The Annual Report of the Forest Practices Authority …...Board of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). The year 2006–07 heralded a new era in the continuing evolution of the forest

The Annual Report of the

Forest Practices Authority

2006–07

A report on the operations of the Forest Practices Authority to the Minister for Economic Development and Resources, to be laid before each house of parliament as required under s. 4 of

the Forest Practices Act 1985

30 Patrick Street HobartTasmania 7000

phone (03) 62337966fax (03) 62337954

email: [email protected]

All photographs taken by the Forest Practices Authority, unless otherwise stated. Front cover photographs (from left): The FPA’s Geoscientist investigating slope stability. The FPA’s Forest Practices Adviser training participants on the Forest Practices Officers Course in September 2006.The FPA’s Hollows Project Officer and Biodiversity Technical Officer investigating and recording the inhabitants and characteristics of tree hollows. FPA botanist carrying research. (Photograph by Forestry Tasmania.)

Back cover photographs – the winners of the inaugural Forest Practices Awards (from top and then from bottom left): Select Logging Pty Ltd, winner of excellence in conducting forest operations to high operational standards award. Regeneration under shelterwood at Tibbs Marsh – once the regrowth is mature enough, the shelterwood will be harvested. (Photograph by Select Logging.)Bob Knox (pictured), joint winner with Neil Denney, both of Forestry Tasmania Mersey District, award winners for innovation in forest practices for developing the excavator heaping system. (Photograph by Forestry Tasmania.)Max Triffett’s logging crew, of Kevin Morgan Pty Ltd, winners of the excellence in conducting forest operations to high operational standards award. (Photograph by Max’s crew.)Scott Marriott of Forestry Tasmania Derwent District, winner of the award for excellence in inspecting and supervising forest operations. (Photograph by Forestry Tasmania.)Terry Ware, of Forestry Tasmania Huon District, winner of the award for excellence in preparing Forest Practices Plans.

c-grove

Typewritten Text

Trim 2010/126097

Annual Report on Forest Practices 2006–07 Forest Practices Authority

2

ARC Australian Research Council

CAS Conservation Assessment Section, DPIW

CBS Clearfell, burn and sow

CRC Cooperative Research Centre

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DPAC Department of Premier and Cabinet

DPIW Department of Primary Industries and Water

FIAT Forest Industries Association Tasmania

FPAC Forest Practices Advisory Council

FPB Forest Practices Board

FPO Forest Practices Officer

FPP Forest Practices Plan

FS Freshwater Systems (consultancy company)

FT Forestry Tasmania

GIS Geographical Information System

IBRA Interim Biogeographic Region for Australia

LGAT Local Government Association Tasmania

LMO Landscape Management Objective

MEZ Machinery Exclusion Zone

PP Private property

PTR Private Timber Reserve

RFA Regional Forest Agreement

RMPAT Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal

SF State forest

The Act The Forest Practices Act 1985

The Code The Forest Practices Code

TSPA Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

TSS Threatened Species Section, DPIW

UTas University of Tasmania

Abbreviations and acronyms

Annual Report on Forest Practices 2006–07Forest Practices Authority

3

Contents

The Tasmanian forest practices system ..................................................................................................4

The year in brief ..................................................................................................................................5

Report of the Chair, Forest Practices Authority ......................................................................................6

Report of the Chief Forest Practices Officer ..........................................................................................8

1 Independent Regulation Program Report ..........................................................................................9

1.1 Forest Practices Act 1985 .........................................................................................................9

1.2 Forest Practices Code ..............................................................................................................10

1.3 Forest Practices Plans ..............................................................................................................10

1.4 Three-year plans .....................................................................................................................13

1.5 Statutory reports .....................................................................................................................13

1.6 Private Timber Reserves ..........................................................................................................14

1.7 Monitoring of compliance .......................................................................................................14

1.8 Monitoring of the Permanent Native Forest Estate ...................................................................23

1.9 Enforcement ...........................................................................................................................27

1.10 Self-regulation ......................................................................................................................28

2 Research and Advisory Program Report ............................................................................................29

2.1 Biodiversity Program ...............................................................................................................30

2.2 Cultural Heritage ....................................................................................................................33

2.3 Earth Sciences Program ...........................................................................................................33

2.4 Visual Landscape Management Program .................................................................................34

2.5 Training and education carried out by the Forest Practices Authority .......................................35

3 Administration of forest practices .....................................................................................................37

3.1 The Board of the Forest Practices Authority .............................................................................37

3.2 Forest Practices Advisory Council ...........................................................................................41

3.3 Chief Forest Practices Officer .................................................................................................42

3.4 Forest Practices Officers ..........................................................................................................43

3.5 Forest Practices Authority staff.................................................................................................44

3.6 Forest Practices Tribunal .........................................................................................................45

3.7 Public interest disclosures and freedom of information requests ..............................................45

3.8 Funding ..................................................................................................................................46

3.9 Self-funding of activities conducted by industry .......................................................................46

3.10 Self-funding of activities conducted by the Forest Practices Authority ....................................46

3.11 Funding of the Forest Practices Authority from parliament .....................................................46

Financial statement .............................................................................................................................47

Appendix 1 Publications .....................................................................................................................63

Appendix 2 Major reference documents related to forest practices ......................................................65

Appendix 3 Results of the 2006–07 audit of Forest Practices Plans ......................................................66

Appendix 4 Monitoring of the maintenance of the Permanent Native Forest Estate .............................73


4

The Forest Practices Authority (FPA) is the independent statutory body established by parliament under the Forest Practices Act 1985 to regulate forestry in Tasmania. The forest practices system applies to forest practices that are undertaken on both public land (mainly State forest) and private land. The objective of the state’s forest practices system is to achieve the sustainable management of public and private forests.

The Tasmanian forest practices system operates primarily through the Forest Practices Act and the associated Forest Practices Code. The system also takes account of other legislation and policies, including the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 1997. An adaptive management approach ensures that results from the FPA’s research and monitoring lead to continuing improvement of the system.

The system is based on a co-regulatory approach, combining self-management by the industry and independent monitoring and enforcement by the FPA. Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) are employed within the industry and trained and authorised by the FPA to plan, supervise and monitor forest practices. FPA staff provide advice on regulatory and technical matters, including the requirement to protect natural and cultural values. The FPA also monitors forest practices to ensure that standards are being met. Corrective action is taken where required and penalties are imposed for serious breaches.

The forest practices system aims to foster cooperation amongst all stakeholders, including the government, landowners, the forest industry and the broader community. There is an emphasis on planning, training, education and continuing improvement.

The Tasmanian forest practices system

Forest practices, defined by the Forest Practices Act, are:

•harvestingandregeneratingnativeforest•harvestingand/orestablishingplantations• clearingforestsforotherpurposes• clearingandconversionofthreatenednative

vegetation• constructingroadsandquarriesfortheabove

purposes •harvestingtreeferns.

The objective of the Tasmanian forest practices system as set down in Schedule 7 of the Forest Practices Act is to achieve sustainable management of Crown and private forests with due care for the environment in a way that is as far as possible self-funding. This is achieved through:

•anemphasisonself-regulation•planningbeforeforestoperations•delegatedanddecentralisedapprovalsforForest

Practices Plans and other forest practice matters•aForest Practices Code which provides standards

for forest management, timber harvesting and other forest operations

•anemphasisonconsultationandeducation•provisionfortherehabilitationoflandincases

where the Forest Practices Code is contravened•anindependentappealprocess• thedeclarationofPrivateTimberReserves–a

means by which private landholders are able to ensure the security of their forest resources.

Research and advice

Training and strategic planning

Monitoring and enforcement

The Tasmanian Forest Practices System


5

• Scientists from the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) provided advice in response to 2437 notifications lodged by Forest Practices Officers. The FPA’s scientists maintained a close working relationship with scientists from other government agencies and universities.

•ForestPracticesOfficerscertified906Forest Practices Plans for native forest and plantation operations, totalling 56,727 hectares on public and private land.

•ForestPracticesPlanswerecertifiedfor23,072 hectares of new plantations, of which 11,953 hectares were planted on previously cleared land and 12,943 hectares on ex-native forest sites.

•Atotalof1992hectaresofnativeforestand plantations were converted to non-forest use, primarily for agriculture.

•Theneteffectofclearingandnewplantings of forest in Tasmania was an overall increase in the total area of forest of 9127 hectares during the year.

•Tasmania’snativeforestestatewasreduced by 13,672 hectares, resulting in the maintenance of a native forest area equivalent to 96.1 per cent of the native forest area that existed in 1996 (a 3.9 per cent loss).

•TheannualauditconductedbytheFPA found that the implementation and effectiveness of Forest Practices Plans on State forest and on private land by large companies was generally above the nominated standards for the majority of factors being assessed.

•Threefinestotalling$14,000wereimposed for offences under the Forest Practices Act 1985.

The year in brief

For the year ending 30 June 2007

(Right) A Forest Practices Officer stands next to a reserve of a ‘Priority A’ flora community (Wet Eucalyptus viminalis), in a coupe bordering the Little Denison River in the Southern Forests.


6

I have pleasure in providing the statutory reports of the Board of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA).

The year 2006–07 heralded a new era in the continuing evolution of the forest practices system. On 30 April 2007, the system was given responsibility for protecting threatened non-forest vegetation. This marks a major departure from a previous focus on ‘forests’ to a broader and more integrated approach towards the sustainable management of both native vegetation and forests. Importantly, the changes highlight a strong vote of confidence by the Tasmanian Parliament in the co-regulatory approach that has been successfully developed over the last 20 years under the forest practices system. These changes have been accompanied by discussions with the key stakeholders to revamp the Forest Practices Advisory Council, to provide an effective forum for fostering the cooperation and partnership that underpins the success of the system. It is anticipated that the proposed changes to the Council will be introduced in 2007–08.

Pursuant to s. 4E(1)(b) of the Forest Practices Act 1985, the FPA has assessed a representative sample of Forest Practices Plans (FPPs). On the basis of a detailed examination of that sample, the FPA reports that the implementation and effectiveness of FPPs on State forest and on private land that is managed by large companies was generally above the nominated standards for the majority of factors being assessed. Aspects that were managed to a very high standard include:

• removalanddrainageoftemporarycrossingforclass 1–3 streams

•harvestingextractiondesignandplanning,including appropriate snig track and plantation streamside reserve management

• selectionofappropriateseedstockassociatedwith native forest re-establishment

•appropriateidentificationofspecialvalues• appropriatenotificationandintegrationofadvice

within FPPs.The detailed examination has identified areas where higher standards are required to ensure that the overall system meets the principle of continuing improvement in forest practices. The specific areas requiring improvement include:

•appropriatedocumentationbeingpreparedduring planning and operational phases

•documentingspecificand/orregionalfiremanagement plans in the FPP

• implementingappropriatemaintenanceprograms

to improve road and fire trail drainage and stability

•markingboundaries•protectingseedlingstocktoimprovestocking

rates•maintainingintegrityofwildlifehabitatclumps• integratingappropriatelandscapemanagement

objectives• carryingoutappropriatepostoperationalcultural

surveys.There was little improvement in the lodgement of compliance reports pursuant to s. 25A of the Forest Practices Act in 2006–07, and the general rate of lodgement continues to be unacceptable, especially for operations conducted by the smaller independent operators. Those compliance reports that were lodged reported a reasonable level of compliance. The FPA put new administrative systems in place in 2006–07 to review the lodgement of reports and the FPA intends to progressively use its new powers to improve the lodgement of reports during 2007–08.

Under s. 4C(fa) of the Forest Practices Act, the FPA reports that Tasmania’s native forest estate has been maintained in accordance with the Tasmanian Government Policy on the Maintenance of a Permanent Native Forest Estate. The area of native forest as at

Report of the Chair, Forest Practices Authority

Geoff Willis, Chairman, Forest Practices Authority.


7

30 June 2007 was equivalent to 96.1 per cent of the native forest area that existed in 1996. The FPA notes that a small number of forest communities have been subjected to very high rates of conversion to plantations, with bioregional losses of over 30 per cent for some communities. The FPA records its concern that such high levels of conversion have potentially long-term ramifications for the maintenance of regional biodiversity. The Board notes and welcomes changes to the Australian Forestry Standard which should have the effect of substantially decreasing the rate of conversion of native forest to plantation.

In accordance with s. 4E(1)(a) of the Forest Practices Act, the Board reports that the forest practices system satisfied the principle of self-funding in 2006–07. The independent regulatory functions of the FPA were funded by the income received under s. 44 of the Forest Practices Act in 2006–07.

A satisfactory level of self-regulation has been maintained on State forest and on most of the private land that is subject to operations undertaken by the major companies. The standard of self-regulation by smaller, independent operators remains variable. The FPA believes that improvements in this sector will be best achieved through higher levels of education, training and accreditation.

In accordance with s.4Z of the Forest Practices Act, the Board reports that the FPA has collaborated with other governmental agencies to compile a report on

the sustainability indicators agreed on by the Tasmanian and Australian governments under the framework known as the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators. This report contains data that will be used to produce the State of the Forests Tasmania 2006 report, which will be tabled in Parliament in November 2007.

