July 10, 2000

For Immediate Release
Contact: Jim Kleissler, Allegheny Defense Project, (814) 223-4996
Jim Bensman, Heartwood, (618) 259-3642

Forest Protection Groups Appeal Federal Court Decision

Clarion, PA - On Thursday, June 29, only 24 hours after receiving a Federal Court's decision denying their request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against clearcut logging on the Allegheny National Forest, forest protection advocates filed for an expedited appeal in the case.

On September 23, 1999, the U.S. Forest Service approved the Shingle Mill Timber Sale on the Allegheny National Forest ending a 6-month moratorium on logging activities. The moratorium was put in place to protect the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), two endangered species of freshwater mussel, and the threatened Bald eagle. The Indiana bat was only recently documented on the Allegheny. The Northern riffleshell mussel is of special concern, as one of the only two reproducing populations of the species resides in the Allegheny River where it flows through the national forest.

The Allegheny Defense Project, a Clarion, Pennsylvania, based non-profit, and Heartwood, Inc., a Bloomington, Indiana, based non-profit filed their lawsuit in Federal Court in Pittsburgh on September 29, 1999. They requested that a Temporary Restraining Order be granted to prevent the U.S. Forest Service, managers of the National Forest System, from proceeding with logging plans on the Allegheny.

"There are nearly 9,000 acres of our national forest at stake here," explained James Kleissler, Forest Watch Director for the Allegheny Defense Project and a Plaintiff in the lawsuit. "Most of that logging is clearcut logging where large areas of the Allegheny National Forest and habitat for endangered species will be destroyed. The endangered Indiana bats require large dead and dying trees for roosting. These are the very trees that are being targeted by the Forest Service for logging. Erosion and sedimentation as a result of logging operations are a tremendous threat to endangered freshwater mussels, which are very sensitive to these effects."

Federal Judge Donetta Ambrose took nearly nine months to rule on the forest protection groups' request to stop logging.

"Normally, in other lawsuits we've filed, when we ask for a Temporary Restraining Order against logging we get a decision that same day," explained Jim Bensman, Forest Watch Director for Heartwood. "Judge Ambrose took 9 months. In one case we filed we were able to get a Judge to issue a Restraining Order the day we asked for it even though he was on vacation. The whole point of asking for a Temporary Restraining Order is because you need immediate relief to stop the cutting while the case is heard."

In their motion requesting that their appeal be given urgent consideration, Bill Luneburg, the volunteer attorney for the environmental groups, writes: "The Plaintiffs patiently awaited the Court's final decision. November, 1999 came and went and so did the next eight months without issuance of a decision by the District Court."

"It is entirely unusual for the District Court to sit on a Temporary Restraining Order for so long," explained Luneburg.

The environmental groups blasted Judge Ambrose's decision denying their request for a Temporary Restraining Order. They argue that their primary legal arguments remain unaddressed by the Courts.

"Judge Ambrose's Opinion actually fails to address our legal arguments," explained Kleissler. "We cannot understand how she can take 9 months to make a decision that should have been made in one day and then fail to address our legal arguments. We are very disappointed with the handling of this case."

"You cannot go to the Court of Appeals until the District Judge issues a ruling. Judge Ambrose's unreasonable delay in ruling on our request stopped us from appealing to stop the irreparable harm to the public and endangered species," says Bensman. "She did not need to wait 9 months to ignore everything we said. She could have denied our motion for a Temporary Restraining Order when we filed it and allowed us to appeal. In the meantime, the Forest Service has been out there clearcutting our national forest."

One of the groups' legal claims dealt with the U.S. Forest Service's denial of citizen appeal rights that they say are normally allowed in similar circumstances.

"She relied entirely on case-law related to a set of federal appeal regulations that no longer exist," asserted Bensman. "In 1993, Congress enacted the Appeals Reform Act and the U.S. Forest Service subsequently adopted new appeal regulations. She relied on cases that dealt with the outdated, non-existent appeal regulations for defending the Forest Service's actions. She completely ignored the new regulations. This is entirely inexcusable."

Other legal claims before the Judge argued that the U.S. Forest Service failed to appropriately respond to issues raised by the public.

"I don't think the Judge seriously considered our legal arguments," stated Kleissler. "If she had she couldn't have drawn such cursory conclusions. Her Opinion doesn't explain why the Forest Service doesn't need to respond to certain issues raised by the public. She merely summarily concludes that the Forest Service is not required to respond to public comments, entirely ignoring the federal regulations which state the Forest Service 'shall address comments received from the public during the comment period…'"

According to the Allegheny Defense Project, the ruling will affect logging on nearly 9,000 acres of the Allegheny National Forest. Over 6,000 acres of that cutting will be in the form of clearcutting where nearly all of the trees are removed from an area of the forest. Only 221 acres of the 9,000 acres of cutting is in the form of selective cutting, a less environmentally damaging practice that removes only a small portion of trees from an area of forest.

Neither the U.S. Forest Service nor intervening parties (which includes primarily timber companies) have objected to the forest protection groups' request for expedited consideration. A decision from the Federal District Court of Appeals on the environmental groups' motion is expected within two to three weeks. The Plaintiffs also have several major legal claims that remain in front of the District Court in Pittsburgh.

##