Locking the back door: The implications ofeliminating postdecisional appeals innational forest planning

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 235-245

  Manring, Nancy J ^a  

^a Political Science Department   (United States)

Author keywords

Appeals; Collaborative planning; Democratic accountability; Environmentalists; Forest service; Land management planning; Objections; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; LAND MANAGEMENT; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1642315711     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920490270285     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ackerman, S. 1990. Observations on the transformation of the forest service: The effects of the National Environmental Policy Act on U.S. Forest Service decision making. Environ. Law 20(2):703-734
2. Baldwin, P. 1997. Federal land management: Appeals and litigation. CRS Report for Congress (97-274)
3. Baldwin, P., and R. W. Gorte. 1992. Administrative appeals of forest service timber sales. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress
4. Bernard, T. and J. Young. 1997. The ecology of hope: Communities collaborate for sustainability. Gabriola Island, B. C.: New Society of Publishers
5. Blahna, D. J., and S. Yonts-Shepard. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning: Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Nat. Resources 2:209-227
6. Bolduan, L. M. 1990. The Hatfield riders: Eliminating the role of the courts in environmental decision making. Environ. Law 20(1):329-385
7. Brick, P., D. Snow, and S. Van De Wetering. 2001. Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West. Washington, DC: Island Press
8. Brown, G., and C. Harris. 1992a. The United States Forest Service: Changing of the guard. Nat. Resources J. 32(3):449-466
9. Brown, G., and C. Harris. 1992b. The U.S. Forest Service: Toward the new resource management paradigm. Society Nat. Resources 5:231-245
10. Brown, G., and C. Harris. 1993. The implications of work force diversification in the U.S. Forest Service. Admini. Society 25(1):85-113
11. Brunner, R. D., C. H. Colburn, C. M. Cromley., R. A. Klein., and E. A. Olson. 2002. Finding common ground: Governance and natural resources in the American West. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
12. Cortner, H. J., and M. A. Shannon. 1993. Embedding public participation in its political context. J. For. 91(7):14-16
13. Cortner, H. J., G. M. R. Teich, and J. Vaughn. 2003. Analyzing USDA Forest Service appeals: Phase I, the database. Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. March
14. Coser, L. A. 1956. The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press
15. Daniels, S. E., and G. B. Walker. 1996. Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 16:71-102
16. Daniels, S. E., G. B. Walker, J. R. Boeder, and J. E. Means. 1994. Managing ecosystems and social conflict. In Volume 2: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318, February, 337-339
17. Ellison, C. 1991. Dispute resolution and democratic theory. In Systematic analysis in dispute resolution, ed. S. S. Nagel and M. K. Mills, 243-268. New York: Quorum Books
18. Fed. Reg. 1993. Notice, comments, and appeal procedures for national forest system projects and activities; Requesting review of national forest plans and project decisions: Final rule. 58:212
19. Fed. Reg. 1995. National forest system land and resource management planning: Proposed rule. 60:71
20. Fed. Reg. 2000. National forest system land resource management planning: Final rule. 65:218
21. Fed. Reg. 2002. National forest system land and resource management planning: Proposed rules. 67:235
22. Floyd, D. W. 1999. Forest of discord: Options for governing our national forests and federal public lands. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters
23. Forest Watch. 1992. Bush administration moves to eliminate timber sale appeals. May:10-11
24. Germain, R. H., D. W. Floyd, and S. V. Stehman. 2001. Public perceptions of the USDA forest service public participation process. For. Policy Econ. 3:113-124
25. Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conserv. Biol. 8:27-38
26. Gunderson, L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light. 1995. Barriers broken and bridges built: A synthesis. In Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions, ed. L. H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling and S.S. Light, 489-532. New York: Columbia University Press
27. Hoberg, G. 1997. From localism to legalism: The transformation of federal forest policy. In Western public lands and environmental politics, ed. C. Davis, 47-73. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
28. Inner Voice. 1992. An unappealing proposal. May/June: 3
29. John, D. 1994. Civic environmentalism: Alternatives to regulation in states and communities. Washington, DC: CQ Press