Pursuant to s.4ZA of the Act, the Board reports that the forest practices system has been subject to a process of review and improvement.

The Board was chaired by Isobel Stanley until March 2007 when she took up a new position in Scotland. Isobel was appointed as the inaugural Chair of the Board of the Forest Practices Authority in July 2005 and her leadership in setting up the new independent Board is very gratefully acknowledged. I also wish to thank the members of the Board, the Chief Forest Practices Officer, staff of the FPA and Forest Practices Officers for their continued commitment to furthering the objectives and implementation of our forest practices system.

I am very pleased to report that the Board initiated the Forest Practices Awards in 2007 to recognize the excellence achieved by those who work within the forest practices system. The winners of the inaugural awards are detailed in section 3.1.

Geoff Willis Chairman, Forest Practices Authority

Max Triffett and his logging crew, who work for Kevin Morgan Pty. Ltd, won the inaugural Forest Practices Award for excellence in conducting forest operations to high operational standards. Max’s crew selectively log high altitude Eucalyptus delegatensis as Forestry Tasmania mill door contractors in Bass District. Their experience in falling techniques and attention to detail has ensured that the forest has been harvested in compliance with the prescriptions with maximum retention to the future sawlog resource. In the picture on the left, Max is felling an overstorey tree away from potential sawlogs. The picture on the right shows the end result of the operation; the potential sawlogs retained for the next rotation.


8

Report of the Chief Forest Practices Officer

It was another busy year for the Forest practices Authority, with advice provided in response to about 2500 notifications covering 56,727 hectares of forest and plantation. More than 100 independent audits were conducted to assess the operational standards that were achieved on private and public lands and over 90 compliance investigations were undertaken. Scientists employed by the FPA continued to undertake surveys and research to extend the scientific knowledge that underpins the Forest Practices Code (the Code).

The FPA trained and appointed an additional 24 forest practices officers (FPOs), bringing the total number of accredited FPOs within Tasmania to 220. Numerous training courses were conducted throughout the year covering a range of natural and cultural values and all FPOs attended briefings on the new non-forest legislation and other developments. A major review of the training program for FPOs was initiated with a view to aligning the course with the national training framework. Staff of the FPA continued to gain recognition for their expertise through publications and presentations in international, national and local forums.

An expert panel was convened in 2007 to review the biodiversity provisions of the Forest Practices Code as part of the ongoing improvement of the Code. It is planned to undertake a process of public consultation on revisions to the Code in 2008.

It is pleasing to note that parliament has provided the FPA with increased funding to support its expanded role with respect to the protection of threatened non-forest vegetation. In 2006–07 the FPA reviewed its management structure and introduced changes to ensure that the FPA delivers its statutory functions in an effective and efficient manner.

The clearance and conversion of native forest in Tasmania is subject to the government’s policy on the maintenance of a permanent forest estate. The FPA, in applying this policy, is very mindful of its obligations to ensure that continued clearing does not compromise regional biodiversity and landscape values. During the year a revised Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) was introduced, under which the conversion of native forest to plantation is no longer permitted. This is a welcome development, although as a voluntary standard it only applies to those organisations that have sought AFS accreditation.

‘The FPA, in applying this permanent forest estate policy, is very mindful of its obligations to ensure that continued clearing does not compromise regional biodiversity and landscape values.’

During the year I was again privileged to work on several international assignments relating to the implementation of codes of forest practice. Tasmania’s forest practices system is widely respected and this recognition is, in no small way, a tribute to the outstanding work done by the staff of the Forest Practices Authority and by our Forest Practices Officers in making our system work so effectively.

I express my appreciation for the support provided by the Board of the FPA during the year, in particular the contribution to the governance of the forest practices system by the outgoing Chair, Isobel Stanley.

Graham Wilkinson

Chief Forest Practices Officer

Graham Wilkinson, Chief Forest Practices Officer, Forest Practices Authority.


9

1.1 Forest Practices Act 1985Amendments to the Forest Practices Act and Regulations took effect on 30 April 2007 to bring the protection of threatened native vegetation under the control of the forest practices system. Measures to protect threatened forest types have been in place since 2002; the recent amendments extend the protection to include other threatened vegetation types, such as wetlands and high altitude native grasslands.

Threatened native vegetation includes plant communities that are naturally rare and communities that were once more widespread but are now significantly depleted because of clearing over the last two hundred years. These communities are now listed under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.

The major provisions of the new legislation are detailed below:

1. Restrictions on the ‘clearance and conversion’ of threatened vegetation

The clearing and conversion of threatened native vegetation is prohibited other than in exceptional circumstances as approved by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). The term ‘clearance and conversion’ means the deliberate removal of native vegetation, and its replacement with introduced vegetation or other material permanently or in the long term. There are no restrictions on existing land management practices such as harvesting, slashing, ploughing, burning and grazing within threatened native vegetation provided that the essential character of the vegetation is maintained and not converted to other land uses such as crops or plantations.

The legislation does not affect any clearing works that are necessary to maintain existing infrastructure such as roads, fences, buildings and drainage channels. In addition, the construction of public roads, dams and power lines (by authorised electricity bodies) is exempt, where these activities are approved under other legislation. Other exemptions apply to land that is covered by vegetation management agreements, conservation covenants and fire management plans.

2. Clearing of regrowth on previously cleared and converted landApproval is not required to clear regrowth on previously cleared and converted land, which is defined as land that has not contained trees or threatened native vegetation for a period of at least five years since 1985 and where the regrowth does not contain more than 20 eucalypts more than two metres in height within any 0.5 hectare area.

1 Independent Regulation Program Report

3. Harvesting in threatened forest types

Harvesting can take place in threatened forest types as long as the forest is regenerated to maintain the same forest type into the future. A certified Forest Practices Plan is required for any harvesting of trees.

4. Compensation provisions

Where an application for a forest practices plan to clear and convert threatened native vegetation is refused by the FPA, the affected landowner may apply for compensation. The Nature Conservation Act sets out the processes and criteria for compensation.

Eucalyptus risdonii forest and woodland with a grass and heath dominated understorey is a naturally rare forest community in Tasmania, occurring only in the greater Hobart area with the most northerly population found at Mangalore. Eucalyptus risdonii forest and woodland is listed as a threatened community under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, and as such there are constraints on the conversion of this community.


10

1.2 Forest Practices CodeThe Forest Practices Code (the Code) provides a set of guidelines and standards to ensure protection of the natural and cultural values of the forest. The guidelines and standards in the Code cover:

•buildingaccessintotheforest(roads,bridges,quarries etc.)

•harvestingoftimber• conservationofnaturalandculturalvalues(soil

and water, geomorphology, visual landscape, botany, zoology and cultural heritage)

•establishingandmaintainingforests.The Forest Practices Authority (FPA) developed the Code through extensive consultation and public comment. It is reviewed periodically, incorporating suggestions from scientists, government, the forestry industry and the public. The Code is legally enforceable under the Forest Practices Act for both public and private forests. There are also other legislation and policies that need to be considered when preparing an FPP, such as the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) 1997. The Code can be purchased from Service Tasmania outlets or downloaded from the FPA website: <www.fpa.tas.gov.au>. The current edition has been in force since 2000. No changes were made to the Code in 2006–07.

The FPA initiated a review of the Code in 2006–07, with an expert panel convened to review the biodiversity provisions of the Code. The panel will produce a report by early 2008, which will be incorporated into a broader review of all other aspects of the Code. Public submissions on the review of the Code will be sought in 2008.

1.3 Forest Practices PlansForest Practices Plans (FPPs) are required for almost all forest practices on public and private land. The few exemptions are detailed in the Forest Practices Regulations which are available on the publication page of the website: <www.fpa.tas.gov.au>. The publication, A guide to planning approvals for forestry in Tasmania, (also available on the website) provides further information on the regulations and the process of preparing an FPP.

FPPs must be prepared in accordance with the Code and must be certified by a Forest Practices Officer (FPO) before work starts. Applicants for FPPs must notify their immediate neighbours and local government before operations begin.

FPPs provide details of the operation area, boundaries, roads, snig tracks, landings, bridges, streams and forest areas retained for conservation purposes. They also include prescriptions for protection of natural and cultural values, planned harvest systems, and reforestation.

During the preparation of the FPP, FPOs are required to identify natural and cultural values. They must contact the FPA specialists about values requiring protection. The FPA specialists will provide advice based on regulatory requirements and the results of research and monitoring. This will frequently involve liaison with other scientists. The advice received may result in restrictions, such as harvesting being modified or areas being reserved for conservation reasons.

The activity outlined in the FPP may also need approval from local government, if required under the planning scheme and if the land is not a Private Timber Reserve (PTR) or State forest. The local council may impose additional conditions on the proposed operations.

Scott Marriott, a Forest Practices Officer employed by Forestry Tasmania’s Derwent District, was the winner of the inaugural Forest Practices Award for inspecting and supervising forest operations. He is on the left in the picture, coaching a felling machine operator on which type of trees to fell, according to the prescription in the Forest Practices Plan for a selective logging operation. (Photograph by Forestry Tasmania.)


11

1.3.1 Details of Forest Practices Plans certified in 2006–07

Table 1.3.1 Number of Forest Practices Plans certified in 2006–07 by type and certifying FPO for private forests (PP) and State forest (SF)

Certifying Forest Practices

Officer

Quarry plans Roading plansHarvesting plans (including

reforestation where appropriate)Reforestation

plans on cleared land

Total%Native forest Plantations

PP SF PP SF PP SF PP SF PP SF

Private Forests Tasmania 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 1 0 8 0.8

Forestry Tasmania 0 9 0 49 6 225 4 53 6 2 354 39.1

Forest companies 1 0 3 0 161 26 131 5 45 2 374 41.3

Consultants 0 0 0 0 89 0 11 24 44 2 170 18.8

Total 1 9 3 49 256 256 146 84 96 6 906 100.0

% 0.1 1.0 0.3 5.4 28.3 28.3 16.1 9.3 10.6 0.6 100.0

Partial logging1

Clearfelling followed by:

TotalRegeneration by seeding

Plantation Non-forest land use2Eucalypt Pine

State forest 7,576 3,284 3,711 0 239 14,810

Private land 7,185 488 7,133 1,109 1,494 17,409

Total 14,761 3,772 10,844 1,109 1,733 32,219

Table 1.3.2 Native forests: area (hectares) of operations covered by Forest Practices Plans certified in 2006–07 by harvesting method, future land use and tenure

Existing plantationsNew plantations on

cleared land TotalThinning

Clearfelling followed by:

Plantation Non-forest use

State forest 1,430 3,016 11 325 4,617

Private land 1,266 6,429 248 10,794 18,901

Total 2,696 9,445 259 11,119 23,518

Table 1.3.3 Plantations: area (hectares) of operations covered by Forest Practices Plans certified in 2006–07 by harvesting method, future land use and tenure

1 thinning, retention of advanced growth, seedtrees, or shelterwood, group or single tree selection2 clearing, primarily for agriculture and infrastructure, including roads


12

1.3.2 Harvesting of tree fernsThe harvesting of tree ferns (Dicksonia antarctica) is strictly regulated in Tasmania and is confined to the salvage of stems from forests that are being cleared for infrastructure, agriculture or plantation. Harvesting may only occur under an FPP that authorises salvage. Operations must be conducted in accordance with a management plan for the sustainable harvesting of tree ferns that has been endorsed by the Australian and Tasmanian governments. All tree ferns must have tags issued by the FPA affixed to their stems prior to removal from a harvesting area. These tags must remain on the stems at all times to ensure that the origin of tree ferns can be tracked to approved harvesting areas. The majority of tree ferns harvested in Tasmania are exported to national and international markets. Table 1.3.4 provides details on the harvesting of tree ferns in 2005–06 and 2006–07. Revenue from the sale of tree fern tags (see section 4 of this report) is used to fund regulatory activities and research into the longer term sustainability of tree fern harvesting.

Figure 1.3.1 Area of forest by various treatments from 1999–2007

Region

Number of FPPs certified including

tree fern harvesting prescription

Number of tree fern tags issued

2005–06 2006–07 2005–06 2006–07

North-east 9 1 27,200 37,040

North-west 18 15 14,246 14,547

South 6 2 3,685 3,215

Total 33 18 45,131 54,802

Table 1.3.4 The number of Forest Practices Plans certified to provide for salvage harvesting of tree ferns and number of tree ferns harvested

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

logging of plantations

establishment of plantation on cleared land

conversion of native forest to non-forest

conversion of native forest to plantation

clearfelling and regeneration of native forest

partial logging of native forest20

06–0

7

2005

–06

2004

–05

2003

–04

2002

–03

2001

–02

2000

–01

1999

–200

0

Are

a (h

a)


13

1.4 Three-year plansThe Forest Practices Act provides for lodgement with the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) of three-year plans for operations showing the location of the operation, the volume to be harvested and the carting routes for each operation. Such plans are required to be produced by companies harvesting, or causing to be harvested, more than 100,000 tonnes in the preceding year. Summaries of the plans are sent to relevant local government authorities as a basis for consultation and negotiation on the location of planned harvesting.

