Comments on selection of patches and other sites for the 12% LandsDavid PatriquinSubmitted to Nova Scotia Environment, Feb 10, 2012 (http://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/12percent/get.involved.asp) It is difficult to compliment NSE staff enough for the amount and quality of work they have done to identify potential areas to add to existing protected areas in order to achieve 12% protection by 2015, recognizing also the work done by the Colin Stewart Forest Forum (CSFF) & DNR personnel. The maps, descriptions and photographs of the 576 patches, so readily accessible via the NSE website, will be valuable to conservation efforts and education in N.S. beyond this immediate exercise and beyond 2015. The following comments are my own, but have been influenced by my involvement with the Halifax Field Naturalists (HFN), the Nova Scotia Wild Flora Society (NSWFS), the Woodens River Watershed Environmental Organization (WRWEO), also the Chebucto Wilderness Coalition (CWC). I am a member and past president of HFN, on the board of NSWFS and I am co-chair of WRWEO and a representative of WRWEO in the CWC. I retired from my position as Professor of Biology at Dalhousie University in 2008. Numbers in parentheses refer to notes entered at the end of this online submission. 1. I hope that some priority can be given to sites that augment size/connectivity of existing protected areas of moderate size in forested landscapes. I suggest that 3 of the 8 zones of potential larger intact forest landscapes (IFL) identified in the 2010 report "Nova Scotia's Intact Forest Landscapes: Opportunities for Conservation Planning by Global Forest Watch Canada" could be targeted. More on this topic. The 4 R approach (Remote, Representative, Rich, Rare) to selection of sites for protection misses a key concept in biodiversity conservation, namely size & connectivity. The Chebucto Wilderness Coalition has suggested this concept could be a 5th R, for Relationships, referring to relationships with existing protected areas. (1) I have discussed my concern about size and connectivity with both government and NGO personnel involved in the 12% process. All were well aware of the issue (it is explicitly addressed in the CSFF document, but in few NSE documents), but seem to feel that at this stage, we have to take what we can get to conserve representative, rare and rich landscapes and pursue outstanding size/connectivity issues subsequently, that we simply cannot achieve all we wish with 12% land protected. I think that many in the pro-conservation camp have accepted that notion on the basis that we expected the government to follow through on its initial commitments to a real 50% reduction in clearcutting and promotion of multiaged forest management - such a development would provide significant protection of biodiversity outside of the formally recognized protected areas, and thus address some of the deficiencies of the protected area network in regard to size and connectivity. It appears this is not going to happen soon. Regardless, I think it is important to highlight the significance of size and connectivity, particularly as it relates to forest landscapes, because the public by and large believes that once an area is protected, everything within it is protected "forever", like Noah's Ark. That tends to bias pubic support towards protection of many smaller special areas and towards accepting biodiversity-unfriendly practices on the larger working landscapes. I think the need for more emphasis on or for at least highlighting this issue is clearly evident when you look at the 12 percent map and compare the numbered patches with the remaining crown land areas (which were not selected as potential protected areas), and both with the existing areas that count toward 12%. Currently, we have only two large contiguous conservation areas Cape Breton Highlands National Park/Pollets Cove-Aspy Fault & Kejimkujik National Park /Tobeactic PWA. The other currently protected areas and the 576 patches collectively are highly fragmented, but could be made less so if more of the crown land were protected in at least in a few targeted areas. Conservation science has struggled with the SLOSS debate: given ability to protect a certain area of land within a larger landscape, is it better to select a Single Large or Several Small conservation areas for biodiversity conservation? The answer is complex and depends on the which species are of interest, climatic change and a number of other factors. However, there is general agreement, I believe, that in practice, some combination of smaller and larger areas and as much connectivity as possible is the best way to hedge our bets. For Nova Scotia, the size issue is most critical in regard to intact forested landscapes (IFL). In pre-colonial times, IFL - mostly multiaged Acadian forest - covered almost the entire province. Today, forested landscape is still large covering circa 75% of the area of the province, and is larger than a minimum reached in the late 19th/early 20th century after much land had been deforested by land clearing and fires, some of which reverted to forest ("afforestation") in the 20th century. However, the forest of today has been highly fragmented by clearcutting which began in earnest in the 1960s; and overall we have young forests, perhaps a majority of it even aged, and a very small proportion of old growth (<1% compared to 10-15% in the 1950s and estimates of 40- 50% in pre-colonial forests). this has particular impact on species characteristic of late successional stages such as cavity-nesting birds and mammals and those that require large tracts of minimally disturbed land such as mainland moose. realistically we cannot expect, in the short term anyway, to approach anything like pre-colonial cover by multiaged, acadian forest. however, to conserve many of the species of those