Comments on the Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (information booklet on the revised proposal)

Transcription

1 (information booklet on the revised proposal) Name Organisation Address Nelson Management Limited contact Phone contact Introduction Nelson Management Limited (NML) manages the assets of Nelson Forests Limited including 78,000 gross hectares of plantation forest in Nelson / Marlborough. We made submissions on the Proposed National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES) both supporting the NES and requesting significant changes so that the policy objective could be achieved. We appreciate the further opportunity to comment on the proposed NES particularly now with the Erosion Susceptibility Classification System available. We appreciate the work completed by the working groups and continue to support the need for a NES for Plantation Forestry. We have some remaining and significant concerns with the revised proposal but believe that the amendments we are seeking to accommodate our concerns remain consistent with achieving the environmental outcomes sought by the NES and as such they represent improvement opportunities. Layout of submission We have answered the questions posed in Appendix 6 of the Information Booklet on the Revised proposal May 2011 and made separate detailed submission where we felt the questions did not cover our concern

2 Erosion Susceptibility Class ESC We have two concerns with the ESCs. Specific and known land capability is not represented by the ESC used The ESC are based on broad assessments and future refinement should be anticipated and provided for NES reference Revised NES position NF submission ( ), ( ) Reasons Tasman Council area District Erosion susceptibility Maps Erosion susceptibility classes Pg 13 Moutere Gravels classified s High Risk Changes to the Erosion Susceptibility Classes (ESC) OPPOSE: Change Moutere Gravels to low and/or medium risk as defined by the proposed changes submitted by Andrew Burton Tasman District Council s Resource Scientist (Land) OPPOSE The NES must make provision for incremental changes to the ESC maps 4 tier system SUPPORT 4 tier system. Would not support 3 tier system Forestry has been practised across the range of Moutere Gravel LUC classes for 2 rotations, and in some cases 3 rotations, Local authority land managers and forestry operators each with over 30 years experience are not aware of any significant adverse effects that are not adequately managed by the permitted activity standards / conditions in the NES. The consenting requirement would not add any value to current practices LUC mapping has been completed to a very broad scale resulting in polygon boundaries that are inaccurate for the purpose of supporting an NES. There needs to be a reliable and credible governance process to allow changes to the ESC boundaries through time. A Controlling Panel and a process to ensure that the changes are reflected in the LUC database is required 4 tiers is easier to define high erosion susceptibility sites and standard practices that can manage effects Environmental outcomes We are unsure of the full implications of the environmental outcome statements contained in the NES? And seek amendments to prevent future creep in standards to achieve the outcomes. NES reference Revised NES position NF submission ( ), ( ) Reasons Table 1 Biodiversity Pg 9 Table 1 Landscape Pg 9 Biodiversity outcome statement Natural features and natural landscapes. OPPOSE Amendments sought: Delete third bullet point OPPOSE Amendment sought Delete significant adverse effect w.r.t. all other natural features and natural landscapes There are areas of significant indigenous veg that do suffer some edge damage from harvesting adjoining plantations As a minimum ensure no net loss of biodiversity of areas of significant indigenous veg significant habitats. Could be interpreted to NOT allow edge damage. The terms natural landscapes and natural features are too broad to include in an outcome statement.

3 Ability to be more stringent Generally supportive of the changes but remain concerned about the possible restriction on existing activities as a result of the ability to be more stringent through time NES reference Revised NES position NF submission ( ), ( ) Reasons Ability to be more stringent Pg Outstanding natural features and landscapes OPPOSE Amendment sought: Remove ability to be more stringent for activities in existing forests. The certainty for existing forests and more importantly the potential for councils to use this provision to identify areas to be more stringent is a significant threat to the expectations of investors. Accept it applying to afforestation as then the investor has the foresight and opportunity to fully cost any additional provisions that might be reasonably applied Q1 Do you agree with the changes to the afforestation section In part Yes and In part NO: NES reference Revised NES position NF submission ( ), ( ) Reasons Pg 25 Pg 25 Pg 32 Permitted Green and Yellow SUPPORT The standards contained within the NES are sufficient to ensure that the effects of afforestation (within the scope of the NES) are not more than minor. Archaeological condition SUPPORT This removes unnecessary duplication if permitted provided carried out in accordance with HPA RD on Orange and Red zones Oppose: Afforestation itself provides positive benefits for erosion mitigation. The need to obtain consents will reduce the uptake of new forestry on marginal agricultural land. If however this is an attempt to front load forestry then a new activity category should be included. If front loading is the intent then suggest a new category of activity that provides consent to undertake all of the subsequent forestry activities including earthworks, river crossings etc. covered by the NES and retain permitted activity for Afforestation. Suggest new category of activity: Afforestation AND Log extraction and define as the full forestry cycle including all associated activities that would otherwise require resource consents. Restricted Discretionary RD afforestation rules will not prevent further consents for earthworks anymore than permitted in Green and Yellow zones mean no further consents required.

