|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Society
of American Foresters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Position Statements
| Comment on the Final EIS Proposing I-69 Alternative Route 3C
(connecting Evansville to Indianapolis via Washington, Crane Naval Station, Bloomington and Martinsville) by the Indiana Society of American Foresters (February 1, 2004) |
Position
The Indiana Society of American Foresters recognizes the values and benefits that Indiana's citizens derive from transportation corridors that effectively link all regions of the state. We also are aware of the negative effects that these corridors, especially roads (and their spawning development), can have on the surrounding landscapes - including natural landscapes (such as forestlands and wetlands), human-modified landscapes (such as agricultural land) and human communities, when these corridors are not appropriately planned, designed and constructed. The Society is most qualified to address natural landscapes that are forested.
While the forested acreage projected to be lost is estimated to be less than 1,500 acres, the amount of forestland may be significantly greater than that which is directly altered by road construction. Impacts to the functions and values of forest communities and landscapes occur when residential and/or commercial development occurs within these ecosystems - most notably by removing forest cover and breaking up existing forestland into smaller fragments. This development occurs as road corridors are established - making what was relatively inaccessible now accessible to direct commercial development, or potential residents to live further away and commute to their jobs. Additional land use conversion for commerce soon follows in order to provide the goods and services demanded by these new residents.
The Society applauds the proposal for the Indiana Department of Transportation (InDOT) to acquire and permanently protect three acres of existing forestland for every acre impacted by the selected alternative. This will certainly help to maintain continuous forest cover that would be potentially fragmented by future development. The Society further encourages the InDOT to conserve private forestland in the project area via the purchase of conservation easements, thereby protecting from development keystone forests near the highway interchanges and corridors. The Society also wishes to encourage the InDOT to coordinate the acquisition of such conservation easements, when and where applicable, with existing forestland conservation programs such as the Indiana Forest Legacy and Heritage Trust programs.
The Society also applauds the proposal to mitigate the impacts on forested wetlands by creating three acres of new wetlands for every acre impacted - although these wetlands will have different functions and values then the forested wetlands that they are meant to mitigate. In these cases we encourage mitigation with wetlands of similar functions and values.
The Society would like to bring to the attention of the reviewers that, even as a result of these actions, there will still be an unacceptable net loss of 1,500 acres forest cover as a result of the chosen alternative. The most recent (2000) U.S. Forest Service statewide forest inventory data suggests that, after a slight but steady increase in forest cover over the past several decades, total statewide forestland coverage may now be on a downward trend. These proposed activities, along with other types of land use conversions, have continued to reduce Indiana's original 20 million forestland acres to the current 4.5 million acres.
The Society believes that it is not appropriate to use the term "mitigation" to define the proposed acquisition and protection of three acres of current forestland for every acre impacted. The selected alternative still results immediate overall reduction of Indiana's forestland base and this direct loss is, in fact, not being mitigated by the EIS.
Pursuant to the Society's 11/7/02 position statement on the I-69 alternatives, the Society recommends that these losses, along with the losses of forested wetland, be truly "mitigated" by the afforestation of suitable open space within the vicinity of these conversions. In order to mitigate for the additional forest cover loss that will no doubt occur due to attendant development, and the fact that functions of a mature forests takes many decades to achieve through afforestation, it is also recommended that these mitigation plantings exceed a 1:1 ratio, by a considerable margin.
The Society believes that incorporating these true mitigation practices into the Final EIS will contribute to maintaining the current 20% of Indiana's landscape in forest cover. The Society stands ready to serve in a technical advisory capacity should this project move forward.
| Proposed Alternatives for the I-69 Indianapolis-Evansville Extension |
Position
The Indiana Society of American Foresters recognizes the values and benefits that Indiana's citizens derive from transportation corridors that effectively link all regions of the state. We also keenly aware of the negative effects that these corridors, especially roads, can have on the surrounding landscapes - including natural landscapes (such as forestlands and wetlands), human-modified landscapes (such as agricultural land) and human communities, when these corridors are not appropriately, planned, designed and constructed. The Society is most qualified to address natural landscapes that are forested.
