Abstract
The U.S. Forest Service’s responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act entail a wide range of activities including scoping, scientific analysis, social and economic analysis, managing public input and involvement, media relations, regulatory analysis, and litigation. These myriad duties raise several important organizational and management questions. First, is the U.S. Forest Service capable of discharging these widely varying tasks with high levels of effectiveness and efficiency? To what extent should these activities be outsourced to private contractors or other providers? For those responsibilities retained in-house, what organizational structure best supports their effective and efficient execution? To address these questions, this article draws on concepts from new institutional economics and insights from the privatization and strategic organizational design literatures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Historically, in the Forest Service, the location of knowledge and authority has been contested not only between the field and headquarters but also between the field and regional-level offices, and even between the field and sub-regional supervisors’ offices. As career Forest Service official Archie Murchie explains:
Starting way back in the late 1930s or early 1940s, there began a gradual change in the authority of rangers, and this change has continued clear up to the present. Things that a ranger wanted to do back then, he could go ahead and do without any approval from anybody. Then, as time went on, it got so that if you wanted to build a trail, for example, instead of just going out and building it, it had to be approved by the supervisor’s office.…As time went on, it got so that a certain thing not only had to be approved by the supervisor’s office, but it had to be approved by the regional office (Murchie and King 2002, p. 311).
Interestingly, it may be the “optional” activities that hold the key to NEPA success or failure for the Forest Service. For example, project managers are not required to conduct town meetings by regulation, but doing so may decrease delays in the long run or even avoid cancellation of the project later.
References
Beaver, E., et al. (2000). Seeing the Forest Service for the trees: A survey of proposals for changing national forest policy. Boulder: Natural Resources Law Center.
Boling, E., Carbone, J., Lee, B., Morrison, A., & Smith, R. (2002). Workshop summary: Business activity modeling of the CEQ’s NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500 1500–1508). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/pag/bus_mod/ceq/CEQ_Workshop_Final_Report.pdf.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). (2007a). Calendar year 2006 filed EISs. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/Calendar_Year_2006_Filed_EISs.pdf.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). (2007b). Citizens guide to the National Environmental Policy Act: Having your voice heard. http://www.nepa.gov/ntf/CitizenComments/Citizens_Guide_Feb9_07_2.pdf.
Clarke, J. N., & McCool, D. (1996). Staking out the terrain: Power and performance among natural resource agencies (2nd ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Code of Federal Regulations. (1983). Title 40: Protection of the environment. Chapter 5: Council on Environmental Quality. 1506: Limitations on actions during NEPA process. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr1506_main_02.tpl.
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1995). Specific and general knowledge and organizational structure. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 8(2), 4–18.
Keel, D., Malmsheimer, R., Floyd, D., & Perex, J. (2006). Forest service land management litigation 1989–2002. Journal of Forestry, 104(4), 196–202.
Kettl, D. (1995). Building lasting reform: Enduring questions, missing answers. In D. Kettl & J. Dilulio Jr. (Eds.), Inside the reinvention machine (pp. 9–83). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Murchie, A., & King, R. T. (2002). The free life of a ranger: A Forest Service memoir. Reno: University of Nevada Oral History Program.
NAPA (National Academy of Public Administration). (1999). Restoring managerial accountability to the United States Forest Service. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
NAPA (National Academy of Public Administration). (2006). First year assessment: USDA Forest Service Information Solutions Organization. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
Nelson, R. H. (2000). A burning issue: A case for abolishing the U.S. Forest Service. In MD Lanham (Ed.), Rowman and Littlefield.
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). (1969). U.S. Code. Vol. 8, secs. 4321 et seq.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). (1983). Circular No. A-76 (Revised 1999 & 2003). Washington, DC: OMB.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). (1996). Circular No. A-76 revised supplemental handbook (Revised 2000). Washington, DC: OMB.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). (1999). Implementing the FAIR Act: Transmittal memorandum #20. Washington, DC: OMB.
PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility). (2006). Forest Service eyes outsourcing two-thirds of workforce. http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=651).
Richards, K., Seesholtz, D., Freitag, C., Auer, M., Barbour, J., Fischer, B., & McCardle, G. (2009). Contrasts in NEPA: Approaches by U.S. Forest Service region 1 and region 6—a pilot study. Report to the United States Forest Service, Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
Sinha, K., & Vande Ven, A. (2005). Designing work within and between organizations. Organization Science, 16(4), 389–408.
Tzoumis, K. (2007). Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 26–40.
U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). (1997). Forest Service decision-making: A framework of improving performance. GAO/RCED-97-71. Washington, DC: GAO.
U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). (2008). Better planning, guidance, and date are needed to improve management of the competitive sourcing program. Washington, DC: GAO. http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d08195high.pdf.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. (2002a). The process predicament: How statutory, regulatory, and administrative factors affect national forest management. Washington, DC: USDA.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. (2002b). Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (10/21/2002). http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/pag/bus_mod/ceq/index.htm
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. (2005). Recreation quick facts. http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/facts/facts_sheet.shtml
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. (2007a). Forest Service planning, appeal, and litigation system (PALS) database. Internal agency database of the USDA Forest Service. Used by permission by the authors.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. (2007b). NEPA feasibility. Study memo sent to regional foresters and others from Hank Kashdan, Deputy Chief for Business Operations. Washington, DC: USDA.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. (2007c). Past NEPA contracting experiences. Internal document on USDA Region 1 Intranet. Accessed 2007 and on file with authors with permission.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. (2008). Forest Service handbook 1909.15. Chapter 20-environmental impact statements and related documents, ¶ 1909.15.20.1. http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?1909.15 Forest Service Handbook 1909.15
Windsperger, J. (2002). Organization of knowledge in franchising firms. Presented at DRUID summer conference on industrial dynamics of the new and old economy—who is embracing whom? Copenhagen/Elsinore, June 6–8, 2002.
Acknowledgements
Jamie Barbour offered helpful comments on prior drafts of this article. Elizabeth Baldwin’s editorial efforts are gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Auer, M., Richards, K., Seesholtz, D. et al. The U.S. Forest Service and Its Responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act: A Work Design Problem. Public Organiz Rev 11, 135–153 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0115-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0115-6