FURTHER COMMENTS ON NES FOR PLANTATION FORESTRY

Transcription

1 Eastern Bay of Plenty Branch Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society NZ Inc PO Box 152 Whakatane 13 June 2011 Ministry for the Environment PO Box Wellington 6143 FURTHER COMMENTS ON NES FOR PLANTATION FORESTRY Introduction We apologise for the lateness of these comments due to the writer having been overseas. The Eastern Bay of Plenty branch has been involved in RMA provisions for forestry for more than a decade, and is most concerned that an NES results in good environmental outcomes and is not just to reduce costs to industry. The Branch continues to be concerned at the permissiveness of the proposed NES, especially in relation to culverts and fords, and inappropriate approach to biosecurity issues. General Points 1. Outcomes and Objectives It is not clear what the status of Table 1, Environmental Outcomes is. For example Outstanding Natural landscapes. The outcome is Avoid adverse effects Is this mandatory? (It should be). The lack of clear guidance on avoiding adverse effects on indigenous vegetation is extremely disappointing and frustrating, given that the Proposed National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity itself gives limited guidance outside of a narrow suite of rare ecosystems. Completely defaulting to the local level is unacceptable as there are still some district councils that have no rules for disturbance of indigenous vegetation at all, even that which is significant. Whilst the majority of forestry companies adhere to the NZ Forest Accord and will not clear indigenous vegetation, there are others, especially those carrying out farm forestry, who have 1

2 not. An NES should incorporate the NZ Forest Accord and make the clearance of indigenous vegetation to be replaced by plantation forestry a non-complying activity. Similarly the objectives appear to be aimed at the process of generating the NES, not the environmental objectives. 2. The revised proposal seems to promote forestry as a priority land use in all rural zones regardless of current lifestyle and rural-residential zones, or issues of rural amenity. 3. The two points above emphasize the awkwardness of having simply an NES, without an NPS to inform it. In our original submission we proposed a hybrid approach that included (i) a national policy statement that promoted forestry as a land use in identified areas i.e. a nationally consistent approach for identifying where plantation forestry should be located and/or continued as a land use. This would involve the identification and mapping of areas throughout the country that are suitable for afforestation and replanting and would indicate what the appropriate activity status under the RMA could be (permitted, controlled, restricted discretionary, etc) for planting, depending on the land capability constraints and other attributes such as exclusion of planting in riparian areas, defined significant natural areas, conservation areas, outstanding natural landscapes, areas of cultural significance and rural amenity areas such as rural-residential and lifestyle zones; and (ii) National environmental standards that gave statutory weight to best practice guidelines. 4. Other issues that don t seem to have been thought out include reverse sensitivity issues and rural amenity. By avoiding an integrated approach of developing a district plan holistically, and imposing these standards, conflict of land uses is likely to escalate. 5. Catchment Planning It is hard to see how the standard can contribute to integrated catchment planning which is being encouraged through the NPS on Freshwater when forestry is being made a priority land use. 6. Permitted Baseline This NES has significant implications for the permitted baseline. The permitted activity status for some of the activities e.g. earthworks, quarrying in the rural zone and river crossings, have implications for rules for other activities. It is difficult to justify making these activities permitted for forestry if they are not permitted for farming and horticulture, road construction etc as well. Therefore this standard is virtually an NES for all such activities in rural zones. 2

3 Allowing earthworks on medium erosion susceptibility as a controlled activity (i.e. cannot be declined) will lead to those carrying out other activities in those areas to seek similar status, and could result in developments being approved which should otherwise be declined. Our branch has a current appeal on an application for a large development on the boundary of an outstanding natural landscape, for which the earthworks consents are critical. If earthworks in the rural zone were permitted, such developments would not have any regulatory oversight. Another example we are familiar with is a quarry where the operator s interpretation of a buffer zone has resulted in damage to a highly significant stream that is habitat to a very threatened species (hochstetter s frog). A larger buffer area is required to provide for a generous margin of error. Specific Comments 4.2 Afforestation Setbacks The proposed setbacks are inadequate and should incorporate both slope and distance for varying levels of risk based on the sensitivity of the receiving environment. A 1m setback from small streams is inadequate because of inevitable disturbance at harvest and the inability for permanent riparian vegetation to establish. At a minimum these streams should have the same setback as 1-3m streams and rivers. 30m from the CMA is insufficient. In many cases this would mean planting on natural dunes. Planting forestry on dunes should be a discretionary activity, as dunes are a nationally threatened habitat type. Replanting on such areas should also be a discretionary consent. In other coastal areas, plantations are on steep slopes that drop directly into the sea (e.g. Marlborough Sounds). Even greater setbacks may be more appropriate in such areas. Sensitive receiving environments should be defined to include waters in their natural state, regionally significant waterbodies (including tributaries) and waterbodies with high water quality e.g spring fed and minimal sediment. Regionally significant waterbodies should also include waterbodies identified in regional plans as being significant for their natural character, aquatic flora and fauna, or threatened species. 3

