Council’s forestry approach Debate

Option 2

The commenter supports Option 2, highlighting its potential to mitigate the risks of flooding and soil loss associated with clear-felled areas, particularly in the context of increasing rainfall events due to climate change. They commend the council's leadership in transitioning to continuous canopy practices, which can absorb significantly more rainfall and reduce sediment runoff into water bodies. Additionally, the commenter urges the council to advocate for updates to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF), arguing that current regulations are outdated and do not align with the latest scientific evidence and international best practices.

Table of comments:

Point No Comment
199.1 I commend the council on its option two as it sets an example for private commercial foresters to transition to continuous canopy practices.  At present , large clear felled areas of harvested pine forest pose an extreme risk to Nelson of flooding during high rainfall events.  These events are occurring more often as a result of climate change.  A forest with a continuous canopy absorbs up to 60% of the rainfall.  The other negative impact of large clear felled areas is the increase in soil and sediment loss during rainfall events.  This material ends up in the river, estuaries and Tasman Bay , and its associated problems are well documented by numerous studies by Cawthron and other reports.  I would encourage Council to strongly lobby central government to overhaul the present  NES-PF rules and consent conditions as they  are totally out of date with current scientific evidence and best practice overseas.