RESOURCES COMMITTEE BACKGROUND MEMO

...GAO ANALYSIS. At the request of Congressman Scott McInnis, and Senators Larry Craig and Gordon Smith, the General Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a comprehensive report, entitled Information on Forest Service Decisions Involving Fuels Reduction Activities, providing a quantitative assessment of the impact of Forest Service appeals on forest management activities. The analysis was requested in order to gain a stronger understanding about the extent of the impact of administrative appeals on efforts to reduce the breadth and destructive incidence of catastrophic wildfire and massive pest and pathogen outbreaks. The report quantifies the number of administrative appeals filed against Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction projects, and provides other important details about the outcome of those appeals, the nature of the projects that were appealed, and the identity of organizations that most often file administrative appeals against forest healthy projects. The GAO analyzed the number of hazardous fuels reduction projects that were appealed and/or litigated during FY 2001 and FY 2002.

KEY FINDINGS.

1. 59% of Thinning Projects Appealed. In FY 2001 and FY 2002, opponents of forest thinning appealed 59% of all hazardous fuels reduction projects eligible for appeal under the Forest Service’s appeals statute. Of the 305 projects eligible for administrative appeal, 180 projects were challenged. Together, these projects covered nearly 1 million acres of at risk federal forestland. Each was delayed for at least 120 days, and sometimes months more. This 120-day delay is in addition to the years-long environmental analysis process that proceeds the appeals phase.

Environmental groups that loudly oppose legislative attempts at bringing the Forest Service’s appeals process more in line with that of the Bureau of Land Management have repeatedly downplayed the number of administrative appeals filed against forest management projects. With nearly 1 million acres worth of hazardous fuels reduction projects tied up in appeals during this two-year period, the GAO analysis crystallizes the fact that administrative appeals constitute a significant impediment to getting a handle on America ’s forest health and wildfire crisis.

2. Community Protection Projects Targeted by Greens. Even thinning projects proposed near communities are appealed more often than not. 52% of thinning projects proposed near communities in the so-called Wildland Urban Interface (84 of 163) were appealed during this 2-year period.

Environmental groups commonly argue that if the Forest Service would focus thinning projects on treating forestlands near communities, there would be less conflict and fewer administrative appeals. The GAO’s finding about the large number of administrative appeals filed against projects focused on protecting communities from the horrors of catastrophic wildfire casts the credibility of that assertion into plain doubt. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of environmental organizations as a whole show a pattern of obstruction, even towards projects focused on protecting homes and communities.

3. Environmental Appeals OVERWHELMINGLY Without Merit. Of the 180 wildfire mitigation projects appealed during the studied period, the reviewing officer “reversed” the decisions of a subordinate officer on only 19 occasions (10%).

This finding affirms the suspicion of many – namely, that administrative appeals are often frivolous objections by organizations with a philosophical bent against active forest management. Unfortunately, when the threat of wildfire is imminent or a large-scale insect outbreak is underway, a months-long delay during the consideration of an administrative appeal is just as damaging to the Forest Service as a defeat on the merits.

4. Environmental Groups are Chief Appellants of Forest Thinning. The overwhelming majority of administrative appeals analyzed by the GAO were filed by environmental advocacy organizations. Nationally, there were ONLY 7 organizations that filed more than 20 administrative appeals in this two year period: the Alliance for Wild Rockies, Ecology Center , Forest Conservation Council, Lands Council, National Forest Protection Alliance, Oregon Natural Resources Council, and the Sierra Club. Of the 432 appeals filed against the 180 projects, private individuals filed only 48 appeals, or 11% of the overall total.

5. ‘Analysis Paralysis’. The widespread filing of administrative appeals by environmental organizations has forced the Forest Service into an excessively cautious posture during the analysis and documentation phase preceding the administrative appeals process. The Chief of the Forest Service has dubbed this phenomenon “analysis paralysis.” The GAO’s findings show a clear pattern of the Forest Service taking time-consuming additional steps to “bullet-proof” analysis and documentation in those Regions where the agency has experienced the greatest number of administrative appeals. In Montana and Idaho, for example, where environmental groups and others appealed 90% of all projects eligible for appeal in this two-year span, the Forest Service went to the additional length of completing an Environmental Impact Statement (the most rigorous documentation process) for wildfire mitigation projects nearly 4-times as often as the next closest Region. In the South, by contrast, where 38% of projects eligible for appeal were actually appealed, the Forest Service completed ZERO Environmental Impact Statements on fire-prevention projects during this time-frame.

The threat of administrative appeals has forced the agency to be overly-focused on insulating its analysis and documentation from legal assault. Instead of conducting analysis sufficient to ensure that hazardous fuels reduction projects are implemented in an environmentally sensitive manner, the Forest Service’s environmental analysis increasingly take on the appearance of a legal brief, as the agency seeks to protect its decisions from hostile legal attacks and slick environmental lawyering. With 190 million acres of federal forestland at risk to catastrophic wildfire, this “bullet-proofing” phenomenon helps explain why the federal government treats just over 2 million acres a year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Congressional Research Service