The FPA convenes a working group of representatives of local government and industry, which annually reviews the protocols for three-year plans, including the manner in which plans are prepared and briefings provided to local government.

Plans were prepared and submitted this year in accordance with the protocols.

1.5 Statutory reports

1.5.1 State of the Forests ReportThe Forest Practices Authority (FPA) is required under s. 4Z of the Forest Practices Act to produce a report every five years on the state of the forests. The next report is due in 2007. At the end of 2004, the FPA published an illustrated summary of the State of the Forests Report. Both the original report and the illustrated booklet, covering the years 1996–2001, are available from the website<http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au>.

In 2006–07 the FPA, in collaboration with other government agencies, compiled a report on the sustainability indicators that have agreed between the Tasmanian and Australian governments under the framework known as the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators. This report contains the data that will be used to produce the State of the Forests Tasmania 2006 report, which will be tabled in parliament by November 2007.

1.5.2 Forest Practices ReportThe FPA is required under s.4ZA of the Act to review the operation of the forest practices system, including the provisions and operation of the Forest Practices Code and to provide a report every five years (as from November 2002).

Since 2002, the following reviews have been completed or commenced by the FPA:

1. Reviews of Legislative provisions

In 2004 the then Forest Practices Board initiated a major review of the forest practices system, which led to a comprehensive package of changes to the legislation, including:

•AmendmentoftheForestPracticesActtoimprove the independence and transparency of the governance arrangements for the administration of the forest practices system, and the certification, monitoring, reporting and enforcement of Forest Practices Plans (FPPs) prepared in accordance with the Forest Practices Code (the Code).

•AmendmentoftheForest Practices Regulations 1997 to improve the operation of the forest practices system, in particular the introduction of an application fee for FPP certification and the protection of threatened forest types.

The above changes are detailed in the 2004–05 annual report of the FPA, which is available on the FPA’s website <www.fpa.tas.gov.au>.

Following further review, the Tasmanian Parliament passed further legislative changes in 2007 to bring the protection of threatened non-forest vegetation under the purview of the Forest Practices Act and Regulations (see section 1.1 of this report).

2. Reviews related to the implementation of the Act and Code

The FPA has initiated the following reviews:

1. A review of the procedures governing the administration of the application process for Private Timber Reserves (PTRs) was undertaken by international forestry consultant, Mr Clynt Wells.

2. A review of the provisions relating to the protection of class 4 streams was initiated in 2000. The review included a one year study by the FPA and two PhD studies in collaboration with the University of Tasmania. Revised management prescriptions for class 4 streams were implemented through an administrative instruction to Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) in 2003.

3. A thematic review was undertaken into the silvicultural management and regeneration of private forests. This audit was undertaken by the Chief Forest Practices Officer, FPA Compliance Manager and silvicultural expert, Leigh Edwards. The results of the audit are reported in the 2004–05 annual report of the FPA.

4. Expert reviews were conducted by working groups established by the Forest Practices Advisory Council into the smoke management provisions of the Code and the use of chemicals. Recommendations from both working groups are being incorporated into the general review of the Code (see below).

5. A major expert review of the biodiversity provisions of the Code was initiated by the FPA in 2006–07. The review is expected to be completed in early 2008, with its findings to be


14

submitted as part of the general review of the Code (see below).

6. A general review of the Code was initiated by the FPA in late 2006. The Authority expects the review to be completed and a revised Code released for public comment in 2008.

7. A major review of the training program for FPOs was initiated with a view to aligning the course with the national training framework.

Reviews of the forest practices system have been incorporated into the report on the implementation of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 2002–07 (available at <www.dpac.tas.gov.au>). This report is being independently reviewed as part of the review process of the RFA that has been agreed between the Tasmanian and Australian governments.

Pursuant to s.4ZA of the Act, the Board reports that the forest practices system has been subject to a process of review and improvement.

1.6 Private Timber ReservesPrivate Timber Reserves (PTRs) were created by parliament in 1985 to enable landowners to have their land dedicated for long-term forest management. The legislation provides that forestry activities on the land are subject to a single, consistent, state-wide system of planning and regulation through the Forest Practices Act, rather than to variable systems that may be applied under different planning schemes through the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. Details on PTR applications during 2006–07 are summarised below. The net area of forested private property now dedicated as PTRs represents approximately 42 per cent of the total area of private forests within the state.

Period 2006–07Progressive

total to: 30/06/2007 *

Applications approved by the Forest Practices Authority 95 1,797

Private timber reserves revoked 14 134

Total area gazetted (hectares) 9,261 430,019

*The progressive total contains adjustments to figures in previous periods. Progressive totals are adjusted primarily because original applications to declare areas as PTRs have in some cases been followed in later years with an application to revoke part or all of the area declared as a PTR.

1.7 Monitoring of compliance

1.7.1 GeneralThe forest industry has a responsibility to adequately supervise and monitor its forestry operations to ensure compliance. The industry employs Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) to supervise and monitor forestry operations to ensure that operations comply with the Forest Practices Act. Many forest managers undertake formal in-house monitoring, often as part of environmental management systems consistent with standards such as ISO 14001. Formal reporting on compliance is required upon the completion of all Forest Practices Plans (FPPs) under s. 25A of the Forest Practices Act (see section 1.7.2). Independent monitoring is carried out by:

•anindependentauditofarepresentativesampleof all FPPs by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA)

•auditsofPTRsbytheFPA• theChiefForestPracticesOfficerandotherstaff

of the FPA in the course of routine inspections, monitoring of the performance of FPOs, and investigations arising from complaints and alleged breaches of the Forest Practices Code (the Code)

•monitoringofnaturalandculturalvaluesbytheFPA’s specialist staff.

The Forest Practices Authority’s Senior Manager, Compliance carrying out an audit on King island.


15

1.7.2 Certification of complianceThe Forest Practices Act requires a certificate of compliance to be lodged with the FPA within 30 days of the completion of operations prescribed within an FPP. These certificates must be completed by an FPO and lodged by the person who applied for the plan. The FPA requires the reports to provide certification within one of the following categories:

•FPPfullycompliedwith–thismeansthatallprovisions of the plan were fully complied with.

•FPPnotfullycompliedwith:•Nofurtheractionrequired–thisgenerally

involves a change in the operation such as a reduction in the actual harvest area. Such changes are noted and amendments are made to the FPP database.

•Matterresolvedthroughcorrective action – this generally means that the FPO undertaking the final compliance check has detected non-compliance and has issued a notice under the Forest Practices Act to require corrective action to ensure compliance with the plan.

•Furtheractionrequired–thisgenerallyinvolves a non-compliance issue that requires further investigation and action by the FPA.

For FPPs certified after 1 July 2005, reports on compliance must be lodged within 30 days of the completion of each discrete operational phase within the FPP. Discrete operational phases include activities such as road construction, harvesting and reforestation. The FPA will progressively collate the operational compliance reports as they fall due; summaries will be presented in future annual reports.

There was little improvement in the lodgement of compliance reports pursuant to s. 25A of the Forest Practices Act in 2006–07, and the general rate of lodgement continues to be unacceptable, especially for operations conducted by the smaller independent operators. Those compliance reports that were lodged reported a reasonable level of compliance. The FPA put new administrative systems in place in 2006–07 to review the lodgement of reports and the FPA intends to progressively use its new powers to improve the lodgement of reports during 2007–08.

Applicant Certificates due

Certificates lodged

Compliance (for certificates lodged)

Fully compliedNot fully complied

No further action

Corrective action

Further investigation

Forestry Tasmania 1309 1216 93% 1059 87% 135 11% 9 1% 13 1%

Gunns 1120 962 86% 725 75% 207 22% 5 1% 25 3%

Forest Enterprises 179 156 87% 115 74% 16 10% 19 12% 6 4%

Tasmania Plantations 85 85 100% 54 64% 13 15% 14 16% 4 5%

Norske Skog 104 99 95% 74 75% 20 20% 0% 5 5%

Rayonier 122 114 93% 71 62% 29 25% 0% 14 12%

Bardenhagen 51 8 16% 4 50% 3 38% 1 13% 0%

Farmwood Tas Coop. 19 11 58% 6 55% 2 18% 0% 3 27%

Artec 20 9 45% 2 22% 7 78% 0% 0%

Auspine 9 6 67% 6 100% 0% 0% 0%

Britton Bros 6 6 100% 6 100% 0% 0% 0%

Smallindependent/private property 971 409 42% 295 72% 91 22% 7 2% 16 4%

Grand total 3995 3081 77% 2417 78% 523 17% 55 2% 86 3%

Last year’s total (2005–06) 2529 1906 75% 1446 76% 356 19% 48 3% 56 3%

Table 1.7.1 Certificates of compliance due for lodgement with the FPA as at 30th June 2007


16

1.7.3 Independent audit of Forest Practices PlansThe annual audit program provides the instrument by which the FPA meets its statutory obligations under s. 4(E)(1)(b) of the Forest Practices Act which states that the FPA must, at least once each financial year, ‘assess the implementation and effectiveness of a sample of Forest Practices Plans.’

To this end, the FPA conducts a range of audits (referred to as the annual audit program) that use a systematic, independent and documented verification process to objectively obtain and assess evidence to evaluate performance against the requirements of the Forest Practices Act, the Code and an FPP.

The annual audit program has been developed in line withtheAustralianStandardAS/NZSISO19011:2003:Guidelines for quality and/or environmental management systems auditing. This standard defines an audit as a systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled. In line with ISO 19011, the annual audit program is periodically reviewed to identify areas of improvement, which are then implemented.

The formal audit process is based on a stratified random sample of certified FPPs selected from the FPA’s FPP database. The 2006–07 audit program focused on certified FPPs at various stages of completion in the three years prior to 1 July 2006.

The audit program assessed 107 FPPs, incorporating a random sample, stratified to cover:

•allaspectsofforestplanningandoperationalpractices, as defined under the Forest Practices Act

•arepresentativesampleundertakenbycompanies and agencies, and individual forest owners or managers

• thestandardofplanningundertakenbyFPOswho have certified plans during the nominated period.

1.7.3.1 Method

A two-level audit program was maintained in 2006–07 involving operational and planning compliance audits of certified FPPs.

1. An operational audit assesses the quality of planning and on-ground operational outcomes against specified provisions within each FPP, and the principles of the Forest Practices Act and the Code. The extent of assessment of operational audits is stratified to encompass FPOs, tenure and plan types, as detailed under the FPA’s Auditing Manual.

2. A planning audit assesses the standard of the FPP. Planning audits are primarily document

based assessments which focus on documentary evidence in order to assess the wording of prescriptions, clarity and effectiveness of maps, the level of special values assessment undertaken and the adequacy of administrative procedures.

The 2006–07 audit was based on 11 categories, incorporating 139 standards, which were assessed using a question-based approach.

Assessment is based on a three-tiered, five-level scoring system (Appendix 3) which provides an audit performance rating score. The state-wide performance rating is determined as the weighted mean of the total sample. This score provides a measure of performance against the standards set by the Board of the FPA.

The Board of the FPA has set a performance rating score of three as the minimum target that best represents sound practice and acceptable operational standards required to meet the objectives of the Forest Practices Act and the Code. The highest achievable score is four, while a score below three indicate areas of requiring improvement.

InconsistencieswiththeForestPracticesActand/or the Code identified through the audit program are independently investigated and may be subject to enforcement actions as detailed in section 1.9. However, annual audit performance ratings do not assess whether enforcement action is required.

Five auditors were used during the 2006–07 audit program: two are registered Provisional Environmental Auditors with RABQSA International:

•MrAidanFlanagan,aregisteredEnvironmentalAuditor with over 20 years’ experience in forestry. Mr Flanagan, as Lead Auditor, had primary responsibility for ensuring the efficient and effective conduct, and conclusion, of the annual audit program in accord with the audit scope and plan as defined under protocols and instructions.

•MrPaulWilkinson,theFPA’sSeniorAuditorhasover 20 years’ experience in auditing and has been trained as an Environmental Auditor under the RABQSA training program.

•MrPeterLockwood,anexperiencedForestPractices Officer employed by Private Forests Tasmania has undertaken audits for the FPA for over 10 years.

•MrSteveManson,SeniorConsultantandEnvironmental Auditor employed by GHD Pty Ltd with over 30 years’ experience in forestry and forest auditing in Tasmania and internationally.

•MrHenryChan,NorthWestPrivateForestAdvisor with Private Forestry Tasmania, has trained as an Environmental Auditor under the RABQSA training program and has over 30 years’ experience in forestry in New Zealand and Tasmania.


17

The Chief Forest Practices Officer, Graham Wilkinson, has overall responsibility for the audit program. Mr Wilkinson is an Accredited Environmental Auditor (RABQSA).

1.7.3.2 Summary of the results and discussion on the annual audit program

The 2006–07 audit program found that continued improvement in planning and operational performance is being achieved in many areas. On average the audit indicated that forest planning and operational practices for all categories across all tenures met or exceeded the minimum performance rating of three (sound).

