Locking the Back Door: The Implications ofEliminating Postdecisional Appeals inNational Forest Planning

Abstract

The Forest Service's new planning regulation “locks the back door.” It replaces post-decisional appeals of forest plans with a “predecisional objection process” within a framework of collaborative planning. This article examines the agency's rationale for eliminating postdecisional appeals of forest plans, and explores the potential implications of this policy initiative. Viewing appeals as a mechanism of democratic accountability, the analysis examines environmentalists’ use of the appeals process, and the effects of appeals on Forest Service land management and policy. The article concludes with observations about the role of conflict and the legitimacy of appeals as one avenue of democratic participation.

Keywords:

• appeals
• collaborative planning
• democratic accountability
• environmentalists
• Forest Service
• land management planning
• objections
• sustainability

Notes

1 Until November 2000, the appeals process for forest plans was described at 36 CFR Part 217 (Appeal of Regional Guides and National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, Title 36; Code of Federal Regulations, Part 217. 1999 ed.). The planning rule promulgated in 2000 removed Part 217, and revised Part 219 to incorporate the new predecisional objection process for forest plans ( Fed. Reg. 2000).

2 The Forest Service also has an appeals process for appeals of permits and other actions that involve contractual arrangements between the Forest Service and individuals (36 CFR 251) (Floyd 1999).

3 The planning regulation has been in a state of transition for several years. The Department of Agriculture published a major revision to the planning regulation developed during the Clinton Administration, that for the first time eliminated postdecisional appeals and presented a framework for collaborative forest planning ( Fed. Reg. 2000). The Bush Administration reviewed the “implementability” of the 2000 rule and published a revised rule that incorporates many of the features of the 2000 rule, including the emphasis on collaboration and the elimination of post-decisional appeals ( Fed. Reg. 2002). At the time of this writing, the 2002 rule was still pending.

4 In order to avoid cumbersome language, the term appeals is used throughout the article to refer to the postdecisional appeals process, whereas the term objections is used to refer to the new predecisional objection process.

5 Political accountability relationships are derived from external sources based on responsiveness to the expectations of key stakeholders; legal accountability relationships are based on external sources of control such as legislative oversight committees and courts (Radin and Romzek 1996; Romzek 1998).

6 In a telephone interview, the Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Forestry Project described the new time frame as “grossly inadequate and absurd” (N. Lawrence, Director, Forestry Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, interview, 2002).

7 The growing environmental ethic within the Forest Service also has contributed to more ecologically-sensitive land management policies (Brown and Harris 1992a; 1992b; 1993; Thomas and Mohai 1995). And in the past decade, a few prominent scientists such as the forest ecologist and proponent of “New Forestry” Jerry Franklin have become well known for their advocacy of ecologically based, sustainable forest management.

8 Appeals also are dismissed when the parties have informally resolved the contested issues outside of the formal appeal process (Cortner et al. 2003).

9 Representative Scott McInnis (R-CO), who commissioned this GAO study, argued that the report was flawed “because it failed to account for appeals processes that had already been completed” (Smith 2002, 5).

10 Although it was advanced as a necessary measure to improve “forest health,” the timber salvage rider contained a provision that authorized the cutting of healthy old-growth timber (Hoberg 1997).

11 It should be noted that Forest Service policy is supported by a growing body of literature that provides compelling reasons for pursuing collaborative approaches in environmental and natural resource management (Bernard and Young 1997; Brick et al. 2001; Brunner et al. 2002; Daniels and Walker 1996; John 1994; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).