 |
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 ForestPart 7b. The Questionable Need of Restoring Oak HickoryFrom the HNF FEIS:“Human-caused disturbances including the use of fire, grazing by livestock, and extensive clearing have been important factors in determining the condition of the vegetation in the region today.” And, “Prior to European settlement, vegetation on the Hoosier was predominantly forested with significant areas of prairie and disturbed and open forest (Thompson 2004). Oak and hickory species were dominant on the Brown County Hills and Crawford Uplands, and mixed forests of American beech, sugar maple, oaks, and hickories were dominant on the limestone soils of the Mitchell Karst Plain and Crawford Escarpement (Parker and Ruffner 2004). Historically, fire was an important ecological factor throughout the Forest and maintained the oak/hickory forests. Active European settlement began in southern Indiana during the early 1800’s and resulted in the clearing of land for crops and extensive livestock grazing. By the late 1800’s, drainage of wetlands and the farming of prairies were common practices. Most of the forest had been cut and all forests had been subjected to fire and grazing by domestic livestock by 1900.” And, “However, species composition is changing from species established as the result of frequent past disturbances (<1950) to more shade tolerant species as the result of the decreased disturbance regimes of the late 20th century (>1950).” Thus we have the evidence from the Forest Service itself that oak hickory forests were more prevalent in southern Indiana, prior to 1950, precisely because all of the forests were cut down. In other words, the more natural presettlement state of these forests, prior to the extensive clearcuts of early settlers during the 1800s and then again due to Forest Service clearcutting in the 1960s and 1970s, was probably not predominately oak hickory. With the Forest Service facing more and more pressure over the past generation from the public over commercial logging in the Hoosier, the forest seems to be returning to the presettlement, late successional forests, in other words, their more natural state. Lucy Braun, in her essay, “The differentiation of the deciduous forest of the Eastern United States,” (May-1941, The Ohio Journal of Science. v41 n3 (May, 1941), 235-241) corroborates this viewpoint. Her essay indicates that Indiana is far enough east to have considerable amounts of mixed mesophytic forest. As she says, the mixed mesophytic forest doesn't have dominant trees, it is a mixture of 20 - 25 species. Only when we get west to Arkansas and Missouri does she say that the oak hickory association is dominant. The Plan emphasizes Native Americans and their use of fire and the effect of this burning on oak hickory content. The theory is that Native Americans burned and cleared the forest, promoting the predominance of oak hickory. However, this ended in the 1400s: From the HNF Plan: “Donaldson Woods in Spring Mill State Park is a good example of presettlement forest (Lindsey and Schmelz 1965). Much of this forest is dominated by seral tree species, such as white oak, probably the result of Native American activities. Native Americans are believed to have used fire in this area on an annual basis.” Yet, “Old-growth studies have attempted to identify key characteristics of forest structure and composition, but few generalizations can be made because of the scarcity of data (<1% of original forest remains).” We must ask how the Native American use of fires in the 1400s is still affecting a Donaldson Woods in the 21st Century, when the Forest Plan is warning readers that if we don’t act now, in a generation the oak hickory forests will be lost?! How, then, did Donaldson Woods oak hickory overstory last from the 1400s till the present without any intervention? The answer? No management! Most odious is the fact that the reader of the Forest Plan is led to believe that all of the science is set in stone, when the authors of the Ecological Assessment admit that few generalizations can be made. More evidence that the clearcutting actually created the “unnatural” oak hickory dominance: FIRST-YEAR EFFECTS OF SHELTERWOOD CUTTING, WILDLIFE THINNING, AND PRESCRIBED BURNING ON OAK REGENERATION AND COMPETITORS IN TENNESSEE OAK-HICKORY FORESTS Samuel W. Jackson and David S. Connor, Kristina F., ed. 2004. Proceedings of the 12th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 594 p. “Upland oak species are generally favored by disturbance such as periodic fire (Abrams 1992), and much of the oak-dominated forest we have today developed following disturbances such as clearing land for agriculture, burning, and logging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Clark 1993, Crow 1988). As oak stands originating after these disturbances have matured and developed dense canopies, species such as maple (Acer spp.) and beech (Fagus spp.) that are more shade tolerant and fire intolerant than oak have begun to dominate the understory and middlestory (Abrams 1992).” A close read of the ecological assessment tells the reader that even though fire and clearcutting may have caused the growth of oak hickory, scientists still don’t know exactly how it all worked: “By the mid-1700s, the lower Ohio River Valley was a major thoroughfare for westward movement of displaced tribes from the Mid-Atlantic including the Delaware and Shawnee (McConnell 1992). Population numbers varied during this period, and the effect of humans on the environment is poorly understood.” And, “However, fire history across the assessment area needs to be studied more intensively to further elucidate these relationships.” And, “There is little doubt that fire was an important historical factor throughout the region based on numerous accounts of early travelers (McCord 1970). However, little information exists on the size, frequency, and intensity of fire on specific sites or sections (Robertson and Heikens 1994).” In other words, after attempting to convince the reader of the important relationship between fire (used by Native Americans nearly 600 years ago) and oak hickory dominance, it turns out that the science is not at all clear on the relationship between fire and logging and oak hickory succession! Even after all this evidence that the relationship between fire and oak hickory and logging is not at all clear, we get this conclusion, seemingly out of the blue: “Management activities such as logging and prescribed fire will hasten the conversion of this type to native hardwoods:” And, “The current understory species composition of this forest type indicates a gradual shift in species composition to more shade tolerant hardwoods if left undisturbed.” Conclusion Although the evidence is inconclusive and the science given to the public biased, there is the chance that large, manmade disturbances such as commercial logging and burning may promote the growth of oak hickory . However, the fact that oak hickory prefers certain site conditions, and the overabundance of deer together with the loss of the American Chestnut would explain why these disturbances sometimes do not work, or that the Forest Service sees bizarre results (see, for example, the Shawnee National Forest). Take that together with the fact that oak hickory is succeeded by beech maple and other species in a natural succession in a mixed mesophytic forest such as we have in southern Indiana, and we see that promoting and keeping the Hoosier in an oak hickory forest would be an expensive, unsustainable proposition. In a sense, what the Forest Service is trying to do is set up an oak hickory tree farm, in order to reap the most money in its budget now and in the future. This is very similar to the Forest Service’s actions on the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania, where the agency has tried to promote cherry trees for economic gain under the guise of ecosystem restoration. Click here for Are Logging and Fire the Right Tools to Restore Oak Hickory? Part 1 of 3Protect Our Woods
PO Box 352 Paoli, Indiana 47454 |