Figure 1.7.1 Mean performance rating for all audits by category, 2006–07

Figure 1.7.2 Mean performance rating for all audits by category and tenure, 2006–07

The audit program conducted 100 operational and seven planning audits. A summary of the various facets of forest operations audited is provided in Table 1.7.2. Full results, by audit questions, are detailed in Appendix 3.

Summaries of the audit program outcomes are calculated as the weighted mean of the question’s performance rating within each category and are provided in Figure 1.7.1 (mean performance rating for all audits by category) and Figure 1.7.2 (mean performance rating for all audits by category and tenure).

A total of 48 certifying FPOs were assessed during the audit program.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Planning

Roading

Harvesting

Reforestation

Fuels & rubbish

Soils & water

Flora

Fauna

Landscape

Cultural heritage

Geomorphology

State forest

Independent(private)

Industrial(private)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Planning

Roading

Harvesting

Reforestation

Fuels & rubbish

Soils & water

Flora

Fauna

Landscape

Cultural heritage

Geomorphology

Score Performancerating

4 High

3.5

3 Sound

2

1 Unacceptable

NA/0 Not auditable


18

1.7.3.3 Comments on standards achieved

Individual performance ratings by tenure

A total of 6,938 individual forest planning and operational questions were assessed across 107 FPPs. An analysis of the performance rating for each question by tenure (Table 1.7.3) indicates that, on average, 90.6 per cent received a score of three or above:

•94.7percentonStateforests•94.9percentforindustrialforestcompanies•82.4percentforindependentforestowners.

Table 1.7.2 Coverage of the 2006–07 full audit

State forest Industrial forest companies

Independent forest owners Total

No. of audits 49 41 17 107

No. of certifying FPOs audited 25 19 7 48

Operation

Roading 26 24 0 50

Harvesting 40 36 17 93

Reforestation 36 35 8 79

Quarry 1 0 0 1

Forest type

Softwood plantation 0 11 3 14

Hardwood plantation 2 4 4 10

Native forest – clearfelled 20 9 7 36

Native forest – partial logging 16 12 6 34

Harvesting

Conventional 41 30 17 88

Cable 1 0 0 1

Reforestation

Softwood plantation 1 5 1 7

Hardwood plantation 8 16 2 26

Native forest 29 15 6 50

Conversion – non-forest 1 0 6 7

Note: No audits were conducted on Crown land other than State forest land.

Table 1.7.3 Percentage of performance rating recorded for all individual questions scored for each operation by tenure

Tenure/rating 1(Unacceptable)

2(Less than sound)

3(Sound)

3.5(Above sound)

4(High)

State forest 1.4% 3.9% 7.0% 6.1% 81.6%

Industrial (private) 1.4% 3.7% 6.0% 5.8% 83.1%

Independent (private) 5.4% 12.2% 15.8% 8.4% 58.2%

The performance rate demonstrated that the objectives of the Forest Practices Act and the Code are generally being met. However, the FPA remains concerned that forest operations undertaken by private forest owners are not achieving the same level of performance as those undertaken by other forest owners.


19

Average performance rating: High

Twenty-three questions resulted in an average performance rating of 4.0 indicating that the outcomes specified within an FPP were fully met for that question and these were consistent with the objectives of the Forest Practices Act and the Code. In particular:

• temporaryclassonetothreestreamcrossingsarebeing removed and drained

•harvestingextractiondesignsaremeetingtheCode requirements with appropriate snig track and streamside reserve management in plantations being implemented

•appropriateseedingstockisbeingusedforre-establishment of native forests

• specialvaluesarebeingrecognised,andspecialist’s advice is being sought and implemented.

Average performance rating: Above sound

One hundred and two questions resulted in an average performance rating of 3.5 to 3.9 inclusive. These results indicate that the outcomes specified within an FPP for these questions exceeded minimum performance standards and met the objectives of the Forest Practices Act and the Code.

This standard was achieved consistently across all forest planning and operational elements and indicates that FPP planning is comprehensive, and the development of prescriptions is consistent with observed outcomes.

Average performance rating: Sound

Twelve questions achieved an average performance rating of 3.0 to 3.4 inclusive: the minimum standard determined by the FPA as necessary to meet the objectives of the Forest Practices Act and the Code. Nine incidents were observed in regards to roading and reforestation activities. In some cases, natural events – such as high intensity rain events and grazing – have contributed to lower performance outcomes.

Average performance rating: Below sound

Two questions reflected an average performance rating below sound but none was assessed as unacceptable. This indicates that further improvements in particular areasofforestplanningand/oroperationsarerequired.Further evaluations of specific areas of concern are detailed in section 1.7.3.4.

1.7.3.4 Areas requiring improved performance

Consistent with previous annual audit programs, further analysis of outcomes was undertaken to identify areas where improvements may be required to meet the objectives of the Forest Practices Act and the Code.

The FPA determines that areas of concern are where a performance rating below 3.0 occurred eight or more times within an element:

•Theseareasofconcernarehighlightedduringdebriefing sessions provided to individuals, companies and agencies.

•Potentialremedialactionisalsodiscussedwhereappropriate.

Nineteen questions scored below 3.0 at least eight times through the 2006–07 audit program. The following is a summary of issues relating to each of these 19 questions.

Question 3: Were FPP and variations fully signed and dated?

(Below sound occurrence – eight times)

Average performance rating: 3.6 (Industrial-3.7, Independent-2.9, State forest-3.7)

This outcome reflects poor administrative processes, withlowerstandardsreportedforfailuretoeitherdate/sign or inconsistencies with dates. Generally, lower performances were reported for FPPs undertaken on independent (private) operations.

FPOs will be advised where such incidents occur.

Question 4: Is FPP/variations completely, clearly and legibly documented?

(Below sound occurrence – 10 times)


Incidents are mainly related to FPPs prepared for independent (private) forest operations and reflect lower administrative standards than those expected by the FPA.

FPOs will be advised where such incidents occur.

Question 6: Were all variations documented?



While administrative deficiencies contributed to the lower performance rating, in a number of instances landowners changed operational prescriptions to reflect operational objectives. While such changes are reflected in the performance rating, generally such variations were minor and of a technical nature (such as relocating a landing or continuing to use a temporary road) and no adverse impacts were observed as a result of these actions.

Several instances were observed where harvesting occurred outside the FPP boundary and were reported to the Compliance section of the FPA for investigations.

The audit debriefing sessions will be used by the FPA to emphasise the obligation for FPOs to make landowners aware of their responsibilities and to seek a variation to an FPP to ensure that these are appropriately documented and are consistent with the original FPP.


20

Question 10: Does the FPP indicate that a fire management plan was prepared where necessary?



This performance rating reflect administrative and planning deficiencies, where plans are either not prepared (and may on occasion reflect past practices which did not historically include fire management plans for consolidated areas of commercial forest over 50 hectares) or where regional fire management plans have been developed but are not noted on the FPP.

The FPA will continue to use the audit debriefing sessions to reinforce requirements under s. E3 of the Code.

Question 19: Has the road been adequately drained?



The Performance rating reflect instances where drainage has been inadequate and was often observed as a consequence of forest and non-forest use following construction which, on limited occasions, also include areas which are used by members of the public whose activities contribute to lower standards being observed.

Drainage deficiencies will be highlighted during audit debriefing sessions.

Question 20: Have access tracks been adequately drained and stabilised after use?

(Below sound occurrence – nine times)


Drainage operations on Industrial and State forests were satisfactory, generally those carried out on private land were below the minimum standards.

Performance was lowered where access tracks were planned to be rehabilitated, and remained open and in use. The standard of these temporary tracks generally do not support continued use activities and hence resulted in drainage and stability issues being observed during the audit program.

The FPA will integrate these findings in training tools being developed to improve the management of access tracks.

Question 33: Does the condition of all retained roads minimise erosion?



The performance rating is associated with those observed and assessed for questions 19, 20, and 36.

In highly erodible soils, table drains need careful construction. The photo on the left shows what can happen when drainage is directed over unconsolidated fill. The photo on the right shows lining of a table drain with stones and boulders around the culvert entrance to help prevent siltation of run-off. (Photograph on right by Forestry Tasmania.)


21

Question 36: Has an effective maintenance system been applied?

(Below sound – 14 times)


The performance rating is associated with those observed and assessed for questions 19, 20 and 33.

Question 37: Has the FPP/variations/Code been followed?

(Below sound – eight times)


Performance rating generally reflects instances where a change to the road category are not reflected in the FPP and again reflect those observed instances in questions19, 20, 33 and 36.

Question 40: Has the harvesting boundary been clearly marked?



Boundary marking is considered an important requirement to ensure that forest operations are contained within those areas identified and approved under an FPP. While some boundary marking tape may be lost due to natural events (wind, fire, or wildlife) a number of instances were observed where natural boundaries were used to delineate a boundary. While the use of natural boundaries may be appropriate in some instances:

•SomeFPPsboundarieshadnotbeenmarkedand poor outcomes were observed, and in some instances reported for further investigation.

•WhereanFPPstatesthatharvestingboundaries‘will be marked’, then a lower performance rating is recorded unless such marking is observed. These instances reflect technical breaches which have not resulted in observed adverse environmental outcomes.

Question 72: Has the FPP and variations been followed?



The performance rating generally reflect technical inconsistencies, where ‘will’ statements have not been implemented fully. For example, an FPP may state that all log residues ‘will’ be taken from a landing back into the coupe. A failure to do this results in a lower performance rating, although generally no adverse environmental outcomes were observed. However, in

some instances poor outcomes were observed and, where appropriate, some were referred for further investigation.

Question 79: Is an effective stocking likely to be achieved?



In some instances, it is considered that a combination of ongoing drought conditions and intense grazing pressure (both native wallabies and domestic stock) in grassy areas has contributed to a lower performance rating.

However, in some instances, the omission of stock was not actively enforced and, where appropriate, referred for further investigation.

The FPA will provide additional advice to landowners highlighting their ongoing responsibilities in regard to reducing grazing pressure on growing tree stock in order to support target stocking rates being achieved.

Question 88: Have access tracks and firebreaks been located and managed to protect soil, water and visual values?

(Below sound –17 times)


Auditors observed that water bars were either absent or poorly constructed and it was often noted where snig tracks were used as access tracks and existing drainage control measures were inadequate.

Question 91: Has the soil erodibility rating been correctly determined?



The Code’s guidelines are in many instances based on suitable erodibility classes being identified in order to implement appropriate management prescriptions.

Generally, performance rating reflects occurrences where the majority of area is consistent with the recorded erodibility class; however, higher erodible soils were observed and were not reflected in the FPP.

The FPA will use debriefing sessions to highlight these deficiencies.

Question 95: Evidence of post-operational accelerated soil erosion?




22

These performance ratings are associated with questions 19, 20, 33 and 36.

Question 115: Were the WHC prescriptions in the FPP implemented?



Inconsistencies in regard to the position, extent and integrity of wildlife habitat clumps resulted in lower performance ratings than expected in such instances. The lower rating is often related to post operational firewood collection, grazing by domestic stock, and in some instances inappropriate harvesting. Some instances were referred to the Compliance section for further investigation.

The FPA will provide additional advice to landowners highlighting their ongoing responsibilities in regard to maintaining wildlife habitat clumps.

Question 116: Was the Landscape Management Objective assessed correctly?



The development of plantations on previously cleared agricultural land, and ongoing management within extensive plantation estates, has resulted in a lower standard being achieved when assessing landscape management objectives. It is likely that training deficiencies may also contribute to the observed outcomes.

The FPA is developing appropriate training programs to provide the necessary level of knowledge relating to the need for assessing landscape values and objectives.

Question 117: Have all viewing issues been identified?



The reported outcome is related to question 116.

Question 132: If a post operation survey was recommended, was it completed?



There is a clear deficiency in regards to undertaking post-operational cultural surveys being undertaken. The need for post-operational surveys will be stressed at de-briefs and training courses.

1.7.3.5 Additional areas of improvement

Under s. 4E(1)(b) of the Forest Practices Act, the FPA reports that the implementation and effectiveness of FPPs on State forest and on private land that is managed by large companies was generally above the nominated standards for the majority of factors being assessed. Aspects that were managed to a very high standard include:

• removalanddrainageoftemporarycrossingfor class 1–3 streams

•harvestingextractiondesignandplanning,including appropriate snig track and plantation streamside reserve management

• selectionofappropriateseedstockassociatedwith native forest re-establishment

•appropriateidentificationofspecialvalues• appropriatenotificationandintegrationof

advice within FPPs.Specific areas where further improvement is required include:

•appropriatedocumentationbeingpreparedduring planning and operational phases

•documentingspecificand/orregionalfiremanagement plans in the FPP

• implementingappropriatemaintenanceprograms to improve road and fire trail drainage and stability

•markingboundaries•protectingseedstocktoimprovestockingrates•maintainingintegrityofwildlifehabitatclumps• integratingappropriatelandscape

management objectives• carryingoutappropriatepostoperational

cultural surveys.

