Reduction of reserve land opposed

Press, 26 February 1977, Page 3

Reduction of reserve land opposed

Wellington reporter ; ; Conflicts in official policy ■over the use of the West Coast beech forests have -been alleged by the conservation group. Action for [Environment, after -seeing {the report of a meeting of the Scientific Co-ordinating Committee for Beech Re-' (search. ' The report showed that Forest Service officials! 'wanted to reduce the area of [reserves to be set aside in; 'rhe future in the Charleston .State Forest on the West i Coast. intent's secretary (Mrs H. IRainforth) said that it seemed .[that the Nelson conservancy "of the Forest Service had (asked for a reduced reserve [area because of commitments Ito sawmillers on the West ; The Action for EnvironI Coast and also because of (the need for more land on {which to plant pines. | She quoted the report as; I saying: “Dr Bassett (Forest j (Service) reported that he: (had been asked to comment: on a recommendation from: the Nelson conservancy that: the proposed Tiropahi Re- ■ serve be reduced in area? 'Members indicated that they [wanted the committee’s: [recommendations to stand." i I “We are very concerned; [about proposals to convert (about 2000 hectares of the jmagnificant Charleston State [Forest to pine plantations,: 'particularly in view of the' erosion problems already encountered in this area," Mrs; ißainforth said. ! Surveys in West Coast) [forests had shown that some’ (areas were highly erosion--

{prone, particularly if clearrelied for conversion to pine plantations. To support her contention, she quoted from another {section of the report, that: "Reports from both the 1D.5.1.R. and the Forestry Re[search Institute have now {clearly indicated that certain elements of terrain within the proposed production area of the beech project have a severe erosion hazard.” Action for Environment also considered that the Forest Service was reluctant to i allow the upper Gray Valley [to be considered for reserve status, as had been recommended in a report by the Wildlife Service to the scientific co-ordinating committee. This reluctance was indicated in the report of the committee’s meeting last year, where it had been 'pointed out that milling in [the upper Gray Valley; [would not involve any exlotic conversion, and that ithere would be a large scenic reserve in the nearby Maruia Valley anyway. “We and other conIservation groups have stated [that the magnificent forest [of the upper Gray Valley should be reserved, because [of its recreational x alite as; iwell as its importance as a : bird habitat,” Mrs Rainforth [ said. “However, the Forest. Ser-[ 'vice is obviously eyeing the: high timber volumes in this ■ area, and would also be; [influenced by the fact that' good road access suitable for! logging vehicles already exists in this valley.” I