forests that are still with us, we need to protect more large tracts of intact forest. if we don't, in time many species that exist here now will be extirpated. (2) Hence I urge that in the process of selecting new 12% lands, some weighting be given to sites that can augment size of existing protected areas of moderate size in forested landscapes and/or increase connectivity in such areas. The 2010 report on Nova Scotia's Intact Forest Landscapes: Opportunities for Conservation Planning by Global Forest Watch Canada (3) identified eight areas (zones) of potential larger intact forest landscapes (IFL), seven of them > 20,000 ha (TobeaticSouthwest Nova, Cape Breton Highlands, Country HarbourCanso, White LakeTangier, South Mountain, Liscomb, Chignecto, one > 15000 ha (Chebucto) See Figure 11 and Table 5 in that report. I suggest that a subset of these zones be targeted for increased size and connectivity of protected forest tracts. This might be achieved for example by assigning 50% of the area yet to included in the 12% lands to be chosen from sites within these eight zones, with some priority given to the South Mountain, Chignecto and one of the four eastern shore zones (Chebucto, White Lake Tangier, Liscomb, Country HarbourCanso). 2. Other site types or features that I would rank highly in the selection process:
3. Specific Patches and Other sites These comments apply to some of the areas with which I have some familiarity. 3.1 Chignecto area: - Protection of Patch # 570 would plug a big hole in Cape Chignecto Park, a good example of increasing size/connectivity of an existing protected areas. Patch 570 has been extensively harvested and has many roads and should be protected given the importance of Cape Chigencto Park as a conservation area and as an important wilderness recreation area for N.S. - Likewise, if all of the Chignecto Game Sanctuary Lands lying outside of the Raven Head & Kelly River Candidate Wilderness Areas could be protected it would connect those two candidate areas, adding significantly to the value of both of those areas and address the need for larger IFLs discussed above. (There appears to be a lot of clearcutting in these Chignecto game Sanctuary lands - if they can't be formally protected, a requirement for selection cutting/multi-aged forest management would go a long way towards the same end.) - Shulie 375 to extend coastal protection in proximity to the Raven Head Candidate Protected Area. This whole coastal area is a treasure geologically, supports a lot of wildlife and is largely isolated and lacking development; the more that can be protected now, the better! 3.2 Avon Peninsula Gypsum Karst, (not identified as a patch) I am referring to woodland and wetlands in gypsum karst on the Avon Peninsula, including all of the area previously proposed for a new gypsum mine and a small protected area, but now, apparently, vacated. This area supports exceptional plant biodiversity of the "plaster rock flora" including many red and yellow listed species and large populations of the endangered Ram's Head orchid, and at least two bat hibernacula. The biodiversity of the area has been well documented in the environmental review for the proposed mine and by Matt Smith and other residents of the area and by the Nova Scotia Wild Flora Society. (4) 3.3 Angevine Lake -I am supportive of efforts to protect patch #6. I don't know it personally, but several members of the Nova Scotia wild flora society have been there and can vouch for at last some of the statements on the Protect Angevine Lake website: "Angevine Lake is representative of the Northumberland Lowlands landscape and thus far there is no land in this landscape type under protectionŠ.Angevine Lake has the highest documented biodiversity for herpetological species in the province (salamanders, frogs and snakes) and is the only crown owned site for the endangered Ram's Head Lady Slipper. It provides diverse habitat for bald eagles, loons, pileated woodpeckers, wood ducks, various owls, hermit thrush, black bear, deer among other birds and mammals. It also has a thriving population of odes (dragonflies and damselflies); three of which are known to be rare. In addition to the Ram's Head Lady Slipper, rare plants in the environs of the lake include hepatica, black ash, halberd leaved tearthumb, blue cohosh, yellow violet and a rare lichen (Collema leptaleum) among others. The old and near old growth forest surrounding the lake is some of the last remaining in the county." (from http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protectangevine- lake/) 3.4 The Chebucto Peninsula -Amongst the islands and coastal areas which have been assigned patch numbers, I suggest priority be given to 112 Dover Islands, 469 West Dover and 39 Blind Bay, 331 Prospect, 332 Prospect Bay 308 Pennant Island because as well as being coastal and significant for shorebirds and waterfowl, they add connectivity with the coast to existing protected areas; 331 is "staging and feeding area for shorebirds and waterfowl overwintering area for common eider and provincially endangered harelquin duck" (NSE) -To the north and west of protected lands on the Chebucto Peninsula, patches 100, 42 and 32 would help to provide connectivity between the protected areas of the Chebucto Peninsula and South Mountain Rolling Plain on the mainland, -Herring Cove Backlands (not included in any numbered patches) in an ideal world, the whole area would all be protected! I urge that consideration at least be given to the McIntosh Run portion of the area between Herring Cove, Fergusons Cove, and Spryfield because of its wetlands, forest and jackpine barrens and because it has a lot of value to people locally for outdoor recreation and who have been active in stewardship of the upper parts of MacIntosh Run. 3.5 White Lake-Ship Harbour-Tangier Grand Lake region Approx 40% of the Intact Forest landscape is protected in three large Protected Wilderness Areas. Adding patches 373 & 404 would increase connectivity. The set of islands along the adjacent coast include patches numbered 87, 304. 