Day 058 - 30 Nov 94 - Page 54
1 table?
2 A. Coniferous trees with their pine needles are attracting
3 carbon from the atmosphere. They are attracting the
4 acidification from pollution. There is a chemical change
5 which tends to happen in the soil after the water reaches
6 the ground which can, by chemical change, produce a high
7 alumina content and if that gets into waters which are
8 already almost acid it can bring the water level of acidity
9 to a point where the fish can no longer survive. A great
10 deal of scientific work has been done in combination with
11 various research organisations to establish the areas where
12 this is a danger, and where that area has been defined as
13 having high acidity no longer are trees planted anywhere
14 near to the water courses. That is all in the forest
15 guidelines which are amongst the submissions in our
16 evidence.
17
18 Q. Just to refresh my memory, which year did they become
19 guidelines?
20 A. It is a continuing process. In fact, there is a
21 celebrated case which has been going on for some time of
22 appeal on area called Halidale where for the last two years
23 research has been going on in detail to show that only one
24 small corner of a very large area which was previously to
25 be stopped from all forestry was in any way likely to
26 effect the water courses and the levels of acidity.
27
28 Q. Above safe levels?
29 A. Above the safe levels.
30
31 Q. But it may be contributing to increasing the background
32 acidity level in water?
33 A. That, Mr. Morris, to some extent is true, but this has
34 been studied in broad and detailed scientific concern and
35 in fact what will happen now is the planting will proceed
36 in this area and the monitoring will continue. This is
37 being financed by the Forestry Commission, the National
38 Rivers Authority and the Countryside Commission.
39
40 Q. In your paragraph in the middle of the page, page 16, the
41 concern about acidification, effects on fish populations,
42 is it a fact that there has been a great deal of
43 controversy in the USA from anglers protesting about the
44 effects on salmon stocks plummeting in the USA and Canada
45 in fact due to clear felling?
46 A. Due to clear felling?
47
48 Q. Yes. Maybe I have got it wrong. Is it due to clear
49 felling or is it due to the conifer plantations?
50 A. As far as I am aware, the problems in the West Coast in
51 relation to the fisheries issues are to do with the
52 extraction methods and felling and not to do with
53 scavenging. In fact, I find very few references to
54 scavenging in that part of the world as being the cause of
55 loss of fish.
56
57 Q. So that would be the clear felling of natural forests?
58 A. It could well be that the controversial areas,
59 certainly the ones that become reported are those in
60 natural forest. There have been cases of this and there
