Forest Practices News - January 2018 vol 13 no 4 ISSN 1441–1288

Tasmania’s independent forest regulator administering the Forest Practices Act • Advising • Researching • Monitoring • Enforcing

Banner photograph: Participants on the ‘Looking back – looking forward’ conference field trip visit a small cave in a Norske Skog plantation. The cave has been monitored with a remote camera since winter 2014, revealing that it is used by Tasmanian devils, eastern quolls, wombats and other animals. See Forest Practices News December 2016 for information on how it is managed.

‘Looking back – looking forward’ was a fitting theme for the conference convened by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) to mark the thirty-year anniversary of the forest practices system (FPS) in Tasmania. It achieved all of its three objectives:

• to consider the progress made in the first 30 years of Tasmania’s forest practices system

• to use this perspective to assess trends and possibilities in Tasmanian, national and international forest regulation, particularly in relation to the review of the Forest Practices Code

• to launch the State of the Forests Tasmania 2017 booklet and highlight the full report (as tabled in Parliament).

The two-day program provided participants with a ‘deep dive’ into

Looking back – looking forward conference: overview

Chris Grove, Training and Publication Officer, Forest Practices Authority

Peter Kanowski, Master, University House, The Australian National University

Claire Howell, Principal Scientist, ABARES

the FPS, which proved a very effective model for those of us less familiar with the breadth and depth of the system. The scene was set early in the program with an introduction to the development and early implementation of the FPS across Tasmania’s forest landscapes from various perspectives, including current and former FPA staff, contractors, and a private forest owner. Subsequent sessions provided participants with further insights into the adaptive management and continual improvement capacity of the FPS, and a clear understanding of the range of ecological, economic and social considerations addressed by the FPS such as heritage, biodiversity research and management, Aboriginal heritage, soil and water, compliance and harvest planning processes.

The conference culminated in group discussions to provide delegates an opportunity to voice their opinions, such as this discussion on monitoring the effectiveness of guidelines and prescriptions delivered through the forest practices system.

Contents

Conference gallery 4

Conference: developing the system 6

Conference: regulation and certification 8

Conference: stakeholders 8

Conference: group discussion 10

Conference field trip November 2017 14

Conference dinner 15

CFPO Update 16

Changes at the FPA 16

CFPO instructions to Forest Practices Officers 17

Editors’ corner 17

Landscape stability 18

Forest restoration 20

A wildling-free environment 21

Using electronic tablets in forest planning 22

FPA Geology for Foresters Course 2017 24

FPA Compliance Program 26

Stakeholder liaison 28

Popular publications 29

FPA training 30

Smoke management workshop 34

Browsing management 35

The curious case of the missing iPad 36

2 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

The inclusion of presentations by Forest Practices Officers, and from Tasmanian and Australian Government agencies, the private sector and non-government organisations, together with national and international academics and consultants, made for a rich and stimulating event. This was complemented by the contribution – during question times and out-of-session – by participants from other states and overseas. The conference was further strengthened with the agenda running in plenary for all but a break-out session on Day 2, which led to participants having a shared experience of the various discussions and debates.

The field trip to the Derwent Valley following the conference provided delegates with a direct understanding of many of the issues raised, and the chance to expand on many of the discussions that began during the conference; as well as exposure to Tasmanian summer conditions that were somewhat unexpected for visitors ...

In all, 115 people attended the conference from Tasmania, interstate, New Zealand and Canada. This included 102 full registrations and 13 day registrations; 77 delegates attended the conference dinner on the Monday evening; and 40 delegates attended the Derwent Valley Field Tour on Wednesday. The conference program included 30 presentations and small group discussions. The presentations and feedback are available on the FPA’s website.

On the afternoon of the second day, Professor Peter Kanowski, from the Australian National University, drew together some of the major themes that had emerged over the first day and a half of the conference. The following summary of his presentation reflects his interpretation of others’ contributions and the topic more generally.

Peter began with reflections on contributions from Tuesday’s panellists:

Dydee Mann, from FPA’s Biodiversity Program, showed a video of a Tasmanian devil being monitored by a remote camera in a plantation coupe. The devil was sniffing around, and Peter suggested this provided a good metaphor for what the conference aimed to do – looking back at

the development of the FPS and looking around at status quo in order to help us look forward to the future nature of the system.

Penny Wells, Director of Resources Policy at the Department of State Growth, spoke to a recent publication which highlighted that the FPS is part of a broader forest management system – see figure 1.

Graham Wilkinson, forestry consultant and ex-Chief Forest Practices Officer, emphasised this point in his presentation with a diagram from his 2015 paper in Australian Forestry (figure 2).

Peter noted that each of these FPS-oriented presentations illustrated how the Tasmanian FPS was situated in the larger

body of academic work and practice about regulation.

Keynote speaker Professor Ben Cashore (Yale University), and panellists Fred Gale (Associate Professor, University of Tasmania) and Jacki Schirmer (Associate Professor, University of Canberra) all touched on regulation theory in their presentations. As background, a recent free book edited by Peter Drahos of ANU provides a wealth of accessible information on regulatory theory (https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/regulatory-theory). In this publication, which showcases the work of ANU’s School of Regulation and Global Governance, regulation is defined in a broad sense, rather than in a narrower hard-letter law sense, as ‘a

Looking back – looking forward conference: overview (continued)

Department of State Growth

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and

Environment

Forest Practices Authority Forestry Tasmania Private Forests Tasmania

Forestry (Rebuilding the Forestry Industry) Act

Nature Conservation ActNational Parks and Reserves Management ActCrown Lands ActThreatened Species Protection ActHistoric Cultural Heritage ActAboriginal Relics ActEnvironmental Management and Pollution Control Act

Forest Practices Act Forest Management Act Private Forests Act

Advice to Government

Policy Development

Regional Forest Agreement

· monitoring

· implementation

· review

Collect information on Tasmania’s natural and cultural values.Provide advice on location and management of values.Manage formal Reserves; Crown Land; and Future Potential Production Zone Land (including planning operations, protection, visitor management, compliance with Code of Reserve Management)

Implement the Forest Practices System· Issue Forest Practices

Code· Set Forest Practices

Policy and guidelines· Produce 5 yearly State

of the Forests Report· Administer Private

Timber ReservesSee figure 2 for more details on the forest practices system

Manage the Permanent Timber Production Zone Land

· Monitor and plan sustained yield of wood to meet legislated minimum supply levels.

· Planning, implementing and monitoring wood products supply and sustainable management of non-wood values.

Promote and assist the development of the

private forestry sector

THE TASMANIAN FOREST MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FRAMEWORK

AGENCY/AUTHORITY/ENTERPRISE

KEY LEGISLATION

KEY FOREST MANAGEMENT

RESPONSIBILITIES

Source: Department of State Growth 2017.

Figure 1 Penny Wells outlined the key agencies, the legislation they administer and their responsibilities that are integral to Tasmania’s forest management system. From Tasmania’s forest management system: an overview (2017)

Figure 2. The regulatory components of Tasmania’s framework for sustainable forest management. From Wilkinson, 2015.

3Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Looking back – looking forward conference: overview (continued)

means to influence the flow of events’. In this context, the FPS is the primary means of influencing the outcomes of forest management interventions.

A related, earlier free book from one of the founders of the ANU School is Responsive regulation (1992) (http://johnbraithwaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Responsive-Regulation-Transce.pdf); here, regulation is defined as a context-specific system which understands the motives of those being regulated and is tripartisan – it considers the regulator, the regulated and the broader community.

In his keynote address, Ben Cashore illustrated (using the metaphor of apples, oranges and tomatoes) how the FPS was placed in a broader suite of approaches to achieving sustainable forest management – interacting with both forest legality verification and forest certification (figure 3). He considered that the FPS might achieve durable policy change. The introduction of the system is an example of paradigm change and the development of the system an example of progressive incremental change, both of which lead to durability (figure 4).

Peter suggested that the key messages from the presentations were that the FPS:

• exemplifies desirable systemic features, as identified by regulatory theorists

• is high-ranking in global comparisons of other systems

• has imperfections, but it is based on adaptation and ongoing improvement

• is durable, so far

• is fit for purpose – but the scope of that purpose is limited. It’s important to acknowledge what the FPS can and can’t achieve and how it differs from other mechanisms, such as certification.

Lastly, Peter suggested the challenges facing the FPS are both internal and external. Internal challenges relate to improving the system itself, for example, making it as simple and effective as possible, as Colin McCulloch (Manager, Arbre Hub) discussed in his presentation.

External challenges relate to the larger governance system, of which the forest

Key Features of Legality, Certification and Domestic Forest Practices Regulations

Forest Legality Verification

Forest Certification (NSMD)

Domestic “Forest Practices”

Role of Government

Sovereign governments decides rules

Sovereign governments do not require adherence to rules

Sovereign governments decide rules

Policy Scope Limited Broad Broad

Assurance Verification required

Verification required (Third Party Auditing)

Variable (developed and developing)

Role of Markets Tracking along supply chain

Tracking along supply chain

Demand for products

Economic Incentives

Weeding out supply increases prices

Demand from customers

Possible reduction in domestic conflict

\Number and Size of Steps

Few, large Many, small

Durability

Durable Change(A new

“equilibrium” is established

Non-durable Change

(Change is temporary, goes back to original

position)

Faux paradigmatic

Classic paradigmatic

Progressive incremental

Classic incremental

Durable Policy Change

✕✔

Great but

rarely happens

✕practices system is a part. These include issues related to trust and confidence in forest management (as highlighted by Jacki Schirmer); whole of landscape issues (as discussed by the FPA’s Amy Koch), and the trend for pressure on the permanent native forest estate to come from agricultural expansion rather than forestry, as mentioned by landowner Rob Downie. Perhaps the landscape approach should be broadened to include not just issues of scale, but also to include other land uses such as agriculture?

The final session of the conference was small group discussions, giving delegates a chance to expand on the material covered in the presentations and to put their views across. The discussion topics tackled both internal and external challenges, and are documented later in this issue.

Authors’ contacts:

Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au claire.howell@agriculture.gov.au peter.kanowski@anu.edu.au

Figure 3. Ben Cashore’s slide on key features of legalities, certification and domestic forest practices regulations

Figure 4. Ben Cashore’s slide on the durability of change

Most presenters have given permission for their presentations to be made available for downloading through the FPA’s website. Feedback from the post-conference survey is also available at: http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/forest_practices_system/lookin_back_-_looking_forward_conference_papers

4 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Looking back – looking forward conference: gallery

Dydee Mann (FPA)

Peter Volker (CFPO, FPA) right meets two delegates from New Zealand

Colin McCulloch, (Arbre Hub)

Bert Witte (former CFPO) and Brian Farmer ( HQPlantations, Queensland)

Delegates were encouraged to ask questions at the end of each session

Keynote speaker Ben Cashore (Yale University, USA) facilitating a discussion group

From left: Chris Barnes (RMS Timberlands Australia), Kevin Harding (Australian Forest Growers), Rob de Fegely (STT), Guy Barnett (Minister for Resources), Steve Whitely (STT) and Jim Wilson (Forico).