30. Jones, E. J., and P. Mohai. 1995. Is the Forest Service keeping up with the times?: Interest group and forestry school perceptions of post-NFMA change in the United States Forest Service. Policy Stud. J. 23(2):351-371
31. Jones, E. J., and C. P. Taylor. 1995. Litigating agency change: The impact of the courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. Policy Stud. J. 23(2):310-336
32. Kessler, W. B., H. Salwasser, C. W. Cartwright, and J. A. Caplan. 1992. New perspectives for sustainable natural resources management. Ecol. Appl. 2(3):221-225
33. Lawrence, R. L., S. E. Daniels, and G. H. Stankey. 1997. Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resource decision making. Society Nat. Resources 10:577-589
34. Malmsheimer, R. W., D. M. Keele, and D. W. Floyd. 2004. National forest litigation in the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Journal of Forestry, 102:20-25
35. Manring, N. J. 1991. Environmental dispute resolution and organizational incentives: An examination of the U.S. Forest Service’s adoption of environmental dispute resolution approaches. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, dissertation
36. Mazmanian, D. A., and M. E. Kraft. 1999. Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
37. Office of Technology Assessment. 1992. Forest service planning: Accommodating uses, producing outputs, and sustaining ecosystems. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States. February
38. Overdevest, C. 2000. Participatory democracy, representative democracy, and the nature of diffuse and concentrated interests: A case study of public involvement on a national forest district. Society Nat. Resources 13:685-696
39. Radin, B. A., and B. S. Romzek. 1996. Accountability expectations in an intergovernmental arena: The National Rural Development Partnership. Publius J. Federal. 26(2):59-81
40. Romzek, B. S. 1998. Where the buck stops: Accountability in reformed public organizations. In Transforming government: Lessons from the reinvention laboratories, ed. P. Ingraham, J. R. Thompson, and R. Sanders, 193-219. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
41. Romzek, B. S., and M. J. Dubnick. 1987. Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Admin. Rev. 47:227-238
42. Schneider, K. 1992. Administration tries to limit rule used to halt logging of national forests. The New York Times, April 28, p. A7
43. Shields, D. J., I. M. Martin, W. E. Martin, and M. A. Haefele. 2001. Results from a survey of the American public’s values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and rangelands. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. March
44. Smith, J. M. 2002. Report says environmentalists delayed fire treatments: Others blame suppression, weather, and drought for causing intense fires. For. Source 7(8):1-5
45. Thomas, J. C., and P. Mohai. 1995. Racial, gender, and professional diversification in the Forest Service from 1983 to 1992. Policy Stud. J. 23(2):296-309
46. Tipple, T. J., and J. D. Wellman. 1991. Herbert Kaufman’s forest ranger thirty years later: From simplicity and homogeneity to complexity and diversity. Public Admin. Rev. 51(5):421-428
47. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Office of Information. 1988. Forest Service proposes changes in appeals process. NEWS 13 May:626-688)
48. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Sustaining the people’s lands: Recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands into the next century. Committee of Scientists, 15 March. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
49. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Usefulness of forest plans. Critique of land management planning (vol. 8). Washington, DC
50. USDA Forest Service. 2002. The process predicament: How statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect national forest management. Washington, DC, June
51. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1989. Information on the forest service appeals system. Briefing Report to the Honorable Max Baucus, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. February
52. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1997. The results act: Observations on the forest service’s may 1997 draft plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO/T-RCED-97-223
53. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2001. Forest Service: Appeals and litigation of fuel reduction projects. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. GAO-01-1114R
54. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2003. Information on Forest Service decisions involving fuels reduction activities. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. GAO-03-689R
55. Wilson, J. Q. 1980. The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books
56. Wondolleck, J. M. 1988. Public lands conflict and resolution: Managing national forest disputes. New York: Plenum
57. Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press