Restoration of this relatively unique (for our area) Douglas-fir-ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ecosystem in Syringa is a priority of BC Parks. They had a Professional Forester write an “Ecosystem Restoration Tree Removal Prescription”, based on the various ecological reports written over the years, which would guide the loggers in achieving the goals set in the Vegetation Management Plan. The Prescription identifies which trees to remove (based on species and diameter) over a 20 hectare area. Essentially, all the larger Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and larch were retained. Specific instructions on how to prevent damage to the ground were in the Prescription as were methods to prevent damage to any of the remaining trees. Gord and I observed that the loggers had gathered all the brush and limbs into neat little piles which they had burned, thus reducing the fire hazard from the logging operation. There are plans to follow up the logging with a light-intensity burn from time to time to reduce the risk of an uncontrolled wildfire, to enhance forage production and to control weeds.
Now, the forest you see as you cycle or walk along the road in the campground area is open and much like it was over a century ago. The stumps were purposely cut as low as possible to the ground. Soon you might see highly palatable natural grasses returning with some shrubs as well as more deer and elk. Perhaps the woodpeckers will return as well as the Badgers. The open forest is much more pleasing to view as well, in my opinion. Whereas before you couldn’t see the Park for the trees, now, you can!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
among others (I’m still on the steep part of the learning curve). One reported reason for this sudden rush of IPP developments is the contention that BC needs more electricity to simply meet our own desires, and that we can generate “clean, green” energy here in BC that does not contribute to climate change. It is reportedly a potentially very profitable venture for successful proponents as well. A number of the articles I came across cast considerable doubt on whether we have a need for additional power generation capacity, and whether or not “clean, green” is an accurate description of what is underway. I left the debate on whether there really is a need for more electricity generation for future reading and focused on the ‘clean, green’ aspects of the IPP proposals.
Immediately I was surprised to find no mention of environmental assessment (EA) requirements in the Environmental Leadership section of the BC Energy Plan. Later I learned that if IPP proposals have a “nameplate capacity” of 50 MW or more, or if they will require more than 40km of new right-of-way for new transmission lines, an EA will be required. Curiously, it seems that a project that is initially built with 39km of new transmission line and 45MW of capacity with no EA can later upgrade to 90MW of production, with no EA. I must have this wrong. I also find it amazing to think 39km of new transmission line in the initial development requires no EA (unless the Minister specifically requires one; there is an opportunity for public input with an EA). I need to improve my understanding of this process and find information that will address my concerns. At this point I find myself concerned that we are engaged in a very large scale process, with major environmental impacts, for debatable reasons, with unclear public endorsement, and with possibly limited public input sought for many projects. I am absolutely sure that among the hundreds of IPP proposals there are many, many excellent proposals that should go ahead. I also doubt if any single proposal on its own will cause an unacceptably high environmental impact. What does concern me is what the Chinese call “death by a thousand cuts”, the current tally on our local ecosystem, and whether Victoria is keeping count. –ed
|
This newsletter brought to you by Virtual Communities Visit our web site or the Kootenay tourism site |