From left: Rob Musk (STT), Amy Robertson, (FPA Board) and Julie Walters (FPA)

Dean Williams (STT) and Penny Wells (DSG)

Marie Yee, Dean Tuson and Daniel Hodge (all STT)

Guy Barnett (Minister for Resources), Peter McGlone (TCT) and Arthur Lyons (PFT)

5Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Looking back – looking forward conference: gallery

Mark Leech (Consultant), Peter Kanowksi (ANU) and John Hickey (FPA Board) presenting feedback from the group discussions

David Gatenby and John Hickey (FPA Board) meet Bill Paul (Vicforests)

Justice Alan Blow (Deputy Governor), Mrs Blow, Peter Kanowski (ANU) and Sarah Munks (FPA) at the Government House reception

Adrian Slee (FPA), Sue Baker (UTas) and Marie Yee (STT)

Ben Cashore (Yale University) talks with Bob Newman (retired forester)

Julie Walters (FPA), Fred and Mercedes Duncan and Helen Murray (NSW)

Peter Volker and Ian Sedger, Director of Pentarch, catch up at Government House

Evan Rolley (first CFPO) giving the conference dinner speech

Darren Davis (Forico) was one of many FPOs to receive a presentation from John Ramsay (Chair, FPA Board)

6 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Fred Duncan introduced the session by noting that the current Tasmanian forest practices system is far more complex than when it was introduced 30 years ago, but it is still workable, largely because of the commitment of FPOs who have developed skills to take account of changing requirements. Training and advice given by FPA staff, and development of planning tools, are integral to the system. Fred emphasised the importance of rigorous field assessment, and concluded with an example of prescriptions developed for an outlying occurrence of Eucalyptus subcrenulata in the Northeast Highlands.

Sarah Munks of FPA’s Biodiversity Program demonstrated how off-reserve management was needed for many biodiversity values (e.g. threatened species and communities). It may be harder to adequately protect some values because of recent changes to Duty of Care provisions in the Forest Practices Code and relaxation on constraints for agricultural clearing. Strengths of the system include that it applies across all tenures; there is good

communication between researchers, scientific advisers and forest planners; and that FPOs have good skills, augmented by training and practical planning tools.

The system tends to focus on coupe-level actions, but some values are more effectively managed at a landscape-level. There is a commitment to research and continual improvement – but this needs to be supported by effectiveness monitoring.

Dydee Mann presented an excellent example of how site-specific prescriptions were used to protect a Tasmanian devil den site in the Florentine Valley. The den was discovered during planning for harvesting a pine plantation (planning was made more complex by karst and sinkhole issues). Remote cameras allowed FPA researchers and Norske-Skog staff to follow the movements and fortunes of mature devils and their offspring, who returned to the den site six months after harvesting.

Peter McIntosh (FPA’s Earth Sciences and Cultural Heritage Manager) emphasised that best-practice outcomes

are often achieved through application of the Forest Practices Code and associated guideline documents, and by FPOs and FPA specialists developing site-specific prescriptions. Guidelines need not result in ‘regulatory creep’ – in some cases relaxation of guidelines can be consistent with maintaining values (e.g. reducing constraints on plantation harvesting on erodible soils at Strahan, when the soils proved much more resistant to erosion than expected).

Guidelines are often developed in consultation with stakeholders, including the Aboriginal community in the case of guidelines relevant to application of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975. Peter gave an example of adaptive management in the Southern Forests, which involved the FPO working with FPA specialists to prepare a forest practices plan for a 60 ha coupe of regrowth Eucalyptus obliqua forest. Planning issues included two unmapped headwater streams, erodible soils, habitat for two threatened invertebrate species, wedge-tailed eagle nests and a historic steam winch. The coupe was successfully harvested in small sections and values protected, but extra costs were incurred with regeneration burning.

Stephen Walker (FPA Compliance Manager) reported on the FPA’s annual assessments of a random selection of FPPs (covering the range of operational types). For the last 20 years, over 90 per cent of operations had a performance rating of sound or higher, with acceptable standards being maintained in all operational areas. In the last few years, there has been a steady decrease in the number of major and minor breaches. There has been a process of continuous improvement, which could be associated with more rigorous checking (peer review) of FPPs before certification, and the routine coupe monitoring and compliance reporting which is undertaken by FPOs.

Author’s contact:

fredericotas@gmail.com

Looking back – looking forward conference: Developing the system: examples of adaptive management

and continual improvement Session Chair and author: Fred Duncan, Consultant

From left: Peter Volker, Peter McIntosh, Sarah Munks, Stephen Walker and Fred Duncan responding to questions from conference delegates.

7Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

The session was prefaced by a video message from Senator Ann Ruston, Assistant Federal Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and Federal Minister for Forestry. She noted the achievement of 30 years of effective regulation under the Tasmanian forest practices system and remarked that the system is now mature. The conference was well timed to reflect on its performance and share experiences with others. She also spoke of the Australian and Tasmanian Governments’ commitment to forestry through the recent renewal of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, which is a rolling 20-year agreement subject to satisfactory five-yearly performance reviews.

Rob de Fegely (Director Margules Groom Consulting, Chair of Sustainable Timber Tasmania and Co-Chair of the Forest Industry Advisory Council) highlighted the following:

• Australia has the third highest forest area per capita in the world.

• Australia has a $2.4 billion annual trade deficit in forest products.

• Distinctions between natural and planted forests are seldom useful because of the many intermediate stands and complex histories between the two extremes.

• Independent regulation is particularly important to manage potential conflicts of interest where governments manage forests (as an operator), set policy and manage compliance.

He concluded that the Tasmanian forest practices system has stood the test of time as a practical independent regulator, is auditable and reportable, and is a useful model for interstate and overseas.

Claire Howell (Manager National Forest Inventory, ABARES) commended Tasmania for producing the State of the forests Tasmania 2017 booklet (and the associated full report). She described how this information will feed into the 2018 Australian state of the forests report, the 2020 Global Forest Resources Assessment and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Reporting on forest

Looking back – looking forward conference: Can Tasmania’s forest practices system be a useful national and

international model?Session Chair and author: John Hickey, FPA Board member

sustainability indicators for the five-yearly Montreal process is now consistent. Relevant and meaningful data and trends are now available at various scales and are used to significantly improve our reporting on, and understanding of, sustainable forest management.

Graham Wilkinson (Forest Regulation Consultant and former Chief Forest Practices Officer) noted that the key strength of Tasmania’s forest practices system is that it is a complete regulatory framework where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Some other jurisdictions have good components but fall short on integration and often lack a dedicated independent driver like the Forest Practices Authority. You can’t copy and paste the Tasmanian forest practices system into such jurisdictions but some elements, and learned lessons, can be adapted for other places. Tasmania should promote its system to help others and to learn from others and continue improvement of the Tasmanian system.

Author’s contact: john.hickey@internode.on.net

Graham Wilkinson discussing the applicability of the Tasmanian forest practices system in other jurisdictions

Claire Howell promoting the State of the forests Tasmania 2017 booklet

8 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

This session allowed seven key stakeholders to give their perspectives on their needs for the Tasmanian forest practices system and how it could be improved.

Suzette Weeding (manager, Sustainable Timber Tasmania) indicated that the forest practices system provides an effective blueprint for sustainable forest management through clear processes and procedures, advice and training. She suggested that the forest practices system should:

• maintain its effectiveness while seeking to reduce cost and complexity

• increase consideration of social and economic values in decision making, while maintaining a strong focus on protection of special environmental values

• continue to regulate at the coupe scale but allow for adjustment of management based on landscape context

• assess risk and consequences, based on forest type, in planning and setting management requirements

• be forward looking and encourage forest managers to adopt new technology, such as GPS, drones and robotic systems, to achieve and report on regulatory requirements.

Rob Downie (private forest owner and operator) noted that farm forestry is different from large corporate forestry: a farmer typically harvests once or twice in a lifetime, or harvests timber more frequently using light selective harvest. Rob called for the forest practices system to be more supportive of farm forestry through:

• simpler processes for forest practices plans (FPPs) that yield less than 1000 tonnes

• FPPs that last for the lifetime of small plantation woodlots

• identification of barriers to economically viable private native forestry including unfunded expectations for habitat protection for swift parrots

• providing help with preparing FPPs for native forests with special values

• a review of compensation provisions

for areas foregone above Duty of Care thresholds

• greater availability of independent Forest Practices Officers.

Matt Schlitz (Operations Manager, AHT-Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania) outlined the importance of Tasmania’s Aboriginal heritage and indicated that AHT strongly supports a consistent approach to the management of Aboriginal heritage values in order to enhance clarity of requirements and certainty of outcomes for the Aboriginal community, local government, land owners and developers. AHT has recognized the FPA’s Procedures for managing Aboriginal heritage when preparing FPPs as an ‘adopted document’, which means that it is consistent with AHT’s Standards and Procedures Guidelines. Future possibilities for Aboriginal heritage management within the forest practices system, based on mutual trust and respect, could include:

• integration of forestry’s Conserve database for Aboriginal heritage sites with the Aboriginal Heritage Register

• developing collaborative trainingfor

Looking back – looking forward conference: Possibilities for developing the forest practices system:

stakeholder perspectives Session Chair: Peter Kanowski, Master, University House, The Australian National University

Author: John Hickey, FPA Board member

Tasmanian government Director of Resources Policy Penny Wells began this session with an overview of the management system, based on continuous improvement of sustainable forest management in the context of triple bottom line values.

Associate Professor Fred Gale of the University of Tasmania followed and upped the stakes, introducing a concept of ‘tetravaluation’ with the triple bottom line’s social value split into national and worker/labour value axes. This philosophical take woke a few left hemispheres up!

Looking back – looking forward conference: Regulation and certification

Session Chair: Alex SchaapAuthor: Amy Robertson, FPA Board member

Australian Forest Product Association CEO Ross Hampton outlined his organisation’s approach to working with globally focussed ENGOs to support certification, and next Simon Dorries, as CEO of the Australian Forestry Standard certification scheme, noted how forest practices provides its local and regional operating standards.

Jacki Schirmer from the University of Canberra then spoke from the perspective of a social researcher, noting that while we all share the same goal we don’t always agree what this looks like amid contestation and ‘alternative facts’. Noting

the importance of trust, Jacki commented that stable success requires dialogue and engagement achieving change slowly and over a long time.

An interesting panel discussion emerged during questions on the root cause and compliance options of illegal firewood harvesting.

Author’s contact:

amyware@yahoo.com

9Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Forest Practices Officers conducting Aboriginal cultural heritage surveys

• technological advances including phone apps and on-line training in surveys

• involving FPA stakeholders in revising the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975.

Colin McCulloch (Project Manager, Arbre Forest Industries and Training Hub) outlined the major productivity improvements resulting from the shift to forwarding, rather than snigging logs, and from the use of high-volume vehicles such as tri B-doubles, rather than conventional log trucks. Contractors have invested heavily to deliver well-presented wood at cheaper cost and he called on all players in the supply chain, including regulators, to continuously improve and streamline their processes and to ensure that cost savings are transferred appropriately across the system. Harvesting contractors have a high commitment to the Forest Practices Code and are aware of environmental and community expectations, which are covered in a variety of forums, including training delivered by the Arbre Forest Industries and Training Hub.

