The Allegheny Forest Alliance filed an appeal Friday against the
Allegheny National Forest’s final forest plan.
The alliance is a non-profit coalition of several citizens,
businesses and governmental groups.
Information provided by the group states its appeal revolves
around the process used to get to the final outcome of the
plan.
“In the view of the coalition, the Planning Team committed
errors of omission and co-mission during the planning process,
which in effect corrupted the outcome (of the plan,)” stated a
summary release of the appeal.
The first issue raised in the release addresses the fact the
coalition feels forest officials failed to meet with significant
stakeholders, including local government agencies and school
districts, early and often to discuss with them their concerns.
“There was no real substance of government to forest meetings,”
explained Jack Hedlund, executive director of the AFA.
He mentioned groups, including the Appalachian Regional
Commission, North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and
Development Commission, and agencies in the Southern Tier as
examples of those who hold an economic interest in the region and
as those the forest service should have met with.
“They should have met with county commissioners, school
districts, township supervisors – those who are charged with
providing for their own constituents,” added Hedlund. “They should
have been heard by themselves, independent of the public meetings
and forums.”
Hedlund added that he felt meeting with them at least 20 to 25
times would have at least “given them their due.”
Appendix A – Public Involvement and Response to Comments of the
final environmental impact statement – lists meetings with
individuals, groups and governmental agencies during forest plan
revision process.
According to that appendix, Allegheny National Forest officials
met with all four counties the forest lies within, McKean, Elk,
Forest and Warren, a total of nine times. The index also cites some
meetings with those counties individually, but the number of
meetings do not amount to 20.
The AFA appeal, which was about 11 pages long, according to
Hedlund, also cited various other issues: Failure to recognize
subsurface owners’ rights by expanding the authority of new
standards and guidelines to oil and gas management activity without
notice or opportunity to comment; and failure to properly analyze
and consider the partnership role the forest plays in the regional
forest industry.
The summary of the appeal adds there were “substantive failures
in the new plan” that are cited in the appeal, including the
allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is too low; the land and resource
management plan fails to address the mature condition of the
forest; emphasis on non-motorized recreation is unwarranted; more
wilderness is incompatible with existing circumstances and is
unwarranted; and the range of alternatives did not sufficiently
account for oil and gas management activity.
Hedlund said Tuesday about one of the points of appeal, the
forest service couldn’t really provide a proposed 12,000 additional
acres of wilderness they allowed for in the current final plan
because the majority of the subsurface rights are privately
owned.
“You can’t have wilderness if people are punching wells in the
place,” he said.
Wilderness areas are those that are to be untrammeled, where
people can go and take part in non-motorized recreation on the
land.
He added the Forest Service will find it difficult to provide
the remote conditions set forth in the plan for the same
reason.
“It’s a plan, but it’s unachievable,” said Hedlund.
He also said those who don’t want to recreate on the forest and
see oil and gas development should realize that type of development
is part of the culture here.
In closing, the summary of appeal states of the above listed
reasons for appeal, “For these and several other reasons, the
planning process must recommence in order to provide a product that
more accurately reflects the needs and circumstances of the forest
along with those living in the region.”