4 Q1 Do you agree with the changes to the afforestation section continued NES reference Revised NES position NF submission ( ), ( ) Reasons Pg 27 Pg 27 Pg 28 Setbacks Buildings and dwellings Setbacks Public roads 1m setback from a perennial streams <1m Accept for Afforestation BUT reject for Replanting See below. OPPOSE: Amendment sought: restrict to paved roads only and ONLY for Afforestation NOT Replanting. SUPPORT this is adequate to manage the effects There are existing forests where buildings have been allowed to be built within 30m of the forest it is NOT appropriate to retrospectively penalise the forest owner The set back for gravel roads is too big a penalty for a minor benefit. Existing forests have existing use rights and potential ETS liabilities 3-5m would be too large for some streams in this group and not provide any additional environmental benefit to those streams Pg 28 Pg 29 Setbacks from perennial streams <1m Provision to changes to a 10 m set back Setbacks perennial streams 1-3m :ability to increase set back to 10 m OPPOSE Amendment sought: Delete terrestrial habitat and sensitive receiving environments from the list to apply to all activities Terrestrial habitat and sensitive receiving environments is too broad and vague. Neither is defined and could lead to inappropriate and inconsistent application of the NES. Pg 29 Pg 30 Pg 30 10m set backs for perennial streams >3m Completion statement page 30 says being available Appendix 4 state being lodged with Council Wetland and lake set backs OK with Afforestation NOTE do not support with replanting SUPPORT being available NOT lodged with Council. OPPOSE prescribed forms but accept in a form acceptable to appropriate local government authority. OPPOSE Amendment sought: Need to set minimum of 0.25ha for wetlands and lakes Afforestation able to make this decision without fear of ETS liability. ETS liability with replanting needs to be able to be managed. Changes sought to prevent unnecessary bureaucracy. By the definition there are many lakes (fire ponds) and wetlands (Bogs on tracks / seeps etc) in forests which do not require protection from set backs

5 Q2 Do you agree with the changes to replanting Replanting can not be treated the same as afforestation, for example NOT replanting a pre 1990 forest area will incur ETS liabilities. 4.3 Replanting Page Replanting Page Replanting Page 35 Red zones replanting RD activity Set backs (in addition to afforestation setback changes) Roads Buildings and dwellings Streams 10 meter set backs Completion statement page 30 says being available Appendix 4 state being lodged with Council 4.3 Replanting Clearance of indigenous vegetation OPPOSE Amendment sought: Change to Permitted with same defaults as other zones OPPOSE formed roads accept sealed roads OPPOSE set backs from buildings and dwellings OPPOSE set back to 10m Amendment sought: Maximum setback of 5m to avoid ETS liability accepted Support being available NOT lodged with Council. OPPOSE prescribed forms but accept in a form acceptable to appropriate local government authority. Support new definition and reject any new setback requirements ETS liability Potential forest value impact RD status no value in terms of managing erosion risk Once area is harvested the erosion risk is loss of canopy cover (~2 years) and loss of root reinforcement (over period 2 to 5 years after harvest) The most effective management method will be replanting tall vegetation. Regeneration to native will reduce the harvest cycle effects but this additional benefit is small and does not justify the potential loss of forestry production Alternative: Full compensation made available to affected forest owner for any areas restricted from replanting. NOTE The major risk activity is earthworks which are subject to RD controls. Scale of effects much less on gravel roads, number of users of road in particular offsets existing use expectations Many buildings have been built (and could be built) close to forest boundary after existing forests established 10m set backs will incur ETS liability Unnecessary bureaucracy. Setting back to avoid edge damage will incur a creeping loss of land

