Comments on the Proposed NES for Plantation Forestry

Transcription

1 Comments on the Proposed NES for Plantation Forestry Contact Details Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust 13 th June 2011 Overview The location for a substantial portion of the Trust s research and restoration projects is the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Trust members have witnessed forestry activities in this region and are concerned by the effects that these activities are having in the region, and will continue to have within one of the most significant stretches of indigenous forest in Aotearoa. An overview of the situation is provided below. The topography of the Eastern Bay of Plenty and East Cape Region is typified by steep to very steep country, much of which has been defined as erosion prone within the land use capability classification system. This area is also home to large stretches of native forest, in public and private ownership, much of which is multiply owned. Rare, threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna are found throughout much of this area. It is a region that is unique and which holds valuable natural and ecological characteristics. The proximity of the coastal environment to the mountainous areas of the Raukumara ranges is another special characteristic. This proximity intensifies the effects that land use and impacts have within the marine environment, and for the biodiversity therein. Tangata whenua have a special relationship with the sea and also with kaimoana, which has been gathered as a source of sustenance and been an integral component of Manaakitanga for generations. Any impacts on the health or availability of kaimoana have a direct cultural, social and health impact for coastal iwi, hapu and whanau. On the steep and fragile slopes of this region, many plantation forests have been established, and have recently been harvested or are due to be harvested in the short term. In many cases plantation afforestation was originally incentivised with subsidies and in with little forward planning in terms of the feasibility of harvesting, or the likely ecological, social and cultural impacts of forestry harvest. The impacts of this industry within this unique and fragile landscape are now being witnessed first hand, and the risks are clearly evident. It is well recognised that in areas where slopes and riparian margins have recently been disturbed or are not yet stabilised (for instance in the first eight years following forest plantation replanting), there is a high risk of damage Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

2 and negative effects on soil conservation, water quality, and to riparian areas and aquatic and marine species. This risk comes from the combination of exposed slopes, roading & earthworks, forestry waste (slash, etc) entering waterways, and is exacerbated with the high likelihood of intense rain fall events eroding soil stability and increasing the likelihood of underlying geological failure. There is a necessity to avoid and mitigate these impacts where possible, due to the high costs that they pose for the environment and ecological services, and the social and cultural impacts of such ecological damage. Obviously, the severity of rain fall events can not be controlled. However the use of land and its protection from damage during rainfall events can be. In the recent rainfall event affecting the Eastern Bay of Plenty, it was noted that while erosion and slips were evident in both native and plantation catchments, erosion was much more evident in plantation forest catchments and therefore there was a larger negative effect on streams and riparian areas downstream from plantation forest areas, than from native catchments. Forestry waste (which included logs of marketable size) was mobilised in the flood events and entered waterways where huge debris dams have now been formed, blocking waterways, streams and culverts. Any further debris remaining on slopes continue to pose a risk of entering waterways, even after replanting, so the risk of similar damage extends for more than 20 years post harvest. The impact on native flora and fauna within riparian margins and streams has been witnessed and is extensive. Creek beds have been scoured and others are buried under 1-2 metres of silt. Forestry slash and debris dams extend up to 150m long and 12m high within waterways. The impact on micro and macro invertebrates is significant and resident populations of threatened species such as the Hochstetter s Frog can not be found during surveys following such flood events. The impact of forestry origin sediment in ocean can be witnessed via the lack of water clarity following storm events, which has become worse since large scale harvesting began in local areas such as Houpoto in the Eastern BOP. The NIWA report to the Ministry of Fisheries: Morrison, M.A.; Lowe, M.L.; Parsons, D.M.; Usmar, N.R.; McLeod, I.M. (2009). A review of land-based effects on coastal fisheries and supporting biodiversity in New Zealand. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 37. clearly highlights the impacts of forestry origin sediment within the ocean, and the impacts of suspended and settled sediment for the marine environment and its biodiversity. The practical effects of these findings have been witnessed down current within the Bay of Plenty, with reduction in recruitment of shellfish, and obvious silt deposits found within the gills of juvenile fish such as snapper. It is ironic that efforts to preserve fisheries Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