It is the position of the Society that the selected alternative should minimize the construction of any new road corridors and interchanges in order to reduce the long term negative effects on forested landscapes that result from development that will occur in the vicinity of these areas.
Since any of the considered alternatives will result in a least some immediate reduction of Indiana's forestland base, the Society further recommends these losses be mitigated by the afforestation of suitable open space within the vicinity of these conversions in order to contribute to maintaining the current 20% of Indiana's landscape in forest cover.
Issue
Renewed interest has developed in extending I-69 from Indianapolis to Evansville, IN. Many are concerned about the selection of the route for the extension. Primary impacts have been investigated and reported in a recently-released Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that contains 5 alternatives (with 4 of those having a suboption). All of these primary impacts are of either a social, environmental or economic dimension. The chosen alternative will reflect tradeoffs among these three dimensions.
Background
The discussion of an Indianapolis to Evansville automotive transportation corridor began in 1990. The passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (TEA) in 1991, later amended in1998 (TEA-21) elevated the Indiana corridor to "interstate highway status" and the project began to receive national attention. The I-69 Corridor connecting the Canadian and Mexican borders was selected as one of the high priority areas under this new legislation, and the Indiana component was indicated as a high priority segment with significant implications for the North American Free Trade Agreement and interstate commerce. The initial EIS was completed in the mid-1990s. The current EIS now underway began in earnest in 1999.
Newly constructed, or upgraded transportation corridors, including controlled access highways such as interstates, have both positive and negative impacts to human communities. But they generally always have negative impacts to the surrounding landscape. While the maximum forested acreage that is projected to be lost by any one of the proposed alternatives is estimated to be 1500 acres, the real long term impacts to forestland may be significantly greater than this, depending on the alternative.
Impacts to the functions and values of forested landscapes occur when residential and/or commercial development occurs within these ecosystems - most notably by removing forest cover and breaking up existing forestland into smaller fragments. This development occurs as road corridors are established - making what was relatively inaccessible now accessible to potential residents to live away and commute to their jobs. Land use conversion for commerce soon follows in order to provide the goods and services demanded by these new residents. These activities, along with other types of land use conversions, have reduced Indiana's original 20 million forestland acres to the current 4.5 million acres.
| Multiple Use Management and the Role of Timber Harvesting in Indiana Forestlands |
Position
The Indiana Society of American Foresters recognizes the values and benefits that Indiana's citizens derive from the management of Indiana's private and public forestlands for multiple objectives. Professional management of forestland based on the objectives of the owner, or owner groups, and the biological potential of the area can help make forestlands vital and productive for their intended uses. Trees and forests are readily renewable resources that, if managed sustainably, can provide many benefits now and in decades to come. Timber harvesting can be an important tool in managing forestland for multiple uses. Both public and private forests can benefit from professional management aimed at producing multiple benefits on a sustainable basis. The option to harvest trees and manage for multiple forest benefits should be maintained on both public and private forests in Indiana.
Issue
Demands on forest lands for goods and services are increasing rapidly and are expected to increase still faster in the future. Conflicts in use have become accentuated in recent years by requests to state and/or national administrative, legislative and judicial bodies to influence and regulate management on public and private forestlands. Such conflicts are especially sharp where groups believe that the use demands of other interest groups compete with their own.
Background
Historical Status of Indiana's Forests
At the time of European settlement, 87 percent (20 million acres) of Indiana was forested. In the late 1800's and early half of the 20 th century more than 90 percent of this native forest was cleared for cropland and livestock pasture. Forest clearing probably reached its peak during 1910-1920 with only 1.5 million acres of forestland remaining. Many marginal farms were abandoned during the Great Depression and many wooded pastures and abandoned fields began reverting back to forest1. In 1967 there were 4.1 million acres of forestland in the state. Today there are over 4.4 million acres2. As a result, except for a very few scattered original remnants, Indiana's forests are primarily second and third growth forests arising from natural regeneration and reforestation efforts on land previously disturbed by human activities. Forestland area in Indiana has been increasing and the annual tree growth volume is more than double the loss and removals from natural mortality and harvest, respectively3.