6 Q3 Do you agree with changes to Mechanical Land Preparation The majority of Mechanical land preparation practises used in forestry is low impact and the performance standards are adequate to control the effects. 4.4 Mechanical land preparation Pg Mechanical land preparation Pg Mechanical land preparation Pg Mechanical land preparation Pg 41 Permitted activity for green, yellow and Orange zones RD default for green and yellow zones RD for shallow land prep in red zones Maters over which discretion applies Support OPPOSE Reject default to RD except where Archaeological conditions not meet. OPPOSE Reject RD except where Archaeological condition not meet AND replace with Permitted or at most stringent Controlled status OPPOSE Reference to rivers and streams should be perennial Permitted activity standards control effects The definition and permitted activity conditions are sufficient to control effects on low erosion zones Controlled status allows sufficient effects management Alignment with remaining document set backs. Q4 Do you agree with Changes to Harvesting section? Restricting harvesting 4.5 Harvesting Pg Harvesting Pg 45 Permitted activity for green yellow and orange areas Support strongly Standards adequately control effects of harvesting Ground disturbance policy Support standards The comments highlighted in blue will generally be the best practical option. Achieving full suspension requires an opposing ridge within a reasonable distance from the site being harvested. Simply specifying it doesn t make the ridge available. Such conditions would only be achieved where practicable.

7 Harvesting continued 4.5 Harvesting Pg Harvesting Pg Harvesting Pg Harvesting Pg Harvesting Pg 51 Notification Harvest plan templates Harvesting across riparian zone. Slash debris placement standard Completion statement page 30 says being available Appendix 4 state being lodged with Council RD harvesting in Red Zones OPPOSE need for notification in all situations. Request Notification condition to include unless written agreement from relevant district (or regional) council Or only apply in Red Areas OPPOSE templates Need flexibility to use existing documentation that covers same issues suggest amendment as follows: (using template in Appendix 2/3 or alternate documentation as agreed with relevant council ) Add advice note specifying applies up to a 10 year return period storm Support being available NOT lodged with Council. OPPOSE prescribed forms but accept in a form acceptable to appropriate local government authority. OPPOSED Reject RD for harvesting Red areas. Request Permitted and default to Controlled. Accept Controlled on earthflow country For a large forestry company notification of multiple sites over annual programme can be achieved in more efficient ways by agreement with relevant councils Where existing harvest planning documents and procedures are being used that cover same issues as that in Appendix 2 / 3 the change, while possible, results in no real benefit. What is the reasonable design storm that these conditions should be able to be meet? 10 year ARI? Note: for Slash and Debris Management there is an Advice Note. Not sure if it also applies to harvesting across riparian areas but it should do. Unnecessary bureaucracy. Must have access to harvest the trees MUST have Controlled as maximum regulation to avoid preventing harvest Alternative: Full compensation paid to forest owner for all losses including consequential losses associated with areas not granted consent to be harvested

8 Q5 Do you agree with changes to Pruning and thinning to waste section Support all this section Q6 Do you agree to changes to earthworks section? In general NO 4.7 Earthworks Pg 57 Design matters culverts OPPOSE Culvert spacing as maximum. Amendment sought: add to the culvert spacing standards:. "or such wider spacing as approved (in writing) by the relevant council having regard to local soil type and rainfall conditions" The culvert spacing given in Figure 113 of the NZ Forest Roading Manual (LIRO) has no way of comparing a mid slope road with a ridge road. The mid slope road receives storm runoff from significant areas and the ridge road only receives storm water from the sky above. 4.7 Earthworks Pg Earthworks Pg degrees slope limitation on Green and yellow areas Maximum area of earthworks per activity site in yellow areas OPPOSE slope definition for the construction of roads, tracks and landings. Not bothered by slope restriction on blading, boring, contouring, and drilling. OPPOSE area limitation for construction of roads, tracks and landings. The permitted activity performance standards are sufficient to control the effects of roads, tracks and landings in green and yellow areas. If slope limitations needed for activities other than roads tracks and landings then place limits only on the gross soil disturbance activities mentioned under earthworks. This would mean that we needed consents for most activities in these areas which would be a significant change to status quo and not add any environmental benefit. The permitted activity performance standards are sufficient to control the effects of roads, tracks and landings in green and yellow areas. If area limitations needed for activities other than roads tracks and landings then place limits only on the gross soil disturbance activities mentioned under earthworks