The audit revealed a very high standard for the appropriate identification of special values. Harvesting of this coupe in wet forest was designed to protect native fauna (in this case eagles’ nests and stream fauna) and minimise stream erosion. The forest between the harvested sections has been reserved. The coupe has been split into five sections, four of which will be harvested together, with the fifth section deferred. Thus in coupes with multiple special values, application of prescriptions can effectively lead to smaller harvest areas. (Photograph by Forestry Tasmania.)


23

1.8 Monitoring of the Permanent Native Forest Estate

1.8.1 BackgroundSection 4C(fa) of the Forest Practices Act 1985 requires the FPA to monitor and report on harvesting and reforestation activity in relation to the maintenance of a Permanent Native Forest Estate.

The Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy was established through the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), and revised in November 2005. The policy aims to maintain a Permanent Native Forest Estate that comprises areas of native forest managed on a sustainable basis (for all its various conservation, production and amenity values) by placing limits on conversion of native forest communities to other land uses. The policy does not restrict the harvest of native forest types where the silvicultural system ensures successful regeneration and maintenance of that forest community.

The Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy is outlined in the RFA. It prescribes that the area of native forest will be retained above minimum thresholds, expressed as a percentage of the native forest estate assessed in 1996 under the RFA. The revised policy (February 2007) resulted in changes to requirements to retain native forest vegetation on a state-wide basis – it is available on the Forest Practices Authority’s website: <www.fpa.tas.gov.au> The revised policy incorporates requirements of other recent legislation and policies, such as the Natural Heritage Trust Bilateral Agreement (2003) and the Community Forest Agreement (2004) between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments. The current Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy requires the following levels of retention of native forest in Tasmania:

•State-wideextentofnativeforest:95percentof the estimated 1996 area of native forest to be maintained.

•Threatened(rare,vulnerableandendangered)forest communities are to be maintained, except where conversion will not substantially detract from the conservation of that forest community or conservation values within the immediate area.

•Non-threatenedforestcommunitiesmustbemaintained at a level no less than 50 per cent of the 1996 area of the community in each Interim Biogeographic Region for Australia (IBRA) bioregion. However, because the policy requires that conversion does not cause any non-threatened forest community to become threatened, the policy states that the mapping and conservation status of any non-threatened forest community will be reviewed, to assess its bioregional significance, if the rate of

conversion is likely to result in the area of a forest community falling below:•75percentoftheestimated1996areaof

that community in an IBRA bioregion, or •aminimumof2000hectaresinanIBRA

bioregion.The Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy also specifies that forestry operations do not result in the incidental clearance and conversion of threatened non-forest vegetation communities, except in those conditions where the activity will not substantially detract from the conservation of that non-forest vegetation community or conservation values within the immediate area. This requirement is supported by recent changes to the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Act 2002 and the Forest Practices Act. Non-forest communities are not considered further in this report.

The Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy is given effect through the Forest Practices Authority’s (FPA’s) consideration of applications for Forest Practices Plans (FPPs) under the Forest Practices Act. Planning tools and instructions ensure that forestry operations affecting communities with a priority for conservation are referred by Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) to the FPA’s scientific staff for specialist advice. Administrative instructions ensure that policy requirements for threatened communities are incorporated into forest practices planning. The FPA maintains a database which contains details of all certified FPPs, including (for each FPP) the communities in the FPP area and the type of operation affecting each community; this database forms the basis for the FPA’s monitoring and reporting on Tasmania’s Permanent Native Forest Estate.

The extent of forest communities as mapped in 1996 is the benchmark for reporting on the Permanent Native Forest Estate. Previous FPA annual reports have used the 1996 figures as identified in the Tasmanian RFA (1997) and associated documents. The 1996 mapping

Eucalyptus regnans forest is widespread across Tasmania. This is a non-threatened community; however in some bioregions it has decreased by more than 30 per cent of its 1996 forest community area, prompting concern for the maintenance of this community in these bioregions.


24

was reassessed during preparation of the 2002 State of the Forest Report, which can be accessed on the FPA’s website. For most communities, differences between the 1997 and 2002 figures are minor, with the most substantial differences being an increase in the mapped extent of some rainforest communities in the 2002 assessment. The revised (2002) figures are used in this annual report.

Since the RFA was signed in 1997, suitable areas of private land that contain forest communities with a priority for conservation, or other values specified in the RFA, have been referred to the Private Forest Reserves Program (DPIW) so that this program could assess and (if appropriate) negotiate conservation options with the landowner. The Private Forest Reserves Program ceased this role in 2005–06, though DPIW’s new Private Land Conservation Program still maintains staff for monitoring reserved properties and other functions. A new scheme has been established to protect private forest with high conservation values (through the Community Forest Agreement), with a focus being on securing old-growth forest.

1.8.2 The Permanent Native Forest Estate figures Appendix 4 of this report lists the bioregional extent and conversion of forest communities, based on both the 1996 RFA mapping and the 2002 (State of the Forest Report) dataset. Care is needed in interpreting the data, for the following reasons:

•Thefiguresrelatetoplannedoperations,notall of which will have been completed in the reporting period.

•AreasofforestcommunitiesgiveninFPPsaregenerally gross areas that do not exclude reserves such as streamside reserves. The figures relating to the conversion of native forest are therefore likely to be overestimates for some communities.

•Conversionofthreatenedforestcommunitieswas permitted under the 1997 Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy, leading to concern at the continuing reduction in the extent of some communities. The FPA imposed a moratorium on further conversion of threatened communities in 2002, pending a review of the Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy, which constrained further loss of these communities. The moratoriums were supported by bilateral agreements (signed in May 2003 and May 2005) between the Australian and Tasmanian governments. Under the revised Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy (November 2005), the FPA has discretionary power to allow conversion of threatened communities in exceptional circumstances, where the conversion will not substantially detract from the conservation of that forest community or conservation values within the

immediate area. Such clearance, in many cases, has been accompanied by reservation (offsets) of other areas of equal or greater conservation value.

•Theproportionsofforestcommunitiesconvertedare based on the area of each community as mapped in 1996 (from RFA mapping and revised State of the Forest Report mapping, as discussed above). The mapping of forest communities is also subject to other reviews (e.g. through mapping undertaken by DPIW and the Sustainability Indicators for Tasmanian Forests 2007 report). Such revisions have provided more accurate information on the extent and distribution of forest communities, and have assisted the FPA to supply advice for operations affecting threatened forest communities or other communities approaching regional thresholds. Some figures given in previous annual reports have been revised in the light of more accurate information.

• Inthe2005–06reportingperiod,thestateand Australian governments approved the reclassification of the RFA community ‘Inland E. amygdalina forest’, following a review of this community by the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Private Forest Reserves Program (CARSAG). This community has been replaced by: • ‘InlandE. amygdalina – E. viminalis – E.

pauciflora forests and woodlands on Cainozoic deposits’; this community is strongly associated with Recent and Tertiary sediments (including ironstone deposits) in the northern Midlands and Fingal Valley. It occurs mainly on private land and has been extensively cleared. It retains its classification as a vulnerable community.

• ‘E. amygdalina forest on mudstone’; this community occurs mainly on dry mudstone sites (mainly in south-east Tasmania) or mudstone-derived substrate of the Mathinna series in the north-east. It has not been extensively cleared and is not classified as a vulnerable community.

These two communities are treated as ‘inland E. amygdalina forest’ for the purposes of this report; unless otherwise specified, most conversion in 2006–07 is for ‘E. amygdalina forest on mudstone’.

•Theanalysesdonotincludefiguresforclearingnot associated with timber production, which was conducted before such clearing became subject to regulation under the Forest Practices Act in 2002. A negligible amount of such clearing would have occurred in more commercial forest types, but agricultural clearing could be significant in some drier forests and woodlands with low timber quality.


25

1.8.3 Main outcomes•Atotalof13,672hectaresofnativeforestwas

converted to other vegetation types (mainly plantation and agricultural land use) in 2006–07. The areas of highest native forest conversion were 3511 hectares (Central Highlands) and 2728 (Woolnorth).

•Overall,thereductioninthenativeforestestateover the period from 1997–98 to 2006–07 amounts to approximately 124,316 hectares (3.9 per cent of the estimated 1996 native forest estate) as a result of conversion, mainly for plantation or agriculture. The proportion of native forest conversion by bioregion (based on 2002 figures) varies from 9.4 per cent (Woolnorth Region) to 0.7 per cent (West Southwest Region) – see Table 1.8.1.

•Lessthan50hectaresofthreatenedforestcommunities were converted in 2006–07, with such conversion occurring where the FPA exercised their discretionary powers in exceptional circumstances (as discussed above). Note that most conversion of the recently divided ‘inland E. amygdalina forest’ community in the 2006–07 reporting period comprised the non-threatened ‘E. amygdalina forest on mudstone’ community.

•Althoughtherearenumerouscommunitiesthathave an extent of less than 2000 hectares within a bioregion, most of these communities have had no conversion or negligible conversion in the 2005–06 reporting period (and generally in the period from 1997–98 to 2006–07) – see Appendix 4. Many of the communities

with areas of less than 2000 hectares within bioregions are threatened communities and are subject to constraints on conversion (as discussed above). The FPA is mindful, through its planning and notification processes, of the risk of high proportional loss of some non-threatened communities with localised and often disjunct occurrences within bioregions.

•TheTasmanianPermanentNativeForestEstate Policy sets a bioregional threshold for all communities to be maintained at no less than 50 per cent retention of the 1996 area. Table 1.8.2 shows communities that have sustained losses of more than 10 per cent within a bioregion during the period 1997–2007. Some of these communities are threatened communities, which are now subject to constraints on conversion on public and private land through the Tasmanian forest practices system. The FPA notes that a small number of communities have been subjected to very high rates of conversion to plantations, with bioregional losses of over 30 per cent for some communities. The FPA records its concern that such high levels of conversion have potentially long-term ramifications for the maintenance of regional biodiversity. It is anticipated that the rate of conversion of native forest to plantation will decrease substantially, with changes to policies being put in place by Tasmania’s public forest land manager (Forestry Tasmania) and owners and managers of large areas of private forest in the state under the requirements of the (voluntary) Australian Forestry Standard.

Table 1.8.1 Loss of native forest in Tasmania and Tasmanian bioregions, relative to the area estimated in the 2002 RFA

Bioregion

This year: % decrease of native forest at

30/06/07 from 2002 RFA Area

Last year: % decrease of native forest at

30/06/06

Furneaux 0.0 0.0

Woolnorth 9.4 8.7

Ben Lomond 7.8 7.3

Midlands 2.6 2.1

Freycinet 2.0 1.7

Central Highlands 2.8 2.1

West Southwest 0.7 0.6

D’Entrecasteaux 4.9 4.5

State total 3.9 3.5

Melaleuca ericifolia Swamp Forest is rare and endangered in Tasmania. This forest type is habitat for several threatened animal species, such as the grey goshawk (nesting and foraging habitat), dwarf galaxias, striped marsh frog and the Marrawah skipper in the far north-west of Tasmania.


26

Table 1.8.2 Forest communities with a reduction in bioregional area of more than 10 per cent relative to their estimated extent (using information from the 1996 forest area figures as given in the 2002 State of the Forest Report)

(Some communities identified in Appendix 4 as having losses of unrealistic magnitudes, because of significant bioregional inaccuracies in the 1996 mapping, have been excluded from this table.)

No. RFA forest community2002 RFA

area (ha)

2006–07 decrease

(ha)

Total decrease 1996–2007

(ha)

% total decrease

1996–2007

Woolnorth bioregion

3 Inland E. amygdalina forest # 902 0.0 120.5 13.4

14 Tall E. delegatensis forest 14,552 89.5 2,297.2 15.8

21 Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 28,659 104.5 4,406.1 15.4

29 Dry E. obliqua forest 29,106 295.7 3,486.5 12.0

30 Tall E. obliqua forest 124,714 1,353.6 18,204.0 14.6

37 E. regnans forest 2,632 11.0 842.6 32.0

49 Wet E. viminalis forest on basalt # 2,610 0.0 284.0 10.9

Ben Lomond bioregion

3 Inland E. amygdalina forest # 4,567 0.0 1,167.4 25.6

4 E. amygdalina forest on sandstone # 1,024 0.0 205.0 20.0

8 Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises 75 3.0 24.0 32.0

13 E. viminalis / E. ovata / E. amygdalina / E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest 2,091 4.2 867.0 *41.4


30 Tall E. obliqua forest 53,509 346.7 6,730.8 12.6

31 Shrubby E. ovata / E. viminalis forest # 428 0.0 89.3 20.9

37 E. regnans forest 27,517 319.5 9.108.3 33.1

49 Wet E. viminalis forest on basalt # 92 0.0 45.0 *48.9

Midlands bioregion


34 E. pauciflora forest on Jurassic dolerite 450 0.0 49.0 10.9

Freycinet bioregion

3 Inland E. amygdalina forest # 568 0.0 154.0 27.1

37 E. regnans forest 3,280 29.5 771.2 23.5

Central Highlands bioregion

4 E. amygdalina forest on sandstone # 49 0.0 7.0 *14.3


West and Southwest bioregion

37 E. regnans forest 12,588 487.6 1,381.1 11.0

D’Entrecasteaux bioregion

17 Grassy E. globulus forest # 596 0.0 61.0 10.2

Notes: * These figures are under-estimates of retained forest due to the inaccuracy of the 1996 RFA mapping. # Threatened forest communities with constraints on conversion on public and private land through the forest practices system.

