 |
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 Forest21. SPECIES SURVIVALCarrying CapacityThe FEIS and DSFEIS both say over and over again that many species may be harmed in the short-term from the German Ridge logging and burning project. However, the Forest Service promises us that 1) In the long-term, species will be protected because they will be getting a more “natural” hardwood forest that will replace the pine forests, and that 2) In the short-term, the wildlife will either die, or run off and inhabit other areas of the forest.However, what evidence does the Forest Service have that there is suitable habitat for these species to go to? And what evidence is there that this habitat is not already occupied? There is a very limited amount of public forests in the area. So the wildlife will have to go into marginal habitat and be subjected to more parasitism and predation or fight for their survival. In the worst case scenario, the individuals who are fleeing from logging and burning on German Ridge will flee to private lands, where they will face the risk of poaching and further destruction of habitat. Our question to the Forest Service is: 1) How do you know the species will go away and come back? And, 2) Has the Forest Service done any studies showing the territorial habits of the species that are living in the German Ridge area and the individuals of those species living in adjacent areas, some of which will be logged and burned as well? In order to comply with NEPA, the Forest Service needs to assess the environmental impact to the individuals from a species having to leave and go into other areas already occupied. What is the carrying capacity in adjacent areas? How will the carrying capacity change after the projects promised in the Hoosier LRMP are implemented? How will the stress affect the species survival? None of this has been done. Management Indicator Species and Species of ConcernIn the past, the Forest Service used to compile a list of “forest species of concern.” This list was not required by regulation. Rather, it was prompted by a real concern from Forest Service managers that certain species’ survival might be in jeopardy because they weren’t being monitored and were not listed as Management Indicator Species (MIS). In other words, the monitoring was self-imposed on the Hoosier National Forest, as was the case in Illinois on the Shawnee National Forest, and included all state listed threatened and/or endangered species.The change we see from the previous Hoosier LRMP to the new one is troubling. That is, we have seen the Forest Service eliminate any monitoring of species on this list and a turn to monitoring of MIS, which, as we stated elsewhere in this document, were chosen in a series of illegal secret meetings attended by handpicked scientists. Appendix G of the HNF FEIS“Guidance from the Regional Office suggested that communities should not be chosen as MIS, eliminatingthese groups from consideration. The lack of creel surveys on the forest limited the selection of fish species, and the lack of surveys covering the three terrestrial species (bobcat, gray squirrel, and raccoon) limited their selection.” As far as we understand this paragraph, the Forest Service seems to be saying that they are not using these species of concern as MIS’s because they do not have surveys. Is this the case? If this is the case, not having information is a very inadequate excuse to use to eliminate these species from the list. Isn’t this rather a reason to do surveys? “Because breeding bird survey routes have already been established on the Forest and breeding bird data has been consistently collected over the last decade, bird species were chosen as MIS.” Again, this is inadequate. “The Forest generated a list of all habitat types on the Forest to ensure that species were selected to represent the range of habitats found on the Hoosier.” Did the Forest Service first decide they wanted to clearcut and burn, thus creating “early successional habitat,” and then picked the species that would inhabit these openings, thus creating the need for logging? This is unacceptable. We need the Forest Service to give us a better explanation as to how they eliminated the species on this list (Species of Concern). Eliminating the list means eliminating the guidelines. How in the new guidelines are these species going to be protected? These species have obviously been identified as important by the Forest Service. Why are they no longer important and how was the decision made to ignore them from this point forward? Click here for Part 22. Persons Who May Be Interested Or Affected Were Left Out Of Scoping Process For The DSFEISProtect Our Woods
PO Box 352 Paoli, Indiana 47454 |