<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=UTF-8 http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">From Forest Watch (in Vermont USA): <A href="http://www.forestwatch.org/">www.forestwatch.org</A><BR><BR><FONT size=2>FOREST SERVICE DECIDES MASS COMMENTS ARE OKAY<BR></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>The U.S. Forest Service has abandoned a 2002 proposal to not accept chain emails and other forms of mass mailing in its public comment process. Draft changes to planning rules for the National Forest Management Act had included a proposal to accept only "original substantive comments." Environmentalists and public advocacy groups had denounced the plan, which would have allowed the Forest Service to ignore form letters, emails sent from websites and other "duplicative" types of communications. The final planning rules, expected in the next few weeks, will not include this provision. <BR></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>The Forest Service has repeatedly asserted that the public comment collection process for forest plans and other management decisions is not a public "vote." A recent analysis of public comments submitted on the Bush plan to withdraw roadless area protection for Alaska's national forests confirms that the agency gives little consideration to the preponderance of public opinion. <BR></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>The Heritage Forests Campaign examined 250,000 comments on the Forest Service's plan to do away with the Clinton Administration's roadless protection policy as it applies to the Tongass and Chugach national forests. About 99 percent of comments opposed the proposal. However, the vast majority of comments were submitted as form letters. <BR></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>The Forest Service retreat from its proposal to change the comment process is a victory for the public, but largely symbolic without greater commitment on the part of the agency to base agency decisions on public interest, science, and conservation priorities. Obtaining this deeper institutional change is the long-term work of conservation groups, citizen advocates, and all those committed to a more democratic and sustainable society. <BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>