Under s. 4C(fa) of the Forest Practices Act, the FPA reports that Tasmania’s native forest estate has been maintained in accordance with the Tasmanian Government Policy on the Maintenance of a Permanent Native Forest Estate. The area of native forest as at 30 June 2007 was equivalent to 96.1 per cent of the native forest area that existed in 1996. The FPA notes that a small number of forest communities have been subjected to very high rates of conversion to plantations, with bioregional losses of over 30 per cent for some communities. The FPA records its concern that such high levels of conversion have potentially long-term ramifications for the maintenance of regional biodiversity. The Board notes and welcomes changes to the Australian Forestry Standard which should have the effect of substantially decreasing the rate of conversion of native forest to plantation.


27

1.9 Enforcement

1.9.1 Investigation of complaintsThe Forest Practices Authority (FPA) investigates all complaints relating to alleged breaches or poor practice. The FPA believes that under the principle of self-regulation, all parties have a responsibility to respond to complaints. Wherever possible, the FPA asks Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) to investigate alleged breaches and to deal with public complaints. Formal legal investigations by the FPA, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, are undertaken into all serious breaches.

The FPA received 93 reports of alleged breaches in 2006–07. There were 21 investigations on State forest, six on Crown land, nine on industrial private land and 54 on non-industrial private land. The alleged breaches involved operating without a plan (31), boundary incursions (2), streamside reserves (9), natural and cultural values (10) and other matters (48). Outcomes of investigations are detailed in Table 1.9.1.

Table 1.9.1 Outcomes of completed investigations

OutcomeYear in which investigation commenced

2004–05 2005–06 2006–07

No breach 42 30% 36 30% 23 25%

Minor breach, no serious environmental harm 17 12% 6 5% 13 14%

Notice issued to require corrective action or formal warning given 47 34% 32 27% 19 21%

Penalty imposed 3 9% 6 5% 3 3%

Matters resolved by the courts 1 1% 0 0% 0 0%

Apparent breach but insufficient evidence or out of time to proceed with legal action 16 12% 13 11% 4 4%

Total completed investigations 136 99% 93 78% 62 67%

Investigations in progress 2 1% 27 22% 31 33%

Total investigations (completed and in progress) 138 120 93

Table 1.9.2 Legal enforcement 2002–03 to 2006–07

2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07

Notices issued by FPOs 26 23 20 21

Fines imposed 8 22 11 3

Complaints laid 6 2 1 2

* refers to written notices and does not include verbal notices or directions given by a Forest Practices Officer under s.41 of the Act

The picture on the left shows a rehabilitated temporary log crossing. The Forest Practices Code stipulates that, on completion of harvesting or site preparation, temporary log crossings must be removed from watercourses to allow water to flow unrestricted along its original course and the streambanks must be left in a stable condition.


28

1.9.2 Notices and prosecutionsThe forest practices system is designed to achieve high environmental standards, with an emphasis on planning, training and education. Where problems arise, the FPA expects that they will be dealt with through early detection and corrective action. Corrective action may mean remedial treatment in the forest. Most importantly, it also means reviewing and improving systems to ensure that similar errors do not arise in the future. From time to time, errors arise that generally reflect inadequate systems or insufficient care. In these cases, penalties are appropriate to reinforce the importance of all parties striving for full compliance with the requirements of the Forest Practices Act. Legal enforcement may be taken in several ways:

•FPOsmaygiveverbalorwrittennotification(under s. 41(1)) in order to inform persons that they must comply with the Act or a Forest Practices Plan (FPP). Where this notice is not complied with, an FPO may issue a second notice (under s. 41(2)) to direct the person to cease operations and carry out any work required to ameliorate any damage incurred as a result of the breach. Failure to comply with the second notice may lead to prosecution.

•TheFPAmayprosecuteforfailuretohaveoperations covered by an FPP (s. 17), for failing to comply with an FPP (s. 21) or for failing to lodge a certificate of compliance (s. 25A).

•TheFPAmayimposefinesasanalternativetoprosecution (s. 47B).

(See Table 1.9.2 on previous page)

The FPA imposed three fines in 2006–2007. Two other matters were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.Finestotalled$14,000.Notethatthissection only summarises fines paid in 2006–07, including fines imposed in 2004–05 and paid in 2006–07. It does not record fines imposed in 2006–07 but not settled by 30 June 2007. Fines paid under s. 47B of the Forest Practices Act in 2006–07 were as follows:

• contractorsCT&LJWigginswerefined$2,000for taking a harvesting machine into the machinery exclusion zone of a class 4 stream

•ForestryTasmanianHuonDistrictwasfined$2,000asaresultoftimberbeingharvestedfroma road line contrary to the requirements of the forest practices plan

• landownerTJHeazlewoodwasfined$10,000forclearing 74 ha of forest prior to the completion and certification of an FPP.

1.10 Self-regulationThe Tasmanian forest practices system is based on a co-regulatory approach, involving self-regulation by the industry with independent monitoring and enforcement carried out by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). The objectives of the forest practices system are outlined in Schedule 7 of the Forest Practices Act (listed at the beginning of this report). Self-regulation is implemented through the following processes within the forest practices system:

•PreparationofForestPracticesPlans(FPPs).Section 18 of the Forest Practices Act provides that any person may prepare an FPP. The larger companies and Forestry Tasmania (FT) generally employ sufficient staff to meet their own requirements for the preparation of plans. Consultants generally service smaller companies and private landowners.

•CertificationofFPPs.FPPsarecertifiedbyselected Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) who hold delegated powers from the FPA. These FPOs are appointed by the FPA from suitably qualified staff employed by forestry consultants, forest companies, Forestry Tasmania and Private Forests Tasmania. Certification of FPPs is the process whereby an FPO must check that the FPP has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Forest Practices Code and all administrative instructions issued by the FPA.

•Supervisionandinspectionofforestpractices.Forest practices are supervised by FPOs and other staff employed by the forest industry. FPOs have the power to issue notices under s. 41 of the Forest Practices Act in order to ensure that operations comply with the Act or with the conditions of a certified FPP.

• Internalenvironmentalaudit.Someofthemajorcompanies and Forestry Tasmania have formal environmental audit systems that are consistent with standards such as ISO 14001.

•Reportingoncomplianceunders.25AoftheForest Practices Act. Certificates of Compliance must be lodged with the FPA within 30 days of the completion of discrete operational phases detailed within an FPP. Such certificates must be completed by an FPO.

A satisfactory level of self-regulation has been maintained on State forest and on most of the private land that is subject to operations undertaken by the major companies. The standard of self-regulation by smaller, independent operators remains variable. The FPA believes that improvements in this sector will be best achieved through higher levels of education, training and accreditation.


29

The Research and Advisory Program of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) employs specialists in botany, cultural heritage, geoscience, soil and water, visual landscape and zoology. Research and monitoring in these subjects underpins the Forest Practices Code (the Code) and aid its development. The specialists play a key role in the forest practices system. Services provided by the specialists include the following:

•Training,educationandliaisonwithForestPractices Officers (FPOs) and land managers.

•Ongoingdevelopmentofavarietyofmanagement tools to assist FPOs in preparing Forest Practices Plans (FPPs). These include the Threatened Fauna Adviser, a computer program designed to help FPOs, forest planners and consultants find the appropriate agreed prescriptions for threatened fauna when preparing their FPPs.

•Developingandmaintainingup-to-datemanualsto document the knowledge that underpins the Code and to provide additional guidelines for the practical management of specific values within wood production forests.

•ProvidingFPOsandlandmanagerswithpracticalspecialist advice on identifying and managing the natural and cultural values of forests. This is normally in response to a notification as part of

the forest practices planning system. •Conductingsurveysthatrequirespecialexpertise.•Contributingtocomprehensiveandscientifically

based inventories and databases and the updating of these databases through additional research and surveys. Such databases show the occurrence or potential occurrence of values that may require reservation or special management.

•Undertakingresearchtotesttheeffectivenessof the provisions of the Code and proposing amendments if necessary.

•MonitoringtheimplementationoftheCodeandmanagement prescriptions involving specific values. The specialists work closely with other scientists and professionals in other agencies involved in implementing the forest practices system, such as the Nature Conservation Branch of the Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW), Forestry Tasmania, forest companies, various CSIRO research divisions, other government departments and universities.

Highlights of activities carried out by the FPA’s Research and Advisory Program are provided below. A copy of the Annual Report of the Research and Advisory Program is available from the FPA upon request. Publications by staff of the FPA are included in Appendix 1.

2 Research and Advisory Program Report

The Forest Practices Authority’s Treefern Project Officer supervised UTas honours student Nick Jones and Amelia Schofield, from the Friends School, seen here taking part in the CSIRO Student Research Scheme project in the Styx Valley.


30

2.1 Biodiversity ProgramThe Forest Practices Authority’s (FPA’s) Biodiversity Program deals with the fauna and flora requirements of the Forest Practices Code (and associated legislation and policies). The program also has a strong research focus, with research results being used to inform management actions.

The program processed 892 FPP notifications requiringadviceonfloraand/orfaunaissues.Staffofother programs also contributed to field assessments and provision of advice. Notification figures were comparable to those experienced in the 2004–05 and 2005–06 reporting periods.

Table 2.1.1 Biodiversity notifications from State and private forest 2006–07:

Tenure State Forest – 304 (34%); Private: 588 (66%)

Subject Flora only − 19; Fauna only − 366; Flora and fauna − 525

Note: Flora notifications related to threatened species, vegetation communitiesandweeds/diseaseissues;Faunanotificationsmainlyrelated to threatened species).

About 90 per cent of notifications were for forestry activities, with most related to proposed conversion of native forest to plantation. About 2.5 per cent were for construction of forestry-related roads and quarries. About 7 per cent of notifications were for land clearing for agriculture, dams, mining activities and subdivisions.

Development of advice for operations involved liaison with staff of DPIW Threatened Species Section for

operations affecting threatened flora and fauna.

Biodiversity Program staff assisted with investigations or other compliance advice for about 30 operations in response to concerns about flora or fauna values.

The following databases and planning tools for Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) were developed or updated.

•TheThreatened Fauna Manual was updated, and the possibility of this planning tool being superseded by DPIW’s Natural Values Atlas (NVA) was addressed.

• Informationsheetsonthreatenedvegetationcommunities were developed by FPA, in conjunction with Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA) and DPIW.

•ThreeFloraTechnicalNoteswerereleased.These covered Phytophthora management in production forests; tree fern identification and management; and management of relict rainforest.

Other activities:

•Athematicreviewofthebiodiversityprovisionsof the Forest Practices Code (the Code) commenced in February 2007, under the direction of the Senior Zoologist.

•TheTasmanianTreeFernManagementPlanwasrevised to account for changes to plantation conversion policies. Program staff, as members of the National Flora Network, also contributed to a review of the national flora harvesting guidelines.

Research and monitoring projects are detailed in Table 2.1.2.

The Forest Practices Authority’s student research grant facilitates applied research contributing to the development of the forest practices system. The research grants, available for university post-graduate students (or equivalent), are for research expenses up to the value of $2000 per project. Two examples are studies on possums by Lisa Cawthen (above left) and Erin Flynn (above right), both supervised by the Forest Practices Authority’s Senior Zoologist.


31

Project title Key researchers

# Systematics and habitat preferences of threatened hydrobiid snails (Hydrobiidae: Beddomeia) in Tasmania

Karen Richards, Sarah Munks, (FPA); Alastair Richardson (UTas); Winston Ponder (National Museum, Sydney)

* The downstream effects of forestry disturbance in upper catchment areas on macroinvertebrate fauna (including A. gouldi, Hydrobiid snails) – preliminary study.

PeterDavies(FreshwaterSystems/UTas);LaurieCook(FreshwaterSystems); Sarah Munks, David Wilson, Karen Richards (FPA); Bradley Smith (UTas)

# Relating forest management to stream ecosystem condition in middle and lower catchment reaches in Tasmania.

PeterDavies(FreshwaterSystems/UTas);LaurieCook(FreshwaterSystems);SarahMunks,PeterMcIntosh(FPA/CRCForestry)

# Monitoring effects of regrowth thinning, CBS, and conversion to plantation of wet eucalypt forest on populations of Hoplogonus simsoni and terrestrial snails

Sarah Munks, Karen Richards, Chris Spencer (FPA); Errol Lohrey (FT); Kevin Bonham, Mark Wapstra, Jeff Meggs (consultants)

# Investigating the emergence, dispersal and longevity of Hoplogonus simsoni in plantations and native forest Chris Spencer, Karen Richards (FPA)

*# The abundance of hollows in E. obliqua wet and dry forest, and use by fauna.