Diversity of Use Demands on Forestlands
Forests receive, store and make available most of the nation's useable water. They satisfy the nations requirements for wood - a major, renewable, and highly versatile raw material. Forest vegetation stabilizes soil, has a moderating effect on local climate, reduces sound and air pollutants, and helps maintain atmospheric oxygen-carbon dioxide balances. Recreation, encompassing a wide variety of individual and group activities, has become a major use of forestlands. Forests, and the streams and lakes they help sustain, provide the habitat for wildlife and fish, which are also major, renewable resources.
What Multiple-Use Is
Increasing demands on limited forestlands can be met with coordination of uses on specific areas. Foresters have developed and applied the concept of multiple-use whereby land is managed for a variety of purposes that utilize, without impairment, the capabilities of the land to meet different demands simultaneously. Properly implemented, multiple-use sustains production of the desired benefits and avoids environmental deterioration. The multiple-use strategy takes effective advantage of capabilities of diverse portions of a forest to meet both current and projected demands. Many benefits accrue on a forest regardless of the management strategy employed. For example,a forest managed exclusively for recreation can provide water, climatic and wildlife benefits. Similarly, one managed exclusively for wood products can provide water, climatic, wildlife, and recreation benefits. It is extremely difficult to visualize any exclusive use that does not also provide other benefits. The supply of forestlands is inadequate to meet all demands simultaneously, but the multiple-use strategy normally provides the largest sum of social,economic and spiritual benefits.
Who Plans and Manages for Multiple-Use?
Use and management of forestland and forest resources are determined in large measure by the objectives, policies, and means of the landowner, whether the people of a political unit, shareholders of a corporations, or an individual. Uses should be professionally planned, and all planning should consider all potential capabilities to meet demands on a sustained basis; compatibility among uses; and costs and benefits of different use combinations over a period of time. Forestry professionals have special education and experience to determine the net benefits that forests are capable of producing - information that is basic to the planning of uses. Plans should incorporate the landowners' objectives and should be based on accurate information about the resources involved. When plans have been decided on, forestry professionals should implement them by prescribing and supervising the necessary specific practices - including timber harvesting.
How Multiple-Use Is Implemented
In application, the multiple-use concept involves managing a specific forest area for various benefits and may result in (1) exclusive use on some portions, (2) the emergence of primary and secondary uses on other portions, and (3) a general-use category where no one specific use justifies specific designation. In Indiana, much of the forestland managed under the multiple-use concept is a general-use category, because compatibility at existing levels of demand does not require the designation of primary or exclusive use. These forests provide watershed protection, wildlife habitat, recreation and wood product production, often simultaneously on the same area. Timber harvesting, under the direction of professional foresters, can serve as a tool to realize many of these benefits. Harvests can provide useful materials demanded by society, income to forest owners, jobs for communities related to the primary and secondary manufacturing and sale of wood products, management of fire and disease risk, and maintenance for the health and vigor of the forest environment. Young, healthy forests serve as reservoirs of carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, and trees processed into long-term products, like housing and furniture, store that carbon for long periods of time. Harvesting also provides a means to economically manage for species diversity and specialized wildlife habitat needs across the forest landscape.
Recommendation
The Indiana Society of American Foresters recognizes the value and benefits of actively managing Indiana's forestland for multiple objectives and uses - as determined by the landowners' objectives. It recommends that the option to harvest trees should be maintained on both public and private lands in order to realize many of these benefits that accrue to Indiana's citizens.
