contents capturing forests: the forest practices authority ...€¦ · positives of our working...

Forest Practices News – October 2010 Vol 10 no 3 ISSN 1441–1288

Tasmania’s independent forest regulator administering the Forest Practices Act • Advising • Researching • Monitoring • Enforcing The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Authority.Banner photograph: Nigel Richardson’s entr y into the FPA photographic competition 2010 featuring the Snowy Range from the Styx Valley.

Contents

All photographs by the Forest Practices Authority, unless otherwise stated.

Capturing forests:the Forest Practices Authority’s

photo competition

The Forest Practices Authority held an award ceremony in September for our first forest photography competition. The three winning photographers were presented with a coffee table book on ‘Australia’s remarkable trees’.

The FPA ran the competition to highlight forest management in Tasmania. Chief Forest Practices Officer Graham Wilkinson said at the awards ceremony ‘this is the first, and hopefully not the last, FPA photography competition.’ The CFPO quoted the photographer Eliott Erwitt who said ‘To me photography is an art of observation. It’s about finding something interesting in an ordinary place. I’ve found it has little to do

with the things that you see and everything to do with the the way you see them.’

‘Photographs capture a moment in time,’ the CFPO said. ‘In this busy age, few of us take the time to savour those moments in time which is why I think we all respond so positively to the images, thoughts and feelings that can be captured so skillfully by good photographers.’

‘I take this opportunity to thank all of the entrants, the judges and the organiser Chris Grove. It was her idea to promote the positives of our working environment – both the forests and the people,’ the CFPO said.

The three overall winners were awarded their prize of the coffee table book ‘Australia’s remarkable trees’ at a ceremony at the FPA’s offices in Hobart. From left: Fred Duncan (judge), Nigel Richardson, Mark Wapstra and Carolyn Docking.

Technical notes series updated 4

Corrections to the Miena jewel beetle article 4

FPA eagle study funding 5

Editors’ corner 5

Landscape Logic 6

Fred’s reflections 8

A year of Earth Sciences training 14

Bat volunteers wanted 15

The Devil Roadkill Project 16

New payment system for FPP application fees 17

Treefern forum 18

National review of codes of practice for plantations 19

A new web-based notifications system in development 20

FPA Training Courses 2010 21

The twelve chessmen 22

Joe Hawkes 23

c-grove

Typewritten Text

Trim 2010/127066

2 Forest Practices News vol 10 no 3 October 2010

The competition was judged by Gordon Duff, the Chair of the Board of the FPA, and Fred Duncan, surfer and recently retired Manager of the FPA’s Biodiversity Program. The judges did not know who took the photographs until after they had made their decisions. They selected a winner from each of the seven categories and then picked an overall winner and two runners-up from those winners. There was remarkable consensus between the two judges, with only the cultural heritage and quirky categories generating a discussion.

Thanks to the 24 people who submitted 105 photographs in the inaugural Forest Practices Authority photo competition. Entry was free and open to anyone, the only condition being that FPA may use the photograph in future publications, with acknowledgement.

The judges congratulated all the entrants for submitting their photographs and were impressed with the range of photographs. ‘The diversity in styles and subject matter reflects the diversity of views about forests and their management’, Fred said.

Overall winner: Nigel Richardson

Congratulations to Nigel Richardson, a Senior Forest Officer at Forestry Tasmania and a Forest Practices Officer (Inspecting), who won the overall prize with his picture of an island of old growth near Clear Hill, which also won the forested landscape category. ‘That picture is a result of some bad luck I had’, Nigel joked during the ceremony. ‘I had gone to Clear Hill to check on a burn but as I was leaving I heard a huge crash and a tree fell over the road, blocking

Forest Practices Authority photo competition

it. I had to spend the night in the car and in the morning managed to get this shot of early fog isolating an old-growth stand.’

The judges were not only impressed with its composition, but also the message behind the photograph. ‘It’s good to see an area of production forest where old-growth, conservation and aesthetic values have been maintained’, said Fred. ‘Production forests are beautiful too’, agreed Gordon.

Overall runners-up

Kingborough Council’s Carolyn Docking, who worked at Forest Industries Association of Tasmania when she took her photograph, shared a runner-up spot with environmental consultant Mark Wapstra.

Carolyn’s photograph, which also won the working in the forest category, was of Jarrod Burn, from TAS Land and Forest, taking a core from a tree for research, avidly watched by his devoted dog Ozz. ‘I travelled around Tasmania taking photographs for Timber Communities Australia and learnt a lot about forests. These core samples are sent to CSIRO for a range of tests such as strength and fibre testing. Ozz was so devoted to Jarrod – I’ve got quite a few pictures of him staring adoringly at his master.’

Both the judges liked the picture because it was a well composed happy picture, showing a dog intensely interested in what his master is doing and his master very happy to have his dog with him.

Mark’s photograph, which also won the fauna category, was snapped under somewhat unusual circumstances. ‘This is my favourite photo of an animal, probably because of the circumstances’, said Mark. ‘I was on an excursion with my daughter’s prep class to the Molesworth Environment Centre and we were doing the team-building rope-and-tyre bridge across the creek activity. There I was, standing in the creek below the wobbly “bridge”, helping kids across when someone yelled out “Hey, a platypus.” And there was this juvenile, nuzzling in the shallow rapids and leaf litter, oblivious to our presence (or not caring), even crawling over someone’s shoes. So I was heard to remark (perhaps the only time I’ll ever use this sentence) “Watch out, don’t tread on the platypus.”’

The judges particularly like the interesting texture in the photograph. ‘I like the photograph because it brings together the special values of water and fauna, but that is subsidiary to my appreciation of the composition of the photo and the appearance of the water and the platypus having a similar texture’, said Fred.

All the photographs entered in the competition can be viewed on the FPA’s website through a link in the news column <www.fpa.tas.gov.au>. There were so many excellent photographs that we felt we should share them with Forest Practices News readers. We also hope you enjoy the colour calendar, included with this issue, which uses some of the photographs.

Fred (left) and Gordon judging the photographs.Mark Wapstra (right) accepting his prize. Fred’s dog Oggi was perhaps the most enthusiastic participant in the award ceremony, barking excitedly during the clapping.

3October 2010 Forest Practices News vol 10 no 3

Forest Practices Authority photo competition: category winners Note: see the FPA’s 2011 calendar or the FPA’s website for colour photographs

Forested landscapes Category winner and overall winner: Island of old growth near Clear Hill by Nigel Richardson

Natural values – floraCategory winner: After the fire – a window to the future by Nigel Richardson

Working in the forest Category winner and runner-up: Forest worker and best friend by Carolyn Docking

Natural values – fauna Category winner and runner-up: Platypus by Mark Wapstra

Natural values – rocks and water Category winner: Halls Falls by Dianne Lester

Cultural valuesCategory winner: Traction engine by Pete Godfrey

QuirkyCategory winner: Worker ‘n umbrella by Leigh Edwards


Many people working in Tasmania’s forests regularly refer to the FPA’s flora and fauna technical notes series, available on the website under the ‘advisory’ tab <www.fpa.tas.gov.au>. This series has been expanded and updated and a versioning system has been initiated, making it easier to ensure that you are referring to the latest version.

Flora technical note on eucalypt hybridisation now available The flora technical note series has been expanded with the addition of Technical note 12: Management of gene flow from plantation eucalypts. This technical note provides information on which native eucalypts are susceptible to hybridisation with Eucalyptus nitens and how to recognise hybrid seedlings. A method for assessing and managing hybridisation risk is also presented, including monitoring guidelines. Eucalypt hybridisation is an important issue to consider when preparing plans for plantation coupes and it is the subject of ongoing research. FPOs and others are urged to notify researchers if they see hybrid seedlings (or suspected hybrid seedlings) near plantations.

Flora and fauna technical notes series updated

Nina Roberts, Scientific Officer (Biodiversity), Forest Practices Authority

Fauna technical note seriesAs a result of a recent review, new versions of the eight fauna technical notes previously available on the FPA website are now available. The revisions mainly comprise minor updates and formatting changes; however there are some changes to technical information – for example technical note 1 (eagle nest management) has an updated nest activity assessment form (introduced July 2009), and technical note 7 (wildlife habitat clump management) has had a further diagram added to illustrate the 200 metre rule. There are also two new additions to the fauna technical note series: Technical note 4 – Protocol for conducting broad-toothed stag beetle surveys and Techncial note 5 – Protocol for conducting Mt Mangana stag beetle surveys.