Peter McGlone (Director, Tasmanian Conservation Trust) observed that very few environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs) are interested in the forest practices system because they do not support native forest logging. Changes needed to increase ENGO support could include:

• an absolute end to broad-scale clearing of native forest

• re-introduction of government-funded programs to provide incentives to private landowners to voluntarily enter agreements to conserve forests;

• a ban on potential special timbers harvesting in formal reserves

• granting planning appeal rights to give local councils and communities input over forestry operations that have social or scenic impacts

• making requirements around protection of special values, such as swift parrot habitat, stricter and clearer.

He remarked that the proposed Code review process needs to be well defined

and promoted and ENGOs need reassurances that the review will deliver sufficient outcomes to encourage their involvement.

Robin Dickson (Chair, Forest Practices Officer Reference Group) said that he believed the newly established Reference Group is a suitable mechanism for conveying the views of the Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) to the FPA Board and the Forest Practices Advisory Council. The Reference Group has identified the following training needs:

• more support for independent FPOs, including peer review of plans

• more training on administrative decision-making and legal responsibilities of FPOs

• a required level of training and ongoing personal development in order to maintain an FPO warrant

• increased training on the Code and Forest Practices Act at the forest supervisor/contractor level

• more engagement with FPOs to identify training needs.

Other issues identified as requiring attention were: creating a stronger link between FPA research and operational outcomes and increasing public awareness of annual audits and the certificates of compliance process to reduce perceptions of a conflict of interest in the forest practices system. The upcoming review of the Forest Practices Code should continue with a single unified Code covering both native forest and plantations, but with increased emphasis on the latter.He also considered that a volume-based,

rather than area-based, fee system would be appropriate, especially for thinning operations.

Amelia Koch (Research Biologist, Forest Practices Authority) called for a landscape approach in planning for mature habitat retention and managing the intensity of forestry operations to maintain catchment values. The new Biodiversity landscape planning guideline outlines landscape objectives; reporting mechanisms are being developed with forest managers to measure progress towards achieving those objectives. Other identified needs to improve management of special values within the forest practices system included:

• increased monitoring, including for Vegetation Management Agreements, to determine the effectiveness of management requirements

• access to coupe shape files to facilitate monitoring

• streamlined planning tools that were easier to use (e.g. mobile phone apps)

• a review of Duty of Care requirements and funding for compensation and offsetting options.

Communication with, and training for, Forest Practices Officers remains crucial to the success of the system as well as maintaining a cooperative approach on ‘agreed procedures’ for threatened species with the Department of Primary Industry, Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE), which has legislative responsibility for threatened species protection.

Author’s contact: john.hickey@internode.on.net

Looking back – looking forward conference: stakeholder perspectives (continued)

From left: Robin Dickson, Colin McCulloch, Suzette Weeding, Peter McGlone, Rob Downie, Matt Schlitz, Amy Koch and Peter Kanowski discussing the forest practices system with conference delegates.

10 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

The final sessions of the conference built on the content of the preceding presentations and panels, through a series of concurrent discussion groups and plenary reporting back. As so often when the conversation gets going, neither the group nor plenary time was sufficient to do justice to the ideas shared and ensuing discussion. The animated reporting back from each group conveyed a sense of the energy evident in their discussions, as well as a hint of both competition and collaboration between facilitators and groups.

In concluding remarks wrapping up the plenary session, Peter Kanowski suggested that, while it was clear that significant challenges remained in the post-Tasmanian Forest Agreement context, experience and the evolution of the Tasmanian Forest Practices System over the past 30 years also provided a sound platform for responding to those challenges. He noted that - as Ben Cashore, Graham Wilkinson and others had outlined - regulatory systems in many societal arenas were challenged to adapt to changing social and political landscapes and expectations, and to respond to new knowledge and technologies. In this context, both practitioners and researchers could benefit from the continuing high level of academic research on regulatory theory, where it was informed by and responsive to learning from practice.

The key elements of each discussion group are summarised below.

1. What would an ideal model for the forest practices system look like?

Discussion starters:

• Is a co-regulatory approach appropriate?

• Should the forest practices system be focussed on prescriptions/processes or outcomes?

• How can certification fit into the picture?

• How do we foster continuous improvements of forest practices in ways that reward rather than punish?

Facilitator for Group 1A: Ben Cashore

• Co-regulation = skills

• The perceived conflict of interest involved in co-regulation of the forest practices system does not actually exist due to:

• forest manager pride and professionalism resulting in a culture of compliance

• the cost of non-compliance

• small, accountable population involved

• mutual trust.

• However, the forest practices system would not necessarily transfer so well to all countries due to:

• wages and corruption issues in some developing countries

• larger populations, with attendant loss of accountability

• trust issues.

• How prescriptive?

• The Tasmanian forest practices system is relatively prescriptive. There should be some prescriptions, but these should be flexible to allow for interpretation of the objectives as well as specific requirements. A system which was more objective-oriented, but with fewer prescriptions, may have

some perverse outcomes.

• Role of certification in quality assurance

• Certification works well in highly prescriptive jurisdictions in good governance countries.

• The resulting market leverage is beneficial.

• It is good to have one more check on the forest practices system.

• But it’s still too expensive and difficult for small forest owners.

• Reward not punish

• How do we reward and not punish forest managers who have to implement measures that cost money? There were two contrasting views:

• Forest managers should try and get increased market access from implementing the measures and compensation where appropriate.

• Some forest managers don’t mind managing for non-monetary reasons, such as conservation. This can increase their sense of professionalism and pride, and is not necessarily seen as a punishment. We need to find ways to reward managing for non-monetary reasons.

Looking back – looking forward conference: Collective wisdom: outcomes of the group discussions

Chris Grove, Training and Publication Officer, Forest Practices AuthorityPeter Kanowski, Master, University House, The Australian National University

Group 1 A in discussion Ben Cashore reporting on his group’s discussion, with Peter Kanowski acting as an easel

11Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Facilitator for Group 1B: Rob de Fegely

• Co-regulation appropriate

• The group had members from NSW, Queensland and Victoria who agreed that the Tasmanian forest practices system, where regulation is pooled together, is better than in other states where competing departments, goals and interest groups duplicated effort and expense across tenures, and often let to counter-productive outcomes.

• Clear prescriptions/process > outcomes

• Training and education is the key to providing clear prescriptions and outcomes.

• Certification

• Certification goes further than the forest practices system, but the forest practices system contributes to certification.

• Training & education

• Training & education are the primary means for changing behaviour; sanction is necessary, but as a last resort; it is not as effective as training and education at encouraging continual improvement.

2. What should a new Forest Practices Code look like?

Discussion starters:

• How should different types of operations and land uses be treated?

• How might we use technology to develop simpler outcome-based regulation?

• What level of skill should be expected of practitioners around the Code?

Facilitator for Group 2A: Stephen Walker

• Code principles appropriate?

• The existing Code principles are sound for plantations, native forests and quarries.

• Planning functions

• The Code should be based on a risk-based decision tree; shorter forest practices plans for low-risk plantations, and longer plans for native forest and plantations with special values, such as karst or devil dens.

• Improvements to Code

• There was some discussion on specific improvements to the Code, such as improved integration of stream management in plantations.

• The Code could be re-modelled for easier reference in the field by including more visual aids and tabs, amongst other suggestions.

• The Code could be more outcome-focused. For example, the prescriptions in the code about taping are really about achieving the outcome of adherence to boundaries; this outcome can now be achieved by other technology-based methods, such as GPS in felling heads and drones.

• People

• The gap in the system is training for practitioners who are implementing decisions. We need more training such as ‘Forest Practices for Supervisors’; but also sector-specific training for both silviculturalists and harvesters.

Facilitator for Group 2B: Ann La Sala

• Code renewal agreed, building on current Code.

• Who’s the audience? Information requirements are different for contractors, supervisors, and planners.

• One code or two (native forest and plantations)?? – just one thanks ...

• The Code should be outcomes-focused/risk-based, which helps future-proof/enable new technologies.

Looking back – looking forward conference: outcomes of the group discussions (continued)

Rob de Fegely (left) and Kevin Harding presenting Group 1B’s discussion

Steven Walker (left)and Jim Wilson summarise their group’s discussion

Ann La Sala representing her group

12 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

• In relation to ‘will’ vs ‘should’ statements in the Code – limit the latter.

• Socio-economic considerations should be incorporated into the planning process rather than into the Code.

• Some specific recommendations for presentation of the Code – e.g. tables and index at back and a searchable pdf.

• Reform to Code Section E on plantations – pros and cons to extending the lifespan of FPPs.

3. How can the socio-economic impacts of proposed regulations be best addressed in the forest practices system?

Discussion starters:

• Effects on timber yield?

• Effects on infrastructure for agriculture and urban developments?

• Effects on community well-being (bushfire prevention, air quality, road safety)?

• Effects on community values such as cultural heritage and sense of place?

Facilitators for Groups 3A and 3B: Jacqui Schirmer and Terry Edwards

• This is an issue broader than the forest practices system.

• Retrospective

• Evaluate socio-economic impacts of existing regulations, using evidence-based, peer-reviewed and objective approaches.

• Prospective

• Develop policy framework that sets principles, values that underpin decision making e.g. around social justice, equity, fairness, land use – needs to be a whole-of-government approach.

• Develop clear metrics that can be used to measure and report.

• Better information and transparency is needed at landscape scale, not just at individual property/coupe scales, to take into account cumulative impact across the landscape; for example, digital maps in NZ show activities across the landscape.

• Care is needed to avoid polarisation of values – independent body needed to act as decision maker/impasse breaker.

• How to have a good process at level of coupe/property/small-scale?

• Don’t require impact assessment for everyone – cost and time.

• Ensure people have opportunity to have a say on proposed activities – appropriate notification, going beyond adjacent landholders as needed.

• If concerns raised, assess need to investigate (by an independent assessor).

• Investigate where necessary using broader policy principles, to recognise wider context.

• Focus on supporting people to design activities well in the first place, when developing proposals rather than

being punitive afterwards. This means an emphasis on toolboxes, design support, etc.

• What issues should be considered: timber yield, non-timber products, ecosystem services, investment, community viability, community/cultural values (e.g. special timbers access for craftworkers), weeds, fire (air quality), roads, access, recreation…

4. How could we best monitor the effectiveness of guidelines and prescriptions delivered through the forest practices system?

Discussion starters:

• What is the relative importance of the different types of monitoring – compliance (have we done what we said we would do?), effectiveness (has it worked?) and trend monitoring (e.g population changes over time)? Which should be the focus of the FPA?

• How confident are we that the Code provisions are effective?

• Whose responsibility is it to monitor and report data on fauna and flora population trends in areas subject to forestry?

• Are current reporting systems adequate (compliance audits, annual reports, State of the Forests reports)?

• Is the continual improvement process understood and is it effective?

Looking back – looking forward conference: outcomes of the group discussions (continued)

Terry Edwards (second from right) leading his group’s discussion Sarah Munks reporting back

13Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Looking back – looking forward conference: outcomes of the group discussions (continued)

Facilitator for Group 4A: Sarah Munks

• The forest practices system needs to be supported by all types of monitoring (compliance, effectiveness, trend)

• Trend monitoring – by others, FPS contributing (more frequent, live, centralised?).