Amy Koch, Jamie Kirkpatrick, Don Driscoll (UTas); Chris Spencer, Sarah Munks (FPA)

*# Implementation and survival of wildlife habitat clumps. Sarah Munks, Chris Spencer, Nathan Duhig, Anne Chuter (FPA); Mark Wapstra (consultant)

# Den use by the common brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula, in logged and unlogged dry eucalypt forest in SE Tasmania

Lisa Cawthen, Alastair Richardson (UTas); Sarah Munks, Chris Spencer (FPA)

# Assessing the effect of habitat type and logging disturbance on population dynamics and measures of physiological wellbeing in the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)

Erin Flynn, Sue Jones (UTas); Sarah Munks, Chris Spencer (FPA)

# Habitat use, breeding, and feeding ecology of the Tasmanian masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae castanops

Michael Todd (UTas); Phil Bell (DPIW); Alastair Richardson, David Bowman (Utas); Sarah Munks (FPA)

* Recovery of headwater streams after current Forest Practices Code Logging – Responses of ecosystem processes to forest practices in headwater streams

Joanne Clapcott, Leon Barmuta (UTas); Sarah Munks, Peter McIntosh(FPA);PeterDavies(FreshwaterSystems/UTas);LaurieCook (Freshwater Systems)

# Monitoring the effectiveness of the Forest Practices Code headwater stream provisions in wet dolerite terrain at Warra LTER

Joanne Clapcott, Leon Barmuta (UTas); Peter McIntosh, Sarah Munks, Karen Richards, Chris Spencer (FPA); Peter Davies (FreshwaterSystems/UTas);SandraRoberts(FT)

Assessment of fauna provisions of the Forest Practices Code: Improvements to process and prescription implementation Sarah Munks, Chris Spencer, Karen Richards (FPA)

# Development and ground-truthing of habitat suitability model for Astacopsis gouldi

PeterDavies(FreshwaterSystems/UTas);SarahMunks,DavidWilson(FPA); Peter von Minden (FT)

# Habitat mapping and monitoring project Sarah Munks, Colin McCoull, David Wilson, Richard Barnes (FPA); Phil Bell (DPIW) and species specialists

* Projects completed in 2006–07 # Projects that contribute to the CRC for Forestry – Water and Biodiversity Programs

Table 2.1.2 Summary of Biodiversity Section research and monitoring projects current 2006–07

Only projects that were ‘active’ in 2006–07 are shown in the following table. For information on the research and monitoring priorities of the FPA see <www.fpa.tas.gov.au>.

Fauna projects


32

Flora projects

Project title Key researchers

*# Recovery and regeneration of tree ferns (Dicksonia antarctica) in old-growth forest and different regrowth age-classes in the Florentine Valley

Anne Chuter (FPA); Mark Wapstra (consultant)

# Major project: Survival and salvage of Dicksonia antarctica in wet forest following intensive logging and regeneration to native forest Simon Davies, Anne Chuter, Fred Duncan, Nina Roberts (FPA)

Invertebrate associations with tree ferns and quarantine implications Nick Jones (Hons student), Peter McQuillan (UTas); Simon Davies (FPA)

Invertebrate associations with burnt and unburnt tree ferns Amelia Schofield (the Friends School through CSIRO Student Research Scheme); Nick Jones (UTas); Simon Davies (FPA)

# Ecology and response to forestry operations of Gunns tree orchid (Sarchochilus australis) in NE Tasmania Anne Chuter, Fred Duncan (FPA); Jo Field, Tim Leaman (FT)

# Ecology, habitat and population dynamics of Gunns tree orchid (Sarchochilus australis) in Tasmania

Toby Smith (Hons student, UTas); Nina Roberts, Fred Duncan (FPA); DPIW

*# Distribution and ecology of three threatened Boronia species Anne Chuter, Fred Duncan, Simon Davies (FPA)

Ecology and response to forestry operations of Thismia rodwayi in Tasmania

Mark Wapstra (consultant); Nina Roberts, Fred Duncan (FPA); FT District staff

#Effectiveness of FPP prescriptions on maintenance of tall Acacia pataczekii Fred Duncan, Anne Chuter, Nina Roberts (FPA); Tim Leaman (FT)

Re-establishment of native grassland on Pinus radiata plantation site Fred Duncan (FPA); Brooke Craven (ex-FPA, now DPIW); Diana Duncan (volunteer)

* Exotic gene flow into Eucalyptus ovata forest in Mersey District Anne Chuter (FPA, FT); Judy Alexander (FT); Fred Duncan (FPA); Rob Barbour, Brad Pots (CRC Forestry and UTas)

Structure, composition and biodiversity of logged wet eucalypt forests, wildlife habitat strips and unlogged reference areas (Wayatinah study)

Fred Duncan, Anne Chuter (FPA); Simon Grove, Mick Brown (FT and associates)

* Projects completed in 2006–07# Projects that contribute to the CRC for Forestry – Water and Biodiversity Programs

Forest Practices Authority staff undertaking plot re-assessment for the Tree Fern Major Project in the snowy Styx Valley.


33

2.2 Cultural HeritageThe Cultural Heritage Program received 824 notifications during 2006–07. Of these, 37 per cent were on State forest and 63 per cent involved private lands. A field inspection was required for 77 per cent of these notifications. By far the majority of these inspections were to complete Aboriginal Heritage surveys, with 609 coupes surveyed. These surveys located 64 new Aboriginal sites in 24 coupes. A total of 72 new historic sites have been notified.

The level of completion of both Aboriginal surveys and notifications has increased by over 100. This level of activity, particularly in Aboriginal Heritage, cannot be sustained by the Forest Practices Authority alone.

Table 2.2.1 Cultural Heritage Program notifications from State and private forest 2006–07

State forest Private forest Total

Office assessment and advice provided 64 134 198

Field assessment and advice provided 239 387 626

Total notifications 303 521 824

New archaeological and historic sites found during operational surveys have been documented and forwarded to the managers of relevant databases.

2.3 Earth Sciences ProgramA total of 340 notifications and enquires were received in relation to soil and water issues, compared to 350 last year; 39 per cent of notifications and enquiries came from Forestry Tasmania, and 61 per cent from private companies or consultants. The proportion of coupes requiring field inspection was 18 per cent. The Senior Scientist, Soil and Water spent 43 per cent of his time on general advice and information, compared to 57 per cent the previous year. The drop in the number of field inspections and in the total time spent on giving advice is attributed to foresters making more use of the soil and water guidelines, particularly the New Guidelines for the Protection of Class 4 Streams, in problematic field situations.

Table 2.3.1 Soil and Water Program notifications from State and private forest 2006–07





Geoscience issues (mainly related to karst) generated 178 notifications, resulting in 50 site visits for the notified coupes.

The Senior Archaeologist and an Aboriginal consultant recording a rock shelter at Lower Marshes which had been occupied by Aboriginals.

The Earth Science section has a project underway to date the significant erosion events that have occurred in the forestry estate, as such dates help to assess the risk of renewed erosion in the landscape. Here an alluvial fan deposit near Mathinna is being described and sampled for charcoal in order to carbon date the erosion event that deposited the white quartz-rich layer visible in the centre of the photograph.


34

Table 2.3.2 Geoscience Program notifications from State and private forest 2006–07





Research projects included-

• theestablishmentofalandslidedatabase,withthe cooperation of staff of Mineral Resources Tasmania

• severaloperational-scalefieldtrialsestablishedwith the co-operation of the plantation companies Great Southern Plantations and Rayonier on (1) revegetation of steeplands and (2) revegetation of previously cleared streamside reserves

• studiesintothenaturalratesoferosionwithinTasmania. The results show that, with the exception of coastal dunes on the west coast and some relatively recent valley alluvium, most erosion occurred about 20,000–35,000 years ago, during the middle and end of the Last Glaciation.

2.4 Visual Landscape Management ProgramNotifications on visual landscape were similar to the previous year as were the proportions of operations for State forest and private lands as shown in Table 2.4.1.

Table 2.4.1 Visual Landscape Program summary of notifications for State and private lands for 2006–2007

State forest

Private forest Total

General assessment and advice provided 36 76 112

Detailed or field assessment and advice provided

17 74 91


Research collaboration occurred with:

• theARCresearchproject‘Socialacceptabilityof forest management options: Landscape level visualisation and evaluation’

• theCRCforForestrystudy‘Designingfeasibleand effective strategies for industry partners to engage with local communities’.

Sharing digital data of coupes between the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) and forest planners has improved the efficiency and accuracy of assessment of notifications. In this case, Forestry Tasmania and the FPA produced the computer generated harvest simulation in the bottom left picture. This was imposed on an image of the landscape to develop appropriate scale and shaping of the proposed harvest area (top picture). The bottom right picture shows the hill where the harvesting is proposed in the context of the landscape.


35

2.5 Training and education carried out by the Forest Practices Authority

2.5.1 Forest Practices NewsThree editions of Forest Practices News were published by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) in 2006–07. The newsletter provides a channel for communicating new ideas and developments among those interested in the management of Tasmania’s forests. Emphasis is placed on practical and applied information, particularly on articles supplied by practising Forest Practices Officers (FPOs). The FPA specialists contributed numerous articles to Forest Practices News.

2.5.2 Forest practices system trainingThe following education and training was provided by the FPA:

•anFPOtrainingcoursefor21participants.Thecourse involved 12 days of classroom and field instruction with assessment on areas including the Forest Practices Act, the Forest Practices Code (the Code), and natural and cultural values. Over 15 specialist staff from within the FPA and external organisations contributed to the training program.

• threebriefingsinHobart,LauncestonandBurniefor all FPOs. The briefings provided an update on recent changes to the forest practices system. Briefings on these changes were also provided to forest managers. Over 200 FPOs and managers attended the briefings.

•asupervisorscourseonforestpracticesfor38supervisors conducted jointly with FT. This four-day course provided information for non-FPO supervisors of forest contractors.

•ariskassessmentcoursefor11participants.Thisone day course covered managing risk during harvesting operations.

In addition to contributing to the course for new FPOs and the briefings for existing FPOs, the FPA’s specialist staff provided the following training and information.

The Biodiversity Program

•afaunacourse(atwo-daycourseforFPOs,forestplanners etc, conducted at Hobart, Burnie and Launceston, in conjunction with Threatened Species Section, DPIW)

•aforestbotanycourse(plantidentificationetc)• Forest Botany Manual competency assessments•aneaglenestmanagementcourse(theory,field

training days and competency assessment)•atreefernfieldday(visittoresearchsites)•preparationofarticlesforotherpublications

(LGAT News (Local Government Association Tasmania),PrimaryFocus(TasmanianFarmers&Graziers Association), TreeLine (Private Forests Tasmania) and the Ecological Society of Australia)

• informationprovidedtotheCRCforForestryandarticles for newsletter (Biobuzz)

•attendanceatAgfest(providinginformationonthreatened vegetation communities)

•presentationsonecologyandmanagementofnative forests in South America, and comparisons with Tasmania (three presentations)

•presentationsonbiodiversityandforestpracticessystem to students at UTas and TAFE Tasmania

•meetingswithKingIslandCouncilandFlindersIsland Council about vegetation legislation and forest practices system requirements

•fieldvisitswithvisitingscientistsandpractitioners• liaisonwithscientists,industry,publicandother

interested parties.

Forest Practices Officers are trained by the Forest Practices Authority to prepare and supervise Forest Practices Plans. Here, participants on the Forest Practices Officers course, held in September 2006, learn about road and culvert design.


36

The Cultural Heritage Program

•afielddayforGreatSouthernPlantationsstaff•workexperiencefortwostudentsduringthe

year.

The Earth Sciences Program

• sixfielddays,organisedjointlywithFPOs,toimprove the treatment of drainage depressions in plantations, especially those on the more erodible soils. These were held throughout the state and highlighted the issues associated with harvest, cultivation and spraying and to encourage the exchange of information and discussion. These field days were attended by about 140 foresters. The observations at these sites and the results of the discussions have been incorporated into advice given for plantation developments. Recommendations arising from the field days are likely to be considered for inclusion in future editions of the Code.

•acourseonmanagementofsoilandwaterissues for FPOs, and another for forestry supervisors. Both courses were followed by field trips demonstrating how soil erodibility can be assessed in the field, risks associated with forest operations on different soils, and the procedures required to assess protection requirements of headwater (class 4) streams.

2.5.3 International training and assistanceThe CFPO carried out two consultancies – see section 3.3.

2.5.4 Symposia and conferences

The FPA and the CRC for Forestry organised a headwater stream symposium and field day on the values and management of headwater streams in August 2006. The symposium was co-organised by the Senior Zoologist and Soil and Water Scientist, with presentations by FPOs and other practitioners, and scientists, including other Biodiversity Program staff. The symposium was well attended by FPOs, forest planners and other industry representatives. The CRC for Forestry funded the symposium – and its success has encouraged commitment to future symposia. See the publications section in Appendix 1 for presentations.