The review processFlora and fauna technical notes that include planning or operational advice or prescriptions are reviewed by the Board of the Forest Practices Authority before release. This review and approval process is repeated if a technical note revises the

advice or prescriptions given. In all other cases technical notes are reviewed internally by FPA staff (and other relevant specialists when appropriate).

Version numberingA version numbering system has been introduced to the flora and fauna technical notes so that FPOs and other forest managers can quickly ensure that any hard-copy technical note they may have is current by checking the version number against that on the web. The version number appears in the footer, and is followed by the date that version was released.

Please ensure you are using the latest versions of the relevant technical notes for all forest planning purposes.

Please contact the staff of the biodiversity program if you have any questions about the biodiversity technical notes.

Author’s contact:

[email protected]

The last issue of Forest Practices News (June 2010 vol 10 no 2) led with an article on the Miena jewel beetle.

Phil Bell, the Section Head of the Threatened Species Section in DPIPWE, sent in a few corrections to that article. Phil said ‘The article was great and positive for both threatened species awareness and for FPA training – I don’t want to steal anything from that.’

The corrections are as follows...

Miena jewel beetle is listed as endangered (not extinct as stated) under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.

The find was significant as it is the sixth (not fourth as stated) specimen ever found.

The most recently collected specimen was in 2008 (not 2004 as stated). This specimen was collected by the Tasmanian Natural Field Naturalists Club at Lake Augusta.

Corrections to the Miena jewel beetle article in the last issue of Forest Practices News

Miena jewel beetle (photograph by Chris Spencer and Karen Richards)


Editors’ corner

The FPA’s photography competition was a great success, with over 100 photographs entered and a great range for the judges to choose from. We hope to run it again in a couple of years, so start snapping now! We liked some of the photographs so much we decided to expand our usual one-page calendar into a much bigger calendar, showcasing some of the best pictures.

Forest Practices News aims to publish material that you, the reader, find relevant, useful and inspiring. The forest practices system is based on adaptive management

and we are always keen to document these adaptations. If you are working on developing a new approach that you would like to share, please get in touch and we will work with you on writing an article.

We are also keen to publish case studies of challenging coupes which show the forest practices system in action. Or you may have another great idea to include in the next issue. So, please get in touch!

If you would like to send in a contribution to Forest Practices News, please contact

the editors. Include illustrations and a photo of yourself with your contributions. Contributions can be supplied either as hard copy or electronically. If forwarding material electronically, please ensure that figures/pictures are sent as separate files and not embedded in Word documents. Our address is: [email protected]

Chris Grove and Peter McIntosh Forest Practices News Editors Deadline for contributions to next Forest Practices News: Monday 22 November2010

Over the past three years many FPOs have contributed to an FPA/DPIPWE study that is collecting data on wedge-tailed eagle nest success. The study has focused on gathering information about re-use of wedge-tailed eagle nests located in managed landscapes (nests close to forest practices) and from those in semi-natural landscapes (without forest practices nearby). Apart from nest-use information, details of the nest tree and its immediate surroundings as well as characteristics of the site within four km of nests have been gathered in order to understand what is likely to contribute to the successful raising of a chick.

The study has provided significant chronological information on trends of breeding pairs at individual nest sites. Data gathered in this study suggest that few eagles breed annually, although the drought in 2008 had a large influence on the results.

This study received three years of funding, ending this year, from Roaring 40s wind farms, the FPA and DPIPWE’s Threatened Species Section. Funding is being sought to conduct aerial surveys for research during future seasons.

Arab Emirates philanthropist funds FPA eagle study

Jason Wiersma, Eagle Project Officer, Forest Practices Authority

Earlier this year the FPA applied to the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund, a philanthropic organisation located in the Arab Emirates. This fund was established to provide grants for conservation initiatives concerning individual species, to recognize leaders in the field of species conservation, and to elevate the importance of species in the broader conservation debate. In August the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund granted a generous donation which will enable the aerial surveys for the coming season to take place. The two Australian projects funded by the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund this year are both FPA projects – this wedge-tailed eagle project and Lisa Cawthen’s bat project.

The FPA intends to continue gathering chronology data on wedge-tailed eagles to help with long-term management considerations. This species is considered to be poorly studied, when compared to related species found elsewhere, and both its habitat and reproductive success are at risk. The FPA Eagle Project Officer, Jason Wiersma, will continue to seek funds for this

project to continue the good work that the FPA and the forest industry have fostered over many years. Many thanks to all those who have participated in this project and have helped to provide information to support it.

Author’s contact:

[email protected]

Jason checking prey remains below a wedge-tailed eagle’s nest at West Arm


Professor Ted Lefroy, leader of the Landscape Logic research hub, recently gave a talk to Forest Practices Authority staff on how the research carried out by the Landscape Logic project might influence forest practices. Below is a summary of the ‘big picture’ research being done by the Landscape Logic team.

Are environmental programs effective?Australia has an unfortunate history of environmental management. We hold the record for mammal extinctions over the last 200 years (16 out of 245 species world wide). We have spent $4.2b through public environmental programs (e.g. fencing, tree planting and restoration of wetlands) but we can’t tell if this has made any material difference to the state of the environment. There are good reasons why. The scale of intervention may be too small to be measurable. The long time-lags between action and response mean we often can’t expect to see change for decades. And our efforts are easily overwhelmed by changes in climate, markets and other forces outside our immediate influence.

Reading the landscape

Ted Lefroy, Director, Centre for Environment, University of Tasmania

There is a limit to how long we can keep trotting out these excuses. We need long-term data to tell us the state of the environment and the direction in which it’s heading. Without this information, we can’t hope to tell if we are making any difference when we intervene. The Landscape Logic research partnership is using multiple lines of biophysical and social evidence to piece together landscape histories. The aim is to extract signals of human and other influence from the past to guide future remediation. A partnership of four universities, three state agencies and six natural resource management regions is applying these techniques to two environmental issues, water quality and vegetation condition.

Example 1. History of vegetation change

The team from the Department of Sustainability and Environment in Victoria, Charles Sturt University and the Australian National University is using historic aerial photography and social research to piece together the history of vegetation change. Team members started by systematically scanning air photos from 1946 and 2008 and plotting change in vegetation cover in

three areas of northern Victoria. They then held workshops with long term residents to test the accuracy of their mapping and tease out local explanations of change (Figure 1).

The team found that family records and local history enabled them to trace the story of vegetation change from the 1860s, from the influence of timber cutting for gold mining and the introduction of sheep and rabbits. Interviews with 70 landholders established that a second wave of vegetation decline that began after WW2 has been turned around in the last 20 years, highlighting the long time-scales involved in recovery, and the influence of drivers of change such as commodity prices, changing community values and demographics. The legacy of 20 years of Landcare and other rehabilitation efforts is clearly evident in the landscape in the form of immature trees. Assuming these trees survive the next 20 years, mature woody cover will return to the same levels as occurred in 1946, just prior to the last major expansion of agriculture.

Example 2. River health and land use

This team is led by Peter Davies from Freshwater Systems P/L and Steve Read from Forestry Tasmania, and has employed two postdoctoral researchers, Regina Magierowski and Nelli Horrigan (UTAS/FT). Reconstructing historical river health in Tasmania was challenging as water doesn’t stand still long enough to be counted, mapped or photographed, and there are no long term historical data on river ecology. The technique used here was ‘space-for-time substitution’. Instead of following change at one place over a long period, sites in geologically similar landscapes, but with a range of land uses and disturbance regimes, were compared.

The team started by pulling together all existing data on aquatic biota and water quality for Tasmanian rivers. Comparing data from 103 sampling sites with land Figure 1. Residents working with the Landscape Logic team lead by Digby Race (right rear) as they piece together the

history of vegetation change in the Chiltern district, northern Victoria.


use upstream produced a very significant correlation: when the total area under land classified as grazing land exceeded about 40% there was a marked decline of sensitive aquatic invertebrates, a key measure of river ecological health. This was a whole-of-catchment effect rather than a local effect of landuse.

