1

February 2000 vol 2 no 3 ISSN 1441-1288

Forest Practices

newspublished by the Forest Practices Board, 30 Patrick Street, Hobart – Tasmania – 7000

phone (03) 6233 7966; fax (03) 6233 7954; email info@fpb.tas.gov.au – www.fpb.tas.gov.auArticles from this newsletter may be reproduced.

Acknowledgement of the author and Forest Practices Board is requested.The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Board

contentsDevelopments ...................... 2

New resources ..................... 3

Noticeboard ......................... 5

Travel log ........................... 6

Flora .................................. 9

Fauna .............................. 11

Soils ................................ 14

Geomorphology .................. 15

The review really began with theReview of the Steep CountryProvisions (in the Code) in 1997.This was followed by the Reviewof Workplace Safety and the Codein 1998, and the Review of the Soiland Water Provisions completedin 1999. The recommendations ofthese reviews, together with newinformation, research, legislationand policies including theRegional Forest Agreement, wereincorporated into the redraftingof the Code.

The process to arrive at this pointhas also involved extensiveconsultation over several monthswith major stakeholders throughthe Forest Practices AdvisoryCouncil. The Council is the sieve

Release of Draft Forest Practices Code for commentChris Mitchell, Forest Practices Adviser, Forest Practices Board

At last! The draft Forest Practices Code has now been released for public comment afteran exhaustive (exhausting?) process of review over the last 3 years.

through which redrafted wordingin the Code is passed.

The draft Code follows a similarformat to the 1993 Code. Duringthe review process it wasascertained that users of the Codewere generally comfortable andhappy with the existing format.The only real changes to formatare movement of some sectionswithin the Code. These changesmainly reflect changes in the ForestPractices Act whereby roading,quarrying and silviculturalactivities are more specificallycovered in Forest Practices Plans.Thus the new Code will be less“harvesting-centric” and moreencompassing of the broader rangeof forest practices activities.

In particular, the review hasfocussed on delivering a new setof plantation establishmentguidelines, with an emphasis on areview of the provisions forestablishing plantations withinpreviously cleared streamsidereserves. With the large scaleestablishment of plantations on ex-agricultural land currently takingplace, this was consideredpertinent. This is a controversialissue, and the Board is consciousof the need to base the Codeprovisions on common senseprinciples. The proposedprovisions allow for someestablishment of plantations inpreviously cleared streamsidereserves, but this is conditional onvery specific measures being taken

to protect water quality.

The proposed changes to the Codealso include more specificguidance with respect to firemanagement, the management ofnatural and cultural values (soils,water quality and flow, flora,fauna, landscape, culturalheritage, and geomorphology),and the management of wasteproducts (fuel, oils etc.) andemissions.

It is hoped that a new Code can bereleased about mid year (the Codefor the new millennium!). Theprocess from now until that timeis:

• statutory 60 day period forpublic submissions (to the endof April)

• review of public submissions byForest Practices AdvisoryCouncil and incorporation of anyconsequent changes

• approval of the amended Codeby the Forest Practices Board

• release of Forest Practices Code2000

Readers, and in particular ForestPractices Officers, are encouragedto make public submissions on thedraft Code. See the advertisement(Saturday 26 February) in the dailynewspapers calling for publicsubmissions, or visit our web sitewhich contains a copy of the draftCode and further information.

Author contact: (03) 6233 5453Chris.Mitchell@fpb.tas.gov.au

2

Developments

Nigel Richardson explains the proposed fire management duringan on-site field meeting

Burning and Special ValuesNigel Richardson, Senior Technical Forester, Forestry Tasmania

The THP provided for theprotection of sinkholes with aparticular requirement not to falltrees into the sinkholes orsurrounding 10m buffer. The THPalso specified high intensity burningprior to sowing. To safely conductthe high intensity burn, District staffwould normally fell the stags andculls. However in this case, damageto sink holes near the coupeboundary would have resulted.An on-site meeting between theChief Forest Practices Officer, theSenior Geomorphologist, the FireManagement Officer and Districtstaff was able to resolve the issue bytightening weather and seasonalprescriptions in the burning plan;retaining trees or stags likely to fallinto sinkholes; and widening thefirebreak around one sinkhole andmodifying the construction of thefirebreak near an unstable sinkholeso as to prevent the discharge ofturbid water into that sinkhole. Wetforest on the upwind surrounds

Following the recent harvesting of a coupe in the Florentine Valley Derwent District staffperceived an apparent contradiction between the special values prescriptions of the TimberHarvesting Plan and the plan‘s fire management requirements.

and young regeneration on thedownwind side has facilitated thedecision to retain trees and stagsnear the sinkholes.In addition, the District’s firemanagement evaluation which isan attachment to all Forest PracticesPlans has been changed to includea question to encourage planners toconsider possible conflicts between

fire management objectives andspecial values and how theseconflicts might be managed. At thetime of writing, the District still facesthe challenge of safely burning thecoupe, achieving a good seed bedand continuing the protection ofthe special values.

Author contact: (03) 6233 7450Nigel.Richardson@forestrytas.com.au

The new FPB web site has finally beenlaunched. It's been completelyredesigned with a simple navigationstructure that makes it easy to findwhat you’re looking for. There are anumber of links to the Draft RevisedForest Practices Code and many otherrecent Board publications are availablefor downloading, including all editionsof the Forest Practices News.

Some sections are waiting to be fleshedout a little more but these changes willbe made when the content becomesavailable.

As many of you visit the site to obtainFPP certification numbers, this is nowlocated under ‘Services for ForestPractices Officers’.

Thanks to David Hinley for helping putthe site together.

Author contact: (03) 6233 7716Nathan.Duhig@fpb.tas.gov.au

3

Frequently asked questions

New resources

Graham Wilkinson, Chief ForestPractices Officer, Forest Practices

Board

“Applicants” and Forest PracticesPlans

1. Who can apply for a Forest PracticesPlan (FPP) and what rights andresponsibilities does this person have?

Section 18 of the Forest PracticesAct provides that any person maymake application to the Board forcertification of a FPP. Theapplicant is usually the landowner,contractor or processor connectedwith the proposed forest practices.Remember that the landownermust still give consent in writingfor the FPP to be submitted forcertification irrespective of who isthe “applicant” (a FPP can not becertified unless the landowner hassigned the appropriate part of theFPP).

