Hmmm... digging into this some more, this case is all about logging and forest fire fuel reduction. The case was brought apparently in response to the F.S. bypassing the comment and appeals process for such operations.
I doubt the court intended to include trail maintenance operations in the ruling, and it is likely the environmental groups did not either.
From an environmental site,
earthjustice.org:
In 1992, Congress passed the Appeals Reform Act, ยง 322, Pub. L. No. 102-381, 106 Stat. 1419 (1992), which required the U.S. Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture to allow the public to help guide how logging and other projects take place on our National Forests. Congress required the Forest Service to inform the public about pending projects, let the public comment on proposed projects so that they could be improved or rejected entirely, and required the Forest Service to allow administrative appeals contesting projects before they were implemented.
...
Limiting the public's right to participate in, and ultimately to appeal, Forest Service decisions is not necessary to reduce fire danger in the National Forests.
...
The Appeals Reform Act expressly allows the Chief of the Forest Service to ensure that truly needed projects go forward despite pending appeals by declaring "that an emergency situation exists."
I sure hope Forest Service administrators are not just taking ALL their marbles (projects) off the table as a knee-jerk response to the ruling.
Edit: Can anyone find (online) the actual wording of the Appeals Reform Act of 1992, and especially the two sections: 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) ?