4 Wildings Appendix 1 The wilding issue should be dealt with in the NES. As a general principle, forest owners should be responsible for wildings on the property of others, provided that historical wilding situations can be ring-fenced. No Pinus contorta should be allowed to be planted, considering the risks it poses. Using downwind land use as a criterion is inappropriate as this can change over the life of a forest cycle and may be out of control of the forest owner. Native tussock and grassland is always at risk from wilding incursion, as are the drier parts of wetlands. As there are numerous variables, including the effects of climate change, we do not consider that this scoring system is appropriate for assigning permitted status. Nor do we believe the Biosecurity Act is an effective mechanism to prevent new wilding problems. It would be preferable to restrict high risk species to a restricted discretionary status, especially in the South Island high country and other open environments. Auditing As raised in our original submission, there needs to be an independent audit of the Bay of Plenty Accredited Operators scheme. Our understanding is that it has not been adopted by any operators, and raises questions about self-auditing approaches. The proposal for auditing is essentially replacing a consenting process with an auditing process costs will still accrue to the land owner and councils will still need to monitor environmental outcomes but will not be funded to do so through consent fees so in effect the ratepayers will be subsidising the forestry industry. This is not equitable. Unless local authorities are required to charge for the cost of reviewing audits under s 36, the auditing approach is totally opposed. In practice there will be no council review of audits. Non-notification of afforestation in orange areas should not be carte blanche. 4.3 Replanting The phrase regenerating cutover needs clarification. We presume this means cutover plantation forest, not cutover indigenous forest. The latter would be opposed. Setbacks and the ETS Appendix 5 There should be no ETS liabilities for management that is undertaken for environmental benefit. Permanent, natural regeneration should be eligible for carbon credits, or at the very minimum, 4

5 not incur liability. Unless the ETS is amended to remove this disincentive, the NES should not be promulgated. 4.5 Harvesting Allowing damage of an unspecified extent to indigenous vegetation edge during harvest will inevitably lead to adjoining indigenous vegetation being reduced at each rotation. Edge damage of adjacent indigenous vegetation is problematical as this can result in cumulative effects e.g. a rotation causes some edge damage. Likely the next rotation is planted in the damage zone. The next rotation causes more edge damage and so on. In many forestry areas of New Zealand there are small pockets of indigenous vegetation which are important refuges for flora and fauna, and in some areas, may the last remnants of their type. The most appropriate way to address this issue is to require a setback from indigenous vegetation at afforestation and replanting. An aerial threshold of damage should be defined. Harvesting in orange areas should be controlled at a minimum so that appropriate conditions can be applied, especially timing, extent and duration of harvest. More stringent conditions should be applied to cable logging when harvesting adjacent to regionally significant waterbodies. We do not agree with the removal of the stabilisation condition, particularly with regard to sediment traps and bunding to safeguard against heavy rainfall events until the area is revegetated. Stabilisation requirements should relate to erosion risk. On flat land this may be reduced but revegetation is important to control weeds. With frequent intensive storm events, the sooner revegetation occurs, the better. As this is an environmental standard, there should be a standard requiring stabilisation including a percentage cover within a specified time frame. 18 months is a long time and natural regeneration will not necessarily achieve a substantive coverage. Similarly timeframes should be retained for clearance and maintenance of slash traps. 4.7 Earthworks We are astonished to see no monitoring of water quality is required and do not understand the reason for this. Earthworks setbacks should be related to slope, but 20 degrees for permitted setback for earthworks is too great. 5

6 We agree it is important to have a maximum area for a permitted activity. However it is not clear over what timeframe and area this will apply. A 40% reduction in visual clarity is a significant amount of sediment discharge and should not be permitted as of right. Similarly the amount of permitted hydrocarbon discharge seems high for best practice operation when vehicles should not be operating in or refuelling close to waterways. Non-notification of earthworks in high erosion zones should not be carte blanche, especially as there may be downstream effects. 4.8 Quarrying A 20m buffer from waterbodies for overburden is not sufficiently cautious, especially in high rainfall areas. 4.9 River Crossings We reiterate the points made about this in our original submission. Before permitted activity status for stream crossings is applied nationally, there should be an independent assessment by region of existing crossings to establish how many there are, cumulative effects and whether lack of maintenance is indeed an issue. Without these data the community cannot have confidence that the NES may not be entrenching a series of obstacles for native fish. Stream crossings are a source of sedimentation of waterways both in the construction and operation (especially the approaches). They are also a major source of blockage of fish passage. Culverts are prone to blockage during storm events which can result in them becoming weirs that block fish passage. As most of our native fish have life cycles that move between the ocean and the fresh water catchments, such impediments can severely reduce habitat availability. In the Bay of Plenty, this has been recognised to the extent that there are more stringent rules for waterbodies scheduled in the Regional Water and Land Plan as being regionally significant. Unless culverts are regularly monitored and maintained, they are major threats to native fish. In the forestry situation, they may not be visited for decades between rotations. The construction of culverts and fords as a permitted activity is likely to see a decline in populations of native fish, many of which are already threatened. 6

7 There should be conditions restricting construction of stream crossings during times of fish migration. Rules governing these are best dealt with at a regional council level, provided that district council functions for riparian areas have been transferred. No consideration has been given to monitoring the maintenance or to cumulative effects of multiple stream crossings on an individual waterway, or whether the location is appropriate. Culverts and fords should not be permitted in regionally significant waterbodies. Battery culverts definitely should not be permitted or controlled activities. There seems to be a major anomoly that there is no ability to have more stringent provisions for nationally outstanding water bodies. This makes no sense at all and conflicts with the ability to have more stringent provisions for outstanding natural landscapes (chart on p23). Note that provisions should not be restricted to mainstem rivers. For significant rivers, the tributaries are frequently the most important habitat; but the mainstem is important because it connects native fish with their habitats. (Note that most native fish are diadromous they spend part of their life cycle in the sea.) Notwithstanding the above views, the Branch considers it is appropriate to consider erosion susceptibility of the catchment when determining activity status due to it being indicative of risk. The branch appreciates the opportunity to comment further as the NES is a very powerful mechanism that will have effects on other plan provisions through the application of the permitted baseline that could seriously undermine a plan s intent and effect. Environmental outcomes should drive the NES, not just convenience. Yours sincerely, Mark Fort Branch Chairperson 7