next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> > Further to what John Kearn
--------=_MBA226DE41-D30D-4F15-9BB2-64E9D3221AE2
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi John and All.
I think your statement that "there should be a public demand for the=20
government to make biodiversity inventories and ecological impact=20
assessment a requirement for forestry operations on Crown land" is=20
overkill. Such assessments are for good reasons required when the=20
proposal is to replace forest cover by highways, pipelines....because=20
forest cover is lost. Clearcut woodlands grow back quickly and=20
herbaceous or small woody plants briefly have less competition and more=20
light.
However documenting plant cover and animal activity before cutting=20
is a great idea. Someone might locate e.g. a patch of Rhododendron=20
maximum or Selaginella rupestris along with any number of rarely=20
encountered plants. Survival or recovery of small stands of rare plants=20
does not come with a guarantee whether disturbed or not but soil=20
disturbance or release from competition will tend, at least briefly, to=20
increase their abundance/incidence.
From the 60s onward plant distributions have been greatly altered by=
=20
contiguous bands of disturbed soil along 100 series highways, ATV=20
traffic and transport of logging and earth moving equipment which carry=20
seeds, spores or roots around. For example a once rare Equisetum=20
variegatum is now a common weed of disturbed woodland soil in Kings=20
county. Consequently well isolated, rarely cut woodland may offer an=20
opportunity to see "natural" distributions. Not so many years ago almost=20
all logging was in the winter using horses so there was less opportunity=20
for transport of seeds over long distances.
Strategies for survival are no doubt diverse but one frequent ploy=20
is being able to grow where many larger plants can not e.g. Selaginella=20
rupestis and Asplenium viride on isolated boulders or ledges. Seeing a=20
plant at many sites can reveal the otherwise hidden key factor. For=20
example Arisaema stewardsonii is usually found in seasonally wet areas,=20
suggesting that it needs seasonal wetness, but the most vigorous plants=20
I ever saw (about 1970 and a metre high) were on a steep and still=20
sliding spoil bank generated by construction of the 101 south of=20
Kentville. This would suggest that it needs disturbed soil; either by=20
frost action in low areas (the growth of ice whiskers in wet soil=20
results in natural cultivation) or other means.
In closing, and based on a fair amount of walking in woodland remote=
=20
from roads or paths, my general impression is that plant diversity and=20
intensity of biological activity both tend to decrease with stand age;=20
especially if you exclude tiny ferns and the like which survive in=20
isolated systems such as rock ledges and erratic boulders in otherwise=20
hostile woodland.
Yt, DW, Kentville
------ Original Message ------
From: "John Kearney" <j.f.kearney@gmail.com>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Sent: 2/26/2019 4:26:57 PM
Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Crown land forests - suggestions for=20
ground-truthing sites
>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. Reportin=
g SARA-listed species is more akin to getting a temporary injunction rather =
than a long-term regulated policy that supports ecological forestry and bi=
odiversity. I will add here, however, that while this volunteer-naturalist=
ground-truthing takes place, there should be a public demand for the govern=
ment to make biodiversity inventories and ecological impact assessment a re=
quirement for forestry operations on Crown land. Other industries must do t=
his and at their own expense. Wind farms, pipelines, highways, LNG terminal=
s, 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 ren=
ewable resource industries, such as fisheries, are subjected to annual and=
thorough inventories and assessments on a stock by stock basis in cooperati=
on with industry participation. In my opinion, industrial-scale forestry sh=
ould be required to behave like all other industries when it comes to the e=
nvironment. This is the ideal time to develop an approach to forestry envir=
onmental 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 Beh=
alf Of Bev Wigney
>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 13:16
>To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
>Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Crown land forests - suggestions for ground-truthi=
ng sites
>
>David Simpson (and all),
>
>Thanks for your reply, David. I will add you to the list of people who ar=
e interested in participating in ground-truthing forays this spring.
>
>Regarding the focus of these surveys. There will definitely be some empha=
sis on watching for SAR as that might make things easier if you happen to f=
ind 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 l=
eaving a buffer zone around something you've found (lichen being a good exa=
mple), and in the case of Mainland Moose, to leave some small patches of tr=
ees ("small" being the operative) here and there scattered across the parce=
ls. 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 t=
here 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 i=
t just had a brief notation about not cutting during nesting. However, as=
was mentioned by a friend, they said nothing about not working on roadbuild=
ing ahead of the harvest (which requires a lot of cutting). In any case, h=
aving now tried to halt, or at least mitigate a few harvests, I know how di=
fficult 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 someth=
ing very substantial -- or at least that has been the case in