All persons who operate withinland covered by a FPP are legallybound to comply with that FPP.Whether or not you are theapplicant does not change yourresponsibility to comply with theFPP. However, applicants do havesome additional rights andresponsibilities that are not sharedby other parties-

The additional rights of applicantsare-

1. They can appeal against anyrefusal, amendment or variationof the FPP that has beeninstigated by the Board;

2. They can in their own right applyfor a variation to the FPP(providing that they obtain theconsent in writing of thelandowner) and they can appealif the Board refuses the variation.

The additional responsibility forapplicants is that they must lodge

a certificate of compliance withthe Board (within 30 days after theexpiry of the period during whichforest practices were authorisedunder the FPP). In this way, theapplicant, having initiated the FPPand retained rights with respect tohow the forest practices will beconducted, also takes on theultimate responsibility forreporting upon whether or not theFPP has been complied with.

2. Can more than one party apply fora FPP?

Yes. For example, the landownerand contractor may apply for aFPP as joint applicants. In thiscase, both parties may jointly orindividually exercise their rightsas outlined above. Both or eithermay appeal against any refusal,amendment or variation of the FPPinstigated by the Board. Similarly,both or either may apply for avariation to a FPP. Where there isdisagreement between theapplicants, the Board wouldconsider the views of both inmaking a decision. However, onlythe applicant who applied for thevariation would have appeal rightswith respect to any decisionrelating to that variation.

Where two parties are jointapplicants, both are legally obligedto lodge a certificate of compliance.To avoid duplication of effort, it isbest for applicants to lodge a jointcertificate. Arrangements andresponsibilities for supervisingoperations and ensuringcompliance should, of course, besorted out well before thecommencement of operations. Inthis way, the preparation of acertificate at the end of operationsshould be a straightforward final‘report card’ and not a new andonerous responsibility for anyparty.

Author contact: (03) 6233 7451Graham.Wilkinson@fpb.tas.gov.au

Sarah Munks, Senior Zoologist,Forest Practices Board

Threatened Fauna Manual forProduction Forests - Updatedmapsheets are now available viathe Forest Practices Web Page. Thelatest update of this manual (seeOctober FPNews, Vol 1,no 5) isnow complete apart from finalrevisions to the species profiles.However, the completed versionwon’t be available via the ForestPractices Web page (which iscurrently being revitalised!) foranother 6 weeks. In the interim, toensure all FPOs can include thenew species in their planning, wehave placed the updated 1:25000mapsheets with the new specieslocalities and likely habitat (Part 1of the manual) on the existing Webpage. The mapsheets in yourexisting Threatened Fauna Manualshould be replaced with these. Ifanyone wants more informationon the new listed species beforePart 2 of the manual is placed onthe web page please contact me.

Note that the TasmanianThreatened Fauna Handbook byBryant and Jackson (DPIWE)which was mentioned in OctoberFPNews (Vol 1,no 5 ) isrecommended as a referencedocument only. It does not replacethe FPB, Threatened FaunaManual which is designed to be anup-to-date planning tool for FPOs.

Threatened Fauna Adviser

The revision of this program isunderway and (FPOs/FLOs) willbe invited to comment on the newdraft version in early April.

Author contact: (03) 6233 8710Sarah.Munks@fpb.tas.gov.au

Zoology planning toolsupdate

4

Author contact: (03) 6233 5453 Chris.Mitchell@fpb.tas.gov.au

New resourcesForward Training Program – Forest Practices BoardChris Mitchell, Forest Practices Adviser, Forest Practices Board

Confirmed and proposed training 2000.

Course (Contact) Timing Duration Location Course ContentRisk assessment(C.Mitchell)

Autumn2000

1 day To be confirmed Train selected FPOs to completea safety risk assessment for treesretained under the FP Code

Forest Practicestraining2

(C.Mitchell)

Autumn 2000 4 days To beconfirmed

General training in forestpractices for FT supervisors

Forest PracticesCode (C.Mitchell)

Autumn 2000 1 day To be confirmed Briefings to all FPOs on changesto FP Code following issue of FPCode 2000

Cultural HeritageRefresher(D.Gaughwin)

May 2000 1 or 2days

One each insouth and northwest

Recognition and management ofAboriginal and historic sites,and new developments

FPO (Quarry)Course(C.Mitchell)

May2000 2 or 3day

To be confirmed Course to train FPOs who wishto certify Quarry FPPs

FPO Course(C.Mitchell)

Winter 2000 12 days Various FPO course for new trainees

Forest PracticesManager training(C.Mitchell)

Winter/Spring 2000

2 day To be confirmed Update forest managers onrequirements of the forestpractices system

Karst (K.Kiernan) To beconfirmed

2 day To be confirmed Train FPOs who work in karstareas on fauna, cultural heritageand geomorphologicalrequirements

Integrated karst courseSpecial management considerations in karst extend beyond geoconservation and geohazardconcerns.

Forest practices trainees areexposed to karst managementprimarily via the geomorphologymodule of their courses, but karstareas can also be important for avariety of other values.Invertebrate fauna in caves caninclude unusual species thatexhibit a high degree of adaptationto life in permanent darknesswhere environmental conditionsare very stable and nutrient inputsare limited. Such species can bevery sensitive to disturbance. Afew plant species are also restrictedto karst settings. The microbiotaof Tasmanian caves is unknown.Some karsts are culturally

important. Some caves containimportant archaeological sites,primarily Aboriginal but in a fewcases European. And some karstlandscapes are very scenic placeswhere landscape issues also arise.

The objective of the plannedintegrated karst course is tobroaden the perspectives of forestmanagement practitioners whoseresponsibilities encompass karstareas. The intention is to providea field-based course that looks atkarst environments as totalsystems. It will involvecontributions by specialists fromvarious disciplines for which karst

is important, and address thelinkages in evolutionary andpractical management terms.While stressing the importantinteractions between the surfaceand underground components ofkarst environments, the focus willbe on land use on the surface.Although the course will be gearedprimarily for managers of karstlandscapes, it will also include“non-karst” geomanagementissues (eg. landslides) that haveimplications for a karst but whichmay also arise in otherenvironments.

Author contact: (03 6233 7716)Kevin.Kiernan@fpb.tas.gov.au

5

NoticeboardFPO course 2000

Chris Mitchell, Forest PracticesAdviser, Forest Practices Board

As usual the Board will beconducting training this year forpeople wishing to gain some ofthe qualifications necessary forappointment as Forest PracticesOfficers. It is anticipated that thetraining will be along similar linesto recent years i.e. 12 days spreadover winter.

