Agenda of Forestry Advisory Group

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Tantragee Block Harvesting: Legal Considerations	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege

Forestry Advisory Group Minutes - 11 September 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Forestry Advisory Group

Held in the Ruma Mārama, Floor 2A, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Tuesday 11 September 2018, commencing at 3.01p.m.

Present: Chairperson J Murray, Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Group Manager Infrastructure Mr A Louverdis and Independent Forestry Expert Mr P Gorman

In Attendance: Councillor I Barker, LandVision Director (L Grant), PF Olsen representatives (G Brown, D Fincham and J Visscher), Accountant (A Bishop), Environmental Programmes Adviser (L Marshall) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies: Councillor L Acland

1. Apologies

An apology was tendered by Councillor Acland at 12.07p.m. The motion to receive and accept the apology was not moved and seconded. Group Manager Infrastructure, Mr A Louverdis, noted Ian Nuke’s (PF Olsen) apology.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 12 June 2018

Document number M3548, agenda pages 5 - 9 refer.

Resolved FAG/2018/010

That the Forestry Advisory Group

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Forestry Advisory Group, held on 12 June 2018, as a true and correct record.

Murray/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

Discussion took place regarding an 11 September 2018 media report. Group Manager Works and Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, advised that questions from the Nelson Mail had been received on 28 August 2018, and that officers had been trying to ascertain from the media the exact block they were referring to. There was some considerable confusion as to the picture used in the media article and reference to various blocks. Mr Louverdis apologised to the Chairperson for not alerting him about the media enquiry.

Mr Louverdis noted that the Maitai Block 9.01 (Douglas Fir) had been part-harvested, with the remaining trees to be poisoned and replanted with Radiata. He advised that the Flax Gully block had been investigated by a member of Council’s EIL team and PF Olsen, and that the results of the investigation had been received by Mr Louverdis on 11 September. The investigating officer concluded that there were no breaches of any rule that would have had effect on the 2017 harvesting, that there had been no evidence of vehicles in, or damage to, the wetland known as Flax Gully and that the block had been left to the standard expected in a post-harvesting operation. This was consistent with what Council would have expected from PF Olsen, who employed best practice. Mr Louverdis reiterated that the harvest was pre National Environmental Standards (NES) and that the relevant practices at the time had been adhered to. This was confirmed by PF Olsen, Peter Gorman and Lachie Grant.

It was noted that PF Olsen had made no media comment on the article and that this was consistent with Council policy. Her Worship the Mayor noted that this was perceived as PF Olsen trying to hide something. Mr Louverdis said that he would be working with Council’s Communications Team and Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton to draft a response to the article. He would include the Chairperson.

PF Olsen noted that the river was close but that the slash was on flat ground and anything caught up in that gully would be benched in and would not reach the river. The allegation in the newspaper article claimed that the slash would go into the river after heavy rainfall and cause problems was not correct. It was confirmed by Peter Gorman, Lachie Grant and PF Olsen’s Johan Visscher that the risk of this was low to negligible.

It was confirmed that the operation met all of the conditions required under pre-NES regulations and complied with best practice. PF Olsen did note that if the work had been undertaken under the current NES that the work would be considered marginally out of specification. The NES had come into effect in May 2018 and under that legislation the slash would be required to be stable. The NES was not retrospective. Further discussion included:

· public perception

· Council was administering the NES and needed to lead from the front

· media protocol – the Chairperson should be made aware of issues in the media

· nothing in the article was an expert opinion, it was misleading and contained poor information

· a response portraying the real situation was required, to include:

harvest aspirations
clarification that all operations were undertaken in accord with environmental practice
the risk was negligible to low
PF Olsen was committed to working to standards.

· visually objectionable was difficult to define

· if Council wanted PF Olsen to make the site as per NES requirements now, there would be a cost of approximately $35,000 to get a digger up to that site as access was difficult and removing the culvert would be a less expensive option

· the slash could remain as it was under the old regime

· it was not possible to totally stop all slash mobilisation

· the focus should be on areas of significant concern

· PF Olsen completed risk analyses on its sites

· exposure to a weather bomb at the wrong time could mobilise any slash, however, it was not possible in that area for slash to mobilise into the reservoir

· there had been several notable weather events post-harvest and nothing had moved

· Council’s risk appetite was something to think about in the future

· Community education regarding the NES should be undertaken.

7. Forestry Update - Number 5 - September 2018

Document number R9451, agenda pages 10 - 94 refer.

