Big Oaks, Big Lies, Big Misunderstandings and a Big Data Center.

Who’s in charge?  People are complaining, filing petitions and calling for action because Bigs Oaks has announced cutbacks, but what they complain of and who they complain to truly matters.  Some believe Big Oaks is owned by Indiana’s DNR (Department of Natural Resources).  Some believe it is a private, not for profit (Big Oaks Conservancy); some think it’s owned by Indiana Fish and Wildlife.    The truth is Big Oaks is owned by the Army and Airforce but through a memorandum of agreement (MOA) part of the land is managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWLS).  Still, it’s important to know the USFWLS is just one bureau of many in the US Department of the Interior (DOI).  The DOI manages the nation’s public land, federal minerals, national parks and wildlife refuges and is responsible for conserving our natural resources, doing scientific research, upholding our trusts with Native American/Alaskan communities and managing some water resources especially in the western part of the country.  If you want something to change for Big Oaks you need to get the USFWLS and its parent the Department of Interior to help and remember the Army and Airforce figure into the equation too.  For those wanting to protest the reduction of public services at Big Oaks- they need to contact the correct people.  Complaining to County Commissioners or Indiana DNR will be ineffective.  They have no authority to take any action at all.  Furthermore, attempting to connect the proposed data center to the reduction of services will likely result in your protest being dismissed as ‘foolish” since facts show specific agencies have been dealing with Big Oaks “issues” for years.

One big misunderstanding and an important point is Big Oaks is still and always will be owned by the US military and for good reason. They left hundreds of unexploded, very dangerous ordnances scattered about the massive property.  In addition to misunderstanding events surrounding the reduction of services, there has been frantic concern over the possibility of “radiation exposure” because of the proposed data center.  A few things to know:  The US War Department acquired 55,265 acres of land in 1940; JPG opened during WWII to test bombs and shells and “other” munitions through 1995.  Today only 1,033 acres are used by the Indiana National Guard as a bombing range. The remainder of the land has been divided with about 50,000 acres – north of the “firing line” leased to USFWLS and about 4,000 sold to private entities.  From 1941-1995 over 24 million rounds of conventional weapons were fired. Most of the land remains off limits and requires firm supervision and management with controlled access to ensure public safety including an area where the Army fired 220,462 pounds of tank penetrator rounds containing depleted uranium (DU) over 1280 acres. Despite some clean up, the area still contains 154,324 pounds of DU and 1.5 million rounds of unexploded ordnance (UXO). The good news is since 1984 the soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment have been monitored for DU twice a year by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  The NRC prohibits any activity which would disturb the depleted uranium shells and therefore acts as a massive federal barrier to any development or activity which would place the local population at risk.  The proposed data center is a significant distance from the contaminated areas and therefore poses no risk. As a reminder farmers have been plowing and harvesting grounds within the JPG site and there have been no issues with agriculture use of the land.  Again, the NRC acts as the policing agent, testing twice a year to assure no contamination occurs for any reason. So those worried about “radiation poisoning” can take a deep breath and focus on other concerns should they have them.

Big lies and even bigger conspiracies have caused big frustrations.  The reduction in public access has nothing to do with the data center but it is related to separate and serious issues across multiple agencies, over several years, as well as massive budget cuts under the Trump administration.  Still, a few people have misunderstood events that led up to the reduction of services and placed the blame on the data center project rather than taking action where it might actually make a difference.  Points to remember include the US Military budget has grown substantially, while at the same time the USFWLS budget was cut by 22% just this past year, which followed several years of smaller budget cuts and hiring freezes. At one-point, Big Oaks had a full team of 12 to manage the property.  Hiring freezes dropped that number to 5 with one of the five being the full-time refuge manager.  Trumps 2025 budget cuts dropped the staff to one single full-time person to oversee the entire refuge.  With the retirement of the park manager in December of 2026 and the hiring freeze- it was impossible to replace him. Big Oaks will have zero staff. His retirement was known and expected for numerous years, well before the data center proposal was conceived.  Unfortunately, his departure means Big Oaks will join the ranks of hundreds of refuges already shuttered to the public.  Big Oaks is not unique; the entire refuge system has lost 27%-29% of their workforce since 2011.  Currently more than half of the country’s refuges have zero staff on site which forces automatic reduction in operation or gate closures.  It should be noted, shortly after his election, Trump issued a directive to review multiple refuge properties for decommissioning, boundary reduction and out right closure.  However, a refuge cannot be closed by the executive branch or any agency including the USFWLS- it takes an act of Congress. A realistic way around an act of congress would be for the USFWLS to dissolve/fail to renew the MOA with the military.  Once Fish and Wildlife dissolve the MOA, they surrender their role as refuge management.  The result is a closure without congressional action.  But contrary to the local newspaper’s headlines, Big Oaks will not be closed but access will be further restricted.  Regardless, the data center has nothing to do with the retirement of the last remaining staff person, Trump cuts, restricted areas etc. Again, the reduction in access or eventual closure is unrelated to the data center.