Further investigations across a gradient of 27 catchments ranging from pristine to intensively grazed (Figures 2 and 3) showed that the decline in sensitive taxa was linked to a shift in the dominant energy base from terrestrial (riparian-derived) carbon to algae. Sediment and light also affected the decline. The study emphasized the patience and scale of investment required to restore ecological processes that influence river health, given that it can take decades for sediment flushing to occur, and for riparian remediation to achieve the 70–80 per cent shading required to control algal growth and allow the restoration of aquatic communities.

The team has developed a decision support system to help natural resource managers to evaluate catchment and local effects of changed land use and riparian (bankside) vegetation management on river ecological health.

For further information contact Ted Lefroy at [email protected] or visit the Landscape Logic website: <www.landscapelogicproducts.org.au/site/>.

Reading the landscape

Figure 3. Tasmanian rivers used in the gradient study shown in order of the proportion of land under grazing management.

Figure 2. Regina Magierowski and Tim Cole sampling the Great Forester River, north-eastern Tasmania.


Many Forest Practices News readers will have come across Fred during his 23 years working in forest practices. Fred retired in July and we took the chance to try and download some of his institutional memory before he got too caught up with the next stage of his life...

What were the early days of the forest practices system like?

When I started with the Forest Practices Unit (FPU) in 1987, Bert Witte was the Chief Forest Practices Officer (CFPO), Sheryl Wolfe was the part-time office manager and the specialists were Paul Wilkinson (environment), Rob Taylor (zoology), Kevin Kiernan (geomorphology), Anne McConnell (cultural heritage) and me. Rob, Kevin, Anne and I became known as ‘the Gang of Four’ – at the time there was a lot of coverage of the Gang of Four who were running China’s Cultural Revolution, though the FPU Gang of Four wasn’t quite as powerful or radical. There was a lot of travel, coupe surveys, identifying areas that were important for conservation, and finding some time for small research

Fred’s reflections

Fred DuncanChris Grove, Publications Officer, Forest Practices Authority

projects. In some ways, this mix has been maintained for the last 20 years or so by specialists working in the FPA.

There was general support for the forest practices system by FPOs and other forest managers, even though people knew it would make life more complicated.

We also ran Forest Practices Officer (FPO) training courses at the Esperance and Arm River camps and started developing manuals and other planning tools (in the pre-GIS world – almost the pre-computer world!). There was general support for the forest practices system by FPOs and other forest managers, even though people knew it would make life more complicated, but I know that some people felt that looking after fauna and flora was a bit over-the-

top as things like that could ‘look after themselves’.

Bert was fantastic as CFPO. I remember telling foresters that they needed to modify plans or reserve areas to take account of threatened species – some would say ‘I really don’t agree with you, but if Bert says we’ve got to do it, we will.’ He had a lot of respect in the industry which helped getting the forest practices system bedded in.

My first big test of commitment to the forest practices system came in 1988 when the Forestry Commission planned to log some coupes in the Douglas-Apsley catchment. There was a strong conservation campaign to declare the area a national park. The area had never been harvested systematically and was very diverse: ranging from rainforest myrtle to dry eucalypt and Callitris forests. The Forestry Commission built an expensive ford over the river to access the first coupes but when I carried out the coupe surveys I discovered a very localised new species, which we named Epacris limbata. In addition, the road was planned to go through Phytophthora-susceptible vegetation.

The Douglas-Apsley case was a good introduction for me because it showed that the Forestry Commission took its environmental responsibilities seriously.

The Forestry Commission decided to move the road, but when my next survey found a new species of grass (Deyeuxia apsleyensis) on the revised road route, they abandoned this operation. The Douglas-Apsley case was a good introduction for me because it showed that the Forestry Commission took its environmental responsibilities seriously. The Forestry Commission regarded itself Fred built up quite a reputation for his cartoons, many of which have graced the pages of Forest Practices News. This is one

of his early ones of the first staff of the Forest Practices Unit.


as a manager for multiple-use – they had wanted to harvest the Douglas-Apsley but they also recognised that areas needed to be reserved and they welcomed the opportunity to manage the estate as a whole. In the end, the newly-elected Field government, through the Labor/Green accord, declared the Douglas-Apsley National Park about a year after this.

How did you reconcile your conservation background with working with the forest industry?

My wife Diana and I had been actively involved with the Wilderness Society – particularly in the Franklin-Gordon campaign. When I started working for the FPU, I had some philosophical conflicts with some aspects of the forest management that I saw in Tasmania, but I found that there were many people who were committed to balancing production and environmental outcomes. It was a chance to take part in a new era of forest management –through the new Forest Practices Act 1985 and Forest Practices Code, and through the raised interest in conservation in Tasmania. Forest products are used by society and need to come from somewhere – it is better that they come from forests where there is a system of regulation that takes some account of environmental values.

Forest products are used by society and need to come from somewhere – it is better that they come from forests where there is a system of regulation that takes some account of environmental values.

As I have become older and wiser – and had more exposure to other systems of forest regulation – I have come to appreciate that there are many good things about the system that has evolved in Tasmania – including the fact that the system has the capacity to evolve! Having said that, there are things about forestry that I have disagreed with but you have to take the good with the bad and make a decision

about whether you are going to work within the system or outside the system.

I’ve seen the recovery and regeneration that occurs after native forest logging – including in areas that look devastated after clearfelling and regeneration burning. Of course the dynamics and ecology of an area are changed but there are methods, such as landscape-level planning, which enable the values to be maintained at a sub-regional or even local level. Some of these methods become more sophisticated and evolve in response to research. For example, in the late 1970s the silviculture in dry sclerophyll forest was clearfell, burn and sow. It became apparent that this was not consistent with the natural dynamics of this forest type – and was also wasteful as the advanced growth was burnt. By the mid-1990s the silviculture had evolved to use a range of partial logging techniques, which better maintained the forest structure and biodiversity. In a similar way, variable retention has been developed as a silvicultural technique for areas of old-growth wet forest.

What changes have you seen over the years?

Our agency has become increasingly independent – initially the FPU was a small section within the Forestry Commission – but the need for independence was obvious, and the umbilical cord – which had become

fairly thin – was cut about 1995 when Graham Wilkinson became CFPO. Since then we’ve been called the Forest Practices Board and then the Forest Practices Authority (FPA).

A lot of the early focus of FPA staff and specialists was on public land, which was supported by the Forest Practices Code which stated that where possible conservation outcomes were to be achieved on public land before private land. The Act and code are clear that Tasmania’s forest practices system applies to public and private land, and over the years private land has been an increasing part of the advisory and research components of the work of FPA specialists.

Other changes include the increased complexity of the system (largely reflecting changes in legislation and policies); the increase in skills developed by FPOs; the extension of the forest practices system to cover land uses not directly related to forestry; the expansion of Tasmania’s plantation estate – much of this through conversion of native forest; and the increase in areas managed as formal and informal reserves.

There has been more emphasis on establishment of representative systems of reserves, with various programs resulting in a range of forest communities (and non-forest communities) being reserved – either formally or informally. In the early


Fred and Chief Forest Practices Officer Graham Wilkinson reminisce at Fred’s farewell in July 2010.


1990s, Mick Brown was a significant driver in a program to identify recommended areas for protection (RAPs) in different bioregions. The program determined what forest types were in the existing reserves and where under-represented forest types could be reserved – mainly on public land. The FPU organised detailed surveys in the RAPs, which formed the basis for their management. It was a very co-operative approach between Tasmania’s conservation department, the Forestry Commission and FPU. Some very good reserves were established – in a lot of ways I think it was a better process than the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process for reservation – there was certainly a lot more inventory information collected about the areas recommended for reservation. We had some good people working through the FPU – people like Andrew North, Katrina Hopkins, Karen Johnson, Brooke Craven and Karen Ziegler.

One thing that hasn’t changed during my time at the FPA is that forestry has continued to be a controversial activity.

One thing that hasn’t changed during my time at the FPA is that forestry has continued to be a controversial activity. I think this has had a debilitating effect on

the Tasmanian community as a whole, and for many people working in the forest industry, including FPA staff. My opinion is that there have been genuine improvements in management practices and consideration of environmental factors in forest management – and some excellent research undertaken into forest biodiversity, ecology and management which has been incorporated into forest planning and practices. However, it has been difficult to get some of these messages across. Some good conservation outcomes have occurred because of community pressure – though I think some of the objectives of some of the ‘conservation movement’ have been misguided or have focused on the wrong places or vegetation types.

What do you think of the current system of reserves and the consequent intensification of operations in the production forest?