Douglas Fir and Acacia Harvesting and Poisoning

Mr Dave Fincham of PF Olsen noted that whilst it was agreed by the FAG that the remaining 3ha of the Maitai stand (9.01) would be poisoned, that, if this approach was taken, that the rest of the block could not be replanted with Radiata for four years.

Discussion took place on the options for the remaining 3ha, which were:

● poison and replant with natives; or

● leave standing and harvest when ready; or

● line rake, at an estimated cost of $20,000 which might be visually objectionable.

It was suggested that the most economic option to achieve a long-term environmental outcome was to leave the trees standing, with harvesting to be reviewed in 2022 and that the remaining block be replanted with Radiata.

Brook Waimarama Sanctuary – It was noted that goat and deer control in Maitai/Roding areas would commence next week, and that some tracks would be closed to reduce the risk to the public. Signage advising of the two-week closure had been erected at most of the tracks. Felling could not be undertaken during this period as PF Olsen was required to provide notice prior to an operation.

Other

Tantragee Block – PF Olsen reported back on the geotechnical investigations, which did not support the option previously suggested by PF Olsen to remove the trees and approved by the FAG. It was accepted that the existing trees still posed a risk to the residents and that an alternative plan was required. It was noted that the revised cost would be significant.

· It was agreed that a new plan was required

· It was noted that 12 houses were affected and that during removal, the residents could not be in the homes

· Consultation with the residents was essential and that legal advice was needed to consider what would happen if residents did not agree to vacate their houses

· The Chairperson was prepared to convene a Forestry Advisory Group (FAG) meeting with urgency to consider the plan to progress the matter.

Health and Safety

A driver error incident had occurred on 8 August 2018 at the Roding catchment and there had been health and safety learnings. The incident had been managed well with no further incident.

Finance

It was clarified that the valuation of $4.399 million was looking forward, not back, and that it had actually gone up in value significantly. This was because trees had grown and cash flows were a year closer. Harvest management costs were lower than projected.

Five Year Harvesting Plans

There was no change to the five yearly harvesting plans. Councillor Noonan’s question and Mr Louverdis’s answer relating to the Marsden Valley Cemetery Block response was noted.

Alternate Uses

The agenda report showed what had been approved last time and it was noted that, Lachie Grant and PF Olsen were working together to ensure blocks were not left bare.

Brook Block (21/04)

It was noted that all alternate use replanting would be project managed by LandVision (and coordinated with PF Olsen harvesting to ensure continuity of works) before being handed over to Parks and Reserves to manage. The FAG concurred that this was the prudent approach.

$1 Billion Tree Fund

Lachie Grant advised that he had been in discussion with Ngati Koata, and that, although they own their land, they had no rights and did not own the trees (they were Crown Forest Licence). LandVision (on behalf of Council) would however submit an application to the $1 Billion Tree Fund and that he would work with Council’s Leigh Marshall.

The Catalyst Report

PF Olsen indicated that enforcing the Catalyst Report setbacks in the recently harvested blocks in the Roding and Maitai catchment, would mean that around 16ha of harvestable forest would be lost. T

It was agreed to allow Peter Gorman, Lachie Grant and PF Olsen to jointly agree on appropriate setbacks on-site to achieve the intended principles in the Catalyst Report.

Forestry Stewardship Council Accreditation (FSC)

Attendance: Peter Gorman left the meeting at 4.55p.m.

It was confirmed that consultation needed to be undertaken as part of the accreditation process and this matter would be brought back to the next meeting.

Agenda attachments

It was noted that resource consents may impose conditions that incur substantial additional costs on harvesting, such as bridges over rivers/streams, that could be up to $150,000

In response to questions, Accountant, Andrew Bishop, confirmed that:

· the NRSBU owned the forests on Bell Island and paid all the costs

· The forestry account was a closed account and did not go into the general rate.

Resolved FAG/2018/011

That the Forestry Advisory Group

Receives the report Forestry Update - Number 5 - September 2018 (R9451) and its attachments (A2027143, A2039914, A2023324, A2027255, A2023151, A2040702); and

Notes the regeneration costs associated with Brook block 21.04 estimated at $96,000; and

Approves the setback replanting plan and associated costs (A2040702 of report R9451) for the Maitai and Roding blocks already harvested; and

Agrees that the three hectares of Maitai Block 9.01 remain until harvesting is economical, to be reviewed in 2022; and

Agrees that setbacks for harvested blocks be approved jointly by Peter Gorman, PF Olsen and Landvision at the appropriate time, with decisions consistent with the intended principles in the Catalyst Report.