3 within the Bay, such as Rahui and Mataitai, are being undermined by the effects of poor land use and forestry practices. Best practice within the forestry industry at present does not adequately guard against the effects that mobilisation of slash / forestry waste, and high rainfall has for soil conservation, water quality or protection of riparian areas or the coastal / marine environment. It seems that practitioners have expected to be able to replicate the same practices for harvest in relatively flat areas, such as the Kaingaroa Forest, in the steep and erosion prone locations of the Eastern Bay of Plenty, with disastrous effects. We believe therefore that practices and methods employed by forest managers and practitioners must be responsive to the unique factors found in the local area and according to the topography, geology, ecology and weather conditions of that region. Planning and restrictions of harvest must be founded on avoiding damage in the worst case scenario, rather than in the expectation (read: hope) that significant rainfall events will occur only rarely. Recently, events with an expected return period of 5, 10, or even 20 years have on a far more frequent basis in the Bay of Plenty region. The impacts of poor planning and management for the region s (and nation s) sustainability are irreversible. Loss of topsoil is a loss of a valuable input of ecosystem services which can only be replaced over a period of decades. Loss of biodiversity and rare, threatened and endangered species is increasing, and declining water quality is having irreversible effects on frequency and health of aquatic and marine species. Millennium Development reports, and TEEB reviews are clear on the billion dollar value that protecting and retaining ecosystems and their services has for humanity, and for the planet as a whole. These far exceed any financial return that forestry may provide for the community or the region over a 75 year (or 3 rotations) period. Protections must be put in place to ensure our environment is protected from, rather than decimated by, forestry management practices. We would expect the proposed plantation forestry NES to provide a platform to clearly evaluate and guard against the risks outlined above. Instead it seems to replicate current management practices which are proving to be all too poor within this region. We therefore call for the Ministry for the Environment, and the Minister for the Environment, to reconsider the provisions of the proposed NES in order to do the best possible for sustainable and responsible management of NZ s environment. Our general recommendations for improvement of forestry practices are: Prohibition of plantation forestry on all LUC class 8 land, and that of class 7 lands with erosion subfactors. If this is not prohibited, then there should be strong direction via the NES that forestry harvest must not be clear fall. Methods such as contour harvesting must be used to guard against the consequences of geological failure and erosion / sedimentation into waterways. Stratified or contour harvesting should occur within Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

4 subcatchments, especially where there is erosion or climate (eg flood event) risk factors. We recommend particular care wrt production plantation afforestation in areas with predominant slope greater than 30 degrees. This has shown to be most at risk in terms of geological failure and environmental consequences, within the Eastern BOP. Riparian set backs must be a minimum of 10 metres (ideally 18 metres) from permanent water courses. We reference the draft NZ FSC standards in which forestry, community and ecological groups reached agreement of 10 metres. The suggested setback of 1`metre for small watercourses is not acceptable. This will not offer any protection to streams during harvest activities. ETS liability issues areas retired from production forestry should be permanently planted with indigenous vegetation. Govt could consider subsidising the costs of establishing permanent vegetation where landowners become liable due to retirement of areas (as they subsidised afforestation in the past). We agree that frontloading of plantation forestry should occur, ie the. completion of harvest planning prior to any forest establishment or replanting to ensure it can be extracted with minimal impacts. However this should not mean that a forest is automatically approved for harvesting at the time of its establishment (or replanting). Best practice and so-called acceptable effects change over time. Consent processes are the best way to evaluate and avoid risks at each phase of forestry production. Protection of head guts / ephemeral water courses must occur, through the establishment of permanent vegetation. These areas can contribute to erosion risks if they are left unprotected. Removal of forestry slash / debris from waterways or where it can enter waterways during rainfall events. Use of geo textiles / over sowing to enhance soil stability during forest establishment (8 years + ) No harvesting within riparian margins, and the poisoning (via direct drilling) of any production trees currently located within riparian margins, to allow indigenous vegetation to establish. Careful water quality and species monitoring including base line monitoring, with any negative effects flagged & remedied. Rare, threatened and endangered species must be protected, along with their habitats, from forestry activities. We would like to see NES provisions strengthened in this regard, and strong integration with existing policy and protections for water quality. Felling and log extraction upslope and away from waterways. Active replanting of areas that have been effected by erosion / slippage or that are identified as riparian areas or no plant zones, with native species such as kanuka / manuka, tutu, etc (which are known to have positive benefits for soil stability). Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

