Jellico Comment Period Debrief

Thank you to our members, donors, and supporters for answering our call to action for public comments!

During the 30-day comment period for the Draft Environmental Analysis (EA), almost 700 comments were submitted to the Forest Service. Kentucky Heartwood has never seen this kind of response in a comment period, and we are so grateful for all who participated. If you submitted a comment, please check the project reading room and make sure your comment is posted. The Forest Service had some issues with the portal, and we want to make sure every comment that was made is posted. If you do not see your comment live in the reading room, call the Forest Service at (606)376-5323.

Considering the Forest Service did not advertise the comment period on their social media channels, home page of their website, or any media other than required notice in the local paper, it makes Kentucky Heartwood’s role in public outreach all the more essential.

Compare the Forest Service’s dismal public communication efforts in Jellico with their public relations bonanza to solicit comments on the proposal to increase recreation fees in high traffic areas of the DBNF. Clearly, they have the resources to notify the public about comment periods, and it is disappointing that they didn’t use those resources to notify the public about the largest clear-cutting project proposed in Kentucky in recent history.  Despite their lack of communication, we are thrilled by the way our members showed up to speak for the forest. Thank you!

With nearly 700 comments submitted for the Draft Environmental Assessment, only a few support the project. The majority are from the Ruffed Grouse Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, or are otherwise financially affiliated with those two organizations (like the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife). Even the Forest Service is financially affiliated with those organizations. While the Draft EA did not mention grouse or elk, these pro-logging, single-animal hunting groups seem to have taken a special interest. They commented as though the “purpose and need” of the project is for grouse and elk.

Managing a forest primarily for grouse and elk, which aren’t endangered, seems odd, especially when the Jellico Forest also houses at least six endangered species. This management approach appears convenient for logging under the guise of creating “young” forest habitat favored by grouse and elk. For a detailed analysis, refer to Kellet et al.’s study on the questionable benefits and significant costs of forest-clearing for early-successional habitats. The Forest Service should consider all land in the Jellicos, not just federally owned land. A private entity has already clear-cut adjacent forests, and local farms may be using Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) “conservation” practices to create young forest habitats. This existing habitat diversity data should be included in the Forest Service’s analysis to get a comprehensive understanding of the project area’s habitat.

The agency says it is not responsible for what happens on private land, but to dismiss extreme clearcuts adjacent to the project area and not include them in area habitat structures only dilutes the argument of the agency suggesting their specific forests need more young habitat. A boundary line on a map does not suddenly negate the make-up of the local habitat or its needs. Instead, the boundary line seems to be the green light for any and all land management practices to be implemented regardless of what lies on the other side of the line. When will we start seeing our environment as the whole picture, instead of breaking it up into manageable pieces that can be both manipulated AND turned for timber?

To create this desired young habitat, clearcutting and both of its siblings (two-aged shelterwood, deferment harvest) must be implemented. The Jellico Mountains are some of the steepest in the state, with rich coal seams and pockets of soil instability. Kentucky Heartwood has expressed our serious concerns for landslide risks multiple times, as well as providing the agency with our own fieldwork data and documented landslides in the project area. All of which were ignored and dismissed.

Luckily, Kentucky Heartwood was fortunate to work along side industry experts during the Draft EA comment period, to dive deeper into some of our more serious concerns with the project proposal.

Expert analysis of the Forest Service’s Soil Effects Analysis Report

During the scoping phase of the project, we raised concerns about the potential landslide risks in the Jellico Mountains and how many of the proposed treatments could exacerbate flood hazards in the area as well as trigger landslides. After the release of the Draft EA, Kentucky Heartwood engaged renowned geologist and former Director of the Kentucky Geological Society, William C. Haneberg, Ph.D., C.P.G., P.G., as a consultant. With 35 years of public and private sector experience in geoscience research, there is no one more qualified than Dr. Haneberg to review the Forest Service’s Soil Effects Analysis Report.

Dr. Haneberg describes numerous deficiencies and omissions in the Forest Service’s report, including:

• the lack of detailed and properly georeferenced landslide maps
• a misleading focus on plastic soils
• equipment traffic that ignores the significant impact of tree removal on slope stability and water quality
• misinterpretation of the definition of full-bench roads, suggesting unsafe alternatives that could reduce slope stability

---

Kentucky Heartwood submitted Dr Haneberg’s “Jellico Vegetation Management Plan Project Soil Effects Analysis” as a supporting document to our organizational comments and as a resource we hope the Forest Service will consider as they move into the next phase of this project.

Appalachian Flood Policy

In March of this year, individuals from National Wildlife Federation, Re-Imagine Appalachia, and Appalachian Citizens Law Center authored “Flood Resilience in Appalachia: Policy Recommendations“. These recommendations serve as a comprehensive and collaborative approach to managing flood risks in a region that is particularly vulnerable to flooding. Appalachian Flood Policy refers to a set of measures, regulations, and strategies aimed at mitigating and managing flood risks in the Appalachian region of the United States. This region is particularly prone to flooding due to its mountainous terrain, heavy rainfall, and numerous rivers and streams. The policy involves various federal, state, and local agencies working together to address the unique challenges posed by flooding in this area. By combining regulatory measures, infrastructure improvements, community engagement, and environmental protection, the policy aims to reduce flood damage, enhance community resilience, and protect lives and property in the Appalachian region. An excerpt from the platform introduction says,

