Heartwood Activists Appeal Leads to the Eastern Regional Forest Supervisor Reversal of Kinerson Decision
Forwarded by Jim Sconyers
District Ranger Kinerson's decision to clearcut in the Big Ditch area of the Gauley Ranger District has been reversed by Robert T. Jacobs, Eastern Regional Forest Supervisor. This reversal was brought about by two Heartwood activists, Steve Krichbaum and Jim Bensman, who filed an appeal with the Eastern Regional authority. We are grateful to Steve and Jim for their efforts, and can share in their victory. The real winner is a chunk of the Mon's ecosystem.which, at least for the forseeable future, will be spared the violent destruction that clearcutting brings about.
The official letter to the Heartwood activists, Krichbaum and Bensman, is as follows.
Forest Service - Eastern Region
310 West Wisconsin Ave Suite 500
Milwaukee, WI 53203
April 28, 1998
RE: Big Ditch Project Area, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact on the Gauley Ranger District, Monongahela National Forest, Appeal
Dear Mr. Krichbaum and Mr. Bensman:
Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.7, 1 have reviewed the appeal record for the Gauley District Ranger Decision for the above referenced project on the Monongahela National Forest. I have also considered the recommendation of the Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) regarding the disposition of the appeal filed by yourself and Preserve Appalachian Wilderness (PAW). In accordance with 36 CFR 215.19(b), the ARO review focused on the decision documentation developed by the Responsible Official, District Ranger Donald Kinerson, the issues raised in your appeals, and any comments provided by Interested Parties. The ARO recommendation is enclosed with this decision for your information.
During the review of Ranger Kinerson's decision to approve the Big Ditch Project the ARO could not find, either in the environmental analysis or in the project file, sufficient consideration of alternative even-aged regeneration treatments to the use of clearcutting, as allowed for in the Forest Plan. He recommends that I reverse District Ranger Kinerson's decision.
DECISION
I have decided to reverse the decision to implement this project back to the Responsible Official in order for him to provide further information on this issue. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.18(c) this decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of Agriculture.
Sincerely,
ROBERT T. JACOBS Regional Forester
The following is the argument for reversing the Kinerson decision as put forth by the Appeal Reviewiong Officer, Stephen R. Mighton.
Subject: Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) Recommendation, Big Ditch Project Area, Gauley Ranger District, Monongahela NF, Appeals # 98-09-0017 A215 and # 98-09-0018 A215
To: Appeal Deciding Officer
This letter constitutes my recommendation on the disposition of the subject appeal for the Bic, Ditch Project Area on the Gauley Ranger District, Monongahela National Forest. District Ranger Donald J. Kinerson was the Responsible Official for this decision. His Decision Notice was signed on 26, 1998 [sic].
In accordance with your letter designating me as the Appeal Reviewing Officer, my review was conducted pursuant to 36 CFR 215.19 and the Chief of the Forest Service December 15, 1993, letter defining the role and scope of the Appeal Reviewing Officer review. To ensure the analysis and decision are in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policy and orders, I have carefully reviewed and considered each of the points raised by the appellants and the decision documentation submitted by the Monongahela National Forest. My review recommendation, hereby, incorporates by reference the entire Project File and appeal record, including the Scoping letter and public comments, the Environmental Assessment (EA) and public comments, and the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI).
I reached the following conclusions based upon my review.
The purpose and Need for the proposed activities are stated in the EA The selected activities are part of the implementation of the Monongahela National Forest Land and Resource management Plan (Forest Plan).
District Ranger Kinerson did engage the public in this environmental analysis. The analysis team solicited public comment during the scoping phase and reflected these comments in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment. The range of alternatives addressed the identified issues. The comments received on the Environmental Assessment were addressed as required by the appeal regulations 36 CFR 215.
My review concludes that the Environmental Assessment adequately described the Environmental Effects.
One of the appellants, Mr. Jim Bensman (Heartwood) alleges that the Environmental Analysis for Big Ditch violates the optimality analysis for the use of clearcutting. Specifically, Mr. Bensman states, "The DN states 'Thus, clearcutting is considered the optimum method of regeneration in MP 6.1 (Forest Plan, page 174).' Thus, the Ranger believes the Forest Plan determines the cutting method."
In reviewing the Decision Notice, page 6; and the Environmental Analysis, pages 20 - 21; and the project record; I can see no reference to consideration of alternative even-aged management treatments, other than the use of clearcutting as a regeneration method. The Forest Plan, on page 175 provides for, in item b., consideration of the use of the shelterwood method to be used in lieu of clearcutting if needed for the regeneration of a particular species objective, e.g., oak.
APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
After careful and diligent review of the decision documents submitted by the Monongahela National Forest including the Decision Notice, the Environmental Assessment and the Project File, and after carefully considering each of the points raised by the appellants, I would have asked the ID team to consider other even-aged management systems for this project.
I recommend that District Ranger Kinerson's decision be reversed.
Sincerely
STEPHEN R. MIGHTON
Appeal Reviewing Officer