5 The ESC does not factor in rainfall or the probability of triggering events (eg risk). We suggest that these matters must be considered in some way. Policy must be developed which takes risk into account and which feeds into the NES. Sites exposed to high rainfall from downgraded tropical cyclones such as the Eastern BOP and East Coast, Coromandel, Northland and which are high on the ESC are at risk and must be protected through stronger directives from Central Govt. Topsoil loss and other forms of erosion are currently excluded from the ESC. We do not agree that these should not be factored in to policy / forestry decisions as such loss will have a significant impact on sustainability of our lands, freshwater and coastal environment. Archaeological and significant cultural sites which may not be registered in district plans, should still be protected. So too, areas of significance to iwi, hapu and whanau should have protection under the NES, such as water bodies (and their headwaters) of particular significance to these groups. Landowners should have access to direct support & advice from their Regional Council and independent harvest planners and ecologists (rather than just advice from the financially interested forestry management company), in order to make the best decisions for sustainable management on their lands. Following are photos taken recently of forest in the Eastern Bay of Plenty which has entered second rotation. This is the ecological effect of forestry which apparently meets all the requirements of the strongest regional plan (according to the MfE s ROAR analysis for the plantation forestry NES). The BOP Regional Council at present is reviewing forestry practices in light of the rainfall and erosion events that are regularly occurring in this region and the unexpected consequences of this. It is clear that the status quo is not environmentally sustainable and such allowances should not be continued within the Plantation Forestry NES, if it is to be adopted. As per our original submission, the Trust invites Ministry personnel to witness first hand the situation within plantation forests and the ecological, social and cultural implications of forestry practice in this region, to better inform the development of plantation forestry policy. We appreciate your consideration of our submission and acknowledge the contribution of Ministry staff and members of the working groups to date. Nga mihi nui, The Trustees, Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

6 NEXT LINE OF SLIPPAGE Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

7 PLANTATION FORESTRY IN ORANGE ESC AREAS, EASTERN BAY OF PLENTY LET S NOT PERPETUATE THIS. Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

8 Comments on the body of the revised proposed NES for plantation forestry Ability to be more stringent 1. Heritage values Agree with wording. However, there are many sites of this nature which are not listed in plans and these also need to be protected if discovered or identified. 2. Outstanding natural features and landscapes, significant freshwater bodies and significant natural areas. Not all outstanding landscapes or significant freshwater bodies are identified in plans. The wording should be changed to ensure that landscapes, freshwater bodies and significant natural areas, meeting the criteria of being significant and / or outstanding, are also included in the ability to be more stringent area. The habitat of rare, threatened or endangered species should also be protected. There should also be recognition of water bodies that are significant to the iwi or hapu of that rohe, which may not be of regional significance but are still important to tangata whenua. 3. Setbacks from regionally significant freshwater bodies Setbacks should be a minimum of 20 metres from significant water bodies, and their tributaries. Afforestation 1.Setbacks Disagree with the setbacks from perennial rivers and streams. Research shows setback have to be above 18m for there to be no detrimental effects on watercourses. The Draft NZ FSC standards were settled at 10 metres for all watercourses and we recommend this is adopted (at a minimum) in the NES also. a/ the 1 m horizontal setback for streams smaller than 1m is woefully inadequate. This will offer no protection to streams or for water quality during harvest. Plantation forests in the Eastern Bay of Plenty have shown that planting on concave faces of head-guts is not best practice and there are a number of instances of damage to streams where planting in these areas have occurred and have subsequently suffered from erosion. Please reference recent research (in draft) by John Douglas and Norm Ngapo (BOP Regional Council) on this matter. These areas must be regulated for in the NES because if not, afforestation will occur and this will be detrimental for receiving environments. The setback for all perennial water courses should be a minimum of 10 metres and concave faces (head guts) should not be available for plantation afforestation. We believe that foresters will not retire these areas voluntarily. Agree that protections for terrestrial habitat should occur, wildlife corridors should be provided for, and there should be linkage in the document with threatened species lists including flora, fauna and aquatic species. The phrase Sensitive receiving environments should be retained with further definition if required. Suggest that the statement the minimum setback for exception areas includes the word horizontal in relation to setback, for clarity. All wetland vegetation should also have a 10 m minimum setback. Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

