Setting the Record Straight on Care for Our Forests and Wildlife

You may have heard recent claims that call into question how the Forest Service cares for our public forests and wildlife. Many of these claims are not accurate, and I’m compelled to set the record straight. I respect that there are, and always will be, varying opinions on how best to care for our public lands. However, when facts, laws or scientific data and consensus are misrepresented, understanding of the issues is lost which can lead to confusion and mistrust.

The Hoosier National Forest (Hoosier) is currently a carbon sink, meaning it takes in more carbon than it releases. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by trees and plants through photosynthesis with carbon then stored in wood, leaves and soil. The most recent data shows that carbon stocks, or the amount stored, on the Hoosier increased by 42% from 1990 to 2020. Recent research also shows that as forests in the central United States reach 120 years and older, they begin to have negative carbon accumulation rates, meaning they become less efficient at carbon absorption. As trees die and decompose they become carbon sources (releasing more carbon than they take in). While removing trees for a variety of forest health goals may create a short-term loss in the amount of stored carbon, the new growth of trees will sequester abundant carbon, thus off-setting the short-term loss fairly quickly.

Our forests now face numerous critical challenges. These ecosystems have always been influenced by a range of factors including climate, wildlife (beavers, bison, passenger pigeons, etc.), Indigenous and settler burning and settlement, agriculture and weather. In recent history, fire suppression, pests, diseases, and non-native invasive plants have had tremendous impacts. In addition to being highly fragmented, the loss of most past human and natural disturbances has led to overly dense and shaded forests, which lack diversity in age and structure – very different than the historical conditions. These conditions make them less resilient to predicted warmer, drier summer conditions, wetter winters and future pest outbreaks, thereby making them more vulnerable to becoming a carbon source. When forests are not managed, they do not gradually revert to what they may have looked like decades or centuries ago. Furthermore, it is important to balance the role forests have in countering carbon emissions through sequestration and storage with the need to address forest health and diversity, including ensuring a diversity of habitats to support all native wildlife.

While carbon accounting can be complicated in a natural system where trees die and grow whether managed or not, it is important to keep a few facts in mind. The cutting of a tree does not release the carbon stored in its wood. What matters is what happens to that tree after it is cut, and what happens on the land where it was growing. While land-use conversion (deforestation) is a net loss for carbon, forest management is not. Harvested timber is used for wood products that store carbon for many years and displaces the need to utilize more carbon-intensive materials (plastic, metal, concrete) and incentivizes keeping land as forests, where trees re-grow and continually sequester more carbon.

I must correct a recent false assertion that proposed timber harvest activities on the Hoosier National Forest would remove 45% of the standing carbon on the Forest. As of 2020, 47% of the carbon stocks in the entire Hoosier National Forest were stored in aboveground live biomass (trees). Only a tiny proportion (~0.13%) of the Hoosier has timber harvested from it each year, while less than 3% sees prescribed fire. These actions only remove a portion of the aboveground biomass from the treatment areas. Therefore, only a very small proportion of carbon is removed from the Forest, with most stored in forest products, while the land begins sequestering new carbon immediately after each activity through new growth.

The long-term health of the forest ecosystem and its ability to provide the many things we expect and need from it, including diverse wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration and storage, clean water, and sustainable recreational opportunities are at the core of the Forest Service’s work.

Part 2

You deserve to have the facts about how the Forest Service cares for our public forests and wildlife. That’s why I’m compelled to set the record straight concerning some recent inaccurate claims about the scale of our management, the reasons for it and its impacts. In this column on water quality — part two of a series — I’ll share information on laws, facts and scientific data and consensus that help us determine how to manage our public lands.

We’ve heard concerns about how forest management may affect water quality. The Forest Service was founded with a mission to protect water quality, and we continue that mission by managing for diverse, healthy forests and restoring stream health in and around the Hoosier National Forest. For example, we remove under-sized culverts and restore stream flow with future sustainability in mind. This decreases sedimentation and improves aquatic wildlife habitat.

Some would like to convince you that when trees are removed, the soil is exposed and washes downhill into streams, leading to widespread sedimentation and pollution of our drinking water. But the fact is that we successfully implement many preventative measures that protect water quality.

• First, keep in mind that land is not “deforested” through our management actions. We harvest trees for specific ecological objectives. Following harvest, the age and structure of that forest will change, but it will always remain a forest. Tree roots and most of the leaf layer remain to hold the soil, and vegetation regrows quickly.
• In every vegetation management project, we follow mitigations in our Forest Plan guidelines and use best management practices (BMPs) such as seeding, mats, water bars, silt fencing and reinforced stream crossings to maintain water quality.
• With inspections and monitoring, we confirm that these BMPs are successfully implemented. Trained timber sale contract administration personnel make regular inspections of harvesting operations to ensure that contractors implement BMPs and that they are effective. This is in addition to pre-, post- and ongoing monitoring by our staff hydrologist.
• Local monitoring has shown that BMPs on federal lands are 96.5% effective.
• Scientific literature indicates that forestry BMPs protect water quality when constructed correctly and in adequate numbers.
• The Forest Service is held accountable to follow all applicable laws, standards and guidelines from our Forest Plan, the Clean Water Act and BMPs.