Her Worship the Mayor/Murray Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 5.12p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 6: Forestry Update - Number 6 - December 2018

Forestry Advisory Group

6 December 2018

REPORT R9689

Forestry Update - Number 6 - December 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update to the Forestry Advisory Group (Group) on forestry activities since Council adopted the Forestry Review recommendations in September 2016 and since the September 2018 update.

2. Recommendation

That the Forestry Advisory Group

Receives the report Forestry Update - Number 6 - December 2018 (R9689) and its attachments (A2077577, A2077575, A2077572 and A2090601); and

Notes the ongoing work on the Tantragee site specific harvesting plan.

3. Update

Commercial Forestry

3.1 Harvesting has recommenced in the Roding forest and will continue until late 2018. Preliminary planning is underway for harvesting in the Maitai forestry blocks, which is expected to commence in the winter of 2019.

Douglas Fir and Acacia Harvesting and Poisoning

3.2 Progress is detailed below.

Block	Stand	Species	Status	Area
Brook	22.03	D fir	Harvesting complete	5.8
Brook	22.08	D fir	To be undertaken in conjunction with privately owned adjacent forest block but no timeframe has been provided by their harvester.	3.4
Maitai	4.04	D fir	Harvesting complete	2.2
Maitai	4.13	D fir	Poisoned	0.5
Maitai	9.01	D fir	Group resolved in September 18 to consider harvesting the remaining 3ha in 2022 and to plant the remaining block in radiata.	4.3
Maitai	10.01	D fir	Poisoned	1.8
Maitai	4.08	Acacia	Poisoned	1.3
Marsden	42.06	D fir	Group resolved that this block not be cleared until the trees can be commercially harvested around 2027 with a review to be undertaken in 2022.	20.3
Marsden	44.01	D fir	Within Cemetery block - summer harvesting only and subject to contractor availability	0.5
Roding	55.03	Acacia	Poisoned	4.6

3.3 The potential Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) liabilities on these blocks is summarised below.

Block	Stand	Comments	ETS implications
Brook	22.03	MPI are providing 25,000 native plants as part of memorial planting in 2019 and these will be used to plant this block.	No ETS implications if the planting is undertaken.
Brook	22.08	To be considered at harvest time.	No ETS implications if there are 400 stems per hectare at year 4 after harvest. Monitoring is needed at years 2 and 3 to assess the risk.
Maitai	4.04	Proposed for natural regeneration. Monitor progress in 2019 and 2020.	No ETS implications if there are 400 stems per hectare at year 4 after harvest. Monitoring is needed at years 2 and 3 to assess the risk.
Maitai	4.13	Proposed for natural regeneration. Monitor progress in 2019 and 2020	No ETS implications if there are 400 stems per hectare at year 4 after harvest. Monitoring is needed at years 2 and 3 to assess the risk.
Maitai	9.01	Replanting in radiata.	No ETS implications if the block is replanted within 4 years of harvest.
Maitai	10.01	Proposed for indigenous species revegetation (natives). Requires monitoring of poisoned trees. No seedlings available for 2019 planting – propose 2020.	No ETS implications if the block is replanted within 4 years of poisoning.
Maitai	4.08	Proposed for natural regeneration. Monitor progress in 2019 and 2020.	No ETS implications if there are 400 stems/hectare at year 4 after harvest. Monitoring is needed at years 2 and 3 to assess the risk.
Marsden	42.06	To be considered at harvest time.	No ETS implications if it achieves 400 stems/hectare at year 4.
Marsden	44.01	To be considered at harvest time	No ETS implications if it achieves 400 stems/hectare at year 4.
Roding	55.03	Proposed for natural regeneration. Monitor progress in 2019 and 2020.	No ETS implications if there are 400 stems/hectare at year 4 after harvest. Monitoring is needed at years 2 and 3 to assess the risk.

Other

Group resolutions

Progress

Approves the felling to waste of the remaining Brook block 21/04 at an estimated cost of $10,000.

This block adjoins the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary

Includes poisoning and fell to waste. To take place during low public use and will be co-ordinated with MTB Club and BWST. Poisoning has commenced. Consultation on felling with MTB Club and BWST has commenced. All operations will be undertaken in accordance with new NES standards and good practice. Felling to waste is scheduled to take place end of winter 2019.