• Monitoring requires prioritised, clear questions.

• There should be clarity about use of results; e.g. guidelines on how compliance monitoring results are used to improve the system.

• There should be an increased FPO role in compliance monitoring, and more peer-review monitoring, especially in the independent sector.

• Perhaps develop live reporting on trends rather than five-yearly reports, to make reporting more accessible.

• Employ new technologies for sharing data across agencies, moving towards a centralized approach to monitoring, of which the FPA is part.

• We recognize the need for landscape-scale monitoring.

• Consider monitoring activities and indicators that we don’t currently monitor, such as the impact of firewood harvesting.

Facilitator for Group 4B: Fred Duncan

• Current monitoring reporting is adequate at some levels, but transfer of data could be better. For example, there is a need to digitise areas

reserved for special values from paper FPP maps.

• There is potential for better use of technology for compliance and on ground works, such as GPS technology rather than marking boundaries with tape, and LiDAR for stream identification.

• There is a dichotomy in the capacity of industrial-scale forestry and small-scale forestry to carry out monitoring – this might suggest differentiated roles for FPA/DPIPWE/companies/small landowners?

• There is a potential role for citizen science in monitoring.

• Biodiversity monitoring is essential – e.g. the FPA has been monitoring the effectiveness of wildlife habitat strips.

• Socio-economic monitoring is also necessary – e.g. monitoring water quality for herbicides and sediment.

5. Do we need to increase community understanding of the forest practices system within the broader Tasmanian community and beyond?

Discussion starters:

• Why is this important?

• What information do various communities require?

• Do effective regulatory systems increase community acceptance?

• Can effective regulatory systems increase market access (or is this better addressed through

certification)?

• How can regulatory authorities increase community understanding of complex systems?

Facilitator for Group 5A: John Hickey

• Should we increase understanding of the forest practices system – yes! This could:

• increase compliance

• increase trust

• increase uptake by other sectors, such as agriculture.

• Who to communicate to? Internal within industry and external, including:

• those affected

• those interested/influencers

• the disinterested.

• Communication styles: new technology, such as social media, are useful especially for the disinterested, who are not going to read the 400 page State of the Forests Tasmania 2017 report.

• Increasing third-party independence in the system will help communication and improve confidence in the system.

• Durability of the system is never guaranteed, but efforts should be made to improve it.

Facilitator for Group 5B: Mark Leech

Who do we need to influence & educate?

• Education is the key, at multiple levels:

• short-term (kids/parents)

• long-term (intergenerational).

• Primary, secondary, tertiary education e.g. UTas work with Yolla School in north-west Tasmania.

• Review work to date (Tasmania, nationally, internationally) e.g. various models (Forest Education Foundation, Arbre Hub)

• Increase collaboration, and everyone should see education as their role – perhaps two hours a year from everyone?

Authors’ contacts:

Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au peter.kanowski@anu.edu.au

Socio-economic issues group discussion and feedback

14 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

The field trip for the conference marking 30 years of the forest practices system was attended by a group of 40 who visited two recently harvested coupes near Maydena, west of Hobart. On a sunny morning the group boarded a bus at the Casino and settled in for the drive to Maydena. On the way to the first coupe the group was entertained by the discussion over the bus’s PA system of interesting sites relevant to the forestry industry such as details of the Boyer site mill.

Upon reaching the coupe the sun shone (strongly) as the group stood on a cable- harvest landing overlooking a spectacular panorama of the Tyenna Valley. Sarah Munks led the discussion on broad-scale coupe dispersal and management. Further up the Styx road, FPO David White (Sustainable Timber Tasmania) detailed how the Forest Practices Code was implemented on the coupe. Then Jason Wiersma talked about how research determined good wedge tailed eagle management before Peter Volker, Fred Duncan, Pep Turner, John Hickey and Erik Martin weighed in on a range of vegetation management and planning topics.

Boarding the bus after a group photo, Peter McIntosh showed the group an important geologic site demonstrating climate change over the last 60 000 years, soon to be nominated to the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database (TGD).

The bus travelled north to the Settlement Block in the Florentine Valley. The first stop was a line of collapsed sinkholes, probably marking the course of a subsurface stream, where John Webb (Norske Skog) led the discussion of the roles that the Code and scientific research play in coupe planning. Lunch was taken before the group visited a cave being monitored by FPA ecologist Dydee Mann (and others) – a camera had

Looking back – looking forward conference field trip

November 2017

Adrian Slee, Earth Sciences Officer, FPA

FPA Biodiversity Program Manager Sarah Munks and Sustainable Timber Tasmania Regional Manager and FPO David White discussing landscape-scale coupe dispersal at the native forest coupe.

Norske Skog FPO John Webb (far right) standing in front of a sinkhole presenting the detailed planning required for the sustainable management and re-establishment of Pinus radiata plantation on the intensely karstified Settlement Block in the Florentine Valley.

Attendees of the field trip, a coach load from Tasmania, interstate and New Zealand.

recorded a wide range of animals including Tasmanian Devils using the cave.

At the final site of the day the group stood on top of the Briggs Squeeze cave discussing how caves and karst were managed in the surrounding coupes.

After a final note by Bob Newman, who discussed his work with ANM in the Florentine Valley back in the 1950s, even the mainlanders in the group were starting to melt in the 30o+ heat and we boarded the bus back to Hobart.

Author’s contact:

Adrian.Slee@fpa.tas.gov.au

15Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Looking back – looking forward conference dinner

16 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

‘Looking back – looking forward’ – the theme of the conference to celebrate 30 years of the Forest Practices Code and the appointment of the first FPOs in November 1987. It is important to celebrate milestones, reflect on the good and the bad and use these to set a path for the future. The conference delivered these objectives thanks to the active participation of all involved. It wasn’t just a self-congratulatory exercise, we had speakers who challenged conventional points of view and took us all outside our comfort zones.

As the industry gets back on its feet, so the workload for the FPA increases. To this end we are recruiting some additional staff, some of whom you will read about in here. I welcome them to the FPA team which includes the current staff and the 150 or so FPOs in the field.

The Tasmanian Government has provided $1.2 million over four years to be used for investigating socio-economic impacts of ongoing evolution of environmental regulation in the forest practices system. We will be using these funds to recruit

a Resource Economist and develop a range of projects to address this issue. A further $800 000 of funding over four years has been provided for on-going socio-economic effectiveness testing of existing environmental provisions in the forest practices system. We have begun discussion with the University of Tasmania to build additional capacity and there will be opportunity to fund work by others where it fits with these project objectives.

The forest practices system is effective, so much so that I seem to deal with many non-forestry related matters. Mountain bike trails, windfarm developments, mini-hydro schemes, illegal firewood collection, subdivisions, clearing around houses for views, neighbour disputes, removal of debris from streams, clearing of covenanted conservation areas, mining, irrigation schemes and agricultural developments are just some of these non-forestry matters that come across my desk.

The classic ‘wicked problem’ for the FPA is the swift parrot matter. While the FPA is responsible for managing forestry

CFPO Update

Peter Volker, Chief Forest Practices Officer, Forest Practices Authority

operations it is not the primary regulator of threatened species legislation at national and state levels. The enforcement jurisdiction of the forest practices system operates within the boundaries of a certified forest practices plan and through the three-year plan process for larger industry players. As problems such as this are landscape-level issues, there needs to be a resolution at that level involving government, forestry, agriculture and non-government players. I have been working towards getting all the players together and finding a pragmatic solution to protect this critically endangered species.

So I’m looking forward to another busy year in 2018. I look back on the foundations set by my predecessors, FPA directors and staff and the wonderful work of FPOs who uphold the integrity of the system on a daily basis. The forest practices system is worth nurturing and protecting – just imagine what the alternative would be if it didn’t exist.

Author’s Contact:

Peter.Volker@fpa.tas.gov.au

Changes at the FPA: new assistant for the CFPO

Angela Gardner has recently moved back to Hobart after spending the last four years in Queensland working and completing a Masters in Environmental Management. Prior to this Angela grew up in Hobart and completed a BSc at UTAS, majoring in Geography and Environmental Studies.

For the last three months Angela has been working as a temporary Executive Assistant at Sustainable Timber Tasmania and she has used this time to build up her knowledge of the Tasmanian forestry industry. She has also worked in the accounting and IT industries and is looking forward to combining her office support skills and her tertiary environmental background as Executive Assistant to Peter Volker at the FPA.

Biodiversity Program

Anne Chuter and Kirsty Kay will be returning to work from maternity leave in the new year. Congratulations to Anne for completing her leadership course while on maternity leave.

FPA’s admin treasure Adrienne Liddell with Kirsty’s baby.

17Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Small planted wood lot forest practices plans (issued 11 September 2017)

A checklist has been developed for FPOs to determine if the simplified process for small planted woodlots on non-vulnerable land can be used. Simplified evaluation sheets for Biodiversity, earth sciences and cultural heritage are also available. The standard forest practices plan (FPP) template can be used with those parts of the template which are not applicable, marked as such or removed.

Checklist: http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/155604/Checklist_for_small_planted_woodlot_on_non-vulnerable_land.pdf

Applications for clearing and conversion forest practices plans (Issued 2 October 2017)

The FPA Board has determined the following two matters in relation to applications for clearing and conversion:

1. Applications for FPPs that involve clearing and conversion of threatened native vegetation communities, that is they require consideration of s. 19 (1AA) of the Forest Practices Act 1985,

are to be referred to the Board for consideration of the application. The delegation for an FPO (Planning) to consider forest practices plans for certification is revoked where s. 19 (1AA) matters must be decided, if such a delegation is held.

a. If you receive an application for certification of a FPP which involves clearance and conversion of a threatened native vegetation community, refer that plan to the CFPO to table at the next FPA Board meeting.

b. The application must be accompanied by a case, made out by the applicant, that addresses one or more of the matters raised in s. 19 (1AA).

c. The Board will consider if one or more of the conditions of s. 19(1AA) are satisfied.

i. If not, the FPP will not be certified or the Board may request an amendment

ii. If the Board is satisfied one or more of the conditions is satisfied, the FPP will be passed to the CFPO for consideration of all other matters in the FPP for certification.

CFPO instructions to Forest Practices Officers

2. Refer clearance and conversion applications, involving applications that will result in ‘loss of significant nature conservation values in an IBRA bioregion’ and non-threatened communities that may become threatened, to the CFPO for discussion and advice prior to certification of an FPP.

a. The 2017 Policy for Maintenance of a Permanent Native Forest Estate has removed the thresholds based approach, to a prohibition on broadscale clearing and conversion of native forest, other than in limited prescribed circumstances.

b. The FPA will continue to monitor the maintenance of the permanent forest estate by RFA communities and bioregions and place the latest monitoring report on the FPA web site.

c. FPOs should consider communities that are close to being <2000 ha in a bioregion, or the community is threatened, or it has reached its bioregional threshold for area converted (according to the latest monitoring report) as meeting the condition for referral as described above.

Editors’ corner

It has been a busy six months for the FPA and this is reflected in the record size of Forest Practices News! This issue is dominated by articles about the Looking back – looking forward conference, recognising 30 years of the forest practices system and looking forward to hopefully at least another 30 years. We encourage you to follow the link on page 3 and have a look at the presentations.

