Forest Practices news - fpa.tas.gov.au€¦ · 1 Forest Practices News vol 3 no 4 September 2001 vol 4 no 1 ISSN 1441-1288 Forest Practicesnews published by the Forest Practices Board,

1 Forest Practices News vol 3 no 4

September 2001 vol 4 no 1 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 [email protected] – 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

Developments ..................... 3

Noticeboard ....................... 4

Features ............................ 5

Culture Copse .................... 8

Fauna ................................ 9

Flora ............................... 10

Landscape ........................ 12

Soils ............................... 13

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

contents

The black boxKevin Kiernan, editor, FPB

Varied reading again this issue, including updates on recent developments,a thought provoking contribution on forest regulation, some examples ofgood practical outcomes from the efforts of Tasmania’s dedicated band ofFPOs, and a variety of other contributions.

At a staff meeting, when I first worked for the Tasmanian Forestry Commissionback in 1983, then Chief Commissioner John Quick drew attention to thedismal outcomes for one powerful government agency that had adopted asiege mentality in confronting the major environmental issue of the day, andemphasised there were lessons we all should learn. Indeed he was alreadyleading the forest industry down a far more constructive path. I particularlyremember valuing the intellectual honesty that I encountered in the ForestryCommission around that time, and the Commission’s possession ofsufficient moral backbone to allow expression of contrary views, both ofwhich contrasted starkly with some other outfits with which I had beeninvolved. Such things played a major role in making a return to theCommission much more attractive to me than some other apparently moreexotic options in later years. So I am delighted that in this FPN we are ableto acknowledge John Quick’s critical role in establishing our forest practicessystem.

After having edited FPN since its inception this is my last issue beforehanding editorship on to Mark Wapstra and Fred Duncan. While there arestill many things I would like to do with FPN (if I thought I could get awaywith it!) I think its time for some revitalisation of the newsletter and theinjection of some fresh ideas. Thanks for all your help and support in thepast, and please extend all the help you can to Mark and Fred.

John Quick – a visionary of the Tasmanian forest practices system

Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer

John Quick, ex-Chief Commissioner for Forests and a Director of Forestry Tasmania, quietly retired from activeservice to Tasmanian forestry last year. John’s career includes many notable achievements, but many newforesters may be unaware of the role he played as one of the visionary fathers of the forest practices system.

The idea for a forest practices systemin Tasmania came about in the early1970s when concerns about the newexport woodchip trade promptedcalls for better controls over forestharvesting and regeneration. TheGentle-Everett Inquiry in the mid1970s recommended that Tasmania

develop a forest practices systemand address the concerns about thelong term management andregeneration of forests on privateland. John Quick was appointed asthe Commissioner for PrivateForests and shortly after hisappointment he travelled with the

Minister for Forests (Neil Batt) toNorth America to review theirsystems. John’s view was thatCalifornia was already over-regulated, Washington washeading the same way, but Oregonhad developed a very good system,with a focus on outcomes ratherthan process. John came back toTasmania with the challenge ofdesigning a system that wouldwork here. At that time there wasvirtually no regulation of forestryoperations on private landanywhere in Australia. Herecognised that heavy-handedgovernmental regulation wasunlikely to work and he looked for

c-grove

Typewritten Text

Trim 2010/129549

2Forest Practices News vol 3 no 4

incentives to gain the support of theprivate sector. The incentivesincluded provision for resourcesecurity in the form of PrivateTimber Reserves. PTRs weredesigned to encourage landownersto make a commitment to the longterm management of their forests,without the threat of theirinvestment being denied bychanges in planning schemes.Furthermore, the proposed forestpractices system provided for a

minimum of bureaucracy,with a high degree of self-regulation. In return, theprivate sector agreed to beregulated under a legallybinding Forest PracticesCode. A major watershedfor forest regulation inAustralia!

John was the mainarchitect of the ForestPractices Act, whichbrought all of theprovisions together into alegal package. It is a creditto his vision anddiplomacy that he wasable to garner support forthe Act from all sides ofpolitics, both Houses ofParliament, privatelandowners, the forest

industry and the unions. Johnremembers that the standards forforest practices were designed fromthe outset to be promulgated aspractical guidelines in a Code ofPractice, rather than as legalisticRegulations under the Act as insome American States. A glimpseat the highly litigious Californiansystem serves as a salient reminderthat an excessively legalistic andprescriptive system does not equateto good environmental, social or

economic outcomes.

John is justifiably proud thatTasmania is recognised as havingone of the best forest practicessystems in the world. He remembersthat his visit to North America wasof fundamental importance inproviding ideas on where to go,and where not to go.*

John handed over the baton for

forest practices when he retired as

C h ief C o m m issioner in 1986, after

the enactm e n t of the Forest PracticesAct and shortly before the release ofthe first Forest Practices Code.Others took up the challenge ofimplementing the system,including the first Chief ForestPractices Officer Evan Rolley andlater, Bert Witte, and one hundrednewly appointed Forest PracticesOfficers, but that’s a story foranother time ...

(* for readers interested in a recentoverview of trends in forestpractices in North America, seeWilkinson, G.R. 2000 Giantredwoods, fish and litigation – Godbless America. Forest Practices News2 (3): 6-8).

author contact: (03) 6233 [email protected]

Protecting geoconservation values

If you have ever considered that environmental protection measures in Tasmania might be abit restrictive, take a look at the measures adopted at this beach in a karst area in southernTurkey. This site, Cleopatra Beach, is of scientific significance because its carbonate sand

grains are oolitic, formed by a somewhat similar process to that which creates pearls.


DevelopmentsEnvironmental Management System, Forestry Tasmania

Adrian Walls, Environmental Officer, Forestry Tasmania (Bass District)Introduction

Forestry Tasmania hasimplemented a comprehensiveEnvironmental ManagementSystem (EMS) to ensure a moresystematic approach to managingenvironmental issues and tominimise any negative impacts.Certification of our environmentalpractices to the ISO14001 willformalise our long-termcommitment to sustainable forestmanagement. Forestry Tasmania’sEnvironmental ManagementSystem comprises the followingcomponents:

• Environmental policy thatcommits the company toimplementing sustainableforest managementencompassing ecological,social and economic issues.

• Aspects and Impacts registerbased on a comprehensivereview of all the activitiesundertaken by the companyand their impacts on theenvironment.

• Register of all environmentallegislation that pertains toForestry Tasmania’s activities.

• A set of “Standard OperatingProcedures”(SOP) setting outdetailed procedures forconducting activities in Stateforests.

• Training of all staff in the EMSand other aspects relatedspecific to their work.

• Monitoring programmes,Emergency ResponseProcedures and CorrectiveAction procedures to measure

compliance with the system,and to deal with any problems.

• Management review of thesystem to ensure continualimprovement.

District / Field levelEach district has appointed aperson whose role is to manage theEMS at a district level and supportstaff and contractors to implementthe system. Operations in the fieldare carried out according to therelevant Standard OperatingProcedures. SOPs, which coverroading, harvesting or reforestationcomply with the Forest Practices Codeand other policy and regulatoryrequirements. The forestry personnel,using a standard checklistregularly monitor all operations.Any problems are documented ona Corrective Action Report (CAR),where action plans, target datesand preventative actions aredetailed. CARs are entered into adatabase controlled by theEnvironmental Co-ordinator, whoensures that the issues areaddressed and completed to therequired standard.

A good example of the EMSimproving operational practices iswhere a supervisor may note aproblem where a difficult (thickvegetation) streamside reserve wasincorrectly marked. A CAR wouldbe filled in detailing action plansand preventative actions. Fieldvisits may then be held with othersupervisors to discuss these issuesand the interpretation of the streamclassifications. The outcome(preventative action) may result in

different work methods to preventundesired outcomes.

