Yesterday the Bush Administration finalized new regulations governing forest management. According to an official USFS release:

For the first time, an Environmental Management System (EMS) will be used during the planning process to improve performance and accountability. The rule establishes a dynamic process to account for changing forest conditions, emphasizes science and public involvement, and ultimately will help local forest managers provide future generations with healthier forests, cleaner air and water, and more abundant wildlife while sustaining a variety of forest uses.

The New York Times reports on the new rules:

Forest Service officials said the rules were intended to give local foresters more flexibility to respond to scientific advances and threats like intensifying wildfires and invasive species. They say the regulations will also speed up decisions, ending what some public and private foresters see as a legal and regulatory gridlock that has delayed forest plans for years because of litigation and requirements for time-consuming studies.

I'll defer to others on whether the specific changes will indeed produce greater flexibility and performance-based management. If so, I would think they are a welcome change. Not all environmentalists are convinced, however, believing the new rules will short-circuit "public participation" and reduce protections for wildlife.

In the NYT story I was struck by this comment from Trout Unlimited:"The new planning regulations offer little in the way of planning and nothing in the way of regulation." If that's the worst that can be said about the new rules, I would certainly be for them. All too often, environmentalist groups confuse planning requirements and regulatory stringency with actual environmental protection. In reality, regulatory rigidity and a reliance on centralized planning are often part of the environmental problem.