An Idiot's guide to Ancient Woodland management

[the village idiot]

I totally understand all your concerns on the protected species issue. My advice would be to not lose too much sleep over it.

 

We have quite a range of protected species in our Wood including Dormice, Bats and Great Crested Newts, but as you have seen from the thread we have not had to go 'over easy' on our management decisions.

 

The authorities want sustainable woodland management to thrive.

 

If you know that your Wood is home to rare and protected wildlife you do have an obligation to take their presence into account. It is good practice to do a brief visual survey of any area you intend to carry out work in and make a written note of the fact that the important species have been taken into consideration in your plan of action. This will give you some comeback in the event of any questioning. 

 

If your aim is to manage sustainably and you're not taking endangered species into account then it would probably be fair enough for your actions to be questioned.

 

Natural England are viewed by some as spoil sports but they really are pro management. They are well aware that one habitat type we are certainly not short of is unmanaged woodland. Proceed with a considered level of due diligence and you should be fine.

[Paul in the woods]

Without wanting to take such a good thread off topic it does seem you're in an area where your various bods from Natural England, the FC etc are on the same wavelength as you. This isn't always the case in other areas, just the amount of ride creation you're doing wouldn't be acceptable down here.

 

I do take into account all protected species but I seriously doubt other government organisations or large conservation organisations do down here when they manage their own land or go about their work.

[the village idiot]

No worries Paul, your post is very much 'on topic'.

 

I'm surprised that large amounts of ride creation would be deemed unacceptable anywhere. You do need a big woodland to go to the scale that we have but extensive ride creation (particularly ride edge) is generally very much encouraged in my experience. It would be a shame if there is regional variation on this.

 

There is something very wrong in deepest darkest Devon if conservation organisations are not taking into account all their protected species.

 

Obviously I can't really comment any further than that, not having first hand knowledge of your area.

 

There are always frustrations like this popping up in life. Probably best to continue in the best way you can, set a great example and concentrate on what you can control?

 

 

[Mr. Ed]

I’m deeply ignorant in all matters woodland, but (and maybe I’ve been lucky) my experience with old houses has led me to the conclusion that once the conservation bods realise you’re on the same wavelength and trying to do the “right thing” some of the more irksome formfilling falls away. 

[the village idiot]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Ed said:

I’m deeply ignorant in all matters woodland, but (and maybe I’ve been lucky) my experience with old houses has led me to the conclusion that once the conservation bods realise you’re on the same wavelength and trying to do the “right thing” some of the more irksome formfilling falls away. 

In the Woodland context, whenever I am given direct advice from any special interest group I always make sure that I listen, and show that I am listening.

 

I don't always do what they suggest (ask ten different foresters for a plan of action and you'll get eleven different answers), but the fact that they at least know that you are open to their point of view goes a surprisingly long way and stands you in good stead with them in the future.

[Paul in the woods]

With regard to the ride creation do you regard any of it as open space in your plan? I struggled to get my plan approved because the FC thought there was too much open space at about 10%. I had intentionally left an open area next to a track as trees had failed to establish but a vast myriad of wild flowers had grown in their place.

 

As for other organisations not taking account of protected species I expect its similar everywhere to some extent. Often they will have a specific aim, down here it's to remove woodland back to grassland. Now when there's a BAP fungi on the tree what do they do?

Edited December 19, 2019 by Paul in the woods

[the village idiot]

We don't have any specific provision for open space in our plan or our Countryside Stewardship agreement. It could certainly be argued that our rides constitute open space but they are officially recorded as ride creation/maintenance operations. 

 

We weren't obligated to have open space provision but it is certainly a good option if you are aiming to diversify your habitats.

 

It sounds like your governing bodies are sending very mixed messages by encouraging the conversion of woodland to grassland but questioning your 10% open space plan. It is your woodland, and if you feel you can justify your plans on a Woodland improvement basis then stick to your guns.

 

Did the FC concede on your 10% in the end?

 

Regarding your BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) question. It is unrealistic to expect woodland managers to be aware of, and make provision for every single BAP species in the UK. If you have a small block of woodland with one or two identified rare and protected species it makes some sense to tailor your management plan to their needs if possible. If you try to cater for everything in a very small block you may end up with habitats too insignificant to sustain anything much. If the woodland block is large I would consider it appropriate to try and create a diverse range of habitats including some non-intervention areas.