Monitoring reports undertaken ateach operation are summarised intothe District Forest OperationsMonitoring Report, which identifiesany areas for improvement. Thedistrict reports are then collated toform the monthly state-wide ForestOperations Monitoring Report forthe executive.

Conclusion

Forestry Tasmania’s EMS is stillquite new and people are rapidlybecoming familiar with the system.It is an ongoing process ofawareness, setting objectives andtargets, improving standards andimplementing these improvements.The organisation’s commitment tocertification at ISO14001 willfurther enhance ForestryTasmania’s commitment toenvironmentally responsible andsustainable forest management.The next stage of theimplementation, an audit bycertified external consultants, isscheduled for September 2001. Thesystem benefits the district and thebusiness as it ensures a systematicapproach to managingenvironmental issues, which inturn minimises the impacts of ouractivities on the environment,ensures continual improvement inour operations and manages ourenvironmental risks.

author contact: (03) [email protected]

Retirement of Ken Felton as Chair of the BoardGraham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer

Ken Felton retired as Chair of theForest Practices Board at the end ofJune 2001. The Board has praisedthe contribution that Ken has madeto the development of the forestpractices system as Chair of theBoard since its inception in 1994.Ken successfully presided over the

separation of the Board fromForestry Tasmania in 1999 and hadguided its development as anindependent statutory authority.Ken remains as a member of theBoard until his expected retirementlater this year.Kim Evans is the new Chair. Kim is

the Secretary of the Department ofPrimary Industries, Water andEnvironment and is also Chair ofthe Environmental Managementand Pollution Control Board.



Noticeboard

ContributorsTony Cooper

Ian Hammond

Craig Hawkins

Gary King

Richard Barnes

Guidelines for contributorsForest Practices News is published quarterly by the Forest Practices Board,Tasmania. FPN provides a means for communicating new ideas and developmentsamong those interested in the sustainable management of Tasmania’s forests. Weparticularly welcome contributions from practicing FPOs. We welcome bothfeature articles and shorter contributions of even just a paragraph or two. Pleaseinclude illustrations with your contributions if at all possible. Contributions can besupplied either as hard copy or electronically. If forwarding material electronically,the address is [email protected]. Please ensure that figs/pics are sent asseparate files and not embedded in Word documents. We look forward to seeingyou in print in FPN!

Bruce Chetwynd

Peter MacIntosh

Graham Wilkinson

Kevin Kiernan

Forward Training Program – Forest Practices Board

Confirmed and proposed training 2001/02

Natasha Beveridge, Forestry Tasmania, phone 62337483. Course run jointly by Forestry Tasmania andForest Practices Board.

Author contact: (03) 6233 [email protected]

Course (Contact) Timing Duration Location Course ContentForest practicestraining forsupervisors(NatashaBeveridge1)

15-18 Oct.2001

22-25 Oct.2001

4 days

4 days

Orford

Ulverstone

General training in forestpractices for FT and othersupervisors

Forest BotanyManuals(Fred Duncan/Mark Wapstra)

To beconfirmed

1 day Variouslocations

Train FPOs in use of the newBotany Manuals

Cultural Heritagerefresher course(Denise Gaughwin)

Oct. or Nov.2001

1 day 1 each in north,north west, andsouth?

Upgrade skills in culturalheritage management.Prerequisite is prior competencyin cult. heritage (archaeology)course

Forest PracticesManager training(Chris Mitchell)

March 2002 2 days To be confirmed Update forest managers onrequirements of the forestpractices system

Forest PracticesOfficer refreshercourse(Chris Mitchell)

March –April 2002

2 days Variouslocations

Update existing FPOs onchanges to forest practicessystem

Forest practicestraining forsupervisors(Chris Mitchell)

Approx.May 2002

4 day To be confirmed General training in forestpractices for FT and othersupervisors

Forest PracticesOfficer course(Chris Mitchell)

Winter 2002 12 day Various Pre-requisite course forappointment as FPO


Feature

Foresters from various jurisdictions around Australia periodically complain about the increasing difficultiesof their regulatory environment and its impact on forest management. Having recently arrived in Tasmania afterworking as a forester for many years in NSW I can assure readers that NSW foresters look with envy on theefficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory approach in Tasmania.

A perspective on forest regulationGary King, Senior Forest Planner, Forestry Tasmania

State Forests of NSW (formerly theForestry Commission) in the sixtiestook the initiative with early codesof practice and in the seventies andeighties led the way with improvedenvironmental management. Theseinitiatives included the areas of soiland water protection, improvedwildlife management, and heritageprotection.

Due to increasing externalpressures in the early nineties StateForests decided to carry out anumber of environmental impactassessments for native forestharvesting. The organisation alsoapplied for licences under the waterpollution and threatened specieslegislation. These processes led toan explosion of licence conditionsthat flowed through and increasedas a result of the NSW RFAs. Thereare now five agencies that have aregulatory role in native forestharvesting and two other agenciesthat join the party for plantationestablishment. There are severalhundred conditions that arefrequently used in the preparationand implementation of native forestharvesting plans. Ensuringconsistency of interpretationbetween regulatory agencies whereconditions overlap (eg. riparianzones) has created difficulties attimes. The explosion in regulationled to a substantial increase inbureaucracy and managementcosts. Foresters and plannersbecame tied up in a mountain ofpaperwork and ended up spendingless time in the forest. There arediffering views as to whether theincreased regulation actuallyresulted in better outcomes for forestmanagement,

The current situation in NSW ofhaving an RFA in place has easedthe situation to some extent. Licenceconditions are no longer beingcontinually ramped up.Government agencies have agreedto allow a degree of self regulationwith individual harvesting plansno longer being submitted torespective agencies for approval.Planners now have some certaintynotwithstanding the complexregulatory environment in whichthey work. However there are nocurrent signs that NSW intends tomove to a more efficient andmanageable regulatoryenvironment.

Unlike Tasmania, private forest inNSW was not included in the RFAs.A Best Operating Standard forsustainable native forestry onprivate land is close to completion.The new Code of Practice forplantation establishment isexpected to be available in about amonth and will apply to both publicand private land.

The practicality and simplicity ofthe “one stop shop” approach inTasmania where forestry on bothpublic and private land is regulatedunder the Forest Practices Act hasmany advantages compared to theNSW situation. While the ability toimpose sanctions is a necessarycomponent of the Act the objectivesof the forest practices system inTasmania as laid out in Schedule 7of the Act are constructive andencouraging with the intent ofdelivering sustainable forestmanagement. Tasmanian forestersshould strongly support theirsystem, implement it with diligence

and contribute to constructive andcontinuous improvement.

A professional approach is the keyto good forest management. It isworthwhile foresters consideringwhether, in the absence of anyregulations they would implementthe same or similar prescriptions tothose provided under the ForestPractices Code. In most instancesthis would be the case.

The alternative to the Tasmanianforest practices system is higherdegrees of governmentalregulation, which as the NSWexperience demonstrates, willsubstantially increase costswithout necessarily improvingoutcomes in the forest.


Forest PracticesOfficers

- - - - - - - - -are you moving?