9 Earthworks continued 4.7 Earthworks Pg Earthworks Pg 55 Completion statement page 30 says being available Appendix 4 state being lodged with Council Notification Support being available NOT lodged with Council. OPPOSE prescribed forms but accept in a form acceptable to appropriate local government authority. OPPOSE need for notification in all situations. Request Notification condition to include unless written agreement from relevant district (or regional) council Or only apply in Red Areas Earthworks Pg 55 Earthworks plan templates OPPOSE templates Need flexibility to use existing documentation that covers same issues suggest amendment as follows: (using template in Appendix 2/3 or alternate documentation as agreed with relevant council ) Earthworks Pg 58 Earthworks Pg 58 Earthworks Pg 58 Setbacks perennial streams1-3m Option to increase set back to 10 m Wetlands setbacks Set backs from perennial water bodies for new earthworks OPPOSE delete terrestrial habitat and sensitive receiving environments from the list OPPOSE Define minimum size, Suggest 0.25 ha, Need to provide for the earthworks where their express purpose is to cross the water body Earthworks Pg 55 Earthworks plan templates OPPOSE templates Need flexibility to use existing documentation that covers same issues suggest amendment as follows: (using template in Appendix 2/3 or alternate documentation as agreed with relevant council ) Unnecessary bureaucracy For a large forestry company notification of multiple sites over annual programme can be achieved in more efficient ways by agreement with relevant councils Where existing harvest planning documents and procedures are being used that cover same issues as that in Appendix 2 / 3 the change, while possible, results in no real benefit. Terrestrial habitat and sensitive receiving environments is too broad and vague. Neither is defined. To avoid seeps and bogs which meet definition of wetland Where existing harvest planning documents and procedures are being used that cover same issues as that in Appendix 2 / 3 the change, while possible, results in no real benefit.

10 Q7 Do you agree with the changes to the Quarrying section? We have no submission on this section. Q8Do you agree with the changes to river crossings section? Pg 69 Pg 69 Pg 73 Pg 74 Notification of river crossings Contributing catchment Culvert maximum gradient 2% Culvert width being at least 0.5 m plus 1.2 wetted stream bed width SUPPORT notification upon request OPPOSE a minimum of 20 working days prior to commencement of works OPPOSE limit of 100 hectares contributing catchment Replace with Maximum culvert (1200mm) and ability to contain a one in 20 year return period flow without the upstream water level exceeding the culvert soffit level OPPOSE the maximum gradient condition Amendment sought: Delete this condition OPPOSE: Amendment sought Delete this condition Unclear of the hierarchy /priority. What happens if request arrives within 20 days of planned work? This condition will be best used for proactively improving plans rather than reacting to any single crossing Performance standard better able to manage the effects across a broad range of catchment hydrology. This condition does not appear to offer any additional benefit given the remaining fish passage conditions This condition does not provide any further fish pass benefit that will NOT be provided by the flood design conditions recommended above. Pg 75 Permanent culverts having a minimum diameter of 600mm OPPOSE Amendment sought: Delete this condition. The additional cost of culverts being 600mm as opposed to 375mm minimum is significant and unacceptable. The opportunity to block is highest during and immediately following harvesting when decaying branches and higher flows are most likely to occur. 375mm on roads is adequate and our recent experience with infrastructure sustaining 1 in 50 year events is that culvert blockage was not a significant contributor to storm damage and would not justify this 600mm minimum

11 River crossings, Continued Pg 75 Pg 75 Pg 78 Pg 78 Pg 79 Pg 81 Pg 81 The embankment level at culvert not exceeding 1.5meters Culverts- condition imposing only single structure Bridge abutments condition (a) Bridge abutments condition (d) Completion statement page 30 says being available Appendix 4 state being lodged with Council Controlled activity for river crossings in earthflow country in Yellow areas River crossings fro plantation forestry Restricted discretionary in Orange and Red areas OPPOSE Amendment sought Delete condition. OPPOSE Amendment sought: Delete this condition OR Add new condition for battery culverts to be a minimum of 600mm diameter. OPPOSE Amendment sought: Delete condition (a) OPPOSE Amendment sought: Add as far as practicable to condition (d) Support being available NOT lodged with Council. OPPOSE prescribed forms but accept in a form acceptable to appropriate local government authority. OPPOSE Delete the condition. OPPOSE Delete the condition. This condition may encourage excessive earthworks to cross deeply incised streams to avoid resource consents. The culvert size and flood design conditions provide adequate controls Requiring a minimum 600mm culvert size for battery culverts twill manage blockage risk Condition (b) is sufficient to manage the impacts of bridges on fish passage. Abutments are in fact generally needed to be placed immediately alongside the stream banks and placed in the bed of the stream adjacent to the wetted perimeter. Change wording to reflect Unnecessary bureaucracy Culvert standards do not need to be different for an earthflow Map earthflow areas. It may be such a small area that the condition would not be an issue but also not be effective The need for a higher level of regulation on river crossings based on LUC classes is not justified. We have completed river crossings using same best practise standards in medium, high and very high erosion susceptibility classes for more than 20 years and never found issues associated with the erosion class of surrounding country that is not adequately managed by the proposed NES conditions for permitted activities Q9: Any comments on the ROAR system No comment: