However, a forest protection group that won the ruling contended Friday that the Forest Service has gone far beyond the intent of the ruling, and appears to be intentionally trying to create a "train wreck" by holding up trivial projects.

"The reason we sued over this was this allowed them to put in a 250-acre clearcut, an off-road vehicle trail or a prescribed burn next to somebody’s home and not allow them to comment on that," said Jim Bensman, forest watch coordinator for Heartwood in Alton, Ill. "All these other things they are shutting down is stuff we asked the judge not to be impacted."

Among the projects the Forest Service put on hold is cutting an 80-foot-tall Engelmann spruce from the Santa Fe National Forest in New Mexico to serve as "The People’s Holiday Tree" on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., said James Payne, Forest Service southwest regional spokesman, from Phoenix.

As long as no substantive objections are raised during a 30-day public comment period starting Monday, there would still be time to cut the tree and ship it to Washington in time, said Payne.

Fifteen projects in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest are believed to be affected by the ruling, officials said. They range from road construction to a bridge replacement.

Advertisement

Rex Holloway, a Forest Service spokesman, said forest employees are not allowed to release details about the projects.

"We've been directed that this is attorney-client privileged information," Holloway said. "We are still under a lawsuit. We are collecting the information about the projects to make sure they are consistent and get further clarification as to the type of projects the judge had in mind."

Matt Kenna, an attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, said plaintiffs have repeatedly offered to work with the Forest Service to clarify what sorts of projects are covered by the ruling, but the Forest Service has refused.

"They are hoping that by citing actions like the Capitol Christmas tree it will put the court order in doubt and they are trying to make us look like the bad guys," Kenna said.

The actions stem from a July 2 ruling by U.S. District Judge James K. Singleton Jr. in California which found that the Forest Service was improperly approving projects without public comment or appeals under a process known as categorical exclusions. Last month, the judge specified that his ruling applied nationwide.

The Justice Department has yet to decide whether to appeal, said Forest Service spokeswoman Heidi Valetkevich from Washington, D.C.

In the wake of the 2002 Biscuit fire in Oregon, which burned 500,000 acres in the Siskiyou National Forest, the president signed legislation and his administration revised administrative rules to streamline environmental review of forest thinning projects to reduce wildfire danger. At the time, environmental groups complained it was a smoke screen to allow more logging.

Among the projects the Forest Service is holding up are the salvage of dead or dying trees on 250 or fewer acres, logging green trees on 70 or fewer acres, temporary roads shorter than half a mile, fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, and small-scale oil and gas exploration.

The Forest Service is still counting up how many projects the ruling affects nationwide, but in Oregon and Washington alone, more than 170 have been put on hold, said Northwest regional spokesman Rex Holloway.

"We are not suspending toilet maintenance," said Holloway. "The regional forester made that perfectly clear. Routine maintenance of campgrounds and administrative sites we will continue to do. They are asking us not to do any heavy maintenance. But routine maintenance on roads, cleaning out culverts, we are not going to hold those back."

All the projects put on hold were approved after the ruling went into effect July 7. They will be reconsidered after the public has 30 days to comment. If any substantive objections are raised, the Forest Service has 45 days to consider an appeal.

In his original ruling, Judge Singleton wrote that "maintaining Forest Service buildings or mowing ranger station lawns" need not be subject to the notice, comment and appeal procedures.

"The Forest Service cannot, however, attempt to streamline its appeals process by creating an escape hatch that thwarts congressional intent," the judge said.