To help us maintain anaccurate database of

FPOs and to ensure thatcirculars reach you,

please advise us if youare transferring,

resigning or retiring.Thanks

Kylie and Sheryl – phone(03) 6233 7966; [email protected]

- - - - - - - - -


Feature

Introduction

An ever growing number of landowners, land managers and community groups are actively conserving and managingareas of native vegetation and threatened fauna and flora habitat across Tasmania, King Island and the Furneaux Group.In recognition of this stakeholder demand, and the need to sustainably manage Australia’s natural resources and uniqueenvironment, the Commonwealth Government funded the National Bushcare Program through the Natural Heritage Trustin 1997. In broad terms, the Program aims to reverse the long-term decline of Australia’s native vegetation and biologicaldiversity.

Bushcare Extension for Tasmania -helping to manage Tasmania’s native flora and fauna

Richard Barnes, Coordinator Bushcare Technical, DPIWE

The Bushcare Program, also known asthe National Vegetation Initiative, hasthe primary objective of reversing thelong-term decline in the extent andquality of Australia’s native vegetationcover. It aims to achieve this byconserving native vegetation andbiological diversity and restoring nativevegetation and improving degradedproductive systems through strategicrevegetation works. The Programfunds a diversity of projects acrossAustralia to achieve its objectives andis supported in each State and Territoryby a team of extension staff. InTasmania, the extension team isfunded under the Bushcare Extensionfor Tasmania project which has therole of assisting with theimplementation of the BushcareProgram in Tasmania, and to facilitatecommunity and technical extension to

Bushcare Program funded projects.

Who and what is Bushcare Extensionfor Tasmania?

The Bushcare Extension for Tasmaniaproject helps implement the BushcareProgram through the provision ofregionally based extension officers.The project, overseen by Ian Marmion(State Bushcare Coordinator) andRichard Barnes (Bushcare TechnicalCoordinator) within the Dept. ofPrimary Industries Water andEnvironment, consists of two groups;Community Officers and TechnicalOfficers.

Bushcare Community Officers areregionally based, often in non-Government organisations, and areusually the first point of contact forlandowners and community groupsinterested in protecting and managingnative vegetation, or joining the Landfor Wildlife program (see below).

Bushcare Technical Officers are trainedbotanists and zoologists who providesite-specific management advice andinformation on the flora and fauna ofa property. Technical Officers canassist with the identification andmanagement of rare and threatenedflora and fauna and the developmentof management plans to manage fornature conservation values on aproperty.

What does Bushcare Extension forTasmania offer?

As landowners and land managers havedifferent needs and managementpractices Bushcare Officers offernumerous services. Bushcare Officersaim to provide the most up-to-dateand best possible advice and servicesto their clients. Advice is free and thereis no obligation on the client toimplement any of the

recommendations provided to them.

Management Advice

Bushcare Officers can providelandowners and land managers withinformation on the flora and faunathey have on their properties, itsconservation and landscapesignificance, and written managementrecommendations to maintain orenhance its condition. Managing forflora and fauna conservation valuesdoes not necessarily precludecommercial activities. In some cases,appropriate stock grazing regimes andfirewood collection may be acceptableactivities in some vegetation types.These issues, and others such as weedcontrol and fire regimes, are discussedin consultation with the client toachieve his/her managementobjectives.

Referrals for funding on-groundworks

Bushcare Officers can make referralson behalf of landowners to DevolvedGrant (DG) projects. DG projectsgenerally operate within a definedgeographic zone (e.g. a catchment ormunicipality boundary) and areprincipally funded to assist with on-ground works, for example the controlof non-native plants in bush areas,fencing to manage stock access tonative vegetation and off-streamwatering points. Landowners canapproach DG project staff directly ifthey wish. Bushcare Officers can becontacted for information on whichDG projects operate within your region,or you can contact the Natural HeritageTrust Unit in Hobart for a complete list.

Referrals for covenants ormanagement agreements

Landowners who express an interestin a covenant or long-termmanagement agreement on theirproperty (or part) during or after a

Riparian Eucalyptus globulus forestis foraging and nesting habitat for

the endangered Swift Parrot(Lathamus discolor) and othernative birds (Photo: Richard

Barnes).

Introduction

An ever growing number of landowners, land managers and community groups are actively conserving andmanaging areas of native vegetation and threatened fauna and flora habitat across Tasmania, King Island andthe Furneaux Group. In recognition of this stakeholder demand, and the need to sustainably manage Australia’snatural resources and unique environment, the Commonwealth Government funded the National BushcareProgram through the Natural Heritage Trust in 1997. In broad terms, the Program aims to reverse the long-termdecline of Australia’s native vegetation and biological diversity.The Bushcare Program, also knownas the National VegetationInitiative, has the primary objectiveof reversing the long-term declinein the extent and quality ofAustralia’s native vegetation cover.It aims to achieve this by conservingnative vegetation and biologicaldiversity and restoring nativevegetation and improving degradedproductive systems throughstrategic revegetation works. TheProgram funds a diversity ofprojects across Australia to achieveits objectives and is supported ineach State and Territory by a teamof extension staff. In Tasmania, theextension team is funded under theBushcare Extension for Tasmaniaproject which has the role of

assisting with the implementationof the Bushcare Program inTasmania, and to facilitatecommunity and technicalextension to Bushcare Programfunded projects.

Who and what is BushcareExtension for Tasmania?

The Bushcare Extension for Tasmaniaproject helps implement theBushcare Program through theprovision of regionally basedextension officers. The project,overseen by Ian Marmion (StateBushcare Coordinator) andRichard Barnes (BushcareTechnical Coordinator) within theDept. of Primary Industries Waterand Environment, consists of twogroups; Community Officers andTechnical Officers.Bushcare Community Officers areregionally based, often in non-Government organisations, and areusually the first point of contact forlandowners and communitygroups interested in protecting andmanaging native vegetation, orjoining the Land for Wildlifeprogram (see below).

Bushcare Technical Officers aretrained botanists and zoologistswho provide site-specificmanagement advice andinformation on the flora and faunaof a property. Technical Officerscan assist with the identificationand management of rare andthreatened flora and fauna and thedevelopment of management plansto manage for nature conservationvalues on a property.

What does Bushcare Extension forTasmania offer?

As landowners and land managershave different needs andmanagement practices BushcareOfficers offer numerous services.Bushcare Officers aim to providethe most up-to-date and bestpossible advice and services to theirclients. Advice is free and there isno obligation on the client toimplement any of therecommendations provided tothem.

Management AdviceBushcare Officers can providelandowners and land managerswith information on the flora andfauna they have on their properties,its conservation and landscapesignificance, and writtenmanagement recommendations tomaintain or enhance its condition.Managing for flora and faunaconservation values does notnecessarily preclude commercialactivities. In some cases,appropriate stock grazing regimesand firewood collection may beacceptable activities in somevegetation types. These issues, andothers such as weed control andfire regimes, are discussed inconsultation with the client toachieve his/her managementobjectives.

Referrals for funding on-groundworks

Bushcare Officers can makereferrals on behalf of landownersto Devolved Grant (DG) projects.DG projects generally operatewithin a defined geographic zone


Feature

Bushcare survey are directly referredto the Private Forest Reserves Program(see FPN vol 3 no 2) or the ProtectedAreas on Private Land Program byBushcare Officers. Bushcare Officershave already referred 62 properties tothese programs for their consideration.

