 |
Protect Our
Woods
Working to preserve our rural heritage and quality of life in southern Indiana since 1985 |
Home Site Map Contact Us |
Home News & ALERTS Issues Forum Archives Conservationist's Alternative Klawitter Memorial Downloads Join Us About Us Contact Us Site Map Links |
ALERT - December 4, 2006: Protect Our Woods joins allies to submit a response to the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the German Ridge Restoration Project in Hoosier National Forest2. The Pines Are Getting Old - Timber Industry FocusThe FEIS states in 1.2 (page 1): “The purpose of this proposal is to re-establish a native hardwood community having a strong component of oak and hickory and a composition and structure that functions as closely as possible to the ecological potential of the land, including the plant and animal community….”While the Forest Services stresses Ecological Restoration as the reason for the cutting of pines, there are indications that the cutting proposed in the action alternatives is aimed at making sure that timbering happens before the trees die and may not be valuable commercially any more. As the FEIS/DSFEIS points out, the pines are getting to the end of their lifespan. “Deferring treatment on a large portion of the area until a later time would mean much of the wood could not be utilized and would instead just fall and add to the fuel loading.” (FEIS Page 6).
3.3.5 Timber Stand Health Many of the pines are reaching the end of their normal lifespans. Because it is outside of its natural range, red pine has the shortest lifespan in southern Indiana, followed by Virginia pine and shortleaf pine. The decline of red pine is evident throughout the Forest. White pine has the greatest longevity. The highest mortality is occurring within red pine stands, where the mortality rate is between 25 and 50 percent. Virginia pines have a shallow root system and have experienced blowdown and root rot. Because the shortleaf pine is north of its natural range, it will probably live only 60 to 80 years rather than its average lifespan of 100 to 150 years. The white pine would be expected to live 200 to 300 years (USDA FS 1994b). (FEIS p. 54) “There are over 32,000 acres of pine stands on the Hoosier. Several field assessments of pine stands have identified the German Ridge Area as a priority for restoration of hardwoods in what are presently mature pine plantations. German Ridge is a priority area for such treatment because: • there are large stands of mature red pine (Pinus resinosa) or Virginia pine(Pinus virginiana), which are the shortest lived of the species planted;
• There are large areas of pine over 50 years of age, mostly shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) • The dead and dying pines in the German Ridge area are likely to result in visual degradation and safety issues in recreation areas and along multiple-use trails;(FEIS p. 4) The natural process would be that older pines gradually die and fall over and rot in place. No human labor or machines are needed for this natural process to unfold. The Forest Service likes to refer to logging as “mimicking” natural processes. However, there is nothing “natural” about cutting trees down and logging them out of the forest. We surmise that getting the timber value out before the pines start falling and rotting is one of the true motives behind these cuts, in addition to the prospect of establishing higher value oaks for future commercial use. Pines are not the most valuable timber, and revenue from timber sales may not add very much to the Forest Service’s budget. However, the Forest Service budget does not only benefit from the pine sales revenue, but also through appropriations that are tied to the amount of cutting that the Forest Service does. Here is an incentive for the cutting of the pines, which otherwise - considering all the objections raised below - does not make economic, fiscal or environmental sense. As already quoted above, the “purpose of this proposal is to re-establish a native hardwood community having a strong component of oak and hickory and a composition and structure that functions as closely as possible to the ecological potential of the land, including the plant and animal community….” Establishing more Oak-Hickory is thus given an ecological justification – which we will question below. Here we just would like to point out that the wish to replace pines with Oak-Hickory fits the timber-industry logic that sees tress as commodities – and strives to provide commodities that are of high commercial value. This is expressed in the plan in timber industry jargon - as a desire to have more “larger diameter oak trees” : "To re-establish a natural oak-hickory community, the following changes are
needed in the project area: • Enhanced growth of oak, hickory, and other hardwood trees to develop larger
diameter trees. • Increased spacing of hardwood trees (accomplished by removing the pine trees). • Increased representation of several hardwood tree species, and especially oak species; requiring that the proportion of pine be reduced considerably. FEIS, p. 3" A forest ecologist would probably find different words to describe the goal of restoring Oak Hickory communities – for example: achieving a climax forest of Oak Hickory, with the attendant animal and plant communities. However, from a timber industry perspective, oaks are valued for their timber value, and that value increases with the diameter, until some optimum growth point is reached at which it becomes uneconomical to wait any longer with the cutting. If the Forest service was really concerned about ecological restoration, and pines are indeed at the end of their lifespan, then the most ecological, and least disruptive way is to let the pines fall and rot in place, and have natural processes gradually revert these areas back to native species. It is not obvious, given that the pines are at the end of their lifespan, why the Forest Service would need to put in so much effort into removing them. As far as the pine forests are concerned, the ultimate goal of restoring Oak-Hickory communities could be achieved, according to the Plan, by the current Alternative A. It is also stated that Alternative D (minimal logging) would eventually achieve the same goal, and that Alternative D would achieve that goal faster than Alternative B (no action). In essence that means all three of these alternatives (A, B, D) could achieve the ”purpose and need”. “Alternative D and the No Action would largely depend upon natural processes or simulation of
natural processes (such as the prescribed burning) to achieve a condition similar to the purpose and need. Alternative D would accomplish this in a relatively shorter time than the No Action. “ ( p. 34 FEIS) Click here for part 3. Inconsistent Information about the Time Frame of the AnalysisProtect Our Woods
PO Box 352 Paoli, Indiana 47454 |