9 2. Auditing. Our recommendation is that all audit reports should be provided to the local & regional authorities and be publically available, throughout the NES. 3. Default a/ Noncomplying. Agree with the change to Restricted discretionary for regional councils. 4. Consent a/ afforestation in red and orange areas. Agree that this should be an Restricted discretionary activity. However we submit that all LUC class 8 land should be excluded as plantation forestry activity on this class of land is inappropriate. We do not agree that consents in orange areas should be non notified (throughout the document). It is important that the public be allowed to participate in consent processes in relation to land where there is high risk of erosion or damage to receiving environments, which is more likely in orange areas. Replanting 1. Agree with the working group members who believe more consideration should be given to controlling the effects of replanting in orange areas. It is our observation that some historical forest plantings are in inappropriate locations, especially in areas of high slope (greater than 25 degrees), rainfall and erosion risk. It is inappropriate that replanting in these areas has a permitted activity status. We recommend a higher threshold be adopted to enable re-evaluation of the appropriateness of planting zones. 2. Understory Vegetation clearance Linked to the prior comment and the comment under Afforestation 1a, it is likely that there will be areas of failed planting due to slips or underlying geological failure, especially in orange or red zones. We recommend that such areas, and other areas recognised as being at risk, are not replanted for plantation purposes, but are instead reforested with permanent cover for the purpose of improving soil stability. This should not be allowed to be cleared in future rotations. We would support measures which strengthen protection for areas set aside from production (eg reserves and wildlife corridors) to ensure production activities and machine operations do not encroach upon, or negatively effect these areas or their populations of native flora and fauna. 3. Setbacks Please see our earlier comments on recommended setbacks. We would endorse Scenario 1 rather than Scenario 2 to encourage better resource management outcomes. 4. Auditing please see prior comments. 5. Consent As above, recommend class 8 land is removed from red areas and forestry activity prohibited on this class of land. Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

10 Mechanical Land Preparation 1. Disagree with Permitted activity status for MLP in orange areas. This should be subject to a consent process. We would support stronger controls to protect soil and erosion risks especially in LUC classes where there are erosion subfactors, including on slopes above 25 degrees. 2. Understory vegetation clearance please see prior comments. 3. Set backs please see prior comments 4. Nesting times we support this inclusion. 5. Auditing see prior comments. 6. Consent MLP in LUC 8 should be prohibited. There should also be changes in order for this section to be consistent with our recommendations above. Harvesting 1. Harvesting should not be a permitted activity in orange areas. There should be a higher threshold due to the risks involved. We support the stance of those in the working group who were advocating for controlled activity status. This is necessary for good resource management. For example, the situation in the Eastern BOP shows widespread geological failure within both established pine forests and those currently around 8 years into second rotation planting. There is new research within the BOP Regional Council about these risks and the draft report recommends changes to current management practices. There must be an opportunity to address such situations within a consent process to protect prone lands. 2. Conditions Regional Notification. In terms of requirements that the harvest plan must identify risks, there should also be a clear plan in place to avoid those risks. 3. Ground disturbance Regional. Support heading changes. We support those members of the working group who advocated for stronger controls wrt soil disturbance and protection of high value sites, including the protection of significant rivers and wetlands. 4. Stabilisation. We do not support removal of this condition. It is important to plant or broadcast seed to achieve stabilisation, especially in erosion prone areas or those which have the potential to affect water bodies. We advocate for inclusion of such a statement. 5. Riparian disturbance (pg 46) Support the changes under the heading Operational. However setbacks must be at least 10m from perennial water courses. These setbacks will assist to reduce disturbance of riparian areas and water bodies. We support the comments of members of the working group that machinery setbacks should correlate with riparian setbacks. We also support the changes made in the final paragraph of this section. 6. Slash and debris management operational planning pg 49. Support changes on pages However we believe that slash removal should be managed in the Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