Tasmanian Bushcare Toolkit

The Tasmanian Bushcare Toolkit,developed by Bushcare and unique forAustralia, brings together practicalmanagement advice and informationon Tasmania’s native vegetation. It isa valuable decision making tool forlandowners, land managers andcommunity groups in appropriatelymanaging natural areas with respectto issues such as weeds, fire regimes,stocking rates and first principles forrevegetation works. The Toolkit isavailable electronically (PDF) on theweb at www.bushcare.tas.gov.au, orcan be purchased for $38.50 (includingpostage & handling and GST). Contactyour local Bushcare Officer for details.Tasmanian Bushcare Website

The Tasmanian Bushcare website isdesigned for people to identify thenative vegetation on their property byguiding them through a key based onthe characteristics of the tree layer (e.g.are there eucalypts present, is thevegetation treeless). Practicalmanagement options are provided foreach native vegetation type, some rareand threatened species, weeds andrevegetation works. The website isdesigned for use by landowners, landmanagers and technical officers, andprovides links to sites related to themanagement of native vegetation andhabitat, conservation, natural resource

management andsustainable land usepractices.

Land for Wildlife

The Land for Wildlifeprogram aims toencourage andassist landowners toconserve andprovide habitat forwildlife on their land,even though theirproperty may also bemanaged for otherpurposes. It alsoassists landownersto find solutions tom a n a g e m e n tproblems that

involve the protection andenhancement of wildlife habitat. Theprogram is entirely voluntary, free andBushcare Officers are trained to doproperty assessments for the program.More information is on the Bushcarewebsite (People and Projects).

How can Forest Practices Officerswork with Bushcare Officers?

Forest Practices Officers for the firsttime now have the option to refer theirclients, with their permission, to aregionally based Bushcare Officer forassistance with managing native

vegetation and fauna habitat on theirproperty. Assistance may be for areasnot affected by harvesting operations(e.g. heathland, grassland or riparianvegetation), areas excluded fromharvesting, areas not suitable for

commercial harvesting and plantationestablishment (e.g. low grade foreston poor soils) or for areas that havebeen selectively logged and left toregenerate naturally.

Landowners or land managers whowant information and advice on howto manage, conserve, enhance and/orrestore native vegetation, fauna habitator rare and threatened species on theirproperty can be referred to a BushcareOfficer for possible assistance. Forexample, this may be advice to manageriparian or remnant vegetation, orassistance to obtain funding from aDevolved Grant.

Contacting Bushcare:


For further information aboutBushcare and the Land for Wildlifeprogram contact your local BushcareOfficer or Coordinator -

· South and East: Jodie Epper andAndy Baird (6223 6377), RaeGlazik (6233 6835), Colin McCoull(6233 8322), Richard Barnes(6233 8310). Email:[email protected]

· North-east: Kristin Jaehne (63365427) and Micah Visoiu (63365270)

· North/North-west: Sean Cadman(6336 5419) and Nick Fitzgerald(6336 5267)

· King Island: Richard Barnes (62338310)

· Furneaux Group: Rae Glazik(6233 6835) and Kristin Jaehne(6336 5427)

Bushcare State Coordinator: IanMarmion DPIWE GPO Box 44, HobartTAS 7001, Phone 6233 6345, Fax6224 0884, Email:[email protected] Technical Coordinator:Richard Barnes DPIWE GPO Box44, Hobart TAS 7001, Phone 62338310, Fax 6233 3477, Email:[email protected]

Fencing bush remnants helps to manage stockaccess and grazing regimes. Fallen trees and deadwood provide habitat to small mammals, insects,lizards, and protection to regenerating seedlings

(Photo: Richard Barnes)

Blue Devil (Eryngium ovinum) isvulnerable to extinction and occurs

in woodlands, forest and nativegrasslands in the Midlands (Photo:

Hans & Annie Wapstra)

(e.g. a catchment or municipalityboundary) and are principallyfunded to assist with on-groundworks, for example the control ofnon-native plants in bush areas,fencing to manage stock access tonative vegetation and off-streamwatering points. Landowners canapproach DG project staff directlyif they wish. Bushcare Officers canbe contacted for information onwhich DG projects operate withinyour region, or you can contact theNatural Heritage Trust Unit inHobart for a complete list.

Referrals for covenants ormanagement agreementsLandowners who express aninterest in a covenant or long-termmanagement agreement on theirproperty (or part) during or after aBushcare survey are directlyreferred to the Private ForestReserves Program (see FPN vol 3 no2) or the Protected Areas on PrivateLand Program by Bushcare Officers.Bushcare Officers have alreadyreferred 62 properties to theseprograms for their consideration.

Tasmanian Bushcare Toolkit

The Tasmanian Bushcare Toolkit,developed by Bushcare and uniquefor Australia, brings togetherpractical management advice andinformation on Tasmania’s nativevegetation. It is a valuable decisionmaking tool for landowners, landmanagers and community groups

in appropriatelymanaging naturalareas with respectto issues such asweeds, fire regimes,stocking rates andfirst principles forr e v e g e t a t i o nworks. The Toolkitis availablee l e c t r o n i c a l l y(PDF) on theweb at www.bushcare.tas.gov.au,or can bepurchased for$38.50 (includingpostage &

handling and GST). Contact yourlocal Bushcare Officer for details.

Tasmanian Bushcare WebsiteThe Tasmanian Bushcare websiteis designed for people to identifythe native vegetation on theirproperty by guiding them througha key based on the characteristics ofthe tree layer (e.g. are there eucalyptspresent, is the vegetation treeless).Practical management options areprovided for each native vegetationtype, some rare and threatened

species, weeds and revegetationworks. The website is designed foruse by landowners, land managersand technical officers, andprovides links to sites related to themanagement of native vegetation

and habitat, conservation, naturalresource management andsustainable land use practices.Land for Wildlife

The Land for Wildlife programaims to encourage and assistlandowners to conserve andprovide habitat for wildlife on theirland, even though their propertymay also be managed for otherpurposes. It also assistslandowners to find solutions tomanagement problems that involvethe protection and enhancement ofwildlife habitat. The program isentirely voluntary, free andBushcare Officers are trained to doproperty assessments for theprogram. More information is onthe Bushcare website (People andProjects).

How can Forest Practices Officerswork with Bushcare Officers?

Forest Practices Officers for the firsttime now have the option to refertheir clients, with their permission,to a regionally based BushcareOfficer for assistance withmanaging native vegetation andfauna habitat on their property.Assistance may be for areas notaffected by harvesting operations(e.g. heathland, grassland orriparian vegetation), areasexcluded from harvesting, areasnot suitable for commercialharvesting and plantationestablishment (e.g. low grade foreston poor soils) or for areas that havebeen selectively logged and left toregenerate naturally.

Landowners or land managerswho want information and adviceon how to manage, conserve,enhance and/or restore nativevegetation, fauna habitat or rareand threatened species on theirproperty can be referred to aBushcare Officer for possibleassistance. For example, this maybe advice to manage riparian orremnant vegetation, or assistanceto obtain funding from a DevolvedGrant. Contact details are page 14.


Culture copseMy house fell in a hole

problems with soluble rocks! (and the inspiration for Alice in Wonderland?)Dr Tony Cooper, British Geological Survey

Alice fell down- down- down- deep into the earth, following the white rabbit. Curiouser and curiouser shethought, in this underground wonderland the walls are made of sparkly gypsum - CaSO4.2H2O (with apologiesto Lewis Carroll).

