With around 20% of Indiana being forest land and 83% of that privately owned, it can be challenging for some Hoosiers to truly immerse themselves in wild space.
Hoosier National Forest is Indiana’s only national woodland, and it provides an escape into a world of hunting, fishing, hiking and numerous other outdoor activities. Many Hoosiers value the feeling of a rising heartbeat as they scale steep ridges, listening to the hushing of the wind through pocketed pine groves, counting the number of creek crossings and the occasional sighting of white-tailed deer, pileated woodpeckers, and maybe even a bobcat track.
When Gov. Mike Braun sent a letter to the United States Forestry Service (USFS) asking for a stop to the Buffalo Springs Restoration Project—a forest management initiative involving up to 15,000 acres subjected to a prescribed burn, 698 acres clearcut, and selective herbicide application to 771 acres aside from other treatments—concerns and attention increased.
The project is a subject of controversy in the world of Indiana’s environmental advocates, and it exemplifies a major dispute when it comes to forest management: How much should humans be involved when it comes to managing our woodlands?
Historically, Indiana has known various forest management techniques. Clear-cutting is among the most visually dramatic, during which all or most of the trees in an area are removed. Clear cutting in the Buffalo Springs project area will remove mainly pine trees, and the USFS plans to allow the area to be “restocked naturally.” More than 2,500 acres are planned to be subject to thinning, a more visually palatable tactic where some trees are removed to decrease the overall density of the forest.
The major aim of the project is to restore oak-hickory-based ecosystems.
The USFS declined to interview with TheStatehouseFile.com but did send a statement from Marion Mason, a public affairs officer, who said, “The Buffalo Springs Restoration Project is an interdisciplinary management project designed to improve forest health and resiliency, treat deadly oak wilt, prevent ‘oak decline,’ and maintain a mix of forest conditions necessary to support native wildlife.”
As forests age, the prevalence of oak trees decline and are replaced with trees like sugar maples. Management practices prevent current forest ecosystems from seceding to sugar maple. Logging removes existing trees like white pine—many of which are already damaged—allowing light through the canopy.
Yet many of these tactics have concerned environmental advocates both when it comes to the scale of the project and the treatments—wildlife, locals and tourism will be subject to the consequences of the project. Will the ends justify the means?
Why oak-hickory?
“No forest composition is inherently good or bad,” Michael Jenkins, a professor of forest ecology at Purdue University, said. The key requirement in a forest is diversity.
Every tree and ecosystem provides for a different set of organisms. Oak trees provide food for mice, which in turn feed larger predators. Oak-hickory forests are well suited for wild turkey and provide good conditions for the plants consumed by white-tailed deer.
“[They’re] kind of a foundational genus within our forest,” Jenkins said.
Maintaining oak trees in every Indiana woodland is impossible, but there are certain areas where forest services desire their maintenance. Having more than one type of tree in one area is a key element in fostering wildlife in Indiana. Maturing forests can decrease this diversity, and as a result, some ecosystems suffer.
Indiana’s ruffed grouse, for example, thrives on young forest habitats, and in Hoosier National Forest, many attribute its decline to aging woodlands.
At the same time, bats, wood ducks and woodpeckers thrive in old growth forests. Dead, decaying trees provide habitats for salamanders and mice as well as aiding in the growth of moss.
“There are always winners and losers whenever you have forest disturbance,” Jenkins said. “I think it’s important to have oak forests. I think it’s something we need to maintain, but you know, we wouldn’t want a landscape that’s all oak forest.”
There’s value to the current habitat and wildlife in the area as well. Opponents like Indiana Forest Alliance feel that the most effective way to preserve Indiana’s natural areas is to let them be.
“The cheapest way to manage a forest is to leave it alone,” Evan Robbins, director of policy and communications with the Indiana Forest Alliance, said.
Critics argue that oak-hickory ecosystems shouldn’t take precedence over those that are already there, such as the white pine.
“Just because a plant species is not native doesn’t mean it’s invasive,” Robbins said. He finds no reason for clearcutting in the area—it will remove a significant amount of wildlife habitats.
Prescribed burning
The prescribed burn aspect of the project favors the life histories of oak trees. Burning reduces the understory dominance of trees like sugar maple to favor oak species, which have deep root systems and buds close to the ground. Prescribed burns are surface fires that burn the top layer of leaf litter and occasionally take down smaller saplings.
Although beneficial for oak trees, Robbins said that burning is not as much a natural part of Indiana’s ecosystems as other states like Minnesota.
“I think, in general, the forest service doesn’t understand that when you’re in the lower Midwest, there are no natural wildfires,” Robbins said.
On top of this, a prescribed burn poses danger to animals.
“We’ve had volunteers, when they’ve done state park prescribed burns, when the burn is complete and they walk through there, they’ll see box turtles burned to death,” Robbins said.
Tourism and recreation
Tourism in the French Lick area could be affected, harming resorts and local restaurants. The economic damage could be severe. Orange County, Crawford County and the Paoli Town Council have unanimously opposed the project, as mentioned in Braun’s letter to the U.S. Forestry Service.
“The public has been involved throughout the development of the project with multiple rounds of input opportunities and field tours, a public meeting and objection period,” the USFS said in a statement to TSF. “Public comments were addressed and are well documented in the environmental assessment documents and in responses to objectors.”
Although aware of the opposition, the statement mentioned that there are also many organizations and individuals who support the project and have asked for the project on a larger scale.
But opponents are also concerned that the safety of drinking water will be compromised as a result of ash from prescribed burning and other sediment runoff from the project into the reservoirs that provide many Hoosiers with drinking water. Robbins said wildlife could also be affected from contaminated water.
When Braun sent his letter of opposition to the USFS, backlash arose over the property he co-owns in the area—220 acres located just miles away from the project area. It is for sale for $1,675,000. He also has “timber ground” near the French Lick area with a value over $250,000.
Robbins said that bringing this up takes away from the actual issue at hand—Braun is just another local property owner being affected.
“I think, if anything, that strengthens it because he knows the area. I’m sure he’s walked these woods,” Robbins said.
He also pointed out that Braun’s letter highlighted a need for updating the Hoosier Forest management plan.
“If they’re going to do anything, let’s focus their efforts on that,” Robbins said.
Ulterior motives
Robbins also wonders if there are ulterior motives to the project. Oak and hickory trees are top sellers in the logging industry—the kind of trees that the project aims to restore. Existing lumber in the area, like white pine trees, may not be as successful.
Jenkins pointed out that although the forestry service is responsible for protecting the natural landscape, it is also responsible for producing products from it. With over 200,000 acres of forest, the management site is relatively small.
“I think modern forestry’s goal is not purely as a means to produce timber and produce products. You know, if you look at the world, we do use wood,” Jenkins said. “And there’s certainly value in having wood produced within the country.”
Timber is a commodity that is often merely a product of management. This can be used as firewood, building materials, furniture and paper, and the USFS products industry generates $288 billion.
Products from the United States are often from forests harvested using more sustainable practices than others, such as tropical areas. Even nature preserves have been seen reaping the economic benefits of cutting down trees on account of forest management.
What can Hoosiers do
Hoosiers who are passionate about this project can contact state legislators expressing their concerns or support.
It is not a black and white issue.
In a three-part series, Mike Chaveas, forest supervisor for Shawnee and Hoosier National Forests, explains in depth more reasons behind the project.
“Any time you think about the effects of something they have on the forest, you need to think not only about the kind of localized area but think about the larger context of what’s going on around it,” Jenkins said. “I think having an informed discussion based upon research and science is pretty important.”