I think we have a good system of reserves in Tasmania, especially when you look at it from an international perspective. For a temperate region, Tasmania has relatively high diversity of communities and species, and lot of native forest. I think one of the good things to come out of the RFA was the program to develop agreements with landowners to conserve private forests with high conservation value. I was on the scientific advisory body for this program – a group called CARSAG and it was one of the best groups that I have worked with in that it had people from different organisations who were committed to getting realistic conservation outcomes based on science.

There are many unreserved areas which have important conservation values – many of these values can be identified and catered for through the forest practices system.

There is still room for improvement in achieving important conservation outcomes, but there are some good things which have happened in the twenty-odd years I have

been working at the FPA. There are many unreserved areas which have important conservation values – many of these values can be identified and catered for through the forest practices system. Retention and connectivity of native vegetation is vital for long-term conservation in parts of the state that have been substantially cleared or modified, such as the Midlands, and King Island where 70 per cent of the original vegetation cover has been cleared. The FPA and forest practices system have played an important role in pushing for conservation-oriented management in these areas – but I think that further refinement of the carrot and stick approach is needed.

I think some of the conservation efforts/outcomes have been misguided or have had unintended perverse outcomes.

I think some of the conservation efforts/outcomes have been misguided or have had unintended perverse outcomes. One of them was in the mid-1990s, about the time the RFA got under way, there was a very strong push by conservation organisations that native forest should not be logged and we should only be using timber from plantations. I think this was an impetus for many landowners and land managers to convert areas of native forest – often areas of wet eucalypt forest which had been managed more-or-less sustainably for timber production for decades. I went to properties where beautiful pole regrowth forest was getting knocked over because landowners feared that in the future they would not be allowed to harvest their native forests.

Although I welcome the addition of many areas of native forest to the Tasmanian reserve system – resulting from the RFA and other processes – one perverse outcome was the substantial increase in conversion of native forest to plantations to maintain production volumes in the future. Is it a good outcome to have a significant increase in reserved areas when the cost of that is that large areas of native forest are converted to plantations? In some ways


Fred has been involved in numerous research projects over the years.


this dilemma was philosophically the most difficult thing for me during my work with forest practices.

...one perverse outcome was the substantial increase in conversion of native forest to plantations to maintain production volumes in the future.

I think the FPA has done the right thing in promoting policies designed to put the brakes put on conversion of native forest. In recent years there has been a trend to convert native forest on less productive sites – I don’t think this is in the environmental, social or economic interest of Tasmania.

I think the FPA has done the right thing in promoting policies designed to put the brakes put on conversion of native forest.

Over the last few years there has been a lot of pressure on the FPA’s staff in all the natural and cultural values areas, but in some ways biodiversity has been very much in the limelight because of community focus on biodiversity values. For many years the Forest Practices Code was the rule book, but pressure has also increased on FPA staff because of other policies and legislation that have come in since the Forest Practices Act was passed in 1985. These include the RFA in 1997 which brought in policies like the Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy, the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and the Tasmanian threatened community legislation which came in 2007. There are also a lot of other policies which contributed to good biodiversity outcomes, such as Forestry Tasmania’s relict rainforest policy.

A big load on FPA staff has been dealing with forest practices plans for non-forestry operations. It makes sense that the same

conservation considerations should be applied beyond forestry. Lots of landowners in the early years of the forest practices system wondered why they should have codes of practice and rules based on conservation principles to manage forestry, when over the fence they could see farmers clearing right up to creek lines or clearing areas which were clearly important for conservation.

In the early 2000s, clearing forests for agriculture came into the forest practices system. This was good, but it introduced more complexity to our processes, partly because we were dealing with people who hadn’t been previously exposed to such regulation. The situation became more complicated when the forest practices system became more involved in town planning matters, like subdivisions. I was glad when this was taken out of the forest practices system last year because dealing with some of these matters took a disproportionate amount of time, and the forest practices system was not the best place to be dealing with these matters.

How have you found working with FPOs and others involved in the forest practices system?

It’s been good to be involved in research projects but much of my focus has been on the advisory side of things – developing prescriptions, giving advice and working

with FPOs and forest planners. I’ve found it difficult but rewarding. Over the years my respect for FPOs and forest planners has increased because they have a very difficult job to do and I think most of them do it to a very high standard. A good FPO is a jack of all trades and master of some. He or she needs a wide breadth of knowledge, a commitment to using a wide range of planning tools, and the ability to liaise with people from a wide range of backgrounds.

Our system is very dependent on having competent and committed FPOs so we really need to put the effort into training, developing planning tools and giving advice. We need to listen to what they have to say too – I have learnt a lot about good forest management and practices through being in the bush with FPOs.

I’ve worked with some really good people in the FPA. I’ve been lucky in working under two excellent CFPOs – Bert Witte and Graham Wilkinson. I’ve already mentioned Bert’s importance in getting the forest practices system accepted and running. Graham has been an exceptional CFPO – I have admired his personal integrity, his vision and his ability to set goals. He’s been prepared to take tough decisions, both from a conservation and industry perspective. Both have been well-supported by members of the Forest Practices Board and the Forest Practices Advisory Council.

I have enjoyed working with all the specialist


Fred has always been a strong supporter of the role played by FPOs and the importance of training them, equipping them with planning tools and supporting them with advice to enable them to do their job well.


staff in the FPA. There is no way I could not specifically mention the contributions of Rob Taylor, Sarah Munks and Mark Wapstra to FPA’s biodiversity programs. They have been great colleagues. We’ve maintained very good links with research staff from other organisations – particularly Forestry Tasmania and DPIPWE, and the University of Tasmania. We have had collaborative projects with many students – quite a few have subsequently worked with FPA and one of the best things in my career has been seeing how these people have developed skills and contributed to good forest management. I should also mention that the FPA has benefitted from the quality of the administrative staff – in many ways they are the glue that holds the FPA together. I’ve been very lucky in working in an agency with so much integrity and a common purpose.

What have been the highlights during your time at the FPA?

One of the most memorable things for me has been the links I have developed with South American foresters, researchers and regulators over the last few years. In 2005, I was awarded a Gottstein Fellowship to study forest conservation, regulation and management in Chile and Argentina – despite the ecological similarities between Tasmania and South America, there was very little exchange in information about these topics. I found that there were many similarities but also important differences – for example, in Tasmania there is more

emphasis on natural and cultural values in forest management. Chile started in 2004 to get a more representative system of reserves on public and private land, which is what we were working on in the 1990s.

The links were enhanced by South Americans visiting Tasmania, particularly for the Old Forests – New Management conference in 2008. Subsequently I’ve had a couple of trips over there presenting information on Tasmania’s forest practices system and management of biodiversity. The Forest Practices Code was received very favourably as it was regarded as being a user-friendly document. We should make sure we don’t lose this quality during any reviews of the code. I took quite a few copies over with me but I reckon I could have paid for half the trip if I’d taken more, as they were so well received.

The Forest Practices Code was received very favourably as it was regarded as being a user-friendly document.

A real highlight for me, and a bit of a swansong, was the opportunity to attend a conference in the Andes this year – I gave a presentation on conservation of native grassland by forest managers in north-west Tasmania. This presentation was co-

authored by Louise Gilfedder (DPIPWE) and Robert Onfray (Gunns) – once again a partnership with other researchers and practitioners. It seemed a very appropriate presentation to finish off my career with the FPA, coming full-circle, because of my long-held interest in grasses and grasslands. There were excellent results from this project, which worked so well because of the building of good relationships with different stakeholders. I can remember Graham Wilkinson saying one of the most important parts of forest management is managing people and it’s really true.

What do you see as the strengths of the forest practices system?

I think the Act and the regulations were appropriate when they came in and there has been evolution of the system (e.g. planning tools, training, code) since then in response to research results, community expectations and the developing skills of practitioners. One of the real strengths is that FPOs have taken those changes on board – despite the changes being very complex. I think the success of the system depends on the FPA’s commitment to training and supporting practitioners – in the advisory area, and applying research findings in a way that is targeted at the user. This requires dialogue with practitioners, such as technical working groups, so that we have input from the industry.

Another strength is that the FPA is an organisation with a lot of integrity.