1Forest Policy Issues in Indiana, Purdue University, Cooperative Extension Service (1994)
2Forests of Indiana: An Overview 1998, USDA Forest Service. and IDNR Division of Forestry (2000)
3Forests of Indiana: An Overview 1998, USDA Forest Service and IDNR Division of Forestry (2000)
This position statement is also in pdf format. If you are unable to read pdf files, then click on the pdf logo, and download Adobe Acrobat Reader. Read the complete paper here.
| Land Use |
Indiana's forests are an integral but often overlooked component of many communities. Many residents recognize forests as green space that improves the quality of their lives and increases the value of their property. Less understood is the role of the forest in providing environmental benefits and economic value. Trees are a renewable natural resource that can easily be managed on a sustainable basis into perpetuity.
Forests provide habitat for many species of plants and animals. They improve water quality by serving as ground water recharge areas, and buffer and cleansing zones for the flow of surface runoff into streams. Forests and small woodlands also provide noise-reducing buffers and visual screens from certain sounds and activity not normally associated with residential lifestyles. Trees in their growing processes consume carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, thus being major contributors to improved air quality.
Indiana's forests are also economically very important. They increase the value of land for development and recreation. They are the foundation of recreation and tourism in many communities, along with local parks and other non-commercial forested areas.
The wood products industry is a major contributor to the economic foundation of many Indiana communities. Although primary manufacturing, such as sawmills and veneer mills, may not be located in every county, secondary processing and other value-added types of manufacturing facilities, such as millwork and cabinet shops, are common in most communities. They are important sources of employment and revenue generation, and are heavy contributors to the local tax base. Indiana's wood-using industry is a major player in the global market, sending products to markets all over the world.
Statewide total acreage of forest land is increasing due to over one hundred years of governmental programs promoting good forest management and intensification of production agriculture. Existing forests typically contain trees in a wide range of age classes as the result of past sustainable harvesting practices, but most new timberland tracts are on reclaimed old fields. These new forestlands will take many decades to resemble mature hardwood forests. Although they are future forests, they currently do not replace established mature forests in terms of value and function.
Forestlands containing mature trees are often envisioned by prospective buyers as the preferred home sites, but in reality they probably are not the best wooded sites for development. The mature trees are usually less responsive to disturbance, and because of their size, are more difficult to remove later if they die or need to be removed for some reason.
Development is important to Indiana's economy and the well-being of its citizens. However, development's overall contribution can be enhanced by good planning that considers the needs of a community and the overall impacts of alternative development patterns. Whether development takes place on forestland, farmland, or other open space should be an informed decision based on all the pros and cons of the tradeoffs involved.
The Indiana Society of American Foresters supports planning that minimizes the fragmentation of forest parcels. Development on forestland should consider the economic and environmental benefits provided by each parcel of forestland. Development should focus on parcels with existing or planned infrastructure. The largest negative impacts result from developments scattered across the landscape with no consideration given to future needs for infrastructure or forest integrity. Development that supports the renewal of urban areas, older suburban areas, brownfields, historic districts, etc., should be of higher priority than new development in areas without supporting infrastructure.
Each planning jurisdiction should examine the current balance of land uses within its borders. The contributions of each use to the well-being of its citizens should be evaluated. Future development should be targeted to those tracts which can best accommodate it with minimal harm to the environment and the current land use. We support the conversion of underutilized acreage to more natural conditions within the matrix of developed land to provide environmental and other benefits. Development that concentrates houses and leaves as large a portion of the original tract as possible undisturbed should be encouraged, especially when large tracts of forestland are involved.
The forestry profession can assist in the planning process by being a source of technical information for planners and the citizens they serve. Foresters can help identify areas where forestlands should be maintained as working forests so they will continue to serve desirable environmental needs and at the same time provide a timber supply base for the valuable resource needs.
Foresters can also assist developers by suggesting ways to preserve the beauty and serenity of the forest, so important to prospective home buyers. They can explain to developers and landowners the importance of continued forest management to the health of the forest. Healthy forests minimize the dangers to homeowners from potential storm damage and wildfire. Foresters are trained to work with other natural resource professionals on issues related to soil erosion, water quality, wildlife habitat management, and other important concerns. Initial contact with either a private consulting forester or a public forester can be made by contacting the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry; or the Purdue Cooperative Extension office in your county.