It’s also true that many of our forest management practices serve to improve water quality:

• Practices that reduce tree density, increase sunlight penetration and restore native plants to the forest floor increase the water filtration abilities of the forest — and reduce erosion and runoff.
• We may reduce nitrate concentrations in streams that lead to algal blooms through practices that promote oak species relative to beech and maple species. Beech and maple are predicted to have greater nitrate leaching rates compared to red oak.
• Practices that create young forest may also reduce nitrate concentrations in streams, as older forest stands are predicted to have greater leaching rates than younger stands.
• Prescribed fire reduces the amount of organic carbon that enters the water from the forested landscape by breaking down and removing downed wood and accumulated leaf litter. This reduction in organic carbon improves water quality, potentially leading water utilities to use fewer chemical treatments, which can have toxic byproducts.  

Projects or actions that stood any actual risk of polluting or degrading anyone’s water supply would never be proposed by myself or our Forest Service staff. They are trained professionals in a variety of scientific and technical fields who take great pride in their work on behalf of the American people. 

Also keep in mind that our staff lives near the Hoosier National Forest and just like you, we recreate in and enjoy the forest and its resources — and we drink water that is sourced from these lands. We care deeply for the long-term well-being of these treasures we are so lucky to share with current and future generations.  

Part 3

This is my third and final column in a series where I’ve shared the facts about how the Forest Service cares for our public forests and wildlife. In this column, I’ll focus on timber harvest and prescribed fire, two tools we use to improve the health and diversity of the Hoosier National Forest (Hoosier).

Consider why we harvest timber on the Hoosier. Our harvests are a mix of thinning, selection, shelterwood and, in very limited cases, clear-cuts to remove non-native pines to restore native hardwoods. In all cases, the primary purpose is to improve the long-term sustainability, resilience and diversity of the forest ecosystem and its wildlife habitat. Secondary is providing wood products that we all use and that help support the local economy. 

Next, let me clarify how much timber is harvested. Some recent claims suggest that much of the Hoosier is planned for timber harvest. The truth is that only a tiny proportion of the Hoosier is managed this way each year. On average, just 266 acres — or 0.13% of the 204,000 acres that comprise the Hoosier — is harvested annually. At this pace, over the next century, 87% of the national forest would not have seen a timber harvest.

While several proposed projects may appear large at the planning stage, the pace of implementing them will be gradual. Over the next 10 to 20 years, timber harvests will maintain approximately the same level (0.13% annually). Keep in mind that areas affected by vegetation treatments will be less than what is initially proposed. Following more detailed surveys before each action, some areas are excepted to protect sensitive features.

Periodic fire has long been part of this landscape, according to broad consensus among natural resource professionals and researchers, anthropologists and historians of Native American cultures. The purposeful use of fire for millennia by Native Americans is well-documented through historical pollen counts, fire scars on tree rings, charcoal remnants and early Euro-American settlers’ descriptions. The very presence of oaks, which depend on fire to outcompete other tree species, is a sign of fire’s historical role. 

We know that plants and wildlife of this region have adapted to live with fire, and some even depend on it for their survival. Without fire, the composition and diversity of the forest is altered, to the detriment of many species. Research and our monitoring of prescribed fire use show that fire creates conditions that allow the oak-hickory ecosystem to flourish on appropriate sites, provides nutritious plants for wildlife and pollinator, and restores the unique barrens community.      

We are sometimes asked why we can’t let nature take its course to fix existing problems. The fact is that the Hoosier National Forest is a human-impacted landscape, and we can’t simply roll back time to a “nature only” option. These forests, fauna and flora have evolved alongside human influences for thousands of years, and left unmanaged will not simply revert to their historical condition. Some species relied on past disturbance agents — ranging from Indigenous burning practices to wildlife such as bison, wolves and passenger pigeons — that are now missing. Many of our present-day management actions aim to mimic those past disturbances.

Human activities continue to impact and make demands from the land. Add in climate change and the effects of fragmentation and neighboring land use, and you quickly realize that there is no “nature only” option. At least a moderate amount of science-based management is critical to ensure the long-term sustainability of the forest ecosystem. 

Decisions on where and how to implement forest restoration projects are guided by our Forest Plan, but we are not tied to only consider what was known when that plan was signed in 2006. We incorporate the latest science from all relevant disciplines and consider our monitoring results from prior projects, as well as input from partners and the public. We’re also mandated to follow all new policies, laws and regulations passed since the 2006 Forest Plan was finalized.

The Hoosier National Forest is an invaluable asset to our communities, and we all benefit from it. I am grateful for your interest in its care and long-term well-being.