Another strength is that the FPA is an organisation with a lot of integrity. There has been a strong commitment from people within the organisation to put in place a system which tries to get a reasonable balance between production and conservation objectives. Of course, there is a wide range of opinion on where that balance lies. The FPA often has a meat-in-the-sandwich role – not the easiest role to play – but I think we have done a reasonable job over the years. I think there is a good system of governance in the FPA, with the board and the advisory committees


Fred offering a plate of guiso to Romena and Pablo, a forest researcher and his wife visiting Tasmania from Argentina for the Old Forests – New Management conference.


providing a system of checks and balances.

A strength for me personally, which is also a strength of the system, is that within Tasmania there is good exchange of information between people working in biodiversity research and management. Although people may have different philosophical positions there has been genuine sharing of information between FPA, DPIPWE, UTas, Forestry Tasmania, companies and consultants. It’s more than networking – it’s working with people in a positive and productive way. There are some groups responsible for strategic directions and allocations of funds for projects, such as NRM and Greening Australia, that we should probably work more closely with.

What do you see as the challenges/things that could be improved?

One of the challenges is to try and make the community more aware that the forest practices system is a complex and detailed planning system. Careful planning is not of great interest to the media – it’s not as spectacular as trees getting knocked over or columns of smoke.

...the conservation priorities are in less charismatic and in significantly cleared areas.

One of the things that disappoints me is that the public thrust of conservation has focussed on tall trees and wet eucalypt forest, whereas in terms of protecting threatened species and communities and maintaining biodiversity at a state-wide level, the conservation priorities are in less charismatic and in significantly cleared areas, like the Midlands and King Island. There are programs in place to maintain communities in these environments, but much of the public focus is on the tall forests – which are quite beautiful but tend to be dominated by communities which are not as threatened, have adequate reservation and will recover readily as their sites are the most productive. There is always the opportunity for the regrowth forest to grow on into a mature

forest. That opportunity is not foregone by harvesting – it is a decision for future generations to make. When we convert native forest to plantation or other land-uses, it is much more difficult to re-establish native forest.

It would disappoint me if native forest logging becomes a minor part of timber production in Tasmania. But I think it is likely to happen. I think native forest can be logged sustainably. With careful planning and consideration of environmental values at different landscape levels, we can have our cake and eat it too.

How do you see the future of the forest practices system?

I’m not sure what the future will be because of the current uncertainty about the future of the industry. Some of the heat may be coming out of the debate now, which is a good thing as it is a very debilitating debate for individuals caught up in it and also for Tasmania as a whole. Some of the positive moves have been the FSC certification for properties that have native forest harvesting occurring on them. There has been recognition that native forest harvesting can occur sustainably. An example of this is that several properties have been bought by conservation interests in the recent sale of Gunns’ native forest – many of these areas had been harvested recently.

There has been recognition that native forest harvesting can occur sustainably.

I think the system is still going to be complex, but I hope that it doesn’t become over-complex because there has been recognition from outside Tasmania (probably more from outside than inside) that we have got a good system of forest practices regulation. Our system has been used as a model for codes of practice in other places. It would be disappointing if our system became so complex that it prevented it being used by other regulators refining their system or developing a new system.

Adaptive management will continue for the foreseeable future, but where people put their efforts will depend on the future mix between native forest harvesting and plantations. The FPA will also continue to be involved in regulating forestry operations not connected with harvesting, such as clearance for agriculture, and there will be some challenges there. At a state-wide level, there are some activities which are not adequately catered for such as development in urban areas, where there may be important conservation values. Although the forest practices system tried valiantly to deal with this, it wasn’t a good match. A better system needs to be developed to deal with these activities.

Climate change is another obvious challenge. It may be impossible to maintain all the species we have in Tasmania at the moment – especially at higher altitudes – but if we want to retain a high proportion of our current diversity, we need to maintain connections across the landscape. This was addressed in the RFA but I think it will have to become an increasing part of planning through the forest practices system.

What are you planning for your future?

My plans for the future include enjoying Tasmania’s natural environments. I’d also like to follow some creative pathways, like art and writing. I want to look after my property – I need to keep water up to my olives and gardens. I want to spend more time wandering around the blue gum forests on my bush block in the Meehan Range – it had the largest breeding aggregation of swift parrots in 2005, about 40 breeding pairs. I’d like to give something more back to conservation and land management – I am on the scientific advisory committee of the Tasmanian Land Conservancy, and I would like to play more of a role with this organisation. I will also maintain my relationships with friends in South America. It’s important to look beyond our island for ideas as it’s easy to become insular in our outlook.

Authors’ contacts:

[email protected]

[email protected]



This year the Earth Sciences program has conducted six courses that have given FPOs and foresters the chance to refresh and upgrade their soil and water, geological and geomorphological skills. The major initiative was the Geology for Foresters course at Tullah in May. This residential course, financially supported by FIAT, attracted 28 participants. The aim was to provide intense basic training in rock identification, and in geological and geomorphological processes, equivalent to what one might expect on a Year 1 field trip at university. It wasn’t intended to be focussed specifically on forest management, but real issues on coupes were included where possible. With its conference room being available for evening sessions, and its friendly staff, the Tullah Lakeside Chalets venue proved to be the ideal base.

The main topics covered were the geological time scale, faulting, folding and mountain building, different rock types, plate tectonics and volcanism, reading geological maps, and glacial geology.

A year of Earth Sciences training

Peter McIntosh, Senior Scientist, Earth Sciences, Forest Practices Authority

Adrian Slee explains a geological point to a mostly attentive audience.

John Webb, Norske Skog, tests the strength of an arch formed in cemented glacial till at the Mackintosh Dam spillway.

What is this rock? Foresters get close and personal to the hard stuff.


Attendees at the Wielangta-Buckland soil and water refresher course on 2 September take a break at the Thumbs lookout.

All smiles after reaching the end of the Soil and Water refresher course at Scottsdale.

A year of Earth Sciences training

During the months of July, August and September further refresher courses were run by Adrian Slee to update foresters on identifying and managing important geomorphological sites, including those with karst. These one-day refreshers were held in the Moina-Mole Creek areas and in the Florentine Valley. Peter McIntosh also ran soil and water refresher courses near Scottsdale and in the Wielangta-Buckland district. The main issues covered were correct assessment of soil erodibility, different soils developed under dry and wet forests, applying the Class 4 stream guidelines, limiting erosion through careful cultivation, and an introduction to the soil description systems and soil fertility measures used in soil science.

Author’s contact:

[email protected]

People are invited to come and assist in a project at the University of Tasmania studying how the availability of mature forest in the landscape affects micro-bat remnant use and species composition. Between December 2010 – and February 2012 I will be trapping and radio-tracking micro-bats in Tasmania’s timber production forests to investigate how the availability of mature forest affects roost selection (by micro-bats), with a focus on the endemic Tasmanian

long-eared bat. I am seeking enthusiastic individuals to assist in trapping bats during the night and radio-tracking during the day. No experience necessary. All training, food and accommodation provided (during field-work). For more information or to register your interest please go to <www.tassiebatproject.jimdo.com> or contact Lisa Cawthen directly by e-mail: [email protected]

Are you a little batty?

Lisa Cawthen, PhD student, School of Zoology, University of Tasmania


Devil Facial Tumour Disease is an infectious cancer first recorded in 1996 and currently found in devil populations across the eastern two-thirds of Tasmania. The disease is transmitted from devil to devil by direct contact between individual animals (e.g. through biting and fighting) and appears to be slowly spreading westwards through populations. It is a fatal condition that only affects Tasmanian devils, most commonly resulting in tumours forming around the face and mouth and often spreading to the internal organs, leading to death by starvation, infection and organ failure. Tumours can expand and spread very quickly – best estimates are that devils only live for 3–6 months once tumours appear.

The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program (STTDP) was established in 2003 as the official response to the threat posed by DFTD. It is an initiative of the Australian and Tasmanian Governments to protect what is a keystone species in Tasmania’s ecology. It has been estimated that if the Tasmanian devil were lost to the wild, at least 70 other native species could be put at risk. The program is working with wildlife and disease experts throughout the world in an epic conservation effort. The ultimate goal is to ensure the survival of an ecologically functioning population of Tasmanian devils in the wild.

It is difficult for researchers to know exactly where the boundary of diseased and non-

diseased devil populations lies. Trapping surveys are small-scale, costly and don’t always detect disease (especially if few animals are caught), and the area across which the disease ‘front’ (the line between diseased and healthy populations) occurs is enormous. Estimates are made of where the disease front is by reports of diseased devil sightings from members of the public, by remote camera surveys and by trapping surveys. FPA, amongst other organisations, has volunteered to assist the STTDP with further mapping the spread of the disease westwards by working with them on their Roadkill Project.