Also well worth a look are the new FPA publications listed on page 29. The five-yearly State of the forests Tasmania 2017 report and booklet are outstanding publications. The FPA has free hard copies

of the booklet available upon request.

The FPA has also run lots of training, much of it subsidised by the Training and Skills Development Services Program. The FPO Training Course this year involved a new assignment; submitting a contribution to Forest Practices News, in order to de-mystify the process. All the articles that mention the course in the author’s details are as a result of this. There are some real gems in this issue and there are more contributions to come in future issues.

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.

The address is: Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au

Chris Grove and Peter McIntosh Forest Practices News Editors

Deadline for contributions to next Forest Practices News:

Monday 7 May 2018

18 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Determining landscape stability using Cosmogenic Radionuclide Surface Exposure Dating (SED)

Confused? It IS rocket science…

Adrian Slee, Earth Sciences Scientific Officer, FPA

In July this year the FPA earth sciences program, in collaboration with a researcher from the University of Exeter, published a paper in the international journal Landslides. The paper presents a description of large dolerite landslides on the northern slopes of the Nicholas Range near St Marys and describes the morphology of slope deposits on the range and provides information on slope deposits in general in Tasmania. The paper also described how three boulders lying within the landslide were dated by cosmogenic nuclide surface exposure dating (SED) methods, adding to the knowledge gathered from the study of a smaller landslide deposit on the nearby South Sister that was published by McIntosh and Barrows in 2011.

The dates from South Sister and the northern Nicholas Range are the first SED dates obtained on landslides in Australia. I know you are wondering – what in the world is cosmogenic nuclide surface exposure dating? It is complex stuff and the realm of specialist cosmogenic dating experts. However, it is proving to be a useful tool for measuring landscape stability in Tasmania so I have given a brief summary of how it works below.

SED dating

Cosmogenic rays are ionising energy particles that form part of the background radiation found throughout the universe. Sources of this form of radiation include supernovas. The radiation is constantly striking the earth’s surface and over time this changes the nuclear structure of some elements, notably aluminium (26Al) and beryllium (10Be) and chlorine (36Cl). However because of its high frequency the radiation can only penetrate a small distance into solid objects, generally no more than a few meters. Therefore rocks that have never been exposed at the earth surface, such as granites, basalts and the locally abundant dolerite, have not been exposed to cosmic radiation (Gosse and Phillips 2001). Large scale erosion, notably glaciation and landslides, both removes surface layers, exposing new rock, and transports freshly exposed boulders downslope. Boulders and rock surfaces that have been exposed in this way have therefore only received cosmogenic radiation since they were first exhumed. The chemical changes in rocks exposed to cosmogenic radiation accumulate over time so by working out the amount of elemental

change in a rock one can estimate the date of exposure (the SED date) which is the minimum age estimate for the geomorphic event that caused the erosion (Ballantyne et el. 1998, Panek 2014).

How is SED relevant to forest planning?

So SED dating gives us an age estimate of a rock surface… how can that be useful for forest planning?

The initial dating and mapping project undertaken by Peter McIntosh (FPA) and Tim Barrows (University of Exeter, UK) (McIntosh and Barrows 2011) was in response to a debate over the stability of a partial harvest coupe on South Sister, near St Marys in north-eastern Tasmania. There was a large complex landslide terrain in the area and the mapping and soil characteristics of the site suggested that the feature was very old and likely to be stable posing little risk of re-activation by partial harvest. However there was significant public debate and the conclusions of the FPA specialist were questioned, so a more detailed study was undertaken.

Dating of boulders in landslide debris at

A modern rock fall on Mt Nicholas that was witnessed by the author in 2011 exposing new faces of boulders and bedrock to cosmogenic radiation.

The use of surface exposure dating helps us to understand the age of processes affecting a landscape. The method not only applies to landslides but can also be used to date periglacial and glacial deposits including probable glacial erratics like this one (the boulder covered in ferns in the background) located in the Little Denison Valley. Photo by Sustainable Timber Tasmania

19Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

this site indicated exposure and movement about 90 000 (90 ka) years ago, indicating that movement occurred under a markedly different climate (cool glacial conditions) to that at present, and that present-day forestry activity would be unlikely to affect land stability.

A recently-published paper (Slee et al. 2017) describes an extension of the above study to the landslide terrain found on the northern slopes of the Nicholas Range. Dates from boulders near the front of a landslide deposit lying 750m from the source cliffs of the Nicholas Range reveal ages of 50–65 ka, with an average age of 52 ka. This suggests a minimum age for block topple of the dolerite columns from their source on the cliff face of the Nicholas Range at around 55–60 ka, and downslope movement since then. The morphology of the landforms suggest that downslope movement has either stopped or is very slow at present.

The South Sister and Mt Nicholas landslides are associated with red-weathered dolerite soils which are thought to indicate a long period of dolerite weathering. Similar large-scale and presumably old dolerite landslide deposits with red-weathered soils are common in central and eastern Tasmania, including notable examples on Mt Arthur (Sharples 1994), on hills at Wielangta (Kiernan et al. 1993; Sharples 1995) and at numerous locations on the middle slopes of the Western Tiers. By correlating the 50+ ka dates of the Mt Nicholas landslides with morphology and soil weathering characteristics elsewhere, one can estimate the age of stability of other common landslide deposits in dolerite terrain.

Author’s contact:

Adrian.Slee@fpa.tas.gov.au

References

Gosse, JC and Phillips, FM 2001, ‘Terrestrial in situ cosmogenic nuclides: theory and application’, Quaternary Science Reviews 20(14): 1475-1560.

Kiernan, K, Campbell, B, and Elliott, D 1993, A Reconnaissance of the Erosion of Dolerite Soils in the Eastern Tiers, Tasmania, report to the Tasmanian Forest Research Council.

McIntosh, PD and Barrows TT 2011, ‘Morphology and age of boulder

Determining landscape stability using SED (continued)

landslide deposits in forested terrain, Nicholas Range, Tasmania’, Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 55: 383-393.

Panek, T 2015, ‘Recent progress in landslide dating: a global overview’, Progress in Physical Geography 39:168-198.

Sharples, C 1994, A reconnaissance of landforms and geological sites of geoconservation signif icance in the north-eastern Tasmanian forest districts (Eastern Tiers and Bass Forest Districts): volume two – description, a report to Forestry Tasmania, p.71.

The sides and tops of large dolerite columns were sampled in the field and dated by SED methods.

Sharples, C 1995, A reconnaissance of landforms and geological sites of geoconservation signif icance in the state forests of eastern Tasmania (parts of Derwent and Eastern Tiers Forest Districts): volume two – description, a report to Forestry Tasmania, pp. 57-60.

Slee, A, McIntosh, PD and Barrows TT 2017, ‘Using 36Cl exposure dating to date mass movement and assess land stability on the Nicholas Range, Tasmania’, Landslides volume 14, issue 6, pp 2147–2154.

Map of the Mount Nicholas study site.

20 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

I recently completed a Gottstein Trust supported project that looked at forest restoration works in Tasmania. The term forest restoration covers a broad topic, but in the context of the review I specifically looked at the establishment of native forest on farmland and the conversion of plantation back to native forest.

Over the past decade approximately 4,250 hectares of farmland and plantation has been restored to native forest and/or enhancement work undertaken within existing remnant native vegetation. Virtually all the forest owners and managers in Tasmania and Greening Australia have undertaken forest restoration, with the primary motivation of achieving environmental gain. The review identified that over the next decade an additional 8,700 ha is planned for forest restoration. Forest restoration is set to become an increasingly visible part of forest management in Tasmania.

Apart from documenting the scale of the works, the review described the techniques used and included a short summary of individual works by forest owners and managers. The review made several recommendations; restoration should be targeted and not result in unnecessary loss of plantation, encourage wider collaboration amongst organisations and consider forest restoration in future regulatory reviews, including administrative changes that would enable the reporting of forest restoration works.

To access the report go to https://gottsteintrust.org/reports/

Gottstein Trust – a review of forest restoration projects in Tasmania

Michael Schofield, Forest Certification Coordinator Norske Skog

For some positive media see the article by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust http://www.tasconservation.org.au/tas-conservationist/2017/5/5/a-little-good-news-on-forestry-from-norske-skog and ABC Country Hour interview http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/tas-country-hour/tree-restoration/9099840

Author’s contact: Michael.Schofield@norskeskog.com

Eucalypt plantings buffering a class 4 stream, 10 metres either side, within Pinus radiata plantation, Badger Hills 2017 (TIMBERLANDS Pacific Pty Ltd).

J. W. Gottstein Memorial Trust Fund The National Educational Trust of the Australian Forest Products Industries

A REVIEW OF FOREST RESTORATION PROJECTS IN TASMANIA

Michael Schofield

2017 GOTTSTEIN FELLOWSHIP REPORT

HOBART

See Haydn Ihnen’s article on the following page for an example of native forest restoration. Haydn submitted this contribution as his Forest Practices News assignment for the Forest Practices Officers Training Course.

21Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

A wildling-free environment

Haydn Ihnen, Forester, TIMBERLANDS Pacific Pty Ltd and FPO Training Course participant

Timberlands Pacific (TPPL) through its Forest Steward Ship Council (FSC) certification is required to hold a native forest reserve area of 10 per cent of its certified plantation estate. To achieve this 10 per cent area, TPPL formally manage selected native forest areas that are within and surrounding its managed plantation estate.

TPPL staff have undertaken in-field validation which has identified areas in which it is practical to harvest pine wildling stems from the native forest reserve land.

To ensure minimal impact to the site and vegetation, the machinery type chosen to undertake this work was a wheeled harvester and forwarder. Thanks to the viewpoint and manoeuvrability from the wheeled harvester and the experienced directional mechanical falling by Simon Lynch of KMPL, the operation was able to successfully remove all pine wildlings whilst maintaining the native forest species.

The objective of this operation is to remove pine wildlings whilst maintaining native vegetation. When scheduling these areas in conjunction with nearby commercial operations, it is possible to recover operational costs associated with this work by limiting transport costs and adding scale to the operation for the contractor.

The ongoing management of these treated areas will be to maintain the dominant native forest stand long-term. If required a low-intensity fuel reduction burn could be a prospect if further pine regeneration germinates.

Author’s contact: haydn.ihnen@tppl.com.au

Top: harvesting in operation showing area thinned and area before thinning. Middle: area after thinning. Bottom: MO5 crew Simon Lynch (left) and Tony Kirkland with one of the Komatsu wheeled harvesters used for the Nicholas native thinning. Photos by TPPL

22 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Traditionally, forest officers have set out to plan a coupe armed with a small hand-held GPS, a compass and clinometer, an armful of hardcopy paper maps and a note book. However, this approach can be time consuming, provides only a limited view of what is on the ground and can be subject to error when navigating and/or recording observations and transcribing results. This has implications for the quality of the final forest practices plan (FPP).

Today, advances in mobile technologies such as electronic tablets and associated applications, continue to improve the way in which forest operations can be planned and executed, principally through increased efficiency and cost savings. Mindful of these opportunities, Sustainable Timber Tasmania (STT) has been exploring ways in which these advances might be applied to the production of FPPs.