11 expectation of 50 year return period floods, rather than 10 yrp, in orange or above areas. This should be written in to the NES or included in the ability to be more stringent section. In this region, extreme flood events are occurring on a regular basis. Climate change suggests this will become the norm. We believe that planning must expect and be equipped to deal with these events in order to protect the wider environment. 7. Default controlled. Given our request in point 1 of this section, we request that activity status is elevated to restricted discretionary in orange areas, to be consistent with our comments above. 8. Suggest matters over which control is reserved specifically includes effects on flora and fauna. 9. Consent Restricted discretionary. Agree with the revisions however request that land in LUC class 8 is prohibited from this activity. Agree that earth flow country in orange areas should also be restricted discretionary. Request that this level of control is extended to all orange areas where the LUC classification includes an erosion (e) subclass. 10. Suggest matters over which discretion applies also includes methods for slash management. Pruning and thinning to waste 1. Slash agree that there should be requirement to place slash where it will not affect sensitive vegetation, reserves, riparian areas or setbacks. 2. Default it seems strange to have mention of the archaeological conditions being met when there is no mention of an archaeological condition in this section? Earthworks 1. Submit that LUC class 8 lands should be excluded from permitted activity status. 2. Monitoring of water quality do not agree that monitoring requirements should be removed. With no monitoring the NES will be too weak and conditions will not be able to be enforced. 3. Slope and Maximum area in yellow areas (page 59). Agree with changes made. 4. Sediment discharge concentrations. We oppose removal of this section. Please refer to our original submission for our recommendations on sediment discharge allowances. Quarrying 1. Volume what, if any maximum volume applies if there is no line of sight? Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June

12 River Crossings 1. Notification. Suggest that the availability of the plan is notified to councils and interested named parties via so that parties are aware it can be requested. Submit that this should also be available to the public and affected parties, including neighbours. Support that parties such as Fish & Game, as well as iwi, hapu and whanau should be notified and allowed to access plans. Submit that such a provision for public access should also be included in other areas of forest planning, such as at times prior to afforestation & harvesting. 2. Catchment. Agree with comments from some members of the working group. It makes sense to base designs on risk and return event expectations as we believe this approach is more risk averse. 3. Water course and levels. Agree with the approach for permanent crossings allowing for projected increases in flood flows. This approach should also be incorporated for provisions related to harvesting, slash management, etc. 4. Public Access. Submit that this should be left as it is. 5. Construction methods. a. Agree with this section being moved. b. Submit that the section on temporary diversion of a river of stream around the extent of the works while the activity is taking place could incorporate a phrase, where this does not create more adverse effects. c. agree with the insertion beginning any temporary diversion, d. The phrase Any erosion diversion it seems that the first instance of the word diversion should be deleted? 6. Fish passage. Agree with changes. 7. Culverts. a. The proposed insert beginning The upstream and downstream faces Agree with this insert, however suggest that there is also a requirement of the construction of spillovers which provide a pathway for water to travel in the event of culvert blockage, which will reduce erosion & associated damage to watercourses. 8. Bridges. Agree with the changes within this section. 9. Consent (page 81). Agree with conditions as drafted, however do not agree with a non notification proviso for consent in orange areas. ENDS Nga Uri o te Ngahere Trust further comments on the proposed plantation forestry NES June