It has been suggested that theauthor’s vision of Alice fallingdown a deep vertical hole into anunderground land was inspiredby natural geological events,notably subsidence at Ripon inNorth Yorkshire. There is aconnection between the author, thecity of Ripon, and dramaticsubsidence that occurred at UreLodge, where the alleged model forthe published “Alice” illustrationsused to live. Beneath this area, thegypsum has a water-filled cavesystem within it, but gypsumdissolves quickly so that the cavesenlarge and commonly collapse.Collapse at Ure Lodge hascontinued to the present day. Itrecently caused the destruction offour modern garages and theevacuation of several houses,including the Lodge itself.Subsidence in Ripon, and manyother places underlain by gypsumposes a severe constraint on thedevelopment of those areas.Charles Dodgson, whose later penname was Lewis Carroll, was bornin Cheshire and moved at the age of11 to Croft Rectory south ofDarlington, in the North ofEngland. About one mile from therectory there are three ponds calledHells Kettles. These formed by adramatic collapse of the ground in1179, they overflow with foulsulphurous water; they werereputed to boil and be bottomless.Folk-lore said that a diver from thefar-east swam underground fromthe pits to the river. It was also toldthat a farmer who worked on StBarnaby’s Day was swallowed upand could be seen doing eternalpenance in the deep water. In 1958divers proved the pits to be 22 feet

deep and wenow knowthat theywere formedby gypsumdissolvingunderground.H o w e v e r ,these strangepits wouldhave beenknown to they o u n ginquisitiveC h a r l e sDodgson.When he grew up Charles Dodgsonwent to Christ Church, OxfordUniversity where he was awardeddegrees in Mathematics andClassics. In 1855 he became amathematical lecturer at the collegeand started to write under the penname of Lewis Carroll in 1856. In1862, while boating on the RiverIsis, he told the story of Alice’sAdventures under Ground to AliceLiddell and her sisters. Later hepresented her with the manuscript,illustrated with his own picturesand completed with a photographof Alice herself. Urged by the authorGeorge McDonald he started workon Alice in Wonderland and askedSir John Tenniel to draw theillustrations. It is reputed in someaccounts (but discounted in others),that a photograph of Mary Badcockof Ripon was the model for the faceof Alice in these illustrations.

Charles Dodgson’s father wasCanon Dodgson of Ripon. CanonBadcock, a contemporary of his,lived in Ure Lodge and was thefather of Mary on whosephotograph Alice in Wonderland’sillustration may have been based.

In the garden of Ure Lodge therewas a subsidence area which hasplagued the local residents to thepresent day. The Maisters, alsoacquaintances of the author, livedat Littlethorpe, near Ripon, wherea major collapse occurred in 1796.In 1860 the Reverend Dunwell ofRipon was walking with someschool children along the banks ofthe River Ure when there was adramatic collapse leaving a craterabout forty feet deep and 20 feetacross. While Lewis Carroll’sfather was resident in Ripon, theReverend J.S. Tute of Markington,near Ripon, wrote the first scientificpaper about the local subsidenceevents. Like the current residentsof Ripon, Lewis Carroll was almostcertainly aware of the problems.He would have seen the collapsesin his friends’ gardens and thenumerous collapses in the fieldopposite Ure Lodge. It is likely hewould have visited the collapsethat occurred in 1834 about 300mnorth-east of Ure Lodge. This eventnear the railway station left a 20mdeep and 11m diameter shaft with

Hells Kettles - sinkhole ponds at Ripon

(Amazing facts from the world of art, literature and the theatre relevant to Forest Practices!No 1 - sinkhole collapse)


solid rock exposed in its sides. Thereare many other contemporarydescriptions of collapses in thearea. These and more modernrecords show that the subsidenceis an ongoing problem.

The most recent collapse at UreLodge, Ripon, on 23rd and 24thApril 1997, formed a major holeabout 10m in diameter and up to6m deep. It was the latest in a seriesof collapses on that site; it destroyedfour recently built garages andseriously damaged two nearbyhouses. These were immediatelyevacuated and so was Ure Lodgenext to them. The local road wasclosed and the gas main re-routedover the road surface; even todaythe road is still closed. The collapseis difficult to deal with and there isconsiderable debate about whoshould be responsible for the

remediation of this naturalcollapse. The event made the frontpages of the national newspapersand the main television newsprogrammes. The collapse was thelatest in a series of subsidencesthat have affected the Ripon area,and continue to do so. Locally thesubsidence damage costs areestimated to be around £1,300,000for the last 10 years. The subsidencethat has occurred is natural. It iscaused by the partial collapse of awater-filled cave system developedin thick gypsum layers that arepresent under most of the Riponarea. The presence of gypsumneeds to be recognised by theplanning process and subsidencehazards mitigated against byeffective building and planingcontrol. The insurance industryneeds to look at the risk of

Fauna

The Woolnorth E.globulus seed orchard was established in 1980 at Buckbys Spur 17 with provenances from KingIsland, Henty, Orford, Seymour and the Otways (Vic), Macquarie Harbour, Bruny Island, Channel, LittleDenison river, Geeveston, Swansea, Taranna, Leprena and Flinders Island.

Swift ParrotEstablished Foraging Habitat at Gunns Woolnorth Property

Ian Hammond, Area Forester, Gunns Forest Products

The orchard was originallyestablished in a circularconfiguration of five trees per plot,replicated many times. The firstthinning took place in 1981 to

remove the weaker genotypes andreduce the plot size to two trees perplot. A second thinning occurredduring 1985 to reduce each plot toone tree. In 1988 the final thinningtook place to encourage crownspread and finalise the stand of 270trees in an area approximately of

4.5 ha , only the best performinggenotypes remain. This hasproduced an almost East Coastopen forest effect with nounderstorey and a grassy forestfloor.In 1987 the swift parrots were firstnoticed, in small numbersapproximately 15 to 30, during thecollection of seed for the NFBplantation program. The trees weretreated with a synthetic hormonein 1995 to induce flowering. Overthe next few years the floweringincreased dramatically and thenumbers of Swift Parrot appearedto be increasing, by 1997 the parrotnumbers observed had increasedto approximately 100 to 150.Parrots have been observed from acherry picker as close as one meter,browsing on the branches withopen flowers, extracting nectar andcovering themselves in pollen in

the process. They would then fly toanother branch or tree, each movecreated a cloud of pollen, aiding thecross pollination of the remainingtrees.

Occasionally an eagle or hawkwould patrol the orchard causingthe parrots to retreat from theorchard in all directions, darting inand out of the rows with incrediblespeed and manoeuvrability. Inearly summer they could also beseen competing for nectar withYellow Throated Wattlebirds in thecanopy of the orchard. The parrotshad moved on by mid to lateDecember and to my knowledgehave not been sighted in the orchardafter the Christmas period eventhough flowering continues intolate February early March.


subsidence caused by this hazard(and other soluble rocks such assalt) and to provide insurancecover, at the appropriate premium,to adequately insure against therisk.

This contribution has been condensedfrom the text of a talk presented to theBritish Association for theAdvancement of Science, Sheffield 14th

September 1999. This version includessome corrections to the originalcourtesy of the Lewis Carroll Society,especially Mr Edward Wakeling. Likemany interpretations of literary worksand their connections to real events,the links are sometimes difficult toprove and other workers have differentinterpretations.

author contact: 0115 936 [email protected]


Flora

Introduction

Blue pincushion (Brunonia australis) is an attractive summer flowering herb that occurs patchily throughout dryforests in the central north of Tasmania. While it is considered “vulnerable” in the Tasmanian ThreatenedSpecies Protection Act (1995), on the mainland it is widespread throughout all states and territories includingthe Tanami desert, the Uluru area and as far north as the Kimberley’s.

