HELENA, Mont. - Three rules imposed by the Bush administration limit unlawfully the public's ability to influence U.S. Forest Service decisions on management of the nation's forests, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy of Missoula issued an injunction Monday against a rule that requires people to specify objections to Forest Service projects while they are under consideration, or forfeit the right to challenge them later. The injunction applies nationwide.

“The substantive comment requirement was a serious problem because under these rules, members of the public might not even know that a project threatened their interests until after the Forest Service deadline for public comment,” lawyer Doug Honnold said Tuesday.

“Whether you're a hunter, hiker or neighboring landowner, the Bush rule could cut you out of the process,” said Honnold of Earthjustice, which represented The Wilderness Society, American Wildlands and Pacific Rivers Council in a lawsuit challenging rules issued in 2003.

A timber industry group Tuesday defended the requirement for substantive comment. Timber-sale protesters “should come in ahead of time and have real reasons, rather than this boilerplate language that so many of the groups or individuals use,” said Ellen Engstedt, executive vice president of the Montana Wood Products Association.

“You don't wait until the process is finished and then say, 'I don't like it.”'

The Forest Service had said the rules would help hasten removal of trees from overgrown forests that pose a wildfire hazard.

Forest Service spokesman Dan Jiron said agency officials had not read Molloy's decision and had no comment. “We'll comply with court orders and if something else needs to be done, we will work with our lawyers,” Jiron said.

Molloy also struck down a Forest Service rule that exempted some Forest Service projects from requirements for environmental analyses. The third rule allowed the government to bypass public involvement in national forest management by having the agriculture secretary or undersecretary sign decisions on agency projects. Molloy agreed with federal court decisions in California that invalidated those two rules earlier.

He said Congress wants the public to have “expansive” rights to appeal Forest Service decisions. The rules challenged in the lawsuit contradict a 1992 law on Forest Service decision-making and appeals, and could shield some logging projects from administrative appeal entirely, the judge said.

The Wilderness Society, American Wildlands and Pacific Rivers claimed the rules violated not only federal laws that were on the books, but also a 2002 ruling by Molloy.

In Montana's Bitterroot National Forest, he had prohibited the Forest Service from logging thousands of acres burned by wildfires in 2000, logging the agency said was necessary for forest health. Molloy agreed with environmental groups that the logging decision bypassed the Forest Service process for appeals. Under an eventual settlement, some logging took place, but trees in areas where concerns included waters with vulnerable fish were not removed.