People who wish to undertake the2000 FPO course should contactChris Mitchell. Particulars suchas qualification, experience andcurrent job status need to beprovided. The support of youremployer is also necessary,therefore nominations shouldcome from the employer.

The cost of the course will beapproximately $1400 forparticipants drawn from that partof the forest sector providingfunding to the Board. The cost forother participants will be higher.The charges coveraccommodation and mealstogether with fees for externalpresenters and materials costs.

Author contact:(03) 6233 5453

Chris.Mitchell@fpb.tas.gov.au

In preparing the last issue (FPN 2(2)) I hesitated over the spelling of thedessert called bombalaska. My dictionary didn’t help so I made themistake of reaching for the WWW search button. My search produceda diverse screenful of spectacularly unhelpful options: the threat posedto third world countries by penetrator bombs; Jabiluka; and the testingof a new ground-based “Star Wars” weapon in Alaska - said tomanipulate the environment in a way which can disrupt human mentalprocesses, jam all global communication systems, change weatherpatterns over large areas, interfere with wildlife migration patterns,negatively affect human health and un-naturally impact the Earth’supper atmosphere (I had indeed noticed all these things happeningaround me but until then had just put it down to the folly of trying to geta newsletter out in the last week before Christmas). Somewhererecently I read that the CIA satellite monitors all web activity for keysecurity words. If your editor disappears you know what happened.Indeed, I may have already been warned: another suggested site was‘Deaths of Australian Travellers Overseas’.

Sometimes you have to worry about the web as a tool – other utterlyuseless options revealed by my search for the name of an innocuousdessert included sites about rehabilitating a seal after the Exxon Valdezoil spill; Hopi Indian prophecies; the Darwin Awards (for single mindedself-sacrifice to remove undesirable elements from the gene pool);Pauline Hanson visiting a school; 98 Rabbit News; Evidence of Civilisationon Venus; and Fully informed juries. The very last option was the NewYears eve menu for a Sydney restaurant, where finally I found what Iwanted, at fixed menu option no. 4. My advice to the next FPN editoris just to believe David Hinley’s spelling corrections or buy a decentdictionary, or maybe a cookbook – KK

The perils of being an editor

Contributorsto this issue:

• Nigel Richardson

• Katriona Hopkins

• Nathan Duhig

• Mark Wapstra

• Fred Duncan

• Chris Mitchell

• Sarah Munks

• Graham Wilkinson

• Peter McIntosh

• Kevin Kiernan

Guidelines for contributorsForest Practices News is published quarterly by the ForestPractices Board, Tasmania. FPN provides a means forcommunicating new ideas and developments among thoseinterested in the sustainable management of Tasmania’sforests – it is not just as a bulletin from the FPB. Weparticularly welcome contributions from practicing FPOs.Let us all know about your latest innovative ideas. Wewelcome both feature articles and shorter contributions ofeven just a paragraph or two. Articles should preferably beno longer than two pages (for guidance, one page equates toabout 780-800 words). Shorter contributions can be as briefas a few sentences! Please include illustrations with yourcontributions if at all possible. Contributions can be suppliedeither as hard copy or electronically. If forwarding materialelectronically, the address is info@fpb.tas.gov.au. We lookforward to seeing you in print in FPN!

6

Travel logGiant redwoods, fish and litigation –

God bless America!Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, Forest Practices Board

Late last year I was privileged to travel to the west-coast of North America to reviewwhere the forest practices systems are heading in California, Oregon, Washington andBritish Columbia.

Corrugated iron culvert, with its base installed below stream level. Anatural pebble base will form over time, facilitating natural streamdynamics and the movement of aquatic fauna

The fishThe main drivers of forest practicesin North America appear to be-stream management, endangeredspecies, and alternatives toclearfelling. The regulation ofwater flow and the maintenanceof water quality and aquatichabitat are a high priority. Fishare the fundamental indicators ofthe health and quality of the streamecosystem. They are alsomanaged, hunted and consumedwith enormous enthusiasm byrecreational fisherfolk. Huntingand fishing in the woods is still avery strong part of the Americanculture. Streamside prescriptionswithin codes are very complex andsubject to constant review andchange. The ‘no-debris’ policy of adecade ago has beenenthusiastically replaced througha 180o change, which now seesgreat effort going into theplacement of heavy debris into

The forestsA visit to the giant sequoia forests(Sequoiadendron giganteum) is awe-inspiring; the ultimate sylvan Meccafor foresters. The ecology of theredwoods is similar to that of ourtall wet eucalypt forests, withsimilar dependency upon fire. Theysupport a complex array of wildlifeand were the spiritual home of theFirst Nation people, who retreatedto the cool mountain forests duringthe heat of the summer. As well asbeing most attractive, the redwoodsare prodigiously long-lived andproductive. The General ShermanTree in the Californian SierraNevadas, is billed as the largestliving thing on earth. It is about2,700 years old and stands 84 metrestall, with a diameter of 11.1 m and astem volume of 1,487 m3! It hasplenty of similar sized buddiesnearby, within a mosaic containingvarying age classes of younger treesfrom successive wildfires. Many ofCalifornia’s wood productionforests are now primarily managedon a thinning-from-below regime,which leaves the biggest trees to getbigger. The local foresters don’tknow where the thinning-from-below regime is ultimately heading,as there appears to be no politicalwill to contemplate cutting downthe ‘big’ trees in the future. Incontrast, the Douglas Fir and mixedconifer forests of Oregon,Washington and British Columbiaare much more intensivelyharvested. Many are third andfourth rotation forests, managed on70 year clearcut regimes.Collectively, California, Oregon,Washington and British Columbiahave about 75 million ha of forest.

stream channels to create naturalpatterns of ponding and eddyingetc. An Oregon forester told methat when the ‘debris is good’policy came in, he organised acontractor with an excavator to goup and down all the streams andplace logs and rootballs into thestream channel. The contractorwas quite bemused, having beenpaid for the previous ten years totake the same debris out of thestreams.