Counting PincushionsCraig Hawkins, Forest Practices Officer, Gunns Ltd. (Tamar)

Brunonia is named after the famousbotanist Robert Brown who firstdescribed the species fromspecimens collected in southernVictoria in the early 1800’s. It hassince been described to me by anumber of Tasmanians including-

one forester: “a grubby little plantthat causes farmers all sorts of trouble”,

a farmer: “its just a plant with no usethat’s going to cause me trouble”,

and a naturalist “it’s a beautiful blueflowered herb that you fall in love withthe first time you lay your eyes on it”

As a forester I would have to agreewith the naturalist (but withoutbeing so touchy-feely). It is true thata number of proposed forestryoperations were delayed under theInterim Forest Agreement partly dueto the presence of Brunonia and otheroperations have required modifiedprescriptions. Part of the problem,as with many plant species, is that

we just do not haveenough information onthe impacts of forestryoperations on specieslike Brunonia. Whatsilvicultural techniquesmight significantlyreduce its populations?Does it come back inplantations? …and soon.

Research trial

In an effort to answersome of these questionsa trial was established inthe Bracknell area for apopulation in a grassyEucalyptus amygdalina(black peppermint) forestscheduled for selective

harvesting. Twelve 20x20metrepermanent plots were randomlylocated throughout the coupe priorto harvesting. Three quadrats werethen assigned to each of fourharvesting and silviculturaltreatments:

• Unlogged controls

• Selective logging only• S e l e c t i v e

logging andpost-loggingscarification

• S e l e c t i v elogging andslash burning.

Harvesting wasconducted inApril/May 1999reducing thestand from abasal area ofapproximately28-30m2/ha toapproximately 8-

12m2/ha. Scarification wasconducted directly after harvestingin May and slash burning inOctober.

The number of Brunonia rosettesand flowering heads were countedand mapped in each quadrat(subdivided into 25 4x4m subplots)and floristic and site details(including disturbance levels) wererecorded:

• Before harvesting (December1998)

• 7-10 months after harvesting(November-February 2000) Afinal reassessment of quadrats isplanned for Dec-Jan 2001/2002.

The status of other populationsacross the state, including severalsubject to plantation establishment,was also assessed in the summer of2000/2001.

What effect did the treatmentshave?

Brunonia decreased by an average2% in the logged, 16% in the loggedburnt and 71% in the loggedscarified. The 31% increase in thenumber of rosettes in the unlogged

Figure 1: Blue pincushion(Brunonia australis)

Figure 3: Regenerated Brunonia in scarified site andBata Scout steel cap.


Floracontrols may have occurred due todifferences in the time of scoringand/or seasonal variation. Whilesome plants survived in areas ofheavy scarification it is clearly theleast desirable silvicultural methodfor the species. The study site isamong one of the denserpopulations in the state and theviability of populations in areaswith fewer individuals may besignificantly affected if scarificationis used.

Logging only appeared to haveminimal impact on the species. Lowintensity snig tracks appear tobenefit Brunonia with many healthyflowering individuals observedalong them. The most apparentnegative effect of this treatment isthe impact of heavy slash should ithappen to end up over the top ofplants. While an average 16%percent decrease in rosettes wasrecorded for the burnt quadrats partof this was possibly due to a slowrate of vegetative regrowthfollowing the relatively late Octoberburn and thus some individualsmay have been missed. Otherlogging disturbance may have alsoaccounted for some plants butnumerous individuals were seenresprouting even in the hottestburnt areas underneath heavyslash piles. Perhaps the biggestproblem in the burnt patches willbe the longer term overshadowingeffect of heavy bracken and wattleregrowth.

A noticeable difference between thelogged and unlogged areas was thevibrant flowering and healthyplants noted in the disturbed plotscompared with the much poorerflowering and condition inundisturbed plots. The mapping ofrosettes and the observed conditionof plants suggested that the bulk ofBrunonia regeneration was fromrootstock rather than newseedlings. A separate experimentdetermined that Brunonia has a verypoor capability of storing seed inthe soil so it would seem that future

population recovery is dependanton the survivors of the loggingoperation. Plantations are notcompatible with local conservationof Brunonia. Some plants have beenobserved regenerating on firebreaksand between recently moundedrows that missed full herbicideapplication. Observationshowever, suggest that along withmany other plants they are shadedout by the developing plantationand eventually destroyed onfirebreaks by repeated clearing.

So why bother?

To respond to the farmer’s statementabove, does Brunonia have anyvalue and is it worth protecting,one only needs to look at thenaturalist’s comment. Theattractiveness of the Brunonia flowerhas led to the horticultural industryvoting it as the Australian nativewith the most potential as a beddingplant. It can be purchased inTasmanian nurseries and seed iscollected and sold on the mainland.Conserving genetic diversity acrossits range may assist in developingthe best cultivars. For example,flower colour across Tasmanianpopulations varies from cornflowerblue to lilac and even white (only

Figure 4: An unnamed FPO displaying Brunonia’s potential as a fashionitem (picked under permit).

found in one location duringsurveys).

Of course a plant does not need acommercial value to make it worthyof conservation. For all we know, itmay yet hide the secrets for a cure tocancer. Furthermore, as foresters,we need to be conscious ofmanaging forests for all of theirvalues. This study has emphasisedto me that we can manage forestoperations and conserve speciesbut that we need to continueresearching the most appropriate

methods for the myriad of ecologicalconditions that we encounter.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Rob Wiltshire andthe University of Tasmania forassistance throughout the project,sponsors Gunns Ltd, George andPat Spencer for allowing the trial totake place on their property and thecrew from Select Logging whopatiently conducted the loggingoperation. Help with advice andplant identification was also givenby staff of the Forest Practices Boardand Threatened Species Unit ofDPIWE.

author contact: (03) 6394 5555email [email protected]


LandscapePlantations - what they mean for the visual landscape

Bruce Chetwynd, Landscape Planner, Forest Practices Board

Around Tasmania today, the expansion of plantation forestry and harvesting as well is occurring at anhistorically unprecedented rate on both public and private lands. Although development takes various forms,it may be categorised as:

a) agricultural land planting,b) native forest areas conversion,c) combinations of both,d) harvesting of existing

plantations.

Agricultural landscape

Plantations appear as a new andvisually distinct forest cropbringing strong a change to theappearance of the scenery.Agricultural landscape hasevolved over many years toestablish a stable and recognisableappearance. Change to this formerrural scenic character is oftenreadily available for public scrutinyfrom rural roads and villages.Rapid changes are occurring inHuon valley, the Bass/Scottsdalearea and the Mersey-Forth coastalregion. Vegetation cover is adominant factor responsible for thescenic character of these areas.

In planning plantations, the aimshould be to capitalise on thedistinctiveness of each region byidentifying essential scenic aspectsin each landscape and designingplantations that reflect these.Change should be planned to be acontinuation or evolution and nota revolution against the presentscenery. Consider plantationoptions which link with aspects ofthe past landscape and follow theprinciple of integration rather thandominance of the existing with thenew. Plantations in essence are acultural element or artefact asdistinct from the naturalness ofnative forest.Key principles are to:• protect native forest remnants as

these are vital links with the past,• maintain significant views due

to the importance for scenicenjoyment,

• avoid creating extensive forestscreening along roadsides,

• create forested roadsides whichare varied and not boring, regularand uninteresting.

Native forest areas

Conversion of native forest hillsidesand roadside to plantation canoccur rapidly across large areasand could easily develop towardsa plantation-dominatedappearance! This is usually notadvisable. Change to native forestlandscape in itself is notnecessarily negative. The real issueis the scale of the change and itprominence over the basic structureof the present landscape, both isrelationship to current native forestcharacter and landform patternand variations. From this previousexperience of plantations in theScottsdale landscape, the messagefor today’s plantation expansionis that their visual design shouldbe well considered from the start.

• Design with “naturallyappearing” boundaries, shapesand scale that integrate withinthe existing forest character,

• Stage planting to avoidconcentration of visual changein a single area at one time,

• Retain significant areas of nativeforest for added visual variety aswell as for other special values,

• Avoid skylines and prominentlandforms seen often by theadmiring public.