Tantragee Block harvesting

3.4 The Group approved that the “Tantragee Block” (Brook) be harvested/felled to waste/poisoned, with urgency, to address health and safety concerns, subject to the preparation of a site specific plan by PF Olsen and approved by the Independent Forestry Expert.

3.5 The Committee approved the site specific harvesting plan, including a combination of poisoning/fell to waste, to address the trees above the residential houses at an estimated cost of up to $80,000 subject to a geotechnical investigation. The Group on 11 September 2018 was advised that following the commissioning of the geotechnical report that this site specific plan was not deemed feasible.

3.6 PF Olsen were tasked with preparing another plan and bringing that back to the Group for approval. PF Olsen have done considerable work on a revised plan that will require residents to potentially vacate their properties during the actual harvesting work due to health and safety issues. They will present their updated progress plan and estimated cost at the meeting.

3.7 Once the plan is approved in principle, consultation via a face-to-face meeting with the affected residents will take place. Depending on approval of the plan and consultation, harvesting is expected to take place mid-2019.

3.8 The full Council was briefed on this matter by the Chair of the FAG on the 11 October 2018.

Media and Flax Gully (Maitai) harvesting

3.9 The Group discussed at the 11 September 2018 meeting the article published in the Nelson Mail relating to the harvesting in the Maitai (Flax Gully) – specifically whether the practices were in line with industry standard. Discussion centred on the draft report from Environmental Inspections Limited (EIL).

3.10 The Chair of the Group, Group Manager Infrastructure, PF Olsen (Johan Visscher and Dave Fincham), Landvision (Lachie Grant) and the Maitai waterworks caretaker (Trevor Ruffell) visited the site on 19 September 2018. That visit noted that the work by PF Olsen had been undertaken in line with good management practices. The work in question was undertaken pre-NES requirements and Lachie Grant noted that if the work had been undertaken under the new NES standards that whilst the work may have been done a little differently, that the environmental risk from how the harvesting was undertaken would be minimal and that the new NES standards would not have reduced this risk.

3.11 The Landvision report (independently commissioned by the Group Manager Environmental Management) also specifically addresses the observations and recommendations made by EIL and the author (Lachie Grant) makes his own recommendations as to minor improvements works. The Landvision recommendations have since been completed by PF Olsen.

3.12 The Group Manager Environmental Management has noted that there are no non-conformance issues nor any enforcement actions. The final EIL report and the independent review from Landvision is appended as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively.

Other matters

Good versus best management practices

3.13 Following the media attention around the Flax Gully (Maitai) harvesting, there has been some discussion about what standard the Council should be working to when harvesting its forests.

3.14 As an absolute minimum it is a now a requirement that all harvesting be undertaken to the new NES standard, which places the responsibility on forestry companies to re-evaluate their processes to achieve certain environmental outcomes. PF Olsen have been heavily involved in the development of the new NES and clearly understand the new requirements and have committed to this standard on all new harvesting.

3.15 Lachie Grant notes that it is preferable to talk about “good management practices” rather than “best management practices” as technologies and techniques are constantly evolving.

3.16 The question on the table is what standards, above and beyond the new NES should forestry landowners be undertaking when harvesting their forests. There is no easy answer to this and it is a balance between good environmental outcomes and getting a commercial return on harvesting which is a key driver of owning forests.

3.17 What is clear is that Nelson as landowner needs to adopt practices that will minimise the risk of a “Tolaga Bay” scenario occurring, where following a rainfall deluge, logging debris was left strewn over properties, roads and in rivers that has left clean-up costs in the millions.

3.18 Whilst there is no one answer to this question, the solution lies in applying appropriate management practices to each specific harvesting operation. What that means is that in some cases the new NES standard will apply, but in others more stringent standards will be required. For example, Council is retiring wider riparian strips into permanent native vegetation above the municipal water intakes than required by the NES and installing debris catching structures in gullies.

3.19 The Group has an experienced contractor managing Council’s forestry in PF Olsen and two very experienced practitioners in Peter Gorman and Lachie Grant (highly respected in the industry) to have oversight and provide input into good management practices.

