A federal court in Philadelphia has upheld the U.S. Forest
Service’s management plan for the East Side Project, which allows
for logging and the regeneration of thousands of acres of land on
the Allegheny National Forest.

The ruling was made in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Sept.
15. The decision was made public Tuesday.

A similar decision in the case was made March 23, 2004, by U.S.
District Judge William L. Standish in Pittsburgh, which essentially
cleared the way for logging millions of dollars in timber from the
forest’s east side.

The ruling was appealed by the environmental group, the
Allegheny Defense Project, earlier this year. The organization said
logging would target black cherry trees over native species and
argued the plan violated the National Forest Management Act, which
requires national forests be managed for “multiple use,” including
recreation and timber.

“The struggle for clarification on these important matters has
lasted far too long and has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of
dollars,” Jack Hedlund, executive director of the Allegheny Forest
Alliance, said Tuesday afternoon. “We are pleased with the outcome
because our constituents fully recognize and appreciate the vital
role the Forest Service plays in the struggling regional
economy.”

The Allegheny Forest Alliance is comprised of a group of
businesses, townships, recreation groups and school districts.

For his part, U.S. Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., a long-time
advocate of the timber industry, said he “supports the substance of
the court’s ruling.”

“It’s an important acknowledgment of the court of the
increasingly vital role that the ANF plays in driving the local
economy and sustaining local communities,” Peterson said.

A call seeking comment on the ruling from officials with the
Allegheny Defense Project was not immediately returned.

The three judge panel concluded in their analysis of the case
that managing portions of the forest to feature black cherry was
permissible and reasonable. Further, the panel ruled that timber
profit was a legitimate role for national forest management.

In the March 2004 ruling, the decision struck down nine of 10
counts argued by the Allegheny Defense Project and other groups and
individuals.

According to Hedlund, after six years in court battling over the
East Side Project, the Forest Service was forced to withdraw its
plans for the area two years ago, in part, because the species at
the site deteriorated.

“The whole project will now have to be redone,” Hedlund said.
“Even though they (ADP) lost, and were soundly defeated in both the
district and circuit courts, they delayed the process long enough
that the species are no longer living.

“They have used that process successfully for years and are
doing it across the country,” Hedlund added. “They put a monkey
wrench in the whole thing by frivolous lawsuits.”

Hedlund said since he’s been involved with the Allegheny Forest
Alliance, no fewer than 17 lawsuits have been filed against the
Forest Service.

“We are well into six figures defending this,” Hedlund said.
“This is a done deal, and rightly so.”

There was no immediate word on whether the Allegheny Defense
Project would appeal the latest decision. The next step would be an
appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Environmental groups and individuals filed suit in May 2001
seeking to halt the East Side Timber Sale. The project included
wood harvesting, regeneration and wildlife activities on 7,600
acres of the 513,000-acre forest.

Forest Service specialists had determined the acreage was in the
most urgent need of ecosystem restoration work and salvage harvests
after severe and repeated damage from drought, insects and
disease.

In September 2002, Judge Ila Jeanne Sensenich recommended the
forest logging project be stopped. The plaintiffs alleged the
Forest Service violated the National Forest Management Act by
managing the forest primarily to make the most money.

At that time, Sensenich believed the forest service based its
decision to sell on the high value of black cherry trees that
account for nearly half of the small trees on the forest. Black
cherry is more valuable than native hemlock and beech trees.

Meanwhile, in December 2003, Sensenich issued a recommendation
to Standish finding in favor of the Forest Service on all counts
except one concerning sensitive wet soils and riparian areas in the
East Side Project.