Policy analysis and national forest appeal reform

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 102, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 26-33

  Mortimer, Michael J ^a   Scardina, Anthony V ^a   Jenkins, Dylan H ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

Author keywords

Forest health; Forest Service; Law; Wildfire

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FIRES; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; PUBLIC POLICY;

NATIONAL FORESTS; WILD FIRES;

FORESTRY;

FIRE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY POLICY; LEGISLATION; POLICY ANALYSIS; REFORM PROCESS;

EID: 1642330072     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. BLAHNA, D.J., and S. YONTS-SHEPARD. 1989. Public involvement in resource planning: Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resource, 2(3):209-27.
2. BOBERTZ, B.C., and R.L. FISCHMAN. 1993. Administrative appeal reform: The case of the Forest Service. University of Colorado Law Review 64:371-455.
3. CLAWSON, M. 1975. Forest for whom and for what? Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future.
4. CORTNER, H.J., G.M.R. TEICH, and J. VAUGHN. 2003. Analyzing USDA Forest Service appeals: Phase I, the database. Flagstaff: Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University.
5. FEDKIW, J. 1998. Managing multiple uses on national forests, 1905-1995: A 90-year learning experience and it isn't finisbed yet. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
6. FLOYD, D.W., Ed. 1999. Forest of discord: Options for governing our national forests and federal public lands. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.
7. GERICKE, K.L., and J. SULLIVAN. 1994. Public participation and appeals of Forest Service plans: An empirical examination. Society and Natural Resources 7(2):125-35.
8. GERMAINE, R.H., D.W. FLOYD, and S.V. STEHMAN. 2001. Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. Forest Policy and Economics 3(3-4):113-24.
9. GREENWATCH. 2003. Non-profit and grantmakers organizations. CRC Searchlight Database. Available online at www.greenwatch.org/search/search.asp; accessed by author July 22.
10. JONES, E.S., AND C.P. TAYLOR. 1995. Litigating agency change: The impact of courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. Policy Studies Journal 23(2):310-36.
11. KAGAN, R.A. 2001. Adversarial legalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. LOOSE, A.A. 1989. Forest plan appeal decisions: Guides to the future of the US Forest Service. Western Wildlands 15(4):2-6.
13. MORTIMER, M.J. 2002. The delegation of law-making authority to the United States Forest Service: Implications in the struggle for national forest management. Administrative Law Review 54(3):907-82.
14. O'LAUGHLIN, J. 2003. Policy analysis framework for sustainable forestry: National forest case study. Number 978. Moscow: College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, University of Idaho.
15. SCHAEFER, D. 1992. Foley acts to save timber-cut appeals. Seattle Times, June 24, p. B5.
16. STANKEY, G.H., B.T. BORMANN, C. RYAN, B. SHINDLER, V. STURTEVANT, R.N. CLARK, and C. PHILPOT. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry 101(1): 40-46.
17. SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES. 1991. Effect the appeal of forest plans and timber supply sales may have on timber supply and the Forest Service's ability to meet its mandate of multiple use and sustained yield: Hearing before the 102nd Congress, 1st Sess. (testimony of Dale Robertson, Chief, USDA Forest Service).
18. THOMAS, J.W. 2000. What now? From a former chief of the Forest Service. In A vision for the US Forest Service: Goals for the next century, ed. R.A. Sedjo. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
19. TIPPLE, T.J., and J.D. WELLMAN. 1989. Life in the fish-bowl: Public participation rewrites public foresters' job descriptions. Journal of Forestry, 87(3):24-30.
20. US GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO). 2001. Forest Service: Appeal and litigation of fuel reduction projects. GAO-01-1114R. Washington, DC, August 31.
21. US GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO). 2003. Information on Forest Service decisions involving fuels reduction activities. GAO-03-689R. Washington, DC, May 14.
22. US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES. 2003. Radical environmental appeals add fuel to forest fires: GAO study finds that environmental groups block projects focused on protecting homes and families from the horror of wildfire. Committee, electronic release, May 12.
23. WORRELL, A.C. 1970. Principles of forest policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.