Combinations of agriculturallandscape and native forest areas

Where plantation is to beestablished at the edge or transitionbetween rural and native forestareas, it will eventually form partor an extension of the existingcultural landscape. The extent of

this new cultural landscape willoften be observable on the lowerslopes of foothills. This can easilybe a positive contributor to thelandscape.

• The emphasis should be placedon effective management ofjunction or edges between thetwo by introducing variedboundaries relating totopography,

• Target the lower parts, preferablythe lower one third of hillsides.

Existing PlantationsIf we look at the example ofScottsdale, plantations are nowdominant and have a dominatingeffects. Many have goodappearance and are positiveelement for viewing in the localand regional area due to heightencontrasts and pattern between thetwo forest forms. However someplantations are strongly dominantelements that jar with the characterof surrounding terrain andmountainous backdrops. This isdue to prominent locations acrossskylines and on steep hillsides andas well to design aspects includingstraight-line boundaries and largescale. As these reach maturity andultimately the harvest stage, thechallenge is to:

• re-shape the least sympatheticboundaries by reclaiming tonative forest and or extendingplantations,

• increase scenic diversity andattractiveness with introducedalternative forest amenityplantings.

Conclusions

Plantation development is alsobecoming a concern of localgovernment and regional tourism


councils. Their interest often stemsfrom perceived potential negativeeffects on the tourism industry andincreasingly from concerns of localresidents in towns and in ruralsettlements. Currently councilsexpect that the Forest PracticesCode with adequately deal with

aesthetic effects of forestry. For theforest industry to continue to enjoythe independence of planning forthe plantation scenery describedabove, the responsibility for visualmanagement must be taken on as avital part of forest practices.Acknowledged visual principles

and standards will need to bemaintained and put into practiceand past errors accepted asexamples to be avoided in thefuture.


Soils

In August 2000 Forest Practices News reported on Sarah Bunce’s research project looking at the effect ofclearfelling on the geomorphology and sediment character of Class 4 streams in upland granite terrain ofnortheast Tasmania.

Effect of clearfelling on class 4 stream conditionPeter McIntosh (Forest Practices Board) and Sarah Bunce (SEMF Consultants)

Sarah’s thesis has now beencompleted and the project hasgrown. It now incorporates studieson riparian, faunal and vegetationissues, and more detailedgeomorphological studies. A paperby Sarah Bunce, Peter McIntosh,Peter Davies and Laurie Cook,summarising the work completedso far, was presented at the ThirdAustralian Stream ManagementConference in Brisbane and is thebasis of the summary below.

The main observations made in thepaper were that:

• Pre-Code forestry operations havehad effects on headwater streamsin upland granite terrain inTasmania, and these weredetectable 15 years afterclearfelling;

• Streams in clearfelled andregenerated catchments had lesscomplex channels, coarsersediments and were more incisedand hadmore exposedb o u l d e r sthan streamsin minimally-d i s t u r b e dcatchments;

• Streams inclearfel leda n dregeneratedcatchmentshad more in-stream logs

but less in-stream coarseparticulate organic matter,and their <2mm sedimentfraction had a lower C/Nratio, than streams inminimally-disturbedcatchments;

The coarsening of streamsediments in the clearfelledand regenerated catchmentswas determined by coresampling of streams asshown in Figure 1. Threetransects were located ineach of five streams incatchments clearfelled 15years ago, and the samplingwas repeated in another fivestreams in minimallydisturbed catchments.

The result of the stream sedimentsampling showed a strong andsignificant trend to coarsening ofsediments in the channels and barsof streams in clearfelled andregenerated catchments (Figure 2).

Stream sediments in clearfelled andregenerated catchments also hadless coarse particulate organicmatter (litter) on the sedimentsurface and the quality of theorganic matter in the sediment itselfwas different - the carbon to

Figure 1: Typical core sample layout across astream, showing 5 cm diameter coring tubes

in a pool (left), bar (centre) and channel(right).A total of 45 samples were taken in

clearfelled catchments, and 45 in minimallydisturbed catchments. The nature of the

organic matter and the particle sizedistribution was measured in each 20 cm

deep sample.

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

1 - 2 0.5 - 1 0.25 - 0.5 0.125 -

0.25

< 0.125

Sediment size fraction (mm)

%

Control Regen

Channel

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 - 2 0.5 - 1 0.25 - 0.5 0.125 -

0.25

< 0.125


%

Control Regen

Bar

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

1 - 2 0.5 - 1 0.25 - 0 .5 0.125 -

0 .25

< 0.125


%

Control Regen

Pool

Figure 2: Particle-size distribution of <2mm sediments, by in-stream geomorphic unit. Upper95%CL limits shown. Note how, in channels and bars, there is a coarsening of sediment in the

“regen” treatment.


Soilsnitrogen (C/N) ratio was muchlower in streams in clearfelled andregenerated catchments (Table 1),indicating either an increase of theproportion of nitrogen in theorganic component, or a loss ofcarbon. As C/N ratios of >25 insoils generally indicate the presenceof charcoal, loss of charcoal (alongwith the other lighter sedimentcomponents, as shown in Figure 2),has probably occurred. It looks as ifsediment C/N ratio might be usefulas a disturbance indicator instreams like these.

CONTROL REGEN sig

Total C (%) bar 2.7 2.0 NSchannel 2.3 1.6 NSpool 3.3 4.0 NSoverall 2.7 2.4 (p<0.10)

Total N (%)bar 0.085 0.080 NSchannel 0.077 0.068 NSpool 0.100 0.162 NSoverall 0.083 0.098 NS

C/N ratiobar 34.9 23.4 p<0.001channel 30.9 23.1 p<0.001pool 34.4 25.9 p<0.001overall 33.3 24.2 p<0.001

Table 1. Mean organic matter analysis of in-streamsediments.

Other effects are reported morefully in the paper and furtherreports on vegetation and faunaare still to be published. At this

stage we can conclude that thereare lessons to be learnt about bothforestry operations and researchneeds:

• Pre-Code forestry operationshave had a medium-term effecton streams, therefore provisionsto protect Class 4 streams in theForest Practices Code arescientifically justified. Or putanother way, there can be noreturn to the old-time methods ofno restrictions.

• Having said this, we cannot besure that the present Code

prescriptions arepreventing similareffects on Class 4streams in presentcoupes, becausewe haven’tstudied the effectsof clearfellingunder Codec o n d i t i o n s .However, it ispossible to arguethat, to the extentthat the changes inthe studiedstreams were theresult of changedh y d r o l o g i c a lbalance (increasedr a i n f a l linfiltration into theground and

stream flow) after clearfelling,that similar effects will beproduced in present-dayclearfelled coupes in similar

terrain. In contrast, to the extentthat the effects noted have beenproduced by direct disturbance (e.g.machines crossing streams), theeffects in present-day coupes willbe much less, because of the 10 mno-machinery rule. But therelative importance of indirecthydrological effects versus directdisturbance of streams bymachinery is difficult to guage 15years after the event. So theimportance of the hydrologicaleffect in present-day operationsnext to Class 4 streams is not easyto estimate.

• There is clearly a need for bothretrospective studies of streamsin coupes clearfelled under Coderules and guidelines, and forlong-term monitoring of streams.These issues are being tackled inan FPB/forest industry fundedresearch project beingundertaken by the University ofTasmania.

