The Administration’s earlier attempt to revise the rules for national forest planning were quickly shot down by a federal court because they made the forest plans no longer subject to serious public comment and attempted to avoid NEPA for what had been the guiding document as to how a national forest would be managed for about a ten year period.
But these things were hardly the only things wrong with the new planning rule. Opponents argued in court that both the intent and the specifics of the guiding law, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, were being changed. The judge didn’t even bother to get that far before he told the Administration to start over, so they have.
Now they propose basically the same rules, but with public involvement and an environmental impact statement restored.
This will probably be struck down in court again, just like their proposed new grazing rules for BLM lands were.
The fundamental problem with this Administration is they don’t like public lands, they don’t like the public land laws, and they don’t think they have to obey any law they don’t like whether it has to do with public lands, the military, or anything else.
Bush and Cheney should have been impeached, removed from office, and made subject to penalties for the crimes they may have committed (after appropriate due process of law). They have violated their oath of office and committed high crimes and misdemeanors, IMO.
Jan. 2009, when they are gone, seems like forever away.
- Critics assail revised forest rules. By Noelle Straub. Casper Star-Tribune Washington bureau.
- Forest Service Proposes New Forest Rules. By Matthew Daily. The Associated Press.
In the last line of this story, Matthew Daily wrote, “A Forest Service spokeswoman said the new plan would take effect after 60 days and was not subject to judicial review.” Yes, I suppose the Administration believes they are no longer subject to the courts as well as to statutory law.