http://216.197.110.2/Library/Documen...llAnalysis.cfm

excerpt:

The bill's potential to overload and gridlock the court system is
mind-boggling. The Forest Service and BLM are likely to approve hundreds of
fuel reduction projects each year, and the number of lawsuits would almost
certainly increase, due to the elimination of the administrative appeals
system. Even if only a small fraction of those projects are controversial
enough to provoke a challenge, some district courts - particularly in the
western states - could quickly be overwhelmed by having to meet the bill's
legal prioritization and deadlines.

Third, and perhaps most outrageous, the bill would require judges to "give
deference" to the agencies' determination that the short-term environmental
harms of a project are "outweighed by the public interest in avoiding long-term
harm to the ecosystem." Sec. 107(2). In other words, even if the evidence
presented to a court clearly demonstrates that a project would cause immediate
and substantial harm to water quality or endangered species, a judge would have
to defer to the agencies' claims of long-term benefit. This would be a terrible
precedent undermining the impartiality of the judicial system.

The bill's extreme effort to bias the judicial review process seems especially
bizarre in light of the fact that, according to the GAO, none of the Forest
Service's hazardous fuel reduction projects were litigated during the first 9
months of FY 2001. Tragically, the bill would almost certainly cause many such
projects to be litigated, due to public distrust and opposition caused by the
loss of normal environmental safeguards and public participation opportunities.
If Congress sincerely wants to build public support for more fuel reduction
projects on federal lands, the last thing it should do is pass flawed and
polarizing legislation like this bill.