Great care is also taken withrespect to the design of culvertsand stream crossings to allowunimpeded movement of streamfauna. However, in the MendocinoDistrict of California, I noticed thatthe logging roads were all out-sloped and had no table-drains orculverts. The foresters told methat they used out-sloping to avoidthe maintenance associated withkeeping table-drains and culvertsopen. Their main fear wasn’t the

7

Travel log

A Californian Forest Practices Officer, complete with shotgun for dealingwith difficult contractors.

cost of road maintenance, it wasthe risk of litigation andprosecution under the code in theevent of blocked drains or culverts.They cope with the safety

implications of having log truckson greasy out-sloped roads byrestricting all logging to summer(dry weather) only.

Despite mounting publicopposition in other States,clearfelling remains the bread andbutter silvicultural regime in theforests of Oregon, Washington andBritish Columbia. The codescontain provisions with respect tomaximum coupe size andtemporal separation of adjoiningcoupes. Some consideration isbeing given to alternative regimes.For example, clearfelling withpatches of retention is beingapplied in old-growth Douglas Firby one major forest company on

Vancouver Island.

The regulatory environmentThe major effect on forestry withinthe States has been the virtual

withdrawal of Federal forests fromwood production. Federal forestsrepresent about half of the forestarea in California, Oregon andWashington. The Spotted Owltends to get the blame for ‘locking-up’ the forests, but the reality isthat over 200 Federal Acts applyto forestry operations on Federalland. Any person in America canplace injunctions upon anyproposed operation. Forestryactivity has virtually ground to ahalt on Federal lands because ofthe uncertainty and the time delaysassociated with successiveinjunctions. As a result, loggingoperations have shifted from theFederal forests, which were

covered by extensive inventory,management systems and highlevels of professional resources, tothe privately owned forests, whichby and large, are not covered byadequate inventory, managementsystems or high levels ofprofessional resources. Inconsequence, the whole regulatoryenvironment is in transition.Whilst the regulatory systemstruggles with the challenge ofachieving high standards onprivate land, there are differentchallenges for managing theFederal forests. The withdrawalof logging has had major economicimpacts. There are also substantialecological impacts because forestharvesting has been a criticalmanagement tool for the controlof forest health and for firemanagement purposes. In theSierra Nevada Ranges I sawextensive areas of Fir forest killedby the introduced Tussock Moth.Active management and controlof introduced pests appears tohave been replaced by ‘benignneglect’, resulting in extensiveareas of forest death and expectedlong term changes in forest typeand species patterns. The view ofdead and dying forests didn’timpress the large number ofvisitors who voiced their concernto my Californian Department ofForestry colleague every time westopped. I also witnessed theseverity of the Californian fireseason. Local foresters werelamenting that the cessation ofthinning and fuel reductionprograms had resulted in heavyfuel build-ups and majordifficulties for fire management.

On private and State-owned landin California, Timber HarvestingPlans are prepared by a consultingRegistered Professional Forester(RPF). The plans are about 120-200 pages long and cost about$AUS 8,000 to $30,000 to prepare.The plans are submitted for reviewto the Californian Department ofForestry (CDF). This includes

8

review by specialists andpublic comment. Forestersfrom CDF monitor alloperations. The additionalcost of the CDF approval(paid by the taxpayer) isabout $9,000 per plan.

In comparison, Oregon andWashington have muchsimpler systems. However,the trend is towards anincreasingly prescriptiveapproach. To some extentthis reflects the shift inoperations away from theFederal forests to the small,private holdings. The Stateagencies do not have theresources to spend on theplanning and supervisionof numerous one-offoperations on private land.This results in a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach, wherebyone set of rules is applied to allsituations. British Columbia’ssystem has a high level ofbureaucracy with a complexhierarchy of planning levels.

It is an interesting paradox thatAmericans as a society stronglydefend their private rights, whilstlitigating against the rights ofothers. Like parts of Australia, itseems that every small forestowner in Oregon owns a chainsaw,a tractor and a gun. They mean touse all three, and they don’t likebureaucracy getting in the way.

The CFPO inspects a fire cavity in an old growth redwood, having first checkedthat the resident black bear was not at home

Despite this, there is anoverwhelming trend towardsincreasingly complex andprescriptive codes, which is drivenby the threat of increasinglitigation. There is a general feelingof inevitability about this.However, there is a ray of hope. InOregon, Washington and BritishColumbia there are moves to tryand simplify the planning system.The aim is to develop morestrategic level planning at thecatchment scale, and thus avoidthe requirement for operationalplans to be quasi-Environmental

Impact Statements as in California.

The forest practices issues in NorthAmerica are very similar to thosewe face here. The continuingchallenge for Tasmania is to ensurethat we focus on achieving goodoutcomes by building upon thestrengths of our self regulatorysystem. Otherwise, it will be thelegal profession, not the forestryprofession, that determines howwe manage our forests.

Author contact: (03) 6233 7451Graham.Wilkinson@fpb.tas.gov.au

Forest managers whoseresponsibilities include karstterrain will be familiar with thepotential problems entailed byinstability of the ground surface ifparticles from sediments thatoverlie limestone bedrock arewashed down into solutionchannels (small caves) in thelimestone. In some cases thepresence of a road can acceleratethe loss or material undergroundif the road changes naturaldrainage conditions. Culverts area common focus for karsticsubsidence or collapse, and theresulting instability can imperil theroad itself. This sinkhole beside a

public road in northern Tasmaniaillustrates the difficulties that canarise. Once such a process isinitiated it can be hard to stem -

Another reminder to tread carefullycareful planning to minimise therisk of initiating acceleratedsubsidence is a lot cheaper thanrecurent repairs.

9

FloraEucalyptus radiata – Tasmania’s mystery eucalypt

Fred Duncan, Senior Botanist, Forest Practices BoardKatriona Hopkins, Project Officer, Forest Practices Board

Even though it is only likely to beencountered by FPOs in the CentralNorth of the State, this articledescribing the species and itsdistribution may be of morewidespread interest.

E. radiata is a peppermint which inTasmania is largely restricted to themiddle sections of the Forth Rivercatchment. It can grow as a tall tree(to 45 m) on shaded slopes (mainlyassociated with E. obliqua or E.delegatensis), but on infertile orexposed sites it may be less than 10m in height. Good specimens of E.radiata can be seen at Lorinna CricketGround and the LemonthymePower Station. It was here that in1953 Prof. W.D. Jackson firstrecognised the tall peppermint asbeing distinct from the closelyrelated E. amygdalina. It was thoughtfor many years to be a Tasmanianendemic species (like all the other

Eucalyptus radiata is not the rarest of Tasmania’s eucalypts (that distinction belongs to E. morrisbyi andE. perriniana) but it is probably the least well known.