Selection of hardware and software

Choosing the right tablet and third-party application was a formidable task, given the selection available, and the rapidly changing technology and associated functionality. Ultimately, the final selection was based on the best fit for the intended use and also compatibility with our existing corporate systems.

Size matters, and the devices were chosen

to allow stowage in the pockets of a standard cruiser vest when not in use, for example, when negotiating stream crossings or climbing over, under or through the scrub.

A further consideration was protecting the device from the elements. Ruggedised units were found to be too cumbersome, and we instead opted for a lighter-weight weatherproof case.

Application

Following an assessment of the basic workflow, preparation of FPPs and associated maps using the tablets is now a three-step process.

Prior to heading into the bush, the relevant geo-referenced information layers (e.g. canopy height, terrain and drainage etc) are selected and combined to suit the scheduled task. This might be a preliminary coupe reconnaissance, a more detailed survey of terrain features or commercial volumes, or a combination of several tasks (see figure 1).

The customised maps are then exported to the tablet and navigated in the field using the third-party application. All information can be easily viewed on the large coloured screen and the resolution can be adjusted. to suit the conditions. Using the location function, the operators can easily track

their movements and position relative to points of interest. The third-party Application can be used like any other GPS unit to mark waypoints and record tracks, each of which can be annotated with text and images as required.

Back in the office, the information gathered in the field is uploaded and stored with other geo-referenced data on our corporate databases. Software developed

The use of electronic tablets in forest operations planning

Matt Wood, Planning Coordinator (Southern Region), Sustainable Timber Tasmania and FPO Training Course participant

Figure 1. Geo-referenced layers for a given coupe (purple boundary) showing canopy height (left) used as a guide to potential commercial volumes and hill-shade (right) used to identify slope features for closer scrutiny in the field. A 100 m grid is also added to assist with navigation and provide for systematic sampling. Figures and photo on this page by STT

STT’s Dion Robertson trialing the tablet in the field

23Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

in-house is then used to combine the information collected in the field with other spatial data to inform the development of an electronic geo-referenced FPP map.

Benefits

Preliminary studies have shown that navigation in the field using the tablets has reduced the time and associated cost of producing the FPP map by up to 25 per cent. Importantly, this has resulted in fewer hours spent in the bush and a reduction in fatigue, with obvious benefits for staff health and safety. As all data is stored on our corporate databases with improved currency, it is readily available across the organisation to other users who might have an interest in the planned area.

Future development

Having adopted this technology to assist with FPP production, STT is now exploring broader applications aimed at creating further efficiencies.

Data capture, transfer and storage

To date our focus has been on navigation and capture of information to assist with the production of FPPs. However, we are now exploring ways in which this technology might be used to benefit other activities that require efficient and accurate capture, storage and reporting of spatial data. These include inventory collection,

Figure 2. Screen-shot supplied by harvesting contractor showing progress relative to key boundaries and constraints.

The use of electronic tablets in forest operations planning (continued)

regeneration surveys, flora and fauna assessments, pruning and thinning quality standards etc.

Moreover, the ability to quickly share information across the organisation, or indeed with other organisations, presents further opportunities. For example, a hazardous tree or blocked culvert can be recorded and an automated notification sent to the relevant staff member responsible for inspecting, and where appropriate, removing the hazard or scheduling maintenance.

Contractors

Contractors are now supplied with a geo-referenced FPP map that can be navigated using any third-party application on their smart phone or tablet.

For the contractor, this has resulted in improved spatial awareness of operational boundaries and other key features and constraints. Importantly, this reduces the risk of boundary incursions and other breaches of the Forest Practices Code whilst conducting forestry activities.

At the same time, the tracking feature can be used to provide regular updates on the progress of roading and harvesting operations. This has lead to significant improvements in forward scheduling of operations and sales management (figure 2).

Summary

Advances in mobile technology present an opportunity to significantly improve efficiency and reduce the cost associated with planning and executing a range of forestry activities. Importantly, additional benefits in terms of personal safety have been identified. Over the coming years, STT will continue to update its operating systems in order to take full advantage of these tools. Watch this space... on your tablet!

Author’s contact:

matthew.wood@sttas.com.au

Matt Wood (right) shows the FPA’s Compliance Manager Stephen Walker the tablet – ironically, it’s hidden behind the old-fashioned folder

Coincidentally, the FPA’s Adrian Slee sent in this photo of Dion using the tablet, with the comment ‘Thought this makes a good shot of changing times where notepads have screens and electronics. STT FPO Dion Robertson, locating a stream sinking in tunnel erosion on his notepad.’

24 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

The FPA held a two-day Geology for Foresters course on 23 and 24 August, with participants attending from Sustainable Timber Tasmania and the Tasmanian Fire Service. The course, run by the FPA’s Peter McIntosh and Adrian Slee, was one of a number of courses being run across the state providing those who have not formally studied geology with a basic understanding of geological principles and processes. These included an introduction to the geological time scale, identification of rock types, reading geological maps, and essential properties of different rock types.

Day one consisted of classroom presentations about types of rocks, continental drift, faults and folds, unconformities and Tasmanian geology, as well as practical identification of different rock types.

The afternoon session involved a presentation about Quaternary Tasmania, and a local field trip to view volcanic rocks at Long Beach in Sandy Bay.

Rock identification in the classroom.

Viewing volcanic rocks at Long Beach, Sandy Bay

Peter McIntosh explaining the Quaternary sequence at Maynes Junction.

Physical weathering in Permian siltstones has created an accumulation of fine scree.

FPA Geology for Foresters Course 2017

Kristen Dransfield, Senior Forest Officer – Forest Management, Southern Region, Sustainable Timber Tasmania and FPO Training Course participant

The second day was in the field and commenced in the Tyenna region in the central south of the state. The day consisted of stops at a number of sites to have a look at different types of geology. At each site, Peter and Adrian discussed a range of topics with the course participants.

Topics for discussion included:

• identification of the rock type

• how and when it was formed

• why it appears the way it does (shape and colour), e.g. fire causing charcoal deposits

• what influences were present e.g. movement of rocks by glaciers or rivers

• what was the climate like when the rock formed

• what processes such as weathering are currently impacting the geology.

The information gained over the two days will be used by Sustainable Timber Tasmania staff during field assessments for forest practices plans, to accurately identify different geology types and also recognise areas of high geoconservation significance. The Tasmania Fire Service will also use the information when compiling fuel reduction burn plans.

Author’s contact:

kristen.dransfield@sttas.com.au

25Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

The Styx fault showing a fracture zone a few metres wide.

Sustainable Timber Tasmania staff viewing a Quaternary sequence at Maynes Junction.Three Aeolian layers inform us about climate history from 60 000 years ago to the present.

In a quarry on Glenora Road at Plenty, rounded alluvial gravels have been deposited where the Derwent River once flowed, 25 metres above its current location.

FPA Geology for Foresters Course 2017 (continued)

Peter McIntosh discusses a 35000+ year old Aeolian white silty clay band along Styx Road.

FPA Geology for Foresters Course Gowrie Park August 2017

The three Gowrie Park Geology for Foresters Courses were a mixture of inside work (left: interpreting LiDAR images); outdoor trips (middle: Adrian Slee shares a story of a huge pink soft toy bunny found in a sink hole); and a visit to a Mole Creek cave (right: Peter McIntosh being a tourist).

26 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

It is almost three months since I signed up as Compliance Manager with the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). The time has fairly flown by and the Christmas-New-Year break is upon us – a timely juncture to provide readers of Forest Practices News with some background about myself and an update on how the FPA Assessment and Enforcement programs are travelling.

Following a 15-year career in tropical and sub-tropical forest research in Queensland, including management of RD&E projects implemented across the Asia-Pacific Region, I spent 12 years managing Queensland government business units responsible for commercial forestry activities and broader land management and use functions. More recently, from 2013 to 2016, I undertook project management work in Tasmania and Victoria assisting clients with obtaining and maintaining forest certification credentials. During this period I also worked on a number of consulting projects, including leading development of the Plantation operations code of practice for Queensland 2015 and a review of the Hardwood Plantation Program in Southern Queensland.

From mid-2016, up until taking up my new role with the FPA in October 2017, I managed the Reforest Fiji Project, funded by the European Union (EU) and implemented by the South Pacific Community (SPC). Based in Lautoka, Fiji, this project aimed to assist the sugar sector on the western side of the main island, Viti Levu, to plant trees on degrading land previously under sugar cane. Key species of interest for reforestation under the project were Pinus caribaea var. hondurensis (Caribbean pine), Swietenia macrophylla (Brazilian mahogany), Tectona grandis (Teak), Santalum yasi (Fijian sandalwood), Intsia bijuga (Vesi) and Eucalyptus spp.

Building on my previous experience in the South Pacific, this should have been a highly rewarding and interesting role. However, managing this project proved to be highly challenging, with many difficulties encountered by me and my team with incentivising farmers and native communities to plant trees. My key achievements during this 15-month period were helping to facilitate a project aimed at developing a Forest Fire Management Strategy for Fiji and identifying other key impediments needing to be addressed if future reforestation initiatives are to succeed in Pacific island countries.

I hold tertiary qualifications in business administration, computing and forest science. I have been a Registered Professional Forester with the Institute of Foresters of Australia (IFA) since 2008 and a Certified Lead Environmental Auditor (Exemplar Global) since 2012. My recent audit and certification experience, and previous experience in Queensland with regulating commercial forest management activities, led to my interest in applying for the position of Compliance Manager with the FPA.

While I am on a steep learning curve in this job, three months in I am starting to get my head around how the forest practices system works! Presenting the Assessment

and Compliance training module during the FPO Training Course, and giving a presentation on the Compliance Program at the recently held FPA 30-year conference, have helped prompt my learning in this regard. However, when it comes to learning there is no substitute for practical experience, which I have obtained through participating in a number of routine Assessments (i.e. Audits) of timber companies and working on investigations into potential breaches of the Forest Practices Act 1985.

To date our compliance team – consisting of myself, James Fergusson and Michael Rawlings – have completed 20 assessments out of our target of 76 for the 2017–18 assessment period. However, with the ongoing cooperation of timber companies and independent growers I am confident we will have the annual assessment program wrapped up by May 2018. We have also chalked up 16 investigations for the year so far, involving either forest practices being undertaken without forest practices plans (FPPs) or breaches of FPPs. Needless to say, investigating and reporting on these is keeping us quite busy.

Professionally, I have had a strong involvement with the IFA over the last 10 years, having chaired the Conference Organising Committee for the 2009 National Conference of the IFA and being a Director of the IFA from 2013 to 2015. I am looking forward to getting involved with the Tasmanian Division of the IFA during my time in Tasmania.

One of the key attractions of this position was being able to get out in the field more, my previous positions having been relatively ‘desk bound’. Over the year ahead I am greatly looking forward to meeting up with more people in the forests as I get around Tasmania!

