Spring 2002 Volume II, Number 1
LEGISLATION THREATENS BIODIVERSITY IN STATE FORESTS
Representative Mark Kruzan, a Democrat from
Bloomington, introduced legislation that would ban logging on state forestland.
Kruzan was asked to pursue this legislation by the Indiana Forest Alliance. This
organization has a statewide membership and is also made up of other
organizations like the Hoosier Environmental Council and Heartwood, two groups
who actively oppose timber harvest in the state forest and also the Hoosier
National Forest.
When the first state forest land was acquired in 1903, almost every acre was
comprised of eroding form fields, pasture or cutover timberland considered to
have very little value. Early management activities were aimed at stopping
erosion and restoring the productive potential of the land. Tree planting to
control erosion and reforesting worn out fields was the primary management
activity for many years. Today Indiana's state forestlands comprise about
150,000 acres. Not all of those acres are open to logging. Excluded acreage
includes areas of intense recreation, unique natural conditions that include:
Nature Preserves - 1,784 acres; Old Forest Areas - 5,706 acres; Areas of severe
topography and Facilities Development (i.e. road right-of-ways, operational
buildings, non-forest fish/wildlife habitats).
Timber harvests serve six broad functions:
1 .Maintain
the health and vigor of forest land.
2. Enhance bio-diversity and wildlife habitat.
3. Demonstrate sound timber management practices for private landowners and the
forest products industry
4. Provide raw materials for the forest products industry
5. Provide revenue for state and county governments
6. Fulfill legislative mandates
There is question as to what purpose this proposed legislation would serve. In fiscal year 1999-2000, the Division of Forestry harvested an average of 5.77 trees of 444 growing stock trees produced per acre. That is less than 1 % of all trees produced.
Those supporting this legislation will claim that timber harvests in the state forests is so small that it will have no effect an the forest itself, wildlife, or the production of timber for the hardwood industry. These arguments are not supported by scientific facts. Timber harvests are just one method used by forest managers to maintain quality tree production and enhance bio-diversity on forest land.
In the past, weather related events such as tornadoes and wild-fires created a patchwork of forests of various sizes and age classes. Native American activities also played a role in maintaining diversity, clearing forest areas for agriculture and the consumption of wood for building houses and shelters, making tools and maintaining fires for cooking.
Today logging and controlled burning and mowing are used by forest managers to duplicate the positive effects of these earlier events, while not duplicating the unacceptable negative aspects. Maintaining forest openings and providing successional habitat is the key to a diverse and healthy wildlife population.
If you stop forest management the forest will age, different classes will disappear, forest openings will fill in with new growth, and eventually the forest canopy will shade out new growth of oak, hickory and walnut. This will allow more shade4olerant species of timber to take hold on the forest floor. Then when the canopy is opened up, the shade-tolerant species will begin to grow while still shading out the more desirable trees. Eventually you would end up with an old growth forest dominated by a species like maple instead of the more desirable fruit producing hardwoods we now have in the forest.
Indiana state forest land is currently managed for a wide variety of wildlife, as well as to maintain a healthy forest. Wildlife does not use a certain age or class of forest to the exclusion of others. Wildlife habitats overlap. Older growth may be used for nesting and shelter, while more successional habitat or grassland may be used to gather food. Some species of wildlife use successional habitat for a number of years until it becomes too old to fulfill their needs then they move on to other areas. What will happen when there are no longer areas suitable for these species?
There is ample evidence to prove declines in certain game species like Ruffed Grouse, Quail, and other upland species that use successional habitats. Wildlife managers tell us forest maturation or the aging of the forest has caused these declines. Forest maturation is also having an effect on certain species of neo-tropical migratory songbirds that use successional habitat.
There is also evidence to suggest that old growth forest may provide habitat for some endangered or threatened species. Should we manage for these species to the exclusion of all others? Or should our state forest lands continue to be managed to maintain a healthy forest as well as diverse wildlife populations?
The economic benefit of timber sales to local and state governments is another consideration. Over the last ten years, state forest timber sales have produced an average revenue of over $770,000 per year. The cost of timber sales is less than 10 percent of the revenue. By statute, 85 percent of the net revenue from each state forest timber sale goes into the Division of Forestry Dedicated Fund and 15 percent of the net revenue is sent to the county or counties within which the timber was harvested. Up to one half of the 15 percent is earmarked for local volunteer fire departments within the county, with each department eligible for up to $ 1 000 annually. The remainder of the 15 percent can be used at the county's discretion. Over the past 10 years, county governments and local volunteer fire departments have shared over $1 million resulting from state forest timber sales.
Without these timber sales there is no direct economic benefit to local governments. The attitude towards public land is somewhat negative at this time as for as state government is concerned. There is no tax benefit to this land. How long would it be before county governments start pressuring state government to sell off state forestland so that it can be developed and provide tax revenue?
Local economies do derive some benefit from the people who visit the forest for hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and other recreational opportunities the forest provides. If we don't manage for a wide variety of species then there is no reason to go there. Public access is another important benefit provided by our state lands.
I would like to encourage all Indiana citizens to educate themselves on this
issue and express your concerns to your local and state representatives. This
issue will not be going away unless your voice is heard loud and clear.
Reprinted with permission from Hoosier Conservation, January 2002.