Push to shape future of Indiana forests draws backlash – Indiana Capital Chronicle

A prescribed burn in the Hoosier National Forest

A prescribed burn in the Hoosier National Forest. (Photo from USDA Forest Service)

Introduction

When agencies burn Indiana forests, they hope to see oak rise from the ashes. But environmentalists believe the solution for the oak problem is costing the climate, clean water and wildlife.

For decades, Hoosier activists have been fighting what they view as improper forest management plans by government agencies like the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), even as both agencies and activists claim to be doing what is best for the state’s forests.

The latest controversy involves massive clearing projects in the Hoosier National Forest, fueled by a belief that oak and hickory trees — which dominate Indiana forests and sustain specific species of wildlife — require disturbances like burning or logging in order to regenerate. The Hoosier National Forest spans more than 200,000 acres in southern Indiana.

Local environmental groups like the Indiana Forest Alliance and Heartwood disagree with this idea, arguing the oaks will naturally regenerate if they’re left alone, and maintaining that the proposed projects will do more harm than good.

Complicating the issue is money: federal incentives, budgets and contracts with industries that seek to benefit from specific forest management practices.

A decades-long fight for the forests

In 1985, a USFS proposal to clear forests and build more than 100 miles of off-road vehicle trails generated a massive grassroots environmental movement, culminating in the opportunity to direct the future of forest management in the Hoosier National Forest.

According to Mahler, the agency was tasked with developing a plan amendment in 1991 after a successful campaign to oppose the original plan. Environmentalists created two main plans and the Conservationists’ Alternative, thought to be a middle ground, was ultimately chosen. This amendment effectively prohibited timber harvesting on two-thirds of the forest, but Mahler said language was altered to allow certain exceptions.

When the USFS revised their management plan in 2006, the agency added further exceptions that would allow for logging, he said, using words such as “salvage,” “stewardship,” “sanitation,” and “restoration.”

“If you see the word restoration, it means logging,” he said.

All about oak

Forest management in Indiana is all about oak.

The tree is critical to wildlife who depend on its acorns, and is already dominant across Indiana, making up 61% of forests across the state and 49% of state forests.

But the future of oak is uncertain, according to the USFS and the state.

They claim the dominant oak-hickory forest types are dying due to age or disease, allowing shade-tolerant beech-maple types like tulip poplars or sugar maples to out-compete oak-hickory saplings who struggle under the dense forest canopy. Oak’s difficulty in the shade is illustrated by the state’s 2005 forest inventory, which showed a much lower amount of oak seedlings and saplings than desired. DNR believes the data suggests a near-certain decline in oak trees if nothing is done to interfere.

Although environmentalists urge a more hands-off approach to the issue, the Hoosier National Forest’s district ranger Chris Thornton said it won’t work for this particular forest.

“We don’t have a pristine forest here that hasn’t had human hands interacting with it,” he said.

Thornton said that due to continual human involvement over the centuries, the forest has become less age-diverse, recalling the desolate look of the hills after erosion from agriculture and early European settlement.

“The Hoosier was basically born out of the lands that no one wanted,” he said.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the USFS worked to reduce erosion by planting pines. It worked, but the now-mature pines have made it difficult for plants to grow in its shade.

The forest service’s major projects — the Buffalo Springs Restoration Project and Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project — both aim to help oak-hickory seedlings by removing mature pines with dense canopy, either through clearcutting or burning, and thinning hardwoods to reduce competition for growth.

But the project has potential drawbacks. Houston South was halted this year after a judge determined the USFS had not presented sufficient evidence to prove the project would pose no risk to Lake Monroe, a major source of drinking water for 130,000 people. Other concerns include harm to wildlife or risks to archaeological sites, although Thornton reaffirmed the importance of protecting the sites.

Drawing from the

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 14: Life Below Water (indirectly mentioned through concerns about water quality)
• SDG 15: Life on Land

The article discusses the impact of forest management practices on climate, water quality, and wildlife, which are all relevant to SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters
• SDG 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning
• SDG 14.1: Prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds
• SDG 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems
• SDG 15.2: Promote the sustainable management of all types of forests

Based on the article’s content, the targets mentioned above are relevant to the issues discussed, such as the need to strengthen resilience to climate change, integrate climate change measures into forest management policies, prevent pollution, and ensure the conservation and sustainable use of forests and freshwater ecosystems.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator: Number of forest management plans that integrate climate change measures
• Indicator: Levels of marine pollution in affected areas
• Indicator: Conservation status of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems
• Indicator: Area of forests under sustainable management

Although the article does not explicitly mention indicators, the identified targets can be measured using indicators such as the number of forest management plans that integrate climate change measures, levels of marine pollution, conservation status of ecosystems, and the area of forests under sustainable management.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: indianacapitalchronicle.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.