ALLEGHENY NATIONAL FOREST Ruling permits logging despite protests

Logging advocates say delays have made it necessary to revise the plan.
PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A federal judge has ruled in favor of the U.S. Forest Service to allow the logging of perhaps millions of dollars of timber in the Allegheny National Forest over long-standing protests from environmentalists.
The ruling from Pittsburgh federal Judge William L. Standish on Tuesday closely followed recommendations by a lower magistrate judge last year to allow logging in 7,600 acres of the 513,000-acre forest -- Pennsylvania's only national forest.
Environmentalists, who filed suit in May 2001 to block the proposed logging, succeeded in sparing 400 acres of the forest, which the Forest Service took out of the proposal last month after the bitter fight.
Reactions to decision
Environmentalists appeared resigned over Tuesday's ruling; Forest Service officials and proponents of logging hailed it as an important decision.
"The judge's ruling not only underscores the merits of the project but also the rigorous, objective analysis the Forest Service used to ensure high-quality projects," said Kevin Elliott, supervisor of the Allegheny National Forest. He said the ruling assures the public the Forest Service is managing resources wisely.
Jim Kleissler, who is with the Allegheny Defense Project, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the group may file an appeal.
"There are 400 acres that we prevailed on that they have promised they will not cut, but the rest I presume will go forward," Kleissler said.
Although the decision appears to be a victory for logging advocates, they say the lawsuit caused such a delay that much of the land now can't be logged because the wood has deteriorated. They say a new plan could also be snarled with lawsuits.
"The conditions of the forest have changed so much, they are going to redo the whole plan," said Jack Hedlund, executive director of the Allegheny Forest Alliance, a group of businesses, townships, recreation groups and school districts that favored the sale.
Background of struggle
Led by the Allegheny Defense Project, environmentalists sued the U.S. Forest Service in 2001 to stop the so-called East Side Project, accusing forestry officials of selling the forest's majesty and ecological diversity one tree at a time.
Environmentalists contended the Forest Service was catering to the logging industry. They said the logging plan would benefit black cherry trees -- which are less valuable to wildlife but worth more on the lumber market -- over native species, such as American beech, white pine, eastern hemlock, maple and birch.
Environmentalists argued the plan violated the National Forest Management Act, which requires that national forests be managed for "multiple use," including recreation and timber.
The Forest Service countered that black cherry began growing naturally in the forest decades ago after logging in the 1800s, and that the logging plan was designed for preservation -- not profit -- to deal with tree mortality from insects, disease and drought.
Earlier recommendation
In September 2002, Magistrate Judge Ila Jeanne Sensenich sided with the Allegheny Defense Project and recommended that the project be halted. Then, in April, she rescinded her recommendation without explanation.
Both parties appeared before Judge Sensenich in May, when she said the case was "absolutely the most complex I have ever dealt with."
On Dec. 24, Judge Sensenich issued a 124-page revised recommendation, essentially reversing herself and siding with the Forest Service on nine of 10 counts.