The Roadkill Project was launched by the STTDP in 2009. It engages the community in helping to establish how significant the impact of roadkill is on Tasmanian devils by encouraging members of the public to report sightings of roadkill devils. This year the Roadkill Project has expanded to invite organisations like FPA that are regularly out travelling on the state’s roads to participate in gathering more detailed data on devil roadkills. FPA staff will be trained by the STTDP on how to age and sex roadkill devils, how to recognise DFTD, and how to collect genetic samples. Information including roadkill locations, devil condition and DFTD status, age and sex will be collected opportunistically by FPA staff when out surveying coupes, and passed on to the program.

The data collected are important for developing management strategies for these wild populations. Then it will be used to assess whether roadkill is having a significant impact on devil populations across Tassie, to identify roadkill hotspots and to collect genetic information on devils across the state. Most importantly though, identification of any roadkill diseased devils further west than STTDP’s known records of the disease will allow them to map the spread of the disease towards the currently healthy West Coast devil population and keep a watchful eye on healthy populations nearby for any signs of disease emergence.

Hopefully this information will contribute to developing and improving conservation strategies for devils in the wild in Tasmania. Individuals or organisations that are interested in this project or the STTD program can get more information on their website at www.tassiedevil.com.au, by emailing on [email protected] or by calling 6233 2006.

Author’s contact:[email protected]

Editors’ note: Dydee goes off on maternity leave in mid-October, but hopes to return to the FPA next year. All the best Dydee!

Dead devil detectives: getting involved in the Roadkill Project

Dydee Mann, Ecologist, Biodiversity Program, Forest Practices Authority

(Left) Early stage DFTD tumour – often starts in/around mouth and spreads from there to the rest of the head, body and internal organs. Not all devils have tumours that are visible from the outside. (Right) Healthy devil hanging out in the sun. (Photographs by Dydee Mann)


A new payment system for forest practices plan (FPP) application fees became operational on 20 September 2010. In the new system most applicants will be required to pay application fees before FPPs can be certified by a Forest Practices Officer (FPO).

The new system has been necessitated by an unreasonable number of outstanding debts. These not only increase the FPA’s administrative costs, but have the potential to limit the capacity of the FPA to maintain its functions and services.

BackgroundThe objective of the forest practices system is to deliver sustainable forest management in a way that is as far as possible self-funding. Although the FPA receives money allocated by parliament for certain functions, over 50 per cent of income is generated through self-funding. In 2008–09, $1.7 million of the FPA’s $2.9 million revenue was generated in this way.

The FPA’s self-funding activities mainly consist of the advice and services provided by FPA staff to FPOs during the preparation of FPP applications for approval and certification. When the FPP application is made (irrespective of whether or not the FPP is subsequently approved), the FPA is required to charge an application fee in accordance with section 18 of the Forest Practices Act 1985. This fee is charged by the FPA raising an invoice, which the person or entity noted as the FPP applicant is required

New payment system for forest practices plan application fees

Angus MacNeil, Business Administration Manager, Forest Practices Authority

to pay. Prior to the introduction of the new system discussed here, the FPA raised invoices after the FPP had been certified, at the beginning of each month, and allowed 30 days for payment.

The new system in practiceWhen an FPO (or forestry planner) submits certain key FPP information through the FPA’s web-based FPP Coverpage system as part of the application process, the submitter will now be advised to await payment acknowledgement by the FPA before the FPP can be certified by the FPO. This initial response replaces the previous system where the user was presented with a web page immediately confirming certification, accompanied by a certification number.

The Coverpage system will then automatically alert FPA administration staff that a plan has been submitted, and the following process will occur:

If you are an FPO or planner associated with a regular applicant

With regular applicants the FPA will know whether bills are being paid on time – if so, the submitted FPP in the Coverpage system will normally be released for certification within one working day of submission, and an e-mail will be sent to the submitter advising that the plan can be certified. (In practice this will often happen within a few minutes of submission, but this can’t always be guaranteed.)

If you are an FPO or planner associated with a one-off or non-regular applicant

For one-off or non-regular FPP applicants (or regular applicants not paying on time), the delay will be longer due to the need for the FPA to directly issue an invoice and await payment from the applicant. If the applicant pays by company or personal cheque, the FPA will be unable to acknowledge payment until the cheque has cleared through the banking system (around two weeks from receipt of the cheque). The delay could be as little as one or two days if the applicant is happy to receive an emailed invoice and then pays immediately by credit card or some other quick and guaranteed form of payment (Money Order or Bank Draft).

The FPA wishes to assure FPOs that it is not the job of an FPO to arrange payment of the fee on behalf of their clients – this is a job for the FPA, who will continue to invoice the FPP applicants. However, to avoid unnecessary delays and disputes, FPOs are asked to provide their clients with timely advice about the likely FPP fee (which can be readily calculated using the fee calculator within the FPO login section of our website).

Please contact myself, the Chief Forest Practices Officer (Graham Wilkinson), or Office Manager (Sheryl Wolfe) if you have any queries about the new payment system.

Author’s contact:

[email protected]

This photograph of native forest thinning, wattle removal and harvesting was entered into the FPA’s photographic competition by Forestry Tasmania’s Andrew Crowden.


The FPA recently held a forum with treefern harvesters and forest managers to discuss the current state of the treefern harvesting industry. The forum, which was held in Campbelltown on Monday 26 July, was well attended by those with an interest in this small but significant industry.

In Tasmania the harvesting of wild Dicksonia antarctica (soft treefern or manfern) is permitted under the conditions set out in the 2001 amendment to the Forest Practices Act 1985. These conditions are described and elaborated upon in the Tasmanian Treefern Management Plan, available on the FPA’s website <www.fpa.tas.gov.au>. In brief, treeferns (only Dicksonia antarctica) can be harvested from areas that are to be intensively logged (e.g. clearfell operations or forest to be converted to plantations) and are covered by a certified FPP with a prescription for treefern harvesting. A Tasmanian treefern tag (issued by the FPA) must be securely attached at the point of harvest and remain attached to the point of sale. This system aims to prevent trade in treeferns taken illegally from high conservation value areas such as reserves, and provides reassurance to buyers that treefern harvesting is conducted in a responsible and sustainable manner.

Treefern forum – July 2010

Nina Roberts, Scientific Officer, Biodiversity Program, Forest Practices Authority

Most treeferns harvested in Tasmania are exported to the mainland or overseas. The United Kingdom has been a large market for treeferns in the past decade, although for various reasons this market has declined in the past two years or so. Tasmanian treefern harvesters currently face several challenges, and these were discussed at the forum.

One challenge identified by Tasmanian treefern harvesters was what they perceive as an unfair competitive advantage gained by their Victorian counterparts. In Victoria treefern tags are issued free of charge, whereas here in Tasmania tags are sold by the FPA at two government fee units per tag (currently this amounts to $2.72). This difference appears to have had an increasing effect on sales recently. Tasmanian harvesters feel this difference has had an increasingly negative effect on their sales as overseas markets tighten.”.

In 2008 the FPA formally wrote to the Victorian authorities requesting that the inequality and regulatory weakness of the Victorian treefern management system be addressed. More recently the Chief Forest Practices Officer met with staff of the relevant Victorian department. Unfortunately, despite our requests, no progress has

been made on reviewing Victorian treefern regulations. The Victorians acknowledge that without revenue from tags sales they cannot properly regulate the industry and revise their management plan. The Chief Forest Practices Officer is hopeful that political discussions at ministerial level will lead to some progress in Victoria improving their system.

Another challenge faced by the treefern industry in the current market climate is that the price fetched by small treeferns (i.e. those with trunks less than 30cm long) is relatively low and allows little or no profit margin once the price of the tag, transport and other overheads are taken into account. According to the harvesters present at the forum, trade in small ferns is a large portion of their market.

The FPA acknowledges that treeferns range in value depending on their size and that the current single-price system for tagging adversely affects the profit margin for small ferns. The FPA is currently investigating whether to introduce a lower-cost tag for small ferns. This would require amendment to the Forest Practices Regulations. The FPA is also aware that many harvesters are now finding markets for treefern-derived

The FPA regulates the commercial harvesting of treeferns in Tasmania by selling treefern tags which must be attached to the trunks at point of harvest. The FPA is currently investigating whether to introduce a lower-cost tag for small ferns.


products rather than live ferns, and that the tagging requirements set out in the Forest Practices Act 1985 may need to be amended so such products can still be traced to their point of harvest, ensuring our regulatory system remains robust and consumers are able to see that they’re buying sustainably sourced products.