Tasmanian peppermints) but recentresearch has shown that its affinitiesare with E. radiata subspecies radiata,which is found in Gippsland andSE New South Wales. It is knownas narrow-leaf peppermint on themainland, but that name is not

appropriate for Tasmania, where atleast two other peppermint specieshave narrower leaves than E. radiata.Perhaps Forth River peppermint isa reasonable name to use inTasmania.

E. radiata has many similarities withE. amygdalina (black peppermint)and E. nitida (Smithtonpeppermint), which accounts formany of the problems withidentification. Members of thepeppermint group hybridisereadily, and intermediatesinvolving E. radiata and E.amygdalina or E. nitida occurthroughout the range of E. radiata,

but are most common towards itsmargins.

Katriona Hopkins has recentlycompleted a study of thedistribution of E. radiata inTasmania. The study was funded

by Mersey District,with support alsobeing given by theForest Practices Board.One reason for thestudy was that E.radiata is listed as a rarespecies on theTasmanian ThreatenedSpecies Protection Act,and is also listed asr e q u i r i n gc o n s e r v a t i o nmanagement in theRFA. Pre-loggingsurveys showed thatE. radiata occurred insome areas proposedfor native forestlogging or plantationestablishment. Therewas clearly a need toget more informationon:

• characteristics allowing E. radiatato be identified;

• the range and habitats of E. radiata,and its potential distribution;

• the effect of forestry activities onE. radiata;

• occurrence of E. radiata in formaland informal reserves.

The study found that the Tasmaniandistribution of E. radiata is centredon the middle and uppercatchments of the Forth River(altitudinal range 200-830 m). Itoccurs on basalt, granite, quartzite,sediments and metamorphic

10

substrates. There was evidence ofhybridisation, and possiblyoutlying stands, in the Merseycatchment (Gog Range, Lienna andCroesus Cave), Arm River Flats andsouth of Nietta. Some previousrecords from the Murchison Rivercatchment were discounted.

The understorey of forestscontaining E. radiata varies fromdry sclerophyll to wet sclerophyll,with many sites best described asdamp sclerophyll (i.e. having amixture of wet and dry forestspecies). RFA communities whichcould contain E. radiata include E.viminalis wet forest (VW), E.delegatensis dry (D) or wetforest(DT); E. obliqua dry (O) or wetforest (OT) and damp sclerophyllforest (DSC).

Surveys of some coupes that hadbeen logged and regenerated tonative forest found that E. radiataregenerated prolifically fromseedlings and coppice. AlthoughE. radiata occurs in native forest(and regenerating coupes)throughout much of its range,significant habitat loss has resultedfrom hydro-electric developmentand agricultural clearing.

Part of the upper Forth valleypopulation of E. radiata is reservedwithin the Cradle Mountain – LakeSt Clair National Park. This includesthe 281 hectares reservedspecifically for preservation of

Floraunlogged stands of E. radiata by theForestry Commission in 1987.Unlogged E. radiata also occursfurther down the Forth River systemwithin a Special Management Zone(SMZ) in State forest on the westernside of Lake Cethana. E. amygdalinax E. radiata intermediates have beenrecorded from the Croesus CaveReserve on the Mersey River.

The study recommends thatrelatively undisturbed stands of E.radiata should be protected.Elsewhere outside reserves, therequirements of the ThreatenedSpecies Protection Act and the RFAcan be accommodated when nativeforest logging is followed byregeneration practices that includelocal E. radiata in the seed mix.

The key below should allow FPOsto distinguish E. radiata from E.amygdalina or E. nitida. Note thatjuvenile leaves are an importantdiagnostic feature. These are theleaves on seedlings and coppice –not young adult leaves.

E. radiata is illustrated in Native Treesof Tasmania (Kirkpatrick andBackhouse) and Forest Trees ofTasmania (available from Boral).Information on its distribution andaffinities is given in Tasforests 8 (seethe article by Williams and Potts).Tasforests 8 is now out of print, butits available on the ForestryTasmania web site –www.forestrytas.com.au. A CD ofthis issue is also available fromForestry Tasmania.

FPOs should contact the FPBbotanist if they think E. radiata (or E.radiata hybrids) may be present in aproposed coupe. Information aboutunusual or outlying occurrencesoutside coupes should also bereported.

Author contact: (03) 6233 7804Fred.Duncan@fpb.tas.gov.au

1 Adult trees with rough bark more thanhalfway up the trunk

2

Adult trees with rough bark less thanhalfway up the trunk

E. nitida

2 Juvenile leaves lanceolate (generally under12 mm wide at widest point)

E. amygdalina

Juvenile leaves broad lanceolate to elliptic(over 15 mm wide at widest point)

E. radiata

11

FaunaDesigning Better Wildlife Habitat Clumps

Nathan Duhig, Scientific Officer, Forest Practices BoardSarah Munks, Senior Zoologist, Forest Practices Board

Mark Wapstra, Scientific Officer, Forest Practices Board

A recent project studying wildlife habitat clumps (WHCs) in State forest has revealed someinteresting points that could lead to better designed and placed clumps.

The overall aim of this project is tomonitor over the long-term themortality rates of trees retainedwithin clumps in partially loggedState forest. This will provideinformation important for assessingthe long-term efficacy of wildlifehabitat tree and clump retentionstrategies in Tasmania’s productionforests.

Long-term monitoring plots wereestablished in 29 WHCs in 10recently logged state forest coupesin Derwent and Mersey Districts.A number of variables wererecorded for all the trees in the

clumps and the trees permanentlytagged and the clumps mapped.

Future work will monitor plots on a5 yearly basis to assess long-termmortality rates of retained treeswithin wildlife habitat clumps andassess the relationship betweenmortality rates of trees in WHCsand environmental variables such

as slope, aspect, geology,silvicultural regime, edge effects,etc.

In general, the composition of theclumps surveyed satisfied theForest Practices Code requirements.The size of clumps ranged from20x20m to 50x40m and all clumpscontained a mixture of ages of trees.Although the majority of treesretained in clumps were youngregrowth a proportion of the treesfitted the description of ‘habitat’trees and 96% of the clumps contain2-3 ‘habitat’ trees. This was incontrast to a recent study of the

retention of clumps in ten selectivelylogged coupes on private land in SETasmania (Richards et. al., in prep)where only 55% of 31 clumpssurveyed contained habitat treesand the clumps were significantlysmaller.

