Project risk and appeals in U.S. Forest Service planning

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

Volumn 42, Issue , 2013, Pages 95-104

  Stern, Marc J ^a   Predmore, S Andrew ^b   Morse, Wayde C ^c   Seesholtz, David N ^d  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT SPRINGFIELD   (United States)

^c AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Appeals; National Environmental Policy Act; Project risk; Public involvement; Teams; U.S. Forest Service

Indexed keywords

APPEALS; NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT; PROJECT RISK; PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT; TEAMS; U.S. FOREST SERVICE;

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT;

FORESTRY;

CULTIVATION; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; RISK FACTOR;

DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING; RISK ASSESSMENT;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84878410572     PISSN: 01959255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Amason A.C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad Manage J 1996, 39:123-148.
2. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986, 51(6):1173-1182.
3. Coulombe M.J. Exercising the right to object: a brief history of the Forest Service appeals process. J For 2004, 102(2):10-13.
4. Creighton J.L. The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement 2005, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
5. Datta S., Mukherjee S. Developing a risk management matrix for effective project planning - an empirical study. Proj Manag J 2001, 32(2):45-57.
6. Devellis R.F. Scale development: theory and applications 2003, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
7. Dey P.K. Decision support system for risk management: a case study. Manag Decis 2001, 39(8):634-649.
8. Dietz T., Stern P. Panel on public participation in environmental assessment and decision-making 2008, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
9. Fisher B.A., Ellis D.G. Small group decision making: communications and the group process 1990, McGraw Hill, New York. 3rd ed.
10. Freeman J., Stern M.J., Mortimer M., Blahna D.J., Cerveny L. Collaboration and leadership in interdisciplinary planning teams in the U.S. Forest Service. J Environ Plann Manag 2011, 54(5):597-615.
11. Gay L.R. Educational evaluation and measurement: competencies for analysis and application 1991, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.
12. Germain R.H., Floyd D.W., Stehman S.V. Public perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public participation process. For Policy Econ 2001, 3(3-4):113-124.
13. Hillson D. Using a risk breakdown structure in project management. J Facil Manag 2003, 2(1):85-97.
14. Innes J.E., Booher D.E. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plann Theory Pract 2004, 5(4):419-436.
15. Jafari M., Rezaeenour J., Mazdeh M.M., Hooshmandi A. Development and evaluation of a knowledge risk management model for project-based organizations. Manage Decis 2011, 49(3):309-329.
16. Jones E.S., Taylor C.P. Litigating agency change: the impact of the courts and administrative appeals process on the Forest Service. Policy Stud J 1995, 23(2):310-336.
17. Koontz T.M. Administrators and citizens: measuring agency officials' efforts to foster and use public input in forest policy. J Public Adm Res Theory 1999, 9(2):251-280.
18. Laband D.N., Gonzalez-Caban A., Hussain A. Factors that influence administrative appeals of proposed USDA Forest Service fuels reduction actions. For Sci 2006, 52(5):477-488.
19. Leach W.D. Public involvement in USDA Forest Service policymaking: a literature review. J For 2006, 104(1):43-49.
20. Lewicki R.J., Gray B., Elliot M. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts 2002, Island Press, Washington, DC.
21. MacGregor D.G., Seesholtz D.N. Factors influencing line officers' decisions about National Environmental Policy Act project design and development. USDA Forest Service general technical report PNW-GTR-766 2008, USDA, Portland, OR.
22. Martin CA. Risk management in United States Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act planning processes. Master's thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2012.
23. McCool S.F., Guthrie K. Mapping the social dimensions of successful public participation in messy natural resources management situations. Soc Nat Resour 2001, 14(4):309-323.