Publication available from theForest Practices Board:

Bunce S.E.H., McIntosh P.D.,Davies, P.E. Cook, L.S.J. (2001).Effects of pre-Code forestclearfelling on the geomorphologyand sedimentology of headwaterstreams in upland granite terrain,Tasmania. Proceedings of the ThirdAustralian Stream ManagementConference, Brisbane, 27-29 August2001.

Author contact: (03) [email protected]


For further information about Bushcare and the Land for Wildlife program contact your local Bushcare Officer orCoordinator -

• South and East: Jodie Epper and Andy Baird (6223 6377), Rae Glazik (6233 6835), Colin McCoull (6233 8322),Richard Barnes (6233 8310). Email: [email protected]

• North-east: Kristin Jaehne (6336 5427) and Micah Visoiu (6336 5270)• North/North-west: Sean Cadman (6336 5419) and Nick Fitzgerald (6336 5267)• King Island: Richard Barnes (6233 8310)• Furneaux Group: Rae Glazik (6233 6835) and Kristin Jaehne (6336 5427)Bushcare State Coordinator: Ian Marmion DPIWE GPO Box 44, Hobart TAS 7001, Phone 6233 6345, Fax 6224 0884,Email: [email protected] Technical Coordinator: Richard Barnes DPIWE GPO Box 44, Hobart TAS 7001, Phone 6233 8310,Fax 6233 3477, Email: [email protected] .

cont. from page 7


GeomorphologyGeoheritage: some instrumental values

Kevin Kiernan, Senior Geomorphologist, Forest Practices Board

Retaining important geological sites, landforms and soil reference sites, and ensuring that natural processesand rates of change are not exceeded are all quite fundamental to nature conservation, retaining environmentaldiversity, and achieving sustainable land management generally.

There are many reasons whyconservation of these sites may beimportant, including their intrinsicvalue (important in their own right),their natural process value (theirimportance in sustaining naturalenvironmental processes,including ecological processes)and their instrumental value tohumans (for inspirational,recreational, educational,economic, scientific or otherreasons).

One of the instrumental values ofgeoheritage sites is the scientificinformation that may be obtainedfrom their study. This may entailpure research where the acquisitionof new knowledge is regarded as alegitimate end in itself, or appliedresearch that has an economic orother spinoff. Geomorphologicalresearch can assist in betterunderstanding some importantconcerns that confront our society.Information obtained from suchfeatures can also assistmanagement not just of theparticular site, but also similar siteselsewhere, such as landscapes orsoils subject to forest operations.For example, studying somethingas apparently esoteric as rockweathering in moraines of knownage in our glaciated mountainsprovides us with the benchmarksagainst which we can evaluateweathering and soil formation ratesand processes through time moregenerally. Such insights areimportant for better evaluating thesignificance of soil erosion in ourforests and elsewhere, and whatconstitutes genuinely sustainableland management. Here are a fewexamples of some possibilities:

Rainfall and drought: We live in acontinent inhabited by western

scientific thought for a mere 200years. Australia’s meteorologicalrecord is short. While we may thinkwe know what a 200 year floodlooks like and implies for us, thereality is we may never have evenexperienced one, because the termrelates only to average recurrenceintervals and natural events likefloods don’t necessarily keepappointments in human diaries.We can derive some comfort fromtheoretical models of various kinds.But there are direct ways ofextending the climate record byreading the landforms andsediments, a legacy that can tell ushow rainfall has varied throughmillenia.

Temperature: Stalagmites in karstcaves grow sequentially in layersthat are akin to tree rings, and

specific growth layers can be datedaccurately by various chemicalmeans. The dripping water thatforms stalagmites carries chemicalisotopes that vary in concentrationaccording to the temperature, andthese isotopes are locked into thegrowing stalagmite. In a deep karstcave the air temperature is fairlyconstant and approximates themean annual temperature on thesurface. So by analysing theisotopes in stalagmites and datingthe growth layers in which theyoccur it is possible to obtain accuraterecords of temperature going backmany thousands of years. Suchrecords can allow us to see thenatural temperature fluctuationsthat have occurred in the past, andhelp us make sense of thetemperature changes that confront

us today, whether or notthey might be natural, orhow much trouble wemay have manufacturedfor ourselves byenhancing theGreenhouse Effect.

Vegetation: Fossil pollentrapped in sediments cantell us the history ofvegetation change. Mightthe time depth this offersprovide a better means ofdeciding what firemanagers shouldconsider to be the naturalstate of our vegetation,rather than simplyaccepting at face valuewhat things might havelooked like during thatfleeting moment ingeological time whenEuropeans were firstspreading into Tasmania?Other records of past

“Growth rings” in a stalagmite thatcommenced forming over 200,000 years ago.


vegetation may also be containedin cave archives, including organicmatter and luminescence inspeleothems. Changes invegetation cover and structure inresponse to past climate changeshave had important implicationsfor hillslopes in Tasmanian forestareas today. The reduction in forestbiomass that accompanied theconditions that allowed glaciers todevelop and expand over theTasmanian Highlands during therelatively recent geological past alsoallowed considerable instability ofhillslopes far removed from theglaciers themselves. Slopes then intransit have sometimes been“frozen” in their tracks by the re-establishment of the forests that we

Geomorphology

Radiocarbon dating of organic material in thesesediments exposed along a riverbank was the key to

dating the maximum extent of ice cover during the mostrecent episode of glaciation in Tasmania. The fine

calibre sediments close to river level were depositedbetween two periods of glaciation when the underlyingand overlying coarse gravels were washed downvalley.

by glacier meltwaters

seek to cut.

Europeans havebeen in Australiafor around 200years, Aboriginalpeople may havelived here inexcess of 40,000years. ButTasmania hasexisted inapproximatelyits present formfor perhaps 50million years ormore, and itsg e o l o g i c a lfeatures dateback hundreds ofmillions of years.

Matched against the time overwhich our landscape has evolved,people haven’t been present inAustralia long enough for ourpupils to dilate, let alone for us tolook around, take in and adequatelyunderstand the environment inwhich we have arrived.

Geo-features offer records ofenvironmental evolution andchange, of natural processes, and atime perspective. That is a resourceof great value to humans trying tounderstand the changing world inwhich we live. Managementproposals and future prospects canusefully be evaluated against theinformation provided by our rocksand landforms. Looking after our

geoheritage andtrying to learnfrom it is a farmore sensibleoption thantrying to forecastthe climate for thenext century, andhow the nextforest generationis likely to fare,simply byglancing atthe clouds

Innovative use ofsinkholes

Figure 1. The Pit of Hell, a largecollapse sinkhole in southernTurkey. Myth has it that after

defeating Typhon in a fight here,Zeus, the father of the Gods,temporarily kept the hundred-

headed fire-breathing monster inthis pit before imprisoning him inthe depths of Mt Etna for eternity.

Fossil cushion plant (Donatia novae zelandiae),radiocarbon dated at 18, 800 years old, found buried in

growth position on the fine sediments.

momentarily blowing past thewindows of the Arrival Lounge.

Author contact: (03) 6233 [email protected]

Figure 2. Another deep Turkishsinkhole surrounded by Romanruins. Folklore has it that wildanimals were corralled in this

sinkhole where perceived enemiesof the Roman state were invited tojoin them for dinner. The FPB is

considering the establishment of asimilar facility to aid FPOs whomay feel inclined to offer similarhospitality to any bean counters

who might make their compliancewith the Forest Practices Code

excessively difficult.

Documents

Forest Practices news - fpa.tas.gov.au€¦ · 1 Forest Practices News vol 3 no 4 September 2001 vol 4 no 1 ISSN 1441-1288 Forest Practicesnews published by the Forest Practices Board,