Two further issues for the treefern harvesting industry were identified and discussed during the forum: quarantine export constraints, and ease of access to the treefern resource. Representatives of the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) attended the forum and gave a presentation explaining the export requirements for treeferns. Although harvesters accept the need to ensure treeferns are not harbouring other organisms such as insects or plant seeds before export, one sticking point is the requirement by the United Kingdom that wild-harvested plants must be ‘grown on’ in an approved nursery environment

for three months prior to transport commencing. Harvesters felt it would be more appropriate if the several weeks that the treeferns spend in transit (in shipping containers) could be counted as part of the required three month period. AQIS representatives advised that this is an issue the industry would have to raise directly with the UK authorities.

Treefern harvesting currently occurs mostly on State forest managed by Forestry Tasmania. Harvesters are usually in contact with the local Forestry Tasmania district office to get details of coupes with FPPs containing provisions for treefern harvesting. Craig Patmore, from FT Derwent, gave a brief presentation at the forum about the Forest Manager’s perspective on treefern harvesting requirements and regulations. Treefern harvesters generally prefer to extract treeferns before timber harvesting damages the understorey. Some harvesters have had difficulty in getting enough lead-time to get into a coupe and finish work

Treefern forum – July 2010

before timber harvesting. The three year plan available on the Forestry Tasmania website is a useful tool for treefern harvesters to gain a better idea of which coupes may be available to them in the future.

An update on the FPA’s treefern research program was also given at the forum. This program, which includes a major investigation into treefern survival after logging, aims to provide information that will support decisions about ecologically sustainable management. This information is crucial to future revisions for the Tasmanian Treefern Management Plan. Without adequate information on possible ecological impacts of harvesting, the Commonwealth may not endorse this plan, which governs the issue of export licences. Stay tuned to Forest Practices News for more on what the research program has found to date.

Author’s contact:[email protected]

National review of codes of practice for plantations

Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, Forest Practices Authority

The Australian Government has commissioned CSIRO to conduct a review of each state and territory’s code of practice for plantations. The review is required under the federal export controls legislation. Under the legislation, export licences are not required for the export of unprocessed plantation wood (which includes wood chips) if the federal minister has approved a state’s or territory’s plantation code as satisfactorily protecting environmental and heritage values. The last review of Tasmania’s code was completed in 1997 and the Australian Government has decided that it is time to update the review for all states and territories.

Much has changed since the review of 1997: Australia’s plantation estate has grown significantly; private ownership now

predominates over public sector ownership; and most plantations are now covered by the Australian Forestry Standard and/or the Forest Stewardship Council certification schemes.

I attended a preliminary national meeting in Melbourne in September 2010 to discuss the review and the status of codes of practice around Australia. The review by CSIRO will be conducted by four scientists according to the National Principles for Wood Production in Plantations (see http://www.daff.gov.au/forestry/plantation-farm-forestry/principles). The review will involve an expert assessment by the scientists on the basis of documentation, interviews with industry practitioners and field inspections. The review does not involve submissions from the industry or the public.

Without pre-empting the findings of the review, it was clear to me from the national meeting that Tasmania has by far the most comprehensive system in Australia. We are the only state that has a mandatory code across all tenures, with independent monitoring, assessment and publication of the standards being achieved. I know that many foresters in Tasmania may be suffering from ‘review fatigue’, after the never-ending process of regular assessments under EMS, certification and forest practices requirements. However, the comparative review of all codes in Australia by the CSIRO is important as we increasingly move into an era likely to be dominated by plantations and independent certification.

Author’s contact:

[email protected]


The Forest Practices Authority (FPA) provides advice to Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) in the Tasmanian forest industry on natural and cultural values that may be subject to forestry or clearing activities. A key component of the communication between the FPA and FPOs is the process of ‘notification’ by FPOs. Notifications are formal requests made to the FPA for advice on important natural or cultural values that need to be considered within the land covered by a proposed forest practices plan.

The FPA receives around 2000 notifications each year, covering a wide range of biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscape, soil and geosciences issues. Some notifications can be replied to quickly. However, a considerable number are complex for FPOs and FPA specialists to deal with, and provision of advice can take some time. The process often involves significant consultation with the land manager, other specialists and other organisations.

Storing and tracking notifications and related information in a consistent manner is always a challenge, as is keeping FPOs and their clients properly informed of progress. The

A new web-based notification system in development

Daniel Livingston, GIS, Database and Systems Officer, Forest Practices Authority (left)Angus MacNeil, Business Administration Manager, Forest Practices Authority (right)

FPA recognises the need to change and improve the system for our clients, and also for staff who often retrieve archived information stored on different systems.

The FPA has been trialling some software (Numara Footprints) for creating a web-based notification system. By implementing this system the FPA aims to:

• makeiteasyforanFPOtosubmitnotifications via a web platform

• provideamoreefficientworkflowforFPA admin and specialist staff

• maintainatransparentrecordofadviceprovided, including all correspondence between the FPO and the FPA

• allowaccesstoadviceprovidedinthepast, irrespective of who provided it

• provideFPOswithup-to-dateinformation on the status of their notification.

When submitting a new notification the user will be asked to fill out a standard screen-based form, very like the current notification sheet, containing summary information such as location and operation type. The user will then be able to attach files such as maps,

photos or word documents to accompany the notification.

When the submission is received by the new system, it will be automatically assigned to the appropriate FPA specialist officer or program for assessment. Users will be able to keep track of all notifications entered from the implementation date of the new system, with the ability to search using key words to locate correspondence and documents. The system allows users to be in company groups so people working in teams can see the status of their teammates’ notifications.

After some initial development we will be asking for some test users to help us refine the process, as well as the look and feel of the package, to ensure it best meets the needs of FPOs and the FPA.

It is hoped that the new system will be running before Christmas this year.

Authors’ contacts:

[email protected]

[email protected]

At the end of last year, FPA’s biodiversity section received a notification for a coupe at Golconda, in north-eastern Tasmania, where native forest was proposed for conversion to pasture. As the area was within the range of a few threatened species of interest including Engaeus orramakunna (Mt Arthur burrowing crayfish), biodiversity staff Dydee Mann and Chris Spencer headed out to survey the area. The photo here is of Chris carrying out a burrow excavation to confirm the species of crayfish whose chimneys we found popping up alongside many of the creeks on the property. After finding a few juvenile crayfish, we took a closer look under magnification and could positively identify these specimens as E. orramkaunna and not one of the more common burrowing crayfish species. The presence of this species on the property resulted in recommendations to preserve native forest habitat alongside the creeks where burrows were found and exclude machinery and pesticides from boggy areas, with no restrictions for areas away from the streams and water sources. (photograph by Dydee Mann)


FPA Training Courses 2010

Course Contact Timing Duration Location Course content and costFPO Refresher Courses

[email protected] 23 November 25 November 26 November

1 day each HobartLauncestonBurnie

All FPA programs will give a short presentation updating FPOs on developments in their programs.

The FPA, in collaboration with ECOtas, will be holding regional one-day field days on Tasmanian orchids. This course is aimed at forest practitioners, in particular FPOs and planners involved in the preparation of forest practices plans who need to identify habitats and survey requirements. In some situations conservation of orchid habitat can benefit other annual species. The course may also be of interest to others involved in natural values management.

The morning seminar, presented by Mark Wapstra (ECOtas), will include information on:

• orchidbiologyandecology(15–20%ofTasmanian plant species are orchids)

• regionallysignificantspecies(includingthreatened species)

• keyhabitatsandwhenasurveymayberequired

• conservationmanagement.

The afternoon field trip to a regional orchid ‘hot spot’ will focus on:

• identificationoflocalorchidsandorchid habitats

• discussiononorchidmanagementforarange of activities (e.g. logging, roading, disease and weed management, fire management, etc.)

• discussiononusingorchidhabitatsassurrogates for biodiversity management (e.g. rocky outcrops, wildlife habitat clumps, etc.)

• surveyrequirementsandstrategicplanning.

