next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> david.sonsimp@g Hi John, and all, It took me a day to frame what I wanted to say with regard to your comments about the need for biodiversity inventories and ecological impact assessments. I don't mean the following as criticism, John, but wish to build on what you and Donna Crossland have suggested. Let me begin by saying that it would be terrific to see such an enlightened system come to pass, but as I look at the volume of harvest parcels, I wonder how such a thing would even be possible. Yesterday, after reading your email, I decided to go through all of the "harvest update" emails I'd received from NS Forestry Maps (HPMV - Harvest Plan Map Viewer), to see just how many parcels and how many hectares were posted in 2018. It turned out that, at some point last summer, I became so discouraged and annoyed about the whole business that I deleted some of the emails, so there are a scattering of updates missing from my final tally. However, even without those updates, in 2018, I totalled 778 parcels representing over 11,045 hectares. Had I the rest of the emails, I'm guessing the total for 2018 would be considerably higher. Now, one thing to keep in mind is that the above totals are *just* the parcels that were posted for approval in 2018. As we have discovered in our own area here in Annapolis county, there is still a lot of cutting taking place on parcels approved in past years -- and, as in the case of Corbett Lake forest which I and Donna have mentioned, there are even parcels which which have been "redrawn" from parcels approved in the past under a lesser consultative process, thereby circumventing the current requirement for a 40 day public consultation period. That was indeed the case at Corbett Lake which we discovered only as a fluke -- as the parcels were posted "by mistake" on an HPMV upate email -- so were made public "accidentally" in December 2018. What we learned from this incident was that there are probably other harvests taking place on parcels drawn up before the current consultative process and that we do not know about. To make matters even worse, just a few weeks ago, the Department of Lands and Forestry (formerly DNR), "renovated" the Harvest Plan Map Viewer that used to show both the "approved" harvest parcels and the "proposed" harvest parcels (those parcels approved since the HPMV was set up in 2015). They have now removed **ALL** of the "approved" harvests so that we can't see them anymore. Of course, this quite literally cleared off the maps and made them look pretty clean and free of harvest parcels as only the "new" proposed harvests exist on the maps -- and *only* for 40 days and then *poof* - they disappear! In any case, my point in mentioning all of the above is that, if we consider that, in just one year, well over 778 parcels representing over 11,045 hectares of forest, were posted for approval -- and most likely granted the approval as very few ever seem to be cancelled -- being realistic about things, we have to wonder how it would ever be possible to do even a cursory "assessment" on that many parcels spread out all over the province. To do so would require a pretty substantial army of ecology or biology workers to even begin to look at each parcel with "boots on the ground". Of course, I expect you know where I'm going with this line of thought. Still, I do think there needs to be a change in the assessment process. It's not good enough to use GIS info based on helicopter or small plane surveys of forests to determine their make-up and other qualities that can't possibly be determined without site visits -- and I don't mean just hopping out of a truck to poke around for an hour or two. As for the current system of public consultation, I used to have some faith in it. In my naiveté, I assumed that when I posted a comment on the HPMV submission form, that it went to what I imagined to be a team of biologists who carefully reviewed everyone's comments. Little did I know that my submissions were actually routed to the "licensee" who had applied for approval for the parcel. I have no further words to add to my opinion of this system............. So, what is a responsible, ecology-minded person to do? I guess that I'm looking at the recommendations of the Lahey report and thinking that *at least* there may be some glimmer of hope that we might be able to have some forests formally designated as "ecology forests" under the proposed triad system -- those forests that would be allowed to retain at least some of what makes a *real* forest a forest. Can we not have some of those kinds of forests set aside -- and not just forests being mowed down on 30 or 40 year rotations? I'm talking about *real forests* with towering old hardwoods like we used to see in the "old days". Mammoth-sized hardwoods like the huge old Yellow Birch and Sugar Maples at Corbett Lake -- many of which have cavities where owls, flying squirrels, Pileated woodpeckers, and possibly even Chimney Swifts might find a place to live and raise their young? Just this evening, I read a paper on Chimney Swifts in Avian Conservation and Ecology. "Tree cavity use by Chimney Swifts: implications for forestry and population recovery." (Zanchetta, C., D. C. Tozer, T. M. Fitzgerald, K. Richardson, and D. Badzinski. 2014. Avian Conservation and Ecology 9(2): 1.) The authors state: "As the occurrence of suitable chimneys declines, Chimney Swifts may increasingly nest and roost in tree cavities.." In their study of tree-nesting Swifts, they found that "all of the trees were greater than 0.5 m diameter at breast height (DBH) and were described as hollow or having cavities. Nest or roost tree height was 12.7 ± 7.0 m (mean ± SD; range: 3.6–28.0 m; n = 25) and DBH was 1.0 m ± 0.5 m (range 0.5–2.1 m; n = 21). According to our description of used trees, the number of suitably hollow Chimney Swift nest or roost trees may be two to three times higher, although still rare, in most unlogged compared to logged hardwood forests." http://www.ace-eco.org/vol9/iss2/art1/ What does that tell us about nesting opportunities for Chimney Swifts? I think it tells us that we actually *need* to leave some of these great old trees standing -- trees just such as those 8-foot-in-circumference trees that we "found" at Corbett Lake -- which now, are *supposed* to be spared from felling -- but *only* as a result of the efforts of 18 local residents who went out on Boxing Day, December 2018 to GROUND-TRUTH that forest when it was *accidentally* listed on the HPMV update. Had it not been accidentally listed -- or had we been feeling too lazy from our Christmas dinners -- to go out and take a look at that forest, those trees would have been removed -- as, in fact, several already had been -- their remains lying on the CULL timber piles from where the crews stopped work for the winter. Sad, isn't it? That to some, it is more worthwhile to hack down huge, s