There are those that worry about endangered species and see the data center as a threat to the wildlife that have flourished within JPG. History shows in 2019, after years of back and forth between the army and the NRC the Army final surrendered to the fact they weren’t going to be able to meet decommissioning standards to suit the NRC.  Consequently, the US Army will always own the land on which Big Oaks Wildlife Refuge sits.  In 2000, US Fish and Wildlife and the army made it official and the USFWLS “overlaid” a wildlife refuge on top of JPG land. It’s a massive refuge, the largest in the state. 75% of JPG is forested with some wetland, 7 streams and numerous ponds and lakes making it the perfect location for wildlife to take hold despite continued bombing runs which have had little to no impact on the wildlife some of which have regional, national and global significance.   In comparison Big Oaks is miniscule compared to other national refuges. Our largest refuge is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at 19.2 million acres, Desert Wildlife Refuge in Nevada is 1.3 Million acres and Montana’s Russell National Wildlife Refuge at 1.1 million. But, Big Oaks is larger than the average midwestern and eastern refuges which fall in range of 10-20 thousand acres.   Furthermore, big Oaks is not the only decommissioned military site; it joins numerous chemical testing, bombing and munitions including nuclear testing sites all across the nation, each of which have unique wildlife.  But, a substantial portion of Big Oaks is off limits to humans and unlike other wildlife refuges, guests must sign in and out, must take a safety course and are strictly limited to the few areas deemed safe for humans.  These issues already required the refuge to have a highly restricted visitation and use schedule which means Big Oaks see much fewer visitors than other similar wildlife attractions. The refuge has been open April- November on Mondays and Friday and a few select weekends. Sources note that total visits through the gate are between 10-15 thousand but only 7,500 unique persons visit each year as recorded through mandatory training sessions and records maintenance.   Some visitors arrive several times for fishing, camping, bird watching or hunting.  But overall Big Oaks ranks near the very bottom of visitors nationally. Compared to neighbor Muscatatuck Wildlife Refuge which sees 150,000 visitors annually, Big Oaks remains an unattractive destination because of its access restrictions and limited operation hours.  Despite the wildlife and above average size, Big Oaks is one of the least valuable USFWLS managed refuges. It has significant wildlife but so do all refuges.  However, Big Oaks is not a popular destination, and it requires intense management making it rank low compared to other refuges in terms of value or “return on dollars invested.” For the reasons discussed previously Big Oaks is an easy target for "shuttering. It's a dangerous facility, requiring constant and strict oversight; it has low public interest and ranks in the bottom of all our refuge attendance even when compared to neighboring refuges. Finally, but of most significance, the MOA disagreements between the military and USFWLS only serve as "nails in the coffin".

If you want to try to stop USFWLS from dissolving the MOA or insist the federal government fund the refuge calls for action should be directed to Congresswoman Erin Houchin,  Senators Young and Banks, the US Army and USFWLS.  You may find it more productive to address the funding issue since it is well known that government budget cuts and hiring freezes caused the reduction/closure issues.  Tips for funding include pressuring the military to budget more to staff the refuge since the USFWLS budget has been cut so harshly and since the primary purpose of the staff is to protect the public from the military’s UXO and DU shells- they failed to clear.  Another option already under consideration, is merging management teams with Muscatatuck to provide at least minimal public access several times per month versus a complete shutter of public access. Other options include developing private funding sources to expand the existing volunteer base to fulfill the requirements for checking in and training the public on the dangers associated with a visit to Big Oaks. An endowment or trust of several million would be needed to cover at least one staff member to train and manage volunteers and cover operational expenses such as building and utilities.  This option might be worth exploring should the data center move forward. Interested persons could ask for a “community benefits program” in addition to an economic development agreement.  Such benefit programs often include onetime large sums in multiple millions to establish trusts, endowments and funding for impactful, community projects. The persons in charge of securing a community benefits program agreement would be Daniel Ford, family and associates. But stopping the data center will not stop the reductions in public access. Those saying otherwise are misinformed or simply dishonest.