A number of different methods foridentifying and marking out WHCs

in State Forest coupes wereencountered during the study. The‘best’ results were usuallyassociated with a Forest Officeridentifying and marking out theWHCs with blue tape, in areaswhich broadly correspond withproposed clump positions markedon the THP map.

However, some very good resultswere also found in coupes wherethe logging contractor had beenresponsible for identifying andmarking out the clumps. In thesecoupes, the THP required theWHCs to be identified by a doubleyellow tape on the central tree ofthe clump, but the contractor hadinstead marked all the way aroundthe WHC in yellow or blue tape.

In the instances where the clumpswere marked in the centre withdouble yellow tape, not only werethe clumps difficult to locate (notreally a problem as long as thehabitat is being preserved), but theytended to be smaller than clumpswhich had been flagged all the wayaround.

A few WHCs in a minority of coupesdid not seem to have been flaggedat all, making it difficult todistinguish between them and areasof advanced regrowth retention.The THP for one coupe specified 33WHCs but no definite WHCs werelocated in several hours ofsearching. Instead there were anumber of elongate rocky ‘steps’that had been left unlogged,presumably accounting for theWHC requirements. Although suchareas capture some fauna habitat,clumps also need to be retained inthe more productive areas of acoupe to ensure the retention ofgood ‘habitat’ trees.

A well designed and placed clump in coupe WT007A, containing a rangeof age classes and at least two habitat trees.

12

FaunaSome THPs specified a ‘zone’ inwhich the clumps were to belocated. This is acceptable butinstructions on the positioning ofclumps within this zone need to beclear. For example some THPsstated that: “These clumps are to beretained within zone shown on theattached map at a maximumspacing of 200m between clumps,commencing from the edge of thezone.” One interpretation of this is‘…clumps commence 200m fromthe edge of the zone’ which is notthe intent of the original statementand map.

During the establishment of thelong-term monitoring plots itbecame clear that tree mortality inWHCs might be reduced byapplying some commonsense toplacement and design. As might be

expected exposure is the greatestthreat to clumps and individualtrees. Isolated clumps that areplaced near ridge tops, or above alarge landing etc, are more at risk ofincreased mortality than are moresheltered clumps. Similarly, largetrees on exposed edges of WHCsare more at risk than similar treesinside the clump.

WHCs with snigging on theboundaries tend to suffer fromincreased edge damage, rangingfrom soil and root damage, stemsthat are grazed by machinery, usedas ‘bump’ trees, ranging up to treesthat are knocked over by loggingmachinery. Pre-existing drainagepatterns are often changed by snigtracks that can impact upon nearbyWHCs. Ideally, WHCs should belocated away from major snig

tracks.

Despite all the best intentions withclump placement and design, oneof the primary factors influencingtree mortality in the short term isthe way that the clumps are marked,as discussed above. Clumps thatare clearly flagged around the edgestend to be the most intact and withthe least disturbance around theedges.

For more information see:

Duhig, N., Munks, S.A., Wapstra,M. and Taylor, R. (in prep.)Mortality rates of retained habitattrees in State forest coupes: a long-term monitoring project. InitialReport to Forestry Tasmania andForest Practices Board.

Author contact: (03) 6233 8710Sarah.Munks@fpb.tas.gov.au

Have you seen a grey goshawk hunting?Sarah Munks, Senior Zoologist, Forest Practices Board

The Tasmanian grey goshawk stands out from the crowd: It is bigger than its mainland counterpart, it ispure white and it provides us with numerous challenges if we still want to have it around in the future.

The signal from the radio-transmitter gets stronger and thenwe see the grey goshawk sittingbelow a Melaleuca on her prey; alarge, very dead and bloody,

female ringtail possum. Theringtails nest has been destroyedin the attack and her two youngare nowhere in sight, probably lastnights dinner?

This encounter was part of a studywhich started recently and whichaims to determine the foragingrequirements of the grey goshawk,Accipter novaehollandaie. Little isknown of the ecology of thisspecies which is listed as Rare inthe Tasmanian Threatened SpeciesAct 1995 due to low and decliningnumbers. There are now less than110 breeding pairs in Tasmaniawith persecution and loss ofhabitat threatening the long-termsurvival of this bird. The greygoshawk may be particularlysensitive to habitat disturbancesince a high proportion of its rangecovers unreserved areas of forest.

Although the species has beenrecorded over much of Tasmaniamost sightings seem to berestricted to large areas of wetforest including rainforests.Breeding densities are greatest inblackwood swamps and riparian

Where's that bloody goshawk! Simon Plowright (the Welshman) radio-tracking a female grey goshawk in new blackwood swamp forest.

13

Faunablackwood forest in the north-westof the State. Ray Brereton and NickMooney assessed thecharacteristics of nesting habitatin 1994 and found that preferrednest sites were in blackwood treeslocated in wet forest adjacent towatercourses or in swamp forests.This information has enabled theformulation of managementrecommendations to conservenesting habitat in forestry areas.

However, little is known of theforaging habitat requirements ofthe species. The grey goshawk isknown to forage over a wide areaand access to suitable foraginghabitat is important for itsconservation. Studies on othermedium sized wet forest raptorssuggest that interconnecting forestareas of 20-30km2 are required tosustain a population .

Preliminary information suggeststhat hunting by adult grey goshawkis focussed on ‘old-growth’ wetforest. The bird primarily huntsfrom a perch. It sits on a branch andwaits for prey to fly past or moveand then it glides onto the prey andchases it (or just snatches it out of

bed in the case of our ringtailpossum!). The optimum vegetationstructure for this type of hunting isa stable branch in a shaded canopywith open space below the canopy,so the goshawk can manoeuvre tocatch prey.

The size differences between thesexes means that they probably havedifferent specific habitatrequirements for foraging. Malegrey goshawk are significantlysmaller than the ‘cocky-sized’females. This is reflected in the typeof prey taken by each sex . Malesprefer smaller mammals and birdswhereas the females prefermammals and can take ringtailpossums and rabbits up to 1.2kg.Although grey goshawks are oftenseen foraging in pasture/forestareas, these birds arepredominantly females hunting‘easy to catch’ prey such as poultryand rabbits. Such prey are too largefor the males who are thought to berestricted to the areas of denservegetation where smaller birds aremore common.