The American Communities Project has stated that “Appalachia is ground zero for rainfall,” the risk of increasingly extreme rainfall is particularly high for Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio. ¹ New precipitation frequency modeling by researchers at First Street Foundation found that extreme events (e.g. 1-in-100-year flood events) are likely to occur much more frequently than every 100 years, especially for the Ohio River Basin.²

But rather than a futuristic scenario, these extreme rainfall and flooding events are already affecting our region. Over the last decade (2013 – 2023), there have been nearly 20 federally declared flooding disasters across Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee and Ohio. The majority have occurred in Kentucky and West Virginia, often also affecting parts of Virginia. Total Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) spending on these events totals nearly $1 billion and at least 230 lives have been lost due to flash flooding. ³

The extreme flooding events in Eastern Kentucky during July of 2022 brought 44 deaths and 13 counties were declared federal disaster areas, including Whitley County, where the Jellico project is proposed.⁴

So why is a federal agency at the helm of managing our public land seem to be completely dismissive of the very real and very serious landslide and flood impacts facing the local communities around the Jellico project? The flooding events from July 2022 were not the region’s first disasters and will certainly not be the last. Recovery in Kentucky faces significant hurdles due to the decline of the coal industry, which has resulted in the loss of many well-paying jobs and a continuous outflow of residents. Since 1996, the population in the 13 affected counties has decreased by 16 percent, equating to nearly 2,000 people per year. ⁵ Additionally, it is an impoverished area, with county poverty rates exceeding 20 percent, far above the national average of 12.6 percent. Continuing extractive projects in areas like Jellico, despite the data and science, is irresponsible and offensive.

Expert Analysis of the Forest Service’s Socioeconomic Analysis Report

The Forest Service’s Socioeconomic Analysis included in the Draft EA  only considers a portion of the costs and benefits, therefore grossly understating the actual costs related to the disturbance and removal of forest vegetation in the project area. This underestimation leads to a distorted net benefit calculation, which misleads the public regarding the return on investment for the Proposed Action and Alternative #1.

Similar to how we worked with Dr. Haneberg on a more detailed analysis of the landslide risks, Kentucky Heartwood was assisted by Zachary Christin, a Research Economist based in Nashville, Tennessee. Zachary compiled a full–analysis of the Forest Service’s proposed Socioeconomic Report, highlighting the discrepancies in the real costs associated with the project. Table 6 from Zachary’s analysis shows four specific ecosystem services that would face direct impact from the treatments in both the proposed action and alternative #1. These should absolutely be included in the Forest Service’s analysis.

We know that recreation is more economically beneficial to local communities than timber harvest. Why does recreation continue to suffer across the DBNF while the interests of the timber industry are prioritized? (For examples of recreation suffering, see the closure of the Rockcastle campground, the lack of paid staff positions at Gladie visitor center, the proposed recreation fee increases, the lack of any hiking or biking trail whatsoever in the Jellico area of the DBNF.)

Kentucky Heartwood knows that the DBNF Forest Service Staff are between a rock and a hard place. We understand that the DBNF has management directives that have specific amounts of timber that must be cut each year, and the Jellico proposal is a way to meet those timber targets.

We are all stuck in the same system that prioritizes profit over people and ecology. It is time to get our National Forests out from underneath the Department of Agriculture. Our forests are more than a crop, they are the simplest way to mitigate climate change and provide invaluable health benefits to ecosystems and people.

We encourage you to read the organizational comments from the following organizations, who all pointed out legal issues with the Forest Service’s proposal:

KY Resources Council

FS Employees for Environmental Ethics

The Center for Biological Diversity

Tennessee Heartwood

The support we received from other forest advocacy groups across the country speaks volumes of the advocacy community and how when we stand together, we can speak louder. Thank you to: Environment America, Standing Trees Vermont, and the Yak Valley Forest Council.

We especially want to thank the Kentucky Chapter of the Sierra Club for mobilizing their membership to make comments. We are grateful for your support!

We expect an Objection Period on the Forest Service’s response to the Draft Environmental Assessment sometime in the coming months. We a hopeful the comments provided during the EA will facilitate a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the FS and another public comment period, but the track record of the agency hints toward doing what it can do avoid a full EIS by responding to the EA with “Findings of No Significant Impact”(FONSI). This is just another way the FS skirts accountability.

We will keep you updated as we learn more. If you aren’t already subscribed to our e-newsletter, sign up here!

---

1. Pinkus, Ari. (2021, February 17). Mapping Climate Risks by County and Community. American Communities Project. www.americancommunities.org/mapping-climate-risks-by-county-and-community/ .appalachia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Appalachian-Flood-Resiliency-Federal-Policy-Platform-May-2024.pdf, Pg.3 ↩︎
2. Kim, J., Shu, E., Lai, K., Amodeo, M., Porter, J., & Kearns, E. (2022). Assessment of the standard precipitation frequency estimates in the United States. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies . Volume 44, 2022, 101276. doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101276 . ↩︎
3. Information on flood fatality statistics can be found here: www.weather.gov/arx/usflood ↩︎
4. https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/cd-reports/2023/20230927-resilience-and-recovery ↩︎
5. https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/cd-reports/2023/20230927-resilience-and-recovery ↩︎