24. Mortimer M.J., Stern M.J., Malmsheimer R.W., Blahna D.J., Cerveny L.K., Seesholtz D.N. Environmental and social risks: defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service. J For 2011, 109(1):27-33.
25. Moynihan T. How experienced project managers assess risk. IEEE Softw 1997, 14(3):35-41.
26. Pearce C.L., Sims H.P. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dyn-Theory Res 2002, 6(2):172-197.
27. Perminova O., Gustafsson M., Wikstrom K. Defining uncertainty in projects - a new perspective. Int J Proj Manag 2008, 26:73-79.
28. Predmore S.A., Stern M.J., Mortimer M.J. Constructing the public: the substantive sieve and personal norms in U.S. Forest Service planning. J Environ Plann Manag 2011, 54(3):403-419.
29. Predmore S.A., Stern M.J., Mortimer M.J., Seesholtz D. Perceptions of legally mandated public involvement processes in the U.S. Forest Service. Soc Nat Resour 2011, 24(12):1286-1303.
30. Pritchard C.L. Risk management: concepts and guidelines 1999, ESI International, Arlington, VA.
31. Project Management Institute A guide to the project management body of knowledge 2004, Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania. 3rd ed.
32. Rafferty A.E., Griffin M.A. Refining individualized consideration: distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. J Occup Organ Psychol 2006, 79(1):37-61.
33. Reed A., Knight L. Project risk differences between virtual and co-located teams. J Comput Inf Syst 2010, 51(1):19-30.
34. Royer P. Risk management: the undiscovered dimension of project management. Proj Manag J 2000, 31(1):6-13.
35. Sarin S., O'Connor G.C. First among equals: the effect of team leader characteristics on the internal dynamics of cross-functional product development teams. J Prod Innov Manag 2009, 26(2):188-205.
36. Selin S., Chavez D. Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environ Manage 1995, 19(2):189-195.
37. Simons T.L., Peterson R.S. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. J Appl Psychol 2000, 85(1):102-111.
38. Smiley S., De Loe R., Kreutzwiser R. Appropriate public involvement in local environmental governance: a framework and case study. Soc Nat Resour 2010, 23(11):1043-1059.
39. Stern M.J., Mortimer M.J. Exploring NEPA processes across federal land management agencies. USDA Forest Service general technical report PNW-GTR-799 2009, USDA, Portland, OR.
40. Stern M.J., Predmore S.A. Decision making, procedural compliance, and outcomes definition in U.S. Forest Service planning processes. Environ Impact Asses Rev 2011, 31(3):271-278.
41. Stern M.J., Predmore S.A. The importance of team functioning to natural resource planning outcomes. J Environ Manage 2012, 106:30-39.
42. Stern M.J., Blahna D.J., Cerveny L.K., Mortimer M.J. Visions of success and achievement in recreation-related USDA Forest Service NEPA processes. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2009, 29(4):220-228.
43. Stern M.J., Predmore S.A., Mortimer M.J., Seesholtz D.N. The meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service. J Environ Manage 2010, 91(6):1371-1379.
44. Stern M.J., Predmore S.A., Mortimer M.J., Seesholtz D.N. From the office to the field: areas of tension and consensus in implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service. J Environ Manage 2010, 91(6):1350-1356.
45. Teich G.M.R., Vaughn J., Cortner H.J. National trends in the use of Forest Service administrative appeals. J For 2004, 102(2):14-19.
46. Tesch D., Kloppenborg T., Frolick M. IT project risk factors: the project management professional's perspective. J Comput Inf Syst 2007, 47(4):61-69.
47. USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Environmental Appeal Responses [Accessed June 4, 2012]. http://www.fs.fed.us/appeals/index.php.
48. USDA Forest Service The process predicament: how statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect national forest management 2002, USDA, Washington, DC.
49. Walters L.C., Aydelotte J., Miller J. Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Adm Rev 2000, 60(4):349-359.
50. Ward S. Requirements for an effective project risk management process. Proj Manag J 1999, 30(3):37-43.
51. Waugh W.L., Streib G. Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Adm Rev 2006, 66:131-140.
52. Wondolleck J.M., Yaffee S.L. Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management 2000, Island Press, Washington, DC.