 |
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 |
June 5, 2007: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Hoosier National Forest German Ridge Restoration Project Appeal of Record of DecisionOn June 5, 2007, Heartwood, Protect Our Woods, Indiana Forest Alliance and Tree if Life Alliance appealed the decision of Hoosier National Forest Supervisor Kenneth Day to pursue the following course of action on German Ridge (Record of Decision from April 16, 2007):
The Appellants object to the decision for the following reasons:(4) The Forest Service Did Not Respond Adequately to Public Comments.The Forest Service did not respond, or did not respond adequately, to public comment regarding severe deficiencies in both the German Ridge Environmental Impact Statement, and in the Hoosier National Forest Plan. The latter provides the framework for the German Ridge Project. It is against the law for the Forest Service to ignore or not respond to serious objections against a plan that are voiced during the public comment period.(5) Violation of NFMA Regulations InjunctionThe Record of Decision (ROD) from April16, 2007 cites the 2005 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations and relies upon those regulations for the German Ridge project.In the March 30, 2007, ruling on Citizens for Better Forestry v. Johanns No. C 05-1144 PJH and Defenders of Wildlife v. Johanns No. C 04-4512 PJH, the Court ruled: The matter is remanded to the USDA for compliance with the APA, ESA, and NEPA, as discussed above. In particular, the agency must provide notice and comment on the 2005 Rule as required by the APA since the court concludes that the rule was not a “logical outgrowth” of the 2002 Proposed Rule. Additionally, because the 2005 Rule may significantly affect the quality of the human environment under NEPA, and because it may affect listed species and their habitat under ESA, the agency must conduct further analysis and evaluation of the impact of the 2005 Rule in accordance with those statutes. The USDA is ENJOINED from implementation and utilization of the 2005 Rule until it has fully complied with the pertinent statutes. Slip op at 59-60. The decision to base the German Ridge project on the 2005 NFMA regulations was made on April 16, 2007. This is well after the injunction was issued. Therefore, when this decision was made, the Forest Service had been enjoined from “implementation and utilization of the 2005 Rule.” The 2005 Rule (1) weakens several substantive protections for listed species that had been in place before; (2) weakens general protections for wildlife that directly and indirectly benefited listed species and the species they depend on for prey, including the requirements for selection and monitoring of the “management indicator species” and the viable population requirements; and (3) weakens general protections for habitat. Therefore, because German Ridge project is based upon the 2005 regulations, this decision must be withdrawn and implemented under previous NFMA regulations. (6) Forest Service Falsely Claims that Re-Establishing Native Forests Requires ‘Management’A major thrust of this project is to cut hundreds of acres of non-native pines that were planted in decades past as a means to halt soil erosion.While we agree that pines are not native on the Hoosier National Forest and that the eventual re-establishment of native forests is desirable, we challenge the need for ‘treatments’, or ‘management’ (which can be translated into logging) to achieve that goal – in light of the fact that the regeneration of native forests is already under way naturally in the general forest. It is obvious that hardwood components are in the process of re-establishing themselves. Pine stands already now include an appreciable hardwood component, ranging from 10 to 50 percent of the total basal area. Speeding up the process of regeneration through logging has many undesirable consequences, which will be detailed below. Those negative consequences could be avoided by leaving the pines to naturally die and be taken over by native trees. In addition, letting nature do the job would also save taxpayer money. (7) The Forest Service Push to Increase Oak-Hickory Lacks Scientific Justification and Is Based on Illegal Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological AssessmentThe Forest Service claims that there is a need to accomplish a stronger component of Oak-Hickory on the Hoosier National Forest, and to fight back the Maple-Beech forest. Therefore, after cutting the pines, the logged areas must, according to the Forest Service, also be burnt, which will give an advantage to oak seedlings. Otherwise Maple-Beech would naturally dominate after the cutting of the pines. On top of that, hundreds more acres in the German Ridge area are designated to be burnt as well for the purpose of favoring Oak-Hickory.The forecast by the Forest Service is that, without intervention, within a generation, the oak-hickory forests would be replaced by maple-beech forests. The best way to stop this “decline”, according to the Forest Service, is cutting down the forests using “even-aged treatment” or clearcuts, in combination with a prescribed burn program that will favor oaks. Yet the Forest Service itself, in the Hoosier National Forest Environmental Impact Statement, as well as in the German Ridge documents, admits that the natural communities in Southern Indiana are not dominated by oak-hickory, but are a mixed mesophytic forest, with an overstory dominated by beech and maple. Oak-Hickory, however, has an ecological niche on dry ridge-tops. Oak-Hickory will therefore not disappear and be “replaced” by beech maple on those ridge tops. Instead of being an emergency situation that requires intervention, the “decline” of oak-hickory can be seen as a natural adaptation to less clear-cutting and burning. It was cutting and burning in the past that brought about artificially increased levels of oak and hickory. The Forest Service itself states this: “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.” Now, with less human intervention, Oak-Hickory is slowly returning to its ecological niche on dry ridge-tops, and with it the animal and plant communities that depend on it. This is completely in sync with the stated goal in the Hoosier National Forest plan of re-establishing native communities of hardwoods. Trying to push oak-hickory beyond its niche through logging and burning is not. In justification of the stated need of Oak-Hickory restoration the Forest Service leans on the Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment. As we will also show below under point (29), the process that was used to develop the Assessment violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which was clearly stated in a court decision (Heartwood v. U.S. Forest Service, 1:02-cv-01898-RWR, from the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, filed 04/21/2006). The Forest Service has thus far refused to re-open the process to provide the required public involvement, and is still using the Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment to justify the scientifically questionable assertion promulgated in the Assessment for a need to increase the Oak-Hickory component on the Hoosier. Click here to continue to comment sections 8-10 Protect Our Woods
PO Box 352
|