Dates and locations

northern Tasmania: 28 October 2010 in the Henry Somerset Reserve just south of Latrobe.

southern Tasmania: in late January, probably in Wielangta.

The number of field days and exact location and dates will depend on interest.

Cost

FPOs and staff of FT and FIAT affiliates: $100; other attendees: $180. The cost includes specialist time, morning tea and lunch and a copy of ‘The flowering time of orchids’ booklet.

How to register

To register an interest for this field day, please email [email protected] or phone 6233 7966 and request the registration form.

For more information please contact Anne Chuter : [email protected]

Tasmanian micro-bat and tree hollows training evening

Tasmania’s eight species of micro-bat are all dependent on the forest for roosting and foraging resources. Unlike their mainland counterparts, Tasmania’s bats do not use caves but rely on tree hollows for roost and breeding sites. As insectivores, they also provide an important role in forests as natural insect controllers and nutrient dispersers. Although none of Tasmania’s bats are threatened, their dependence on tree hollows for roost and breeding sites means that if suitable habitat is not retained they are unlikely to persist in that area. As trees are unlikely to contain hollows before they are at least 100 years old, hollows are unlikely to form during current harvest rotation intervals and careful management of the hollow resource is required in production forest areas to maintain insectivorous bats.

A one-evening course will be run in the

south of the state at Kellevie for Forest Practices Officers, forest planners and other interested persons The course will start in the evening before sunset introducing Tasmanian bat species, biology and ecology; the role of bats in forests; managing bats in timber production forests. As the sun goes down and bats become active, the course will cover methods for surveying bats, and demonstrations of direct (trapping) and indirect (bat call survey) methods for monitoring bats.

The topics covered will include:

• anintroductiontothebatspeciesofTasmania

• theroleofbatsinforestecosystems

• thehabitatrequirementsofTasmanianbats

• briefoverviewofcurrentworkonTasmanian bats (Lisa Cawthen’s PhD)

• ademonstrationofhowtodirectlyand indirectly survey Tasmanian bats by using trapping and bat call survey techniques.

The field evening will be coordinated by the FPA and Lisa Cawthen, a postgraduate student studying Tasmanian bats.

Date and location

Wednesday 1st December 2010

Cost

At this stage there will be no or minimal cost for this course, depending on the level of interest.

How to register

To register an expression of interest for this field day or for more information please contact [email protected] or [email protected] or phone 6233 7966.

Orchid field day

FPO Refresher Courses


Driving to a coupe inspection at Mt Nicholas near St Mary’s in the state’s north-east, Peter McIntosh and the author noticed a large rock prominently sticking up above the surrounding hill slope. When we passed the rock again on our return journey, we decided to have a look at this feature – as only two geologists would do. On reaching the rock, we were impressed not only by its size and steepness but also by the fact that it was not alone.

Further exploration of the area revealed 11 more pinnacles of dolerite, some up to 8 m tall, rising almost vertically above the otherwise featureless hill slope. Although the base of the rocks are not visible, it would appear that the cluster of pinnacles have not developed by normal geomorphic processes common to the area, such as landslides or slope deposits carried down-slope from the summit of Mt Nicholas by periglacial (freeze – thaw) action.

The twelve chessmen

Adrian Slee, Geoscientist, Forest Practices Authority

A more likely explanation for the cluster of pinnacles is that they are the remains of feeder dykes. The Jurassic dolerite of Tasmania was laid down beneath the surface as thick sheets of lava fed by vertical tubes known as dykes and feeder dykes. Over the following 140+ million years, the Jurassic dolerite has been exposed at the surface and the clusters of fine grained vertical feeder dykes have resisted erosion more than the surrounding landscape, forming the dramatic pinnacles.

While the pinnacles themselves are robust landforms, the site requires protection as it is very scenic and could be impacted by roading and other major land developments.. The site is currently protected in a reserve.

Author’s contact;

[email protected]

Forest Practices Officers: are you moving?

To help us maintain an accurate database and to ensure that circulars reach you, please advise us if you are transferring, resigning or retiring. Thanks. Adrienne and Sheryl.

Phone:(03) 6233 7966 Email: [email protected]


Many readers will have known Joe Hawkes, who passed away in August this year. The FPA wishes to acknowledge the contribution that Joe made as a Forest Practices Officer and a respected colleague.

In 1981, when he was aged 17, Joe started work as a Trainee Forester with the Forestry Commission in Fingal. His colleagues all attest to his impish sense of humour which he could use well to his own advantage as this anecdote shows:

It was in the very early 80's and I guess Joe would have been in his first year with the Forestry Commission. The organisation had a training school at Esperance camp near Dover. Dick Chuter was in charge and due to inappropriate actions by students at previous schools Dick wanted to make sure this group didn't misbehave. So Dick arranged a bus and on some nights he would take the students to the Dover pub for about two hours for a quiet drink. Well two hours for Joe wasn't enough - you weren’t allowed to take your own vehicle from the camp without permission and certainly not to the pub. Now the Esperance camp was approx 8 km by road but less than 2 km by water across the bay and the camp had kayaks for use by the students. Yes - Joe was planning the Great Escape. The next night while the other students piled into the bus Joe and I got into a two-man kayak and started paddling across the bay to the pub. We arrived at around the same time as the bus. The quiet drink went well then after the usual two hours the others piled into the bus but Joe and I stayed with the locals and continued our quiet drink. When it was time to go we paddled/meandered our way back across the bay. C.P.

Joe’s training took him to Wynyard, Triabunna, Burnie and Hobart. During the summer of 1984 Joe was involved in the major assessment of the Pegarah radiata plantations on King Island. His work contributed to the management plan which guided forestry operations on King Island for the next decade. He was appointed as Forest Practices Officer 29 Aug 1990, while

Joe Hawkes

1 November 1963 – 24 August 2010

Joe Hawkes in his Forestry Tasmania days, drawn by Fred Duncan.

located at Burnie. In 1995 he was appointed as Senior Technical Officer (Planning) in Murchison District.

Joe served longest in Forestry Tasmania’s Devonport office, where one of his responsibilities was planning cable harvest. But after 24 good years with Forestry Tasmania Joe wanted new challenges and after much soul searching he left in 2005 to work for the international environmental consulting firm ECI, and then moved on to start his own successful business.

differences and gossip were just not worth concentrating on. On forestry and forest practices matters he always aimed to work out the best solution. If a rule or guideline was impractical to implement he would spend time on the phone or in the field to sort out a better answer – his patient dedication to excellence made him a first class FPO. Negotiations were always polite and conducted with humour and consideration for alternative points of view.

Apart from coaching his beloved football As a consultant he had a major input into developing appropriate harvest practices for the pine plantations on the highly erodible sand dune country north of Strahan.

As Joe’s friend John Cole said at his funeral, Joe’s priorities were family, friends, football and forestry. John also remarked that he had a hobby – collecting friends: whether you were a football friend or a work colleague, Joe gave you time. When he called you ‘cobber’ you know you were in his list. He had the rare ability to be at ease with anybody, and to put other people at ease in his company – you sensed that he always saw the bigger picture (which was always slightly humorous), and personal

Published by the Forest Practices Authority 30 Patrick Street Hobart Tasmania 7000 Phone (03) 6233 7966 Fax (03) 6233 7954 [email protected] www.fpa.tas.gov.au

Banner photograph: Peter McIntosh’s entry in the FPA’s 2010 photographic competition – tree decline in the Midlands

The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Authority.Articles from this newsletter may be reproduced. Acknowledgement of the author & FPA is requested.

Printed on paper from sustainably managed sources.

team, Joe never formally taught others in his work, but he had the knack of informally and almost imperceptibly passing on his great store of knowledge to those around him.

Joe’s commitment to the forest practices system, his ability to find humour in any situation, his zest for life, willingness to help anyone and loyalty to his friends will be greatly missed.

Written by Peter McIntosh with the help of Bob Cripps, Nigel Foss and Craig Patmore.

Joe Hawkes 1 November 1963 – 24 August 2010

Joe on a field day in the Strahan plantations on 20 July 2010. Joe played a major role in putting together the guidelines for pine harvest in the unusual sandy terrain of the dune country north of Strahan.

Joe getting his hands dirty helping the FPA’s Karen Richards to survey for Engaeus granulatus (the central north burrowing crayfish) at Branchs Creek near Port Sorell.

contents capturing forests: the forest practices authority ...€¦ · positives of our working...

Documents