental land management decisions. 



I know the Forest Service has made progress in implementing its 

 project appeal procedures, but I believe the record shows there is 

 still room for procedural improvements. I hope the witnesses, in- 

 cluding the Forest Service, will provide their suggestions, as we all 

 have a stake in making sure that the appeals process is effective. 



(1) 



