117 



Due to the irany disparate interests that provide comment throughout the 

 planning proces'i, it is not possible for the Final Plan to provkle 

 everything Cor everyone and the Final Plan may indeed be appealed by any 

 of those publics who perceive that their interests have been slighted. 

 Nonetheless, the rigorous planning process ensures that these publics liave 

 been afforded every reasonable opportunity to pursue their agenda. 



Froject-level decisions are subsequently tailored to fit the nenagement 

 direction outlined in the Forest Plan. The tiered decision-making process 

 is intended to preclude the duplication of effort and the endless debate 

 associated with philosophical differences. Unfortunately, current appea] 

 regulations have allowed such duplication of effort to become the norm on 

 many National Forests'. 



If administrative appeals of project-level decisions were required to 

 address pertinent, site-specific considerations, the use of "canned 

 appeals" and other tactics designed primarily to obstruct resource 

 management could be greatly reduced from current levels. Likewise, the 

 costs and, more importantly, the wasted personnel time associated with 

 responding to these perfunctory appeals could be minimized. 



It is reasonable to suggest that appeals of project-level decisions that 

 raise landscape-level issues should be summarily dismissed if these same 

 issues were addressed during the development of the Forest Plan. I 

 respectfully suggest that only site-specific issues not addressed during 

 the development of the Forest Plan should be legitimate grounds for the 

 appeal of a project-level decision . 



If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact 

 me. Thank you for your time. 



Take ca^e, ^ 



Dan Dessecker 



Forest Wildlife Biologist 



o 



26-518(128) 