Proposal from Tasman Pine Forests

3.20 Tasman Pine are commencing planning to harvest trees on their block adjacent to the Waahi Taakaro golf club and the Maitai River, commencing in December. The stand is approximately 4ha of mostly pine with a scattering of eucalyptus trees intermixed. They have advised that the lower section of the block is actually overplanted into the NCC estate by approximately 0.28 Ha and have asked if they can remove these trees. Advice from Peter Gorman, PF Olsen and Lachie Grant is that it makes sense for Tasman Pine to remove these trees as leaving them would significantly increase the risk of these trees blowing over and posing a risk to track users at a later date. Refer to Attachment 3.

3.21 Following discussion with the Chair of the Group, approval was given to Tasman Pine to harvest the trees on Council land subject to cost neutrality. All work will be carried out to the new NES standards and the work will be inspected and approved by PF Olsen and Lachie Grant with any remedial works required to be undertaken at Tasman Pine Forest’s cost.

Maitai Block (4.12)

3.22 During the site visit to the Flax Gully it was observed that there were a stack of logs to be sold for firewood that had been logged on block 4.12 that were sitting in the flood plain of the Maitai river and could not be removed as the ford across the river was impassable at the time. The concern was that these logs could create a potential issue during an extreme weather event. These logs have since been removed from the site.

Health and Safety

3.23 No Safe Work Observations (SWO) were undertaken this quarter by Peter Gorman. A joint SWO with the entire Group will be planned for next winter when Maitai harvesting work recommences.

Finance

3.24 Harvesting net revenue for this quarter was $410,155 against the full year budget of $1,115,947. Refer to Attachment 4 – PF Olsen Quarterly report (July 2018 to September 2018).

4. 5-Year Harvesting Plans

4.1 The revised annual harvesting plan is appended as Attachment 4.

5. Other issues

5.1 A resource consent application has been lodged for a debris slash trap for the Roding forest to reduce the risk of debris being washed from the harvest area into the urban water supply.

5.2 PF Olsen are currently assessing options and costs of new bridges required to span the rivers in the Maitai and Roding forestry blocks to enable harvesting to progress in 2019. These structures will add substantial expense to the harvesting costs.

6. Alternate Uses

6.1 Council agreed to retire some 140Ha of forestry and consider alternate uses. The Group resolved at the 12 June 2018 meeting as below.

Approves the revised specific site plans as presented by LandVision at the 12 June 2018 Forestry Advisory Group meeting, subject to further refinement on financial implications, priorities and consultation, relating to Alternate Use of the stands to be retired from commercial forestry.

6.2 Lachie Grant (LandVision) will be in attendance to answer questions related to:

6.2.1 The Brook block (21/04) replanting – Plants have been ordered and spraying completed.

6.2.2 Application to the Government’s $1 Billion Tree Fund. An application has been made to the Hill Country Erosion Fund which closed on the 25 October 2018 for native revegetation seedlings. The $34M fund has been over-subscribed by nearly $20M and in light of this, further applications are currently being investigated and an update will be provided at the meeting.

7. Forestry Stewardship Council Accreditation (FSC)

7.1 PF Olsen has finalised the draft FSC management plan and also preparing a consultation document that will come back to the Group for sign-off before consultation commences. Any feedback from that consultation will be considered for possible inclusion in the final plan before seeking accreditation.

7.2 PF Olsen propose not going out to consultation yet, but will wait on the outcome of the more detailed harvest planning being carried out on the sensitive harvest areas in the Maitai, Tantragee and Marsden Valley forests and incorporating those lessons into the planning and consultation.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2077577 - Flax Gully EIL Report ⇩

Attachment 2: A2077575 - Flax Gully Landvision Report ⇩

Attachment 3: A2077572 - Tasman Pine Forests Location Plan ⇩

Attachment 4: A2090601 - PF Olsen Forestry Report (July 2018 - December 2018) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The regular updates support the effective and efficient management of Council’s productive forests.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Group aligns with the following outcomes: “Our Council provides leadership and is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy”.

3. Risk

The Group has been set up to specifically have an oversight on all things relating to forestry to reduce the risk to Council.

4. Financial impact

The Group has been set up to monitor forestry activity and to manage income and expenses accordingly. The expenditure recommended in this report is in line with this oversight.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This update report is of low significance. The Group has assessed the Alternate Use Management Plan and agreed on an appropriate level of engagement on specific sites.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted as part of this report.

7. Delegations

The Group’s Terms of Reference powers to decide include:

a. Forestry and harvesting management plans (including replanting) as prepared by the Forestry contractor and endorsed by the independent forestry external expert;

b. Engagement of consultants required to undertake all works necessary to guide recommendations to the Commercial Subcommittee and Council.