Author’s contact:

Stephen.Walker@fpa.tas.gov.au

FPA Compliance Program’s new members:Stephen Walker

Stephen Walker, Compliance Manager, Forest Practices Authority

Stephen giving a presentation on the Compliance Program at the FPA 30-year conference

27Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

I have a long history in the forest industry starting with working in the family logging business on the north-west coast. One of the first jobs I had during school holidays was barking mill logs with a spade and axe, and acting as ’free spool’ - dragging out the winch rope for the dozer and learning the tools of the trade. When I first started driving the dozer to the landing I would have to slip off the seat to be able to reach the de-accelerator when I got to where I had to go.

After school I explored a few different careers but always ended up back in the bush. I still remember the coupe we were working on when the Forest Practices Code was introduced, and the training we were given – the supervisor showed up, chucked us a book and said ‘Read this, it’s the new rules’.

After some transition time we slowly started to get our head around the new way of doing things, but it was a large adjustment from doing things for generations and only seeing the trees; everything else was just stuff in the way of us getting to the trees.

After spending a couple of stints in the underground mining sector, I returned

FPA Compliance Program’s new members:Mick Rawlings

Mick Rawlings, Forest Practices Adviser (Compliance), Forest Practices Authorityand FPO Training Course participant

to the family business just as a new large change started in the Industry Safety Management Systems. With my experience in the mining industry, this transition was easier for us than others as I had had a lot of contact with it already.

Another thing I picked up from the mining sector was the importance of training and up-skilling employees, so I started studying certificate IV in Training and Assessment. After completing this I applied and was accepted as a Trainer and Assessor with TFITB (now ForestWorks).

Over my years in the Industry I have seen a lot of change both in our own business and the industry as a whole, going from a two-man operation with one dozer and a couple of chainsaws, skid-way loading the logs, to a fully mechanised operation with no one on the ground.

After some time I was offered a consultancy role with TFITB developing training packages and reviewing the Forest Safety Code and Forest Practices Code. At the end of this contract I worked independently, conducting training and assessments for contractors, auditing and helping with their Safety Management Systems.

I was offered some roles within the mining sector as safety consultancy and safety management at Beaconsfield Gold, Bass Metals Fossey mine and Arrium’s mine in Coober Pedy. I was also employed for four years as project safety manager for the upgrade of the Lion’s Lactos Cheese factory in Burnie.

In my down time I enjoy working on my farm just outside Burnie, getting out on my road bike, and I’m still trying to catch that 100+kg tuna, (maybe this year).

With my ground-up experience in the forestry industry and my wealth of experiences from other industries, I’m looking forward to working with contractors and their employees as well as Forest Practices Officers to help with their compliance and training needs and offer advice where I can. And I’m looking forward to getting back into the forest more and meeting some of you.

Author’s contact: michael.rawlings@fpa.tas.gov.au

The Compliance Team running the Compliance Module on the FPO Training Course. Far left, Mick as a helpful participant and below, at the left and right of the group James Fergusson and Stephen Walker are guiding the learners.

28 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Background

In managing plantation coupes in the north-west region, many challenges and issues arise with gaining access for both harvesting and cartage on ex-pasture coupes. This is due to the fact that when these ex-pasture sites were acquired in the late 1990s by North Forest Products they were only accessed by stock, tractors and motorbikes. For forestry operations access to both the coupe and council roads by large trucks becomes a significant issue.

Good examples of access difficulties arose on both coupes TK156A and TK136B, north-west of Yolla in the state’s north-west. These included sight distance and vision for log trucks exiting a coupe spur road onto Smarts Road, as well as maintaining the condition of the council road at the point where trucks exit a spur road onto Deep Creek Road. Both Smarts Road and Deep Creek Road are managed by the Wynyard-Waratah Council. Details of the two road issues are given below.

TK156H

A request was made, by local residents via a Wynard-Waratah Council representative, to supply gravel to fix the crown of the road on either side of Deep Creek Road and maintain condition during cartage.

Post-cartage, this section of road was then re-surfaced as part of the council’s annual maintenance program.

TK136B

The vision and sight distance was very poor from the exit of the spur road onto the council road (Smarts Road, Wynyard-Waratah Council). At the request of the Wynyard-Waratah Council a Traffic Management Plan to assist safety management was developed by Altus traffic for Forico. Signs were supplied by Forico and set up as per guidelines stipulated in the Traffic Management Plan to minimise risk to road users (figures 3 and 4).

Stakeholder liaison

James Newman, NW Operations Forester, Forico Pty Limited and FPO Training Course participant

Figure 1. Exit of the spur road onto Deep Creek Road (Waratah-Wynyard Council). Figure 2. Gravel spread and rolled on outside crown (opposite side) of the road where trucks turn into Deep Creek road.

Summary

In both cases, the requests from the council were able to be met by improving road maintenance and traffic management. This was primarily achieved by good communication between the Wynyard -Waratah Council and the Forico representative who agreed on exactly what was expected and identified the risks associated with each operation. The issues were resolved efficiently and the experience and resulting outcomes help ensure that future risks are identified and managed.

Author’s contact: james.newman@forico.com.au

Figure 4 – Forico signs used to warn traffic of exiting log trucks and also distance to entrance

Figure 3. Traqffic management plan

29Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

State of the forests Tasmania 2017 report http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/163418/State_of_

the_forests_Tasmania_2017_report.pdf

At almost 500 pages, this five-yearly report is packed with fascinating facts about the forest industry during the period July 2011 to June 2016.

State of the forests Tasmania 2017 booklet http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/162791/State_of_the_forests_Tasmania_2017_booklet.pdf

If you can’t face the full report above, try the 48 page colour booklet with lots of photos and charts, designed to make the information in the report more accessible. Free hard copies are currently available from the FPA.

Popular publications

FPA’s annual report 2016–17

http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/163417/2016-17_FPA_an-nual_report.pdfWhere do you find out how many FPPs there were in 2016–17, how many hectares of plantation were created and how many FPOs there are? The FPA’s annual report is full of answers to these questions and more!

State of the forests Tasmania 2017

A report to the Minister for Resources and to be laid on the table of each house of parliament pursuant to section 4Z of the Forest Practices Act 1985. Submitted by the Forest Practices Authority in cooperation and consultation with the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Sustainable Timber Tasmania1, the Department of State Growth, Private Forests Tasmania and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.

The report covers the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2016 and follows the format previously agreed with the Commonwealth Government for reporting on sustainability indicators under the Montreal Process and for the five yearly reviews of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement.

1 Forestry Tasmania became Sustainable Timber Tasmania from 1 July 2017

Page 1 of 122 D17/206534

Forest Practices Authority Annual Report

2016–17

1 D2017/363999

Biodiversity conservation, management and monitoring in production forests, Western Australia

– Notes from a brief study tour

SA Munks and DF Mann

July 2017

Report to the Board of the Forest Practices Authority

Monitoring the effectiveness of the biodiversity provisions of the Tasmanian Forest Practices Code 2016–17 http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/154660/FPA_report_2016-17_Monitoring_the_effectiveness_of_the_biodiversity_provisions_of_the_Tasmanian_Forest_Practices_Code.pdf

A comprehensive summary of biodiversity research carried out by FPA staff, affiliated students and independent researchers. There are so many interesting stories here – check it out!

Monitoring the effectiveness of the biodiversity provisions of the

Tasmanian Forest Practices Code

2016–17 summary report

Amelia Koch and Sarah Munks

Report to the Board of the Forest Practices Authority and the Secretary of the

Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment Hobart

August 2017 FPA Scientific Report 21

Biodiversity conservation, management and monitoring in production forests, Western Australia – notes from a brief study tour http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/155975/FPA_WA_

trip_2017_Report_SMDM.docx.pdf

The FPA’s Sarah Munks and Dydee Mann visited production forests in WA to find out if we could adapt any management techniques from there. They did find some useful ideas – read the report to find out more.

Minister for Resources Guy Barnett launched the State of the forests Tasmania 2017 booklet at the ‘Looking back – looking forward conference.

Treefern management plan for the sustainable harvesting, transporting or trading of Dicksonia antartica in Tasmania 2017 http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/159809/Tasmanian_Treefern_Management_Plan_2017.pdf

Find out how treefern harvesting is regulated in Tasmania.

Scat watching – a way to know your wildlife, from the Running Postman (2015) http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/RunningPostmanDec2015.pdf

Some great tips on how to identify that scat!

30 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

FPA training

Chris Grove, Training and Publications Coordinator, Forest Practices Authority

Course Contact Timing Duration Location Course content and cost

Swift parrot field dayDydee.Mann@fpa.tas.gov.auAmy.Koch@fpa.tas.gov.au

18 and 19 January 2017

1 day run twice SE Tas Information

Forest practices for supervisors 2018

Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au21 to 24 May 2018

4 daysMount Field National Park Visitor Centre

send EOI to Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au

FPO refresher course Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au May/June 2 days TBA Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au

Quarry management course Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au 2018 TBA TBAsend EOI to Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au

Aboriginal cultural heritage Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au June 2018 1 day Hobartsend EOI to Chris.Grove@fpa.tas.gov.au

Threatened Plant Adviser training

info@fpa.tas.gov.au November 2018 1 day TBA info@fpa.tas.gov.au

Threatened plants info@fpa.tas.gov.au November 2018 1 day TBA info@fpa.tas.gov.au

Masked owl habitat management

info@fpa.tas.gov.au Spring 2018 1 day TBA info@fpa.tas.gov.au

Burrowing crayfish info@fpa.tas.gov.au Spring 2018 1 day TBA info@fpa.tas.gov.au

FPO Training CourseThe FPO Training Course is almost wrapped up, with most learners having just the final assessment on FPP planning to complete. Feedback from the 20 course participants, plus a few people finishing off modules missed on previous courses, has been overwhelmingly positive.

Recent sessions have included earth science, roading, plantation silviculture, timber harvesting, FPP preparation and compliance. The learners also had to complete the FPA’s Biodiversity Course.

A new assignment was introduced this year – submitting an article to Forest Practices News. We are always looking for contributions from people working in the forest practices system so this assignment ticked many boxes; as well as a communication assessment we now also have many great articles to publish and a cohort of trainees who hopefully will now continue to send in articles! Some of these articles are published in this issue.

The next course will be run in 2019, demand permitting.

Top: Group work on the FPO Training Course. Bottom: FPA’s Peter McIntosh discusses the Forest Practices Code guidelines for stream management with FPO Training Course participants.

31Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

FPA training (continued): Biodiversity Course, September 2017

The four-day Biodiversity Course in September on the east coast was attended by the FPO Training Course participants and other forest workers as well as people from other agencies. A total of 35 people attended at least one day of the course, including 17 from Sustainable Timber Tasmania; 8 from other forest companies; 3 from DPIPWE; 3 consultants; 2 from FPA; and 1 each from Hydro and PWS.

On the first day, learners listened to presentations covering background knowledge required to plan for biodiversity values when developing FPPs before they got out for a discussion in the forest.

The next two days was a mixture of theory and practice on identification skills for forest communities, flora and fauna, followed by training on FPA planning tools and prescription implementation.

The final day was an assessment day for those on the FPO Training Course.

Learners were very complimentary about the course, which was organised by the Biodiversity Program’s Sarah Munks and Dydee Mann. Feedback particularly mentioned appreciation of the many subject specialists who passed on some of their impressive knowledge.