The modification of ‘old-growth’forest by forestry harvesting and

clearing for plantation or agriculturemay have implications for the futuresurvival of this species. Withoutadequate conservationmanagement a significant drop inthe number of grey goshawks inTasmania has been predicted asforest with ‘old growth’ structuralelements is reduced. Our study aimsto determine the foraging range andcharacteristics of foraging habitatrequired to maintain populationsof this species. Such informationwill enable planners to incorporateits needs into any regional plansand the refinement of currentmanagement prescriptions forForest Practices Plans.

In addition to our intensive radio-tracking work at our study site nearSmithton we are very interested inany incidental sightings of foraginggrey goshawks. If anyone has anyrecent observations or knows of anesting pair please send us thelocation details or pass them on toyour District/Company FaunaLiaison Officer. Any help with thisstudy will be greatly appreciated.

Author contact: (03) 6233 8710Sarah.Munks@fpb.tas.gov.au

14

Soils

The study looked at the result offire on pine and eucalypt forests inPortugal, on a rock type(Precambrian schist rich in quartz)that also occurs in Tasmania.

The researchers (Thomas, Walshand Shakesby) found that hotburns, which burnt the litter layersabove the mineral soil, made thesurface layer much more prone tonutrient loss for two reasons.Firstly because large amounts ofnutrient-rich ash and partly-combusted material remained onthe soil surface; and secondly,

Fire, Erosion and Nutrient LossPeter McIntosh, Senior Soil & Water Scientist, Forest Practices Board

A new study published in the journal Catena has shown how significant forest fire can be for nutrient lossif it occurs together with erosion.

because the lack of litter andvegetation cover in the burnt areamade the surface layer mobilewhen surface water flow occurredafter rainfall.

The actual nutrient losses were 6to 70 kg of nitrogen (N) per hectareyear, and up to 1 kg of phosphorus(P) and 1.25 kg of potassium (K).The losses continued for 3 to 4years after the fire. In terms of soilreserves, the maximum losseswere: 2% of total soil nitrogen (N)reserves over two years; 19% ofavailable P reserves over one year;

and 4% ofavailable Kreserves over 2years, for theeucalypt soil.These losses donot includelosses from soilleaching, lossesto theatmosphere, orprior losses byn u t r i e n tremoval in logs.The P loss wasconsidered mostserious (becauselittle P is addedin rainfall, and Pweathers lessrapidly frommost soils thanK). The P loss issimilar to thatreported byS t e w a r t ,Hopmans, Flinnand Croatto in

Victoria, Australia. Although N ismore easily replaced by rainfallinputs and by N-fixers such asAcacia species, and Adams andAttiwell, in studies in northeastTasmania have indicated that Nlosses are not a problem in forestshere, some researchers in Australia(Hopmans, Stewart and Flinn inVictoria and O’Connell and Grovein Western Australia) have arguedthat N losses after harvesting andburning do constitute a threat toforest sustainability.

Not all soils in Tasmania are aspoor in nutrients as the Portuguesesoils studied, so generalisationsmust be made cautiously.However, the study does showthe risk involved for futureproduction if fires on less-fertilesoils are accompanied by erosion.Therefore on the less fertile soils,which in general are also thosewhich tend to be more erodible(i.e. moderate to high or highererodibility class), effectiveplanning and post-fire operationalcare to minimise soil erosion arecrucial for maintaining forestsustainability.

For more information see:

Thomas, A., Walsh, R. & andShakesby, R. (1999): Nutrientlosses in eroded sediment afterfire in eucalyptus and pineforests in the wet Mediterraneanenvironment of northernPortugal. Catena 36: 283-302.

Author contact: (03 6233 8717Peter.McIntosh@fpb.tas.gov.au

The combination of infertile erodible soils plus hotburning can cause nutrient loss by erosion, which islikely to affect future productivity.

15

Geomorphology

Our camp-mates had beenhanging around for 18 millenniasince being shifted from an earliercampsite where they may havebeen for 100 millennia. If they hadbeen down-town that New YearsEve they might have wondered atall the fuss being made by some ofthe adherents to a calendar basedon just one of the many religionshumans have dreamt up.

I leant back against a boulder thathad been warmed by the afternoonsun, and gazed out into the clearair while my companion’s flutefloated my own, much shorter,memories across the lake.Preoccupied with our own lives,it’s easy to get our place in theworld out of context. Most of ushave enough trouble relating to allthat has happened in the passingof just one millennium. Our eyestend to just glaze over at themention of anything more. But wehumans are dependent uponresources that have taken muchlonger than a mere millennium toform, resources that accrue overgeological time scales but whichwe consume over human timescales. For instance, while we maylike to think forests are renewable,the landforms and soils theyrequire are non-renewable, overhuman time.

Four silly ways to try to come toterms with a long time

Different people can relate best todifferent analogies – so here arefour different (but hopefullycomplementary) approaches in thehope that one of them will workfor you:

The beer bottle analogy: Much ofTasmania’s forest landscape bearstestimony to the ice ages that, like

overzealous park rangers, haverepeatedly evicted those bouldersfrom successive campsites on theCentral Plateau. If you spent NewYears Day at the beach and hadone stubby of beer for every yearsince the most recent glaciersdisappeared from Tasmania, andthen stood the empties one on topof the other, they would towerabove the summit of Mt Kosciusko.That most recent ice age endedmany stubbies ago. But if we putit in context with the age of theEarth it may not seem so long.

The chocolate wrapper analogy: Letsrepresent the age of the Earth (4.5billion years) by the height of thatTasmanian ice age icon, CradleMountain. Now: (1) climb to thetop of Cradle; (2) take out a MarsBar from your pack together witha very sharp knife; (3) throw awaythe Mars Bar; (4) flatten out theMars Bar wrapper; and (5) peelthe wrapper into 29 films of equalthickness. Then lie just one ofthese films upon the summit rocks.That 1/29th thickness of a MarsBar wrapper added to the summitof Cradle Mountain would beproportional to the number ofyears since the Last Glaciationended, relative to the age of theEarth as represented by the heightof Cradle Mountain. Now we arestarting to talk about geologicaltime.

