At least one other collective group has filed an appeal to the
Land and Resource Management Plan for the Allegheny National
Forest.

The coalition said the revised plan does not reflect the
public’s values or desires for more recreation and protection of
public resources. The appeal was filed on behalf of the Allegheny
Defense Project, Heartwood, Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club, and
five individuals through the University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Environmental Law Clinic.

Concerned parties and individuals had until Monday to file an
appeal.

According to the appeal, “The ANF final plan revision documents
were part of a deeply flawed planning and public participation
process that emphasized sticking to a pre-determined planning
schedule even if that schedule would prevent the Forest Service
from adequately addressing many issues that currently threaten the
ANF’s diversity and sustainability, including in particular the
explosion of oil and gas development in and around the forest.”

“The Forest Service was more concerned with simply completing
the process than it was in actually revising its management
policies,” said Ryan Talbott, Forest Watch Coordinator for the
Allegheny Defense Project.

“The Forest Service’s preference for a rushed revision timeline
sacrificed public participation and quality environmental analysis.
This biased the revision toward keeping the Allegheny managed much
as it has been since the last plan was adopted 20 years ago – for
commercial extraction of black cherry and oil and gas,” Talbott
said.

The last plan, the 1986 plan, was active for 21 years. Revision
for the current plan started in 2003 and the final document was
announced in March.

Ninety-three percent of the subsurface rights are owned
privately. The forest plan summary estimates 8,000 new wells
currently in production with 1,250 miles of oil and gas roads. The
ANF also projects about 512 new wells per year during the new
forest plan period, which could last somewhere around 10 to 15
years.

The Tionesta Valley Snowmobile Club is also named on the
appeal.

According to the club, over the past several years, it became
evident that the Allegheny is being degraded by the huge drilling
expansion on the federal surface.

“Trails and roads are plowed clean of snow down to the mud,
winter scenery is replaced by oil field equipment, and scenic areas
are becoming unrecognizable,” said Karen Atwood, club secretary for
the snowmobile club. “Our members came to the conclusion that all
recreational groups who love the Allegheny had to call for change
if the Allegheny is to be saved. We call for the Forest Service to
place reasonable controls on mineral extraction and to begin
restoration on the forest.”

Tom Buchele, director of the Environmental Law Clinic, who filed
the appeal on behalf of the coalition said, “The real issue
regarding oil and gas development in the Allegheny is not the
Forest Service’s legal ability to regulate or the need to do so –
both of these issues are beyond rational dispute.

“The real problem is that the Forest Service is so used to
‘co-operating’ and ‘facilitating’ resource extraction on the
Allegheny that it seems philosophically incapable of actually
imposing meaningful restrictions on the oil and gas industry. That
must end or there will be little left to protect.”

Deb Beighley, assistant director of appeals and litigation for
the U.S. Forest Service, said Monday there is a small window where
they wait for any appeals that might be “radiating” in the mail
before they can give an accurate number to how many appeals they
received on the forest plan.

To date, The Era knows of only two – the groups listed above and
the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association.

Beighley also said it may be six months before recommendations
are announced by the reviewing officer.

“It is an independent process, we don’t even involve the region
it comes from,” said Beighley, explaining that a review delegation
looks at the record of decision and evaluates the appeals they
receive against it.

Beighley added the decision will reflect one of three decisions:
The first is the delegation finds no violation; second, the
officers could affirm the issue and add instructions; and third,
the delegation could find a need for reversal of the decision and
agree that the decision violates the issues raised by the
appellants.