next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Hi Bev and all,
I very much agree with your perspective and efforts, and I apologize if it sounded like I was advocating for only surveying species-at-risk. Reporting SARA-listed species is more akin to getting a temporary injunction rather than a long-term regulated policy that supports ecological forestry and biodiversity. I will add here, however, that while this volunteer-naturalist ground-truthing takes place, there should be a public demand for the government to make biodiversity inventories and ecological impact assessment a requirement for forestry operations on Crown land. Other industries must do this and at their own expense. Wind farms, pipelines, highways, LNG terminals, etc., all must pay for a minimum one-year environmental assessment that is sent to the NS Dept. of the Environment for approval. These assessments are required for development on both Crown and private lands. And other renewable resource industries, such as fisheries, are subjected to annual and thorough inventories and assessments on a stock by stock basis in cooperation with industry participation. In my opinion, industrial-scale forestry should be required to behave like all other industries when it comes to the environment. This is the ideal time to develop an approach to forestry environmental assessments, under the authority of the Department of Environment, in conjunction with implementing the recommendations of the Lahey Report.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca <naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca> On Behalf Of Bev Wigney
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 13:16
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Crown land forests - suggestions for ground-truthing sites
David Simpson (and all),
Thanks for your reply, David. I will add you to the list of people who are interested in participating in ground-truthing forays this spring.
Regarding the focus of these surveys. There will definitely be some emphasis on watching for SAR as that might make things easier if you happen to find Blandings turtles or Blue Felt lichen, etc..
Unfortunately (thus far), it hasn't proven to be quite that simple.
There seems to be quite a bit of leeway for proceeding with a harvest by leaving a buffer zone around something you've found (lichen being a good example), and in the case of Mainland Moose, to leave some small patches of trees ("small" being the operative) here and there scattered across the parcels. Last year, I occasionally went through bird atlas records to check for SAR species in various parcels that were up for approval and even though there had been reported activity in the same square as the intended harvests, they were approved. I happened to see the paperwork on one of these and it just had a brief notation about not cutting during nesting. However, as was mentioned by a friend, they said nothing about not working on roadbuilding ahead of the harvest (which requires a lot of cutting). In any case, having now tried to halt, or at least mitigate a few harvests, I know how difficult it is to do so -- especially if you're trying to make a case during that 40 day public comment period. You really have to come up with something very substantial -- or at least that has been the case in the past.
As for cutting during nesting season -- it seems to be allowable. I think that as soon as the logging roads are passable and weight restrictions off the highways, the harvests are in full swing.
So, I guess that leaves the question of what a ground-truthing group can accomplish. I would suggest that there is now a possible "break"
that may at least reduce the intensity of cutting on Crown land. I don't know how closely everyone has been following the discussions on Crown land harvests, but the Department of Lands and Forestry is supposed to be adopting many of the recommendations of the Lahey report. One of the main thrusts was that there should be a move to a triad model -- with one of the legs of the triad being forests which would be managed in a way intended to retain their biodiversity.
There will be different harvest prescriptions applied -- we aren't quite sure just how much that will be, but (hopefully) considerably
less than clearcutting. The designation of these forests will be
based on LAF's selection system. Unfortunately, as we've discovered in recent months -- in this area, and some in other areas of the province -- the data they are working from seems to have resulted in the ball being dropped more than once (those following the forest discussion groups on Facebook will be quite aware of some of these examples). In any case, our group's focus is to get to know what's "out there" well enough that we can make the case that certain forests should be among those managed for biodiversity, and not be subjected to the heavier hand of intensive harvesting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we know that the chances of stopping harvest approvals for Crown land forests is pretty difficult
- even if you find SAR - as there are ways to continue on with the harvest by following certain protocol. However, what may be more effective in the long run, is to determine which forests are the most ecologically significant, and be sure that they are designated as such and won't be subject to the more intensive harvest prescriptions -- thus (hopefully) retaining at least some of their biodiversity.
That's about the best explanation I can provide.
Bev
On 2/26/19, David Simpson <david.sonsimp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please add my name to the list of willing naturalists. I've done a
> fair number of bird surveys, particularly for songbirds, and I'd be
> very happy to partake in the data collection and promulgation efforts.
> I'm in Hants County, but willing to travel. If a similar undertaking
> is happening in my neck of the woods I'd be happy to know about it;
> the number of loaded logging trucks I see coming down the Chester Road is alarming.
>
> Further to what John Kearney said, it migh