Counting fast: If you counted at therate of four numbers each secondyou would get to 345,600 in 24hours and 126.23 million by theend of the year (assuming youcould say the big numbers fastenough). It would take 36 years tocount to the age of the earth, and128 years to get to the cosmicorgasm when the universe was

conceived, the Big Bang. Plus 32seconds more for the humangenerations wasted in thismindless counting. But only ifyou get good enough to say about60 digits a second.

Compressing time: Coming back tothat time to count the Earth’slifetime, 36 years, lets compresswhat has happened on the Earthinto the lifetime of a 36 year oldforest manager, to get a feel for thedramas and pace of the Earth’s liferelative to our own. If the Earthformed the same day you wereborn, Tasmania’s oldest knownrocks would not have appeareduntil you were 28 years old. Theearliest evidence for decentmountains in Tasmania suggeststhey appeared just before your30th birthday (but they erodedaway fast so if you slept in thatmorning you probably missedthem). The mineral-rich MountRead Volcanics would haveappeared five years ago (so if thoseslackers in the mining industryhadn’t been out drinking the nightbefore they could have seen wherethe minerals were actually forminginstead of paralysing other landuses by imposing speculativestrategic prospectivity zones onour planning systems). The graniteat Freycinet and major foldingrepresented in many mountainsin southwest Tasmania wouldn’thave happened until after youturned 33. The dolerite soprominent in our landscape wouldhave been intruded into olderrocks only 15 months ago. Aboutthree months ago Antarctica andAustralia split apart sufficientlyto allow a decent circumpolarcurrent to get going, triggeringthe onset of southern polarglaciation.

Sustainability – a geomorphological perspectiveKevin Kiernan, Senior Geomorphologist, Forest Practices Board

To escape the hype of the Y2K New Years Eve we shared a camp beside an alpinelake with the most recent crop of glacial boulders on the Central Plateau.

16

The Pleistocene glaciationscommenced less than six days agoand the most recent ended onlyhalf an hour ago – each Pleistoceneice age would have lasted onlyabout seven hours, interglacialslike our present one lasting justover 30 minutes. When you goback to the beach to clean up thosestubbies, contemplate the fact thaton this compressed time scale thetides of glacial climate changeabout twice as fast as the sea tideschange and erase your footprintsfrom the world we really inhabittoday. In human time, theHimalayas are growing at aboutthe same speed as our fingernailsgrow. On our compressed 36 yeartime scale that would raise theHimalayas from sea level in just 3½ days – if we grew fingernails atthe same rate as the Earth, in the 5minutes it might take you to readthis your fingernails would havegrown nearly 7 m. Absent-mindedly picking your nose couldprove a serious health hazard. Letssee you get growth rates like thatout of your new forest plantation!

The price to be paid for a compressed-time perspective: A very great mannamed Tom Lehrer onceremarked, “it is a sobering thoughtthat by the time Mozart was myage he had been dead six years”. Ifwe reverse our earlier comparisonand stretch that 36 year humantime scale out over the 4.6 billionyear lifetime of the Earth we startto look pretty slow achievers. Onthis scale it took me 88.4 millionyears just to get my undergraduatedegree. I am cheered only by thefact that it took nearly 278 millionyears after being elected forsomeone we all know and love topluck up the courage to risk havingsomeone on his staff who wasclever enough to spell“frogwatcher”.

The other side of the ledger

How quickly are we usingresources that have taken a longtime to form and what may the

implications be? Many landformsand geoheritage sites form onlyunder special circumstances, suchas when volcanoes are erupting orwhen glaciers are around.Tasmania no longer enjoys either,so destroying or damaging suchlandforms is for keeps - take yourhand off that Mars Bar wrapperatop Cradle Mountain and it willblow away as fast as quarrying forroad gravel blew away the LastGlaciation end-moraine in theMersey Valley. Othergeologicalresources form under conditionssimilar to present, but only over avery long time. Still others arecomposite, like some old soils thatare largely the product of chemicalweathering and organicaccumulation under relativelywarm and mild conditions such aswe presently enjoy, their formationbeing episodically slowed byperiods of colder, drier climate.

Work a few of us did on doleritesoils at Wielangta a few years ago,using the radioactive tracercaesium 137, revealed soil lossduring the initial three years aftercable logging had averaged 2.5tonnes/ha/year on one coupe and4.0 tonnes/ha/year on another.Similar work on grazing andcultivated land elsewhere in thestate indicated losses of 5.0 and19.3 tonnes/ha/year. Should wetake heart that the impacts offorestry may be less than those ofagriculture? Only if we were sureerosion rates from the coupes didnot exceed the rate of soilformation (or have an alternativeto eating food grown in soil).

Many things go into making a soil,but one very important ingredientis rock. Soils form at differentrates on different rock types,related partly to how easilyweathered they are. Hence, soilsform more rapidly on dolerite thanthey do on quartzite. Dolerite soilsare far richer in nutrients and lesserodible, hence, we tend toconsider dolerite soils less of a

worry than some others. But noteven dolerite soils form quickly.Dolerite pebbles deposited inglacial moraines during the lastice age typically have a skin ofweathered but still intact rockaround them that even after 14,000years still averages only 1.3 mmthick (none thicker than 5.3 mmhave been found yet). Noworganic, aerosol and othercontributions must be consideredtoo, but when you consider eventhose “modest” erosion rates ...

For my money, the scariest thingabout soil erosion is that we havelittle idea how fast our soil capitalaccrues in the first place. So justrunning around the landscapetrying to work out how fast soilmay be disappearing (and maybehoping to find a worse culprit toblame) is a bit like focusing ourpersonal finance management ondeveloping new ways to recordhow much money we arewithdrawing with our credit card,while ignoring the fact that wedon’t know whether new moneyis ever being put into the account– and suspecting none is.

If nothing else, time andgeoheritage ought to teach us alittle humility. The time framesover which many of our geo-resources have formed areenormous. Our human lifetimespass un-noticed between theheartbeats of bigger things.Measured against earth-time,humanity destroyed the ancientScotchtown fossil cave with itsgiant marsupial bones in the blinkof an eye, and drowned ice-ageLake Pedder in a fraction of asneeze. That soil lost fromWielangta and elsewhere won't beback in time for our kids, orprobably even for our species.Achieving genuine sustainabilityis far from easy. Sound forestpractices are essential if we are tominimise the loss of geo-resources.

Author contact: (03 6233 7716)Kevin.Kiernan@fpb.tas.gov.au

Geomorphology