486, 476, 374, 410, 321 with saltmarshes, beaches and dunes sea and shorebird habitat including that of piping plover, Atlantic coastal forest and likely some significant features not yet well documented as they have not been well studied. Protection of these inland and coastal patches and perhaps other patches in the area would help to make the area as a whole a significant conservation zone. 3.6 Pine-Sand barrens or "dry bogs" This habitat type is found in the Annapolis Valley, some in SW Nova Scotia (e.g., at Indian Fields) but as far as I can determine, none are amongst the lands in the 576 patches, and I am not aware of crown land areas supporting these habitat types. Most have already been destroyed by development for residential or industrial areas or farmlands, ATV use etc. (5) I hope that at least one dry bog site could be found for inclusion in the 12% lands. 4. Finally I urge that in subsequent presentations and discussions of the 12% lands, deficiencies in regard to size and connectivity, particularly as they relate to intact forest landscapes, be flagged and highlighted also that the reasons this is a critical issue for biodiversity conservation be laid out and that some options for addressing it be given so that the public has a better understanding of this issue. Ontario might cited as an example of how to promote increased protection through forest management: in that province, selection or shelterwood harvesting based on tree-marking is required on many crown lands, and municipalities and counties also have the authority to implement such requirements and have done so. (6) NOTES (1) CWC Steering Committee Report #10: CWC Steering Committee Reviews the Case for Legislated Protection (Aug. 17, 2009). Available at http://wrweo.ca/ChebWilderness/reports.html (2) Habitat fragmentation is responsible for more than 80% of biodiversity losses. Hence, at best, protecting 12% of habitat while larger areas continue to degrade will help only to stem the tide, not to stop it or reverse it. We are only just at the beginning of large scale species losses associated with fragmentation of habitat. The alarm bells about species loss were raised in the 1980s because of losses that had occurred until then and, more so, because a better theoretical understanding of species biodiversity predicted huge losses to come with continuing destruction and fragmentation of habitats. E.O. Wilson's rule of thumb predicts that a tenfold reduction in habitat results in approximately 50% reduction in the number of species an area can support. Many or most species may hang on in a remnant habitat for a while, but are lost as they become locally extinct and cannot be replaced by immigration from other, still extant populations in other suitable habitats. So, in addition to conserving as much intact habitat as possible, we need to reconstruct a network of habitats and wildlife corridors across the whole province in order to maintain the natural immigration and gene f low between populations in different regions. A study by Karen Beazley and associates in the School for Resources and Environmental Studies at Dalhousie used a GIS and modeling based approach to estimate conservation needs in Nova Scotia*. They concluded that approx. 60% of Nova Scotia, including 32% in core areas, should be managed for conservation objectives to maintain genes, species, and ecosystems over time: Similar estimates have been forthcoming from other studies. In practice this means that much larger areas than 12% of the province need to be managed for biodiversity conservation, regardless of whether they are in private or public hands. *Beazley, K. et al. 2005. Biodiversity considerations in conservation system planning: a map-based approach for Nova Scotia Canada. Ecological Applications 15(6): 2192-220. (3) Cheng R, PG Lee and I McIvor. 2010. Nova Scotia's Intact Forest Landscapes: Opportunities for Conservation Planning. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada 10th Anniversary Publication #8. Available at http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/pubs/2010Anniversary/08NovaScotiaIFL/NS-IFL-LR.pdf (4) See http://versicolor.ca/avon/index.html for some further elaboaration. (5) A page on the website of the Clean Annapolis River Project provides an ecological description of dry bogs (Pine Moorlands) of the Annapolis Valley and cites conservations concerns. "The main characteristic that allows the dry bogs to be easily recognizable is the dark green/brown Broom Crowberry (Corema conradii) which is typical of the dry bog sites. These sites are not actually bogs, as their name may imply. They are called dry bogs because their soil and plant composition is similar to a bog (high acidity and sandy soil composition), but they are very dry -- hence the name dry bog. Dry bogs are sometimes referred to as "Pine Moorlands" because of their characteristic plants, including pine trees, and plant members from the heath family." See http://www.annapolisriver.ca/projects_drybog.php (6) Tree marking involves the selection of individual trees to be harvested, while leaving trees to grow for future harvests and to provide wildlife habitat. When properly applied, tree marking can actually reverse many of the historical, negative impacts that unregulated cutting has created in our forests. This often requires two or more cutting cycles and adhering to the guidelines of selection and shelterwood system management. (From: Ontario Extension Notes, Promoting a healthy forest through tree marking, available at http://www.lrconline.com/Extension_Notes_English/pdf/tree_marking.pdf). Ontario has established special training and certification programmes for tree markers. |