Two days before Thanksgiving the Bush administration quietly approved a proposal that would gut current forest protection regulations by removing requirements to protect forest wildlife and ecology, and by eliminating the requirement of an analysis that serves as the key mechanism for informing the public of the environmental impacts of forest management plans, among other de-regulatory changes to the rule. USDA will be accepting comments on the proposed rule for 90 days. You can send comments opposing the rollback of this rule, through OMB Watch's Activist Central service. These changes would likely result in an acceleration of logging in forests without requiring careful planning to protect wildlife and ecosystems -- all with reduced opportunity for public oversight or input into the process. And as this NY Times Editorial points out, the only apparent beneficiaries of the changed rule would be the timber industry and those who would use the forests for commercial interests; interests that the Bush administration continually places above safeguarding the environment in its ongoing attack on environmental rules. Several congressional Democrats denounced the proposed rule that was put out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and published in the Federal Register on December 6. In a letter to Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth, House and Senate Democrats such as Sens. Patrick Leahy (VT), Barbara Boxer (CA), and John Edwards (NC), and House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA), among others, criticized the proposed rule for failing to capture the intent of the statutory language of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. These and other environmentalists have asserted that the rule not only rolls back Clinton-era standards, but that it is even less protective than the rule put out by the Reagan administration in 1982. Under the proposed rule, managers of each of the 155 forests -- covering 192 million acres in 44 states -- are given new authority to approve logging, drilling, or mining projects in their respective forests, even if those projects do not fit with the forests' specific plan for protecting its wildlife. The 15-year forest plans, required under the NFMA, include an environmental impact statement that is an assessment of the renewable resources in the forest and an analysis of the environmental and economic impacts of the plan. The proposed rule would allow forest plans to be adopted and revised without preparing an environmental impact statement. Failing to do so not only violates the NFMA, but also the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires all branches of government to give proper consideration to the environment before undertaking any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. Agencies usually adhere to NEPA by carrying out an environmental impact statement, which is also the primary document that informs the public of potential impacts on the forest. The current rule -- put out by the Clinton administration in 2000, and reviewed by an independent Committee of Scientists -- requires the Forest Service to protect sensitive species of forest wildlife and recognizes ecological sustainability as a priority for stewardship of forests. The new proposal -- which was not reviewed by the Committee of Scientists -- does not recognize ecological sustainability as a stand-alone priority; instead it equally values social and economic components, thereby placing as much importance on logging or recreational use as it does on sustaining the ecological or wildlife resources of the forest. More specifically, this new proposal also eliminates the requirement to maintain a viable population of a native wildlife species, and rolls back the current rule even further by eliminating requirements for independent scientific assessments and science advisory panels, as pointed out in this Wilderness Society fact sheet. This is ironic considering the current administration's push for "sound science" to inform regulations, and increased use of peer advisory boards. Not only does this proposal weaken safeguards to protect the environment and wildlife and throw out the need for science, it also removes the requirement for citizen participation at the beginning of the process as well as eliminates the opportunity for the public to appeal a final Forest Service plan, a point also made by The Wilderness Society. This omission again violates the NFMA. Further de-emphasizing the importance of public participation, the rule specifically states that it will give greater weight to written comments than those that are "form letters, check-off lists, pre-printed postcards, petitions, or similar duplicative materials," many of which are used by environmental groups to allow members of the public that would not otherwise have the time or in-depth knowledge to write their own comments to do so using a pre-printed letter or postcard. This is another irony considering the Washington Post report that associate Forest Service chief Sally Collins said the rule was changed because "you shouldn't need to have a Ph.D. to understand this process" -- yet, with this rule, the Forest Service is not giving equal weight to comments from persons that do not have enough extensive knowledge of the issues to write substantive comments. The Forest Service announced that it is proposing the new rule in response to a review conducted by the Office of the Secretary of the Forest Service under President Bush which found that the Clinton rules were far too costly and prescriptive, too detailed, and lacking clarity. USDA notes that a number of lawsuits were filed challenging the promulgation of the 2000 rule from both environmental and industry groups. However, with the new proposal's violation of NFMA and NEPA, more lawsuits are sure to follow if this egregious attack on the environment becomes a final rule. USDA will be accepting comments on the proposed rule for 90 days. You can send comments to USDA opposing the rollback of this rule. Our comment system provides talking points to assist you with your own letter. A sample letter will also be available soon. This is not the first time that the administration has come out with a controversial policy move at a time when most of the public was busy with holiday plans and not as likely to follow the news. Last year it rolled back a rule requiring contractor responsibility during the Christmas break when Congress was out of session. This rule also comes less than a week after the administration sided with industry and rolled back protections against air pollution from coal fired power plants.