This course would be very useful for many people working in Tasmania’s forests, whether in reserved or production forest. It is generally run every two years, in conjunction with the FPO Training Course.

Left: Sean Boucher and Matthew Foggarty of Sustainable Timber Tasmania discuss biodiversity prescriptions in an FPP. Top: FPA’s Amy Koch explains how to identify mature trees that probably have big enough hollows to be used by hollow-dependent fauna. Middle: FPA staff from left – Amy Koch, Sarah Munks, Dydee Mann, Steve Casey (all Biodiversity Program) and Julie Walters (GIS Officer). Bottom: swift parrot expert Matt Webb points out a swift parrot perched on a dead tree and discusses swift parrot habitat identification and management.

32 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Biodiversity Course (continued)

Top left: Jay Fowler, Crispen Marunda, Harvey Watson and Sean Boucher use TreeFlip to identify plants. Top right: Marie Yee finds a snail during a search for invertebrates living in leaf litter. Centre left: The sun didn’t always shine. The FPA’s Chris Grove taking photos in the rain. Centre left: Invertebrate expert Kevin Bonham (left) shares a very small snail found in the leaf litter. Bottom left: Bat expert Lisa Cawthen led a bat walk, using a bat detector App on her tablet. Bottom right: The FPA’s Steve Casey (left) and Phil Bell (right) explain how to use the FPA’s planning tools to identify and manage biodiversity values.

33Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Biodiversity Course (continued)

Forest practices scene

The boys were all ready, Their faces were mean Pencils were sharpened For a forest practices scene.

Gibbo was f irst, He made the f irst call. Followed closely by Darren, He was towering tall.

Jaffa strode out, Followed closely behind By keen and mean Foggy. He was anything but kind.

They whipped out their pencils, Man, they were keen. Until they realised Foggy had taken off With their forest practices scene.

‘Bloody oath’, said Gibbo ‘I know what to do. We’ll email FPA And they will give us a crew’.

‘They’ll chase the lad down With their compliance team ‘Cos that Ferg he gets going When he lets off some steam’.

But Ferg wasn’t keen To go chasing the clot And instead brandished his pen And he was ready to jot.

He brought forth a page And he showed them there and then By drawing the best looking Tasmanian devil den.

Surrounded by windrows, Not burnt, that looks best. And that’s where those beasty devils like to lay down and rest.

Then he circled the eagle’s nest On that southerly slope And Jaffa and Darren, They started to hope.

The disaster was over, The crew now seemed serene. The boys were back in town With their forest practices scene.

By the Biodiversity Program’s Pep Turner and her team (Dean Gibson, Darren Braithwaite, Craig Jaffray, Matthew Foggarty) . ‘Ferg’ in the poem is James Fergusson, from FPA’s Compliance Program.

Top: Sarah Munks runs through riparian area management with course participants at Sandspit River. Middle left: Rob Freeman (Inland Fisheries) with some of the aquatic species found at the site. Middle right: Mammal expert Clare Hawkins (left) and the FPA’s Dydee Mann take a closer look at the aquatic species. Bottom: The quiz night included a challenge to get creative and depict a forest practices scene. Most groups drew masterpieces, such as the one above, but the Biodiversity Program’s Pep Turner and her team stunned us by quickly writing this poem.

34 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

Tasmania's Coordinated Smoke Management System (CSMS) is a smoke management tool for planned forestry and other vegetation burns, co-ordinated by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). The FPA originally introduced a CSMS in 2008 in an effort to reduce smoke pollution levels near populated areas from high intensity forestry burns, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Forestry Tasmania, other forestry stakeholders, the Department of Health and Human Services, Tasmania Fire Service (TFS) and Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS).

The CSMS strategy now provides for: the coordination of planned burns (including low intensity burns) in relation to weather forecasts to minimise the risk to the population of high concentrations of smoke within each of 11 regional ‘air sheds’ in Tasmania; improved training and accreditation of personnel involved in the planning and conduct of burns; and feedback from a network of smoke monitoring stations operated by the EPA.

As part of the continuous improvement of the CSMS, the FPA and EPA organised a workshop in Campbell Town on 5 September 2017 to review the operation of the CSMS and discuss possibilities for development. The workshop was attended by 27 key participants from the FPA, forestry companies, PWS, EPA, Hobart City Council, the head of Weather and Environmental Prediction from the Bureau of Meteorology, an air modelling specialist from CSIRO, and a senior researcher in human health impacts from the Menzies Research Centre.

Presentations at the workshop included an overview of the CSMS, smoke monitoring and CSMS successes, continuous improvement, health impacts of smoke, airshed redesign thoughts and CSIRO’s air quality forecast system. Most of the workshop was devoted to discussing operational and logistical issues, the

challenge of improving CSMS effectiveness for low-intensity burns, communication and education programs, and implications of unregulated burns.

The main outcome is a structured internal working report with detailed notes on workshop discussions. Stakeholders are now developing the workshop ideas and outcomes into a proposal which will

Coordinated smoke management system workshop – Campbell Town, Tasmania 5 September 2017

Angus MacNeil, Manager Business Administration, Forest Practices Authority

consider future implementation and funding issues.

Continuing refinements to the CSMS will reduce, but not entirely eliminate, the risk of smoke from planned vegetation burn-offs affecting populated areas.

Author’s contact:

Angus.MacNeil@fpa.tas.gov.au

The Coordinated Smoke Management System enables collaboration from agencies involved in planned burns to ensure that smoke is limited in specific airsheds according to the current weather patterns.

35Forest Practices News vol 13 no 4 January 2018

In early October, some of the major players from across the Tasmanian plantation forest industry collaborated with contractors and researchers at a vertebrate browsing seminar held at Launceston. Forest industry companies included Forico, PF Olsen, Sustainable Timber Tasmania, Norske Skog, Private Forests Tasmania and Timberlands. An event like this hasn’t taken place for many decades but with the boom in plantation harvesting and reestablishment, it has become more important than ever.

The conversation was facilitated by renowned forest ecologist Greg Unwin, UTAS/AFG. Other speakers were from current and former government research groups and key managers in the production forest estate.

Two main issues were put on the table by event organiser Jim Wilson from Forico ‘How can we improve vertebrate control effectiveness; financially, ecologically and socially? And how can we reduce personal and reputational risk to both the task and the industry.’

John Dawson, former project manager of the Alternatives to 1080 Program, spoke on how continually modifying the control method by changing times of operation, modifying directional movement through areas and even changing vehicles led to better results during his service. Former DPIPWE researcher Mick Statham stated, ‘Wallabies are grazers that require a variety of vegetation and have no specific home range, allowing them to move around and adapt quickly to changing environments.’

During the 2016–17 financial year, close to AU$2.0 million was spent by the forest sector on vertebrate game management with close to 30 000 hours spent directly on the on-ground control methods, most commonly in harsh and dangerous conditions.

Given this spike in time spent on this activity, it was no surprise that the Work

Safe Tasmania representative, Phil John, quickly reiterated the importance of safe systems at work. According to Phil, within the agricultural industry in Tasmania 51 000 lost work days have resulted from accidents in the last five years and 356 fatalities have occurred within the previous 10 years. ‘Workers in the agricultural industry are 15 times more likely to have a serious injury compared to all other industries in Tasmania.’

A common concern of all involved in the workshop was the lack of recognition of a professional operator compared with a licenced recreational shooter. Tony Yungk (GT Game Management) described the situation. ‘A simple firearms license is not sufficient to ensure safety for the operator and compliance to animal welfare.’

Finalising the event, a committee was elected to strategically resolve some of the issues that are currently facing the plantation industry in Tasmania.

‘It was fantastic to see a strong turnout. Hopefully we can continue to improve our industry to meet the challenges of tomorrow’, said Wray Watts (industry veteran).

Author’s contact:

jay.fowler@forico.com.au

Browsing management workshop

Jay Fowler, Plantation Forester, Forico Pty Limited and FPO Training Course participant

Greg Hocking, Principle Wildlife Management Officer, DPIPWE, addressing the 70 attendees.

Jamie Cooper from Feral Management solutions demonstrating the design of his unique trapping system. The trap is designed for feral cats and has a built-in relaying system that sends a mobile phone message when the trap has been sprung, thus reducing labour costs and improving compliance with animal ethics guidelines

Published by the Forest Practices Authority 30 Patrick Street Hobart Tasmania 7000 Phone (03) 6233 7966 Fax (03) 6233 7954 info@fpa.tas.gov.au www.fpa.tas.gov.au Banner photograph: The ‘Looking back – looking forward’ conference organising committee at the end of the conference field trip to the Settlement Block. From left:

Peter Volker (CFPO), Amy Robertson (FPA Board), Fred Duncan (consultant), Chris Grove (FPA Training and Publications) and John Hickey (FPA Board).

The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Authority.Articles may be reproduced in other publications including websites providing that the FPA is informed,

they are reproduced in full and that the FPA and original publication in Forest Practices News is acknowledged.Printed on paper from sustainably managed sources.

Whilst on the roading and earth sciences leg of the 2017 Forest Practices Officer Course (FPO Course), I was using my work iPad at the field site off Southwood Rd, just south of Willamette Creek, in the Southern Forests. I subsequently drove home, excited by the early finish to the field session and the possibility of getting home before 9 pm as it is a solid 4.5 – 5 hr drive to Burnie from Geeveston.

It wasn’t until two days after the field trip that I noticed my iPad was missing. I searched high and low, but to no avail. I contacted the IT department to see if they could use ’Find my iPad’ to locate it, however, they could only tell me that it was on, and it was connected to a Telstra signal, not its location*.

Right, so maybe someone has picked it up then? So the email to all the course participants went out and came back with no news of the iPad. By this stage, we had deduced that I had put the iPad on the bonnet or tarp at the back of the ute

when we were packing up and I had then driven off, so it couldn’t be far from the field site. I relayed this information to the Regional Manager, who thought the best course of action was to drive to the field site and have a look for the iPad, given the company sensitive information and cost of the resource.

So on 9 August I set off from Burnie to find my iPad. To cut a long (12 hr) story short, I did not find it.

So I got a new iPad ordered and began doing all the audits and assessments of cut over areas on paper, a very old fashioned method. In late September I got my new iPad and all was well and good again.

It wasn’t until early October, when my car was getting serviced, that I got a phone call from the administration officer at our local Mazda service centre asking if I had lost anything, to which I replied; ‘I don’t think so?’

’How about an iPad?’

The curious case of the missing iPad

Hamish Howe, Harvesting Forester, PF Olsen (Aus) Pty Ltd and FPO Training Course participant

’Hang on. What????’

Turns out, the iPad had somehow migrated from the bonnet through the gap between the chassis and bullbar and ended up underneath the engine, resting on the bashplate, for over 10 000km, through some pretty serious terrain!

The iPad was fine, with hardly a scratch on it! I plugged it in and it never missed a beat!

Moral of the story; look after your toys.

*We found out later that the sign in for “Find my iPad” had not been done on any of the Australian iPads, thus rendering IT unable to see the location of any of the iPads throughout the group. This has since been rectif ied.

Author’s contact:

Hamish.Howe@pfolsen.com

Below: Hamish using his IPad the day it disappeared