 

These are just my particular thoughts on it. Ultimately it is down to individual managers to do what they feel is best for their patch and try to get the relevant authorities on board with their thinking. In my experience the Forestry Commission have been open to discussion on all potential ideas that can be aligned with the UK Forestry Standard.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/687147/The_UK_Forestry_Standard.pdf

 

The UK Forestry Standard is a weighty tome but important to be familiar with as it informs the stance of the FC on any woodland management decision.

 

Copied below is a section from the UKFS on open space which is relevant to Paul's particular point of tension:

 

Open, scrub and edge habitats

the open, scrub and edge habitats within or adjacent to woodland are especially important for biodiversity. these unplanted areas may contain valuable habitats, such as shrubs, open and stunted forest at the natural treeline, grasslands, crags, heaths, limestone pavements, bogs and a range of aquatic habitats. open areas such as utility wayleaves, roads and rides add to these open habitats. 
their value as habitats is greatly increased if they can be linked together and if the forest edges next to them are managed as part of this network. In some situations, management will be required to maintain open areas and prevent them reverting to woodland; shrubby woodland can be flailed, grassland mown or lightly grazed, and heathland periodically burned. Where woods have been recently planted, open areas within them may contain botanical interest that can be maintained with periodic mowing.
Forest edges that grade into open ground and, where possible, contain mixtures of native trees and shrubs are far more beneficial to biodiversity than abrupt edges. they provide, for example, bird nesting and feeding areas and sources of nectar for pollinators and other insects. Many birds nest in edge habitats, and some, such as black grouse, depend on the maintenance of a diverse edge structure. Butterflies require nectar sources and food plants associated with edges and open areas.
distinctive open forest habitats and species associations have also developed in woodlands with a long history of grazing, parkland, wood pasture or understorey grazing, and these have specific management requirements. 
 23  Plan open space in new and existing woodland to create and enhance networks of open-ground habitats.
 24  Consider practical opportunities to restore open habitats where their value could be reinstated and sustained.
 25  develop graded edge habitats; thin woodland edges to create a diverse and convoluted structure and a transitional zone between habitats.
 26  ensure wetland features such as springs, flushes and bogs are protected, and take opportunities to restore degraded features.
 27  Consider how open areas and areas with partial tree or shrub cover can be managed to maintain or enhance their value for biodiversity.
UK Forestry standard 

[Paul in the woods]

I agree with you Mr Idiot. In the end I've gone ahead without felling licences by using the exemptions. Thankfully the rules seem to have been amended to give me two lots of exemptions for both pieces of woodland I own.

 

As for BAPs I also think some have better PR than others.

 

The thing I'm struggling with at the moment is bats and mature trees. I live on the edge of some ancient woodland and I need to sort out what I do with the mature ash trees that are going to die off with ADB. I'll make that a separate topic.

 

 

[Stere]

Ask  different   conservationists from different bodies they probably would all want different management to benefit  the bats/doormice/butterflies/red squrriels etc.

 

Local wildlife trust don't like trees all there work is clearing scrub from all there reserves which are mostly lowland heath and fens, so constantly  cutting back birch heather gorse brambles and willow as all theese sites naturally want to become  woodland.

 

I think alot of people have got something slightly irrational against scrub sees a hated vegetation amongst conservationists.

 

Maybe as the word "scrub" doesn't sound very apealing.

 

Should call it baby forest instead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[the village idiot]

11 minutes ago, Stere said:

Ask  different   conservationists from different bodies they probably would all want different management to benefit  the bats/doormice/butterflies/red squrriels etc.

 

Local wildlife trust don't like trees all there work is clearing scrub from all there reserves which are mostly lowland heath and fens, so constantly  cutting back birch heather gorse brambles and willow as all theese sites naturally want to become  woodland.

 

I think alot of people have got something slightly irrational against scrub sees a hated vegetation amongst conservationists.

 

Maybe as the word "scrub" doesn't sound very apealing.

 

Should call it baby forest instead?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know whether it's just an East of England thing but conservation groups here are generally very scrub friendly. Heath and fens are important habitat types in their own right and an appropriate number should arguably be maintained, but their species carrying capacity doesn't come close to that of scrubby woodland.

 

It would be disappointing if all potential woodland sites were consistently cleared of their trees. You would hope that a more balanced approach would be adopted, especially as woodland provides the additional benefit of providing a useful commercial product along with it's very significant biodiversity, recreation and carbon sequestration contributions.

 

With the multitude of benefits that woodland provides, would it be going too far to suggest that it is a much better vegetation type to encourage in many circumstances?