Several presentations were made at conferences and other symposia. They include the Australian Forest Growers Conference Launceston, the NRM Conference, Launceston (Balancing Biodiversity Conservation and Production), the NRM–South Biolinks symposia on biodiversity management and the plantation design workshop (Ecological Society of Australia, Sydney). Details can be found in the publications section.

The Biodiversity Program Manager is on the organising committee for the conference Old Forests – New Management to be held in Hobart in 2008.

A forest planner from Forestry Tasmania’s Huon District points out the major features of a streamside reserve to the participants on the headwater stream field day, which was organised by the Forest Practices Authority and the CRC for Forestry. The streamside reserve was applied because a class 4 stream was identified as having sandy riparian soils and, consequently, a risk of erosion.


37

3.1 The Board of the Forest Practices AuthorityThe Forest Practices Authority (FPA) replaced the Forest Practices Board on 1 July 2005 as the independent body set up by the Forest Practices Act to regulate forest practices in Tasmania. The FPA has responsibility for advancing the state’s forest practices system and fostering a cooperative approach in developing policy and management in forest practices matters. The objective of the state’s forest practices system is to achieve the sustainable management of public and private forests. The forest practices system is based upon a co-regulatory approach involving a balance between self-management by industry and independent monitoring by the FPA. The Board of the FPA reports to the Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.

The statutory functions of the Board of the FPA as laid down in s. 4C of the Forest Practices Act are to:

•advisetheMinisteronforestpracticespolicyinrespect of both Crown land and private land

• regularlyadviseandinformtheMinisteronitswork and activities under the Forest Practices Act

•advisetheMinisterontheoperationandreviewof the Act

• issueandmaintaintheForest Practices Code•overseestandardsforForestPracticesPlans(FPPs)•overseetheadministrationofPrivateTimber

Reserves (PTRs) by Private Forests Tasmania•monitorandreporttotheMinisteronharvesting,

the clearing of trees and reafforestation activity in relation to the maintenance of a Permanent Native Forest Estate

•overseethetrainingofForestPracticesOfficers(FPOs)

•makearecommendationontheappointmentofthe Chief Forest Practices Officer and to appoint FPOs

•performsuchotherfunctionsasareimposedonit by or under this or any other Act

•performanyprescribedfunctions.

The directors of the Board of the FPA are as follows:

• independentChair,withexpertiseinpublicadministration, environmental or natural resource management and governance: Isobel Stanley (until April 2007); Geoff Willis (from June 2007)

•apersonwithappliedknowledgeand

expertise in environmental or natural resource management: Penny Wells

•apersonwithappliedknowledgeandexpertisein sustainable forest management on private land: Mark Leech

•apersonwithappliedknowledgeandexpertisein sustainable forest management on public land: Alan Watson

•apersonwithappliedknowledgeandexpertisein community liaison and local government, from an area in which forestry is a major land use: Meredith Roodenrys

• theChiefForestPracticesOfficer:GrahamWilkinson

•apersonwithindependentexpertiseinbiologicalscience/natureconservation:DrPeterDavies(Deputy Chair).

The Board of the FPA had 11 meetings during the year.

3.1.1 Activities of the Board of the Forest Practices AuthorityMajor policy issues that were dealt with by the Board of the FPA during the year included:

• initiatingthereviewoftheForest Practices Code•proposalstoimprovestakeholderparticipation

through the Forest Practices Advisory Council•negotiationswiththeagriculturalsectoronways

to introduce practical measures for the protection of threatened native vegetation types

•measurestoimproveplanningforthemanagement of threatened species at a strategic level

The Board of the FPA has two standing audit committees as follows:

•FPPAuditCommittee–thiscommitteereviewsthe methods and protocols used to conduct the FPA’s audits of FPPs (see section 1.7.3). The committee comprises Mark Leech (Chair), Peter Davies, and Penny Wells.

• InvestigationsAuditCommittee–thiscommitteeaudits the investigations conducted by the FPA into alleged breaches to ensure that the required standards of rigour, fairness and consistency are maintained. The committee comprises Alan Watson (Chair) and Meredith Roodenrys.

3 Administration of forest practices


38

The Forest Practices Awards

The Board of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) initiated new awards to recognise excellence and continuous improvement in forest practices. The Forest Practices Awards publicly acknowledge some of the many people working in forestry in Tasmania who consistently display excellence in applying the forest practices system in their particular work.

Preparing, implementing or supervising Forest Practices Plans requires skill and experience. The Tasmanian forest practices system is complex and continually evolving and is based on continual improvement and

Award Category Winner

Preparing Forest Practices Plans Terry Ware (FT)

Inspecting and supervising forest operations Scott Marriott (FT)

Conducting forest operations to high operational standards Rodney and Glenys Bye (Select Logging)Max Triffett (Kevin Morgan Pty Ltd)

Innovation in forest practices Neil Denney and Bob Knox (FT)

Excellence in community relations in regard to forest practices FT Mersey Planning Team

Excellence in research, advice and services to forest managers Mark Wapstra (consultant)

The inaugural Forest Practices Awards winners at the award ceremony, from top left: Rodney and Glenys Bye (Select Logging Pty. Ltd), Neil Denney (retired from Forestry Tasmania), Bob Hamilton (Forestry Tasmania), Scott Marriott (Forestry Tasmania), and Max Triffett (Kevin Morgan). From bottom left: Terry Ware (Forestry Tasmania) and Mark Wapstra (formerly with FPA, now consultant).

cooperation between all parties. It is the high standards achieved by those who implement the forest practices system which help achieve this cooperation and continual improvement.

The Board created six awards to recognise excellence in different aspects of the forest practices system. The Board received 17 high-standard nominations, all of which were for inspiring work. The Board judged the nominations and selected seven winners. The awards were made on Thursday 22 March 2007 by the Chair of the Board, Isobel Stanley.


39

3.1.2 Qualifications, other relevant positions held and declaration of interest by members of the BoardIsobel Stanley BSc Microbiology (Uni of Glasgow), DipAppMicrobiology (Uni of Strathclyde)

•Vice-President,NationalEnvironmentalLawAssociation,Tasmania•Vice-President,EnvironmentalInstitutionofAustraliaandNewZealand,Tasmania•TreasurerandMember,SouthernTasmaniaNaturalResourceManagementCommittee•Member,TasmanianMarineFarmingPlanningPanel•Member,TasmanianHeritageCouncil•Member,Premier’sPanelfortheReviewoftheTasmanianHeritageAct•PrincipalEnvironmentalScientist,CoffeyGeosciences

Geoff Willis MBA (University of Melbourne), B Comm (University of Melbourne), CPA , MAICD

•Chairman,ColorpakLimited•Chairman,TasmanianSymphonyOrchestraPtyLtd•Trustee,TasmanianMuseum&ArtGallery•CouncilMember,UniversityofTasmania•Member,ReliabilityPaneloftheAustralianEnergyMarketsCommission•Member,EnergyAdvisoryPaneloftheCSIRO

Peter Davies BSc (Hons) (Chemistry), PhD (Zoology, UTas)

•Chair,IndependentSustainableRiversAudittoMinisterialCounciloftheecologicalconditionoftheriversofthe Murray Darling Basin, MDB Commission

•SittingMember,AquaticEcosystemAdvisoryGroup,NationalWaterCommission,Canberra• SittingMember,ThreatenedSpeciesScientificAdvisoryCommittee,TasGovernment•TechnicalSteeringCommittee–SnowyRiverbenchmarkingProject,NSW• SittingMember,MonitoringAdvisoryGroup–TheLivingMurray,MDBCommission• SeniorProjectManager,LandscapeLogicCERFHub(CentreforEnvironment,UTAS)

The Board of the Forest Practices Authority, from left to right: Alan Watson, Peter Davies, Penny Wells, Meredith Roodenrys, Geoff Willis (Chairman), Mark Leech and Graham Wilkinson.


40

Table 3.1.1 Attendance of the Board of the Forest Practices Authority members at meetings and committees

Board member Board meetings attended (11 meetings held in 2006–07) Other meetings attended/services rendered

Isobel Stanley (to April 2007) 8 Meetings with Minister and other stakeholders

Geoff Willis (from June 2007) 1 Meetings with stakeholders

Penny Wells 7 FPP Audit Committee

Mark Leech 7 FPP Audit Committee

Alan Watson 9 Investigations Audit CommitteeForest Practices Awards Committee

Meredith Roodenrys 11 Investigations Audit CommitteeLocal Government Forestry Consultative Committee (Chair)

Graham Wilkinson 10 Day-to-day administration of the forest practices system (see section 3.3)

Peter Davies 8 FPP Audit Committee Acting Chair April and May

Mark Leech BSc (Forestry) (ANU)

•Director,PrivateForestsTasmania•Member,InstituteofForestersofAustralia•PrincipalConsultant,Brueckner/Leech

Consultants•Co-convenor,AfricaNightandMalawifamine

reliefMeredith Roodenrys AM, M Ed M, Dip Phys Ed, Dip LG Admin, JP

•Member,AssessmentCommitteeforDamConstruction

•Chair,LocalGovernmentForestryConsultativeCommittee

Alan Watson BSc (Forestry) (ANU)

•ForestryConsultantGraham Wilkinson

•ChiefForestPracticesOfficer(seesection3.3)Penny Wells BSc (Hons) (UTAS), GAICD

•Co-DirectorofTheLastResourceP/L•GraduateMemberoftheAustralianInstituteof

Company Directors•PrivateLandConservationProgramSteering

Committee (Chair) •MemberoftheVegetationManagementPolicy

Advisory Committee •MemberoftheNationalBiodiversityStrategy

Review Task Group •MemberoftheNationalPropertyManagement

Systems Framework Working Group

Isobel Stanley, Chair of the Board of the Forest Practices Authority until April 2007, presenting the Forest Practices Awards in March 2007.


41

3.2 Forest Practices Advisory Council The functions of the Forest Practices Advisory Council (FPAC) are to advise the Board of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) on reviews of the Forest Practices Act and the Forest Practices Code (the Code); financial matters including self-funding and the effectiveness of forest practices administration; operations; and research.

Members of FPAC in 2006–07 were:

•apersonwithknowledgeorexpertiseinsustainable forest management (Chair of FPAC): Gary King

•apersonwithknowledgeofthestate’sresourcemanagement and planning system in relation to municipal areas in which forestry is a major land use, nominated by the Local Government Association of Tasmania: Tony Walker

•apersonwithexpertisein,andoperationalexperience of, forest harvesting or forest contracting: Michael Woods

•apersonwithknowledgeofthestate’sresourcemanagement and planning system, nominated by the Secretary of the responsible department in relation to the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994: Lynne Powell

•apersonwithknowledgeofadministrationand legislation in relation to private forests, nominated by Private Forests Tasmania: Andy Warner

•apersonwithknowledgeofadministrationandlegislation in relation to multiple use forests, nominated by the Forestry corporation: Hans Drielsma

•apersonwithexpertisein,andexperienceof, forest issues in relation to harvesting and processing, jointly nominated by the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Country Sawmillers Federation: Darrell Clark

•apersonwithexpertisein,andexperienceof,forest issues in relation to forest conservation: Peter Bosworth

•apersonwithexpertisein,andexperienceof,tree growing on private land, jointly nominated by the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania: Frank O’Connor

The Forest Practices Advisor of the FPA (Chris Mitchell) acts as the Executive Officer for FPAC. The Chief Forest Practices Officer attends all FPAC meetings. Six meetings were held during the year. The major issues dealt with by FPAC during the year included:

•developmentofastrategicplanforFPAC•developmentofaroadingmanualto

complement the Forest Practices Code•developmentofsmokemanagementguidelines

for forest operations.

The CFPO and Forest Practices Authority specialists met with forest planners and supervisors to discuss logging of the pine plantations at Strahan.


42

3.3 Chief Forest Practices Officer The Chief Forest Practices Officer is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day administration of the forest practices system and is appointed under s. 4J of the Forest Practices Act as a person who must have:

•extensiveexpertiseinforestry• extensiveexperienceinforestoperations• knowledgeofthesustainablemanagementof

forests, and•managementskills.

Graham Wilkinson has been the CFPO since March 1996.

Qualifications, other relevant positions held and declaration of interest:

•MSc(UTAS),BSc(Forestry)(Hons)(ANU),RPF•Member,InstituteofForestersofAustralia•NationalChair,RegisteredProfessionalForesters

Scheme•FellowoftheAustralianInstituteofCompany

Directors•AccreditedEnvironmentalAuditor(RABQSA)•Member,AccreditationReviewBoardofthe

Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New

Delegates to the international workshop on codes of forest practice, held in Sabah, Malaysia in May 2007. The workshop was facilitated by Chief Forest Practices Officer Graham Wilkinson.

Zealand (JAS-ANZ) for the Australian Forestry Standard (2003 – present)

•Member,TasmanianLocalGovernment–Forestry Consultative Committee

•Member,TasmanianRFAImplementationGroup•Member,TasmanianVegetationManagementand

Policy Advisory Group•Member,MontrealImplementationGroup

(International Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management)

Mr Wilkinson undertook the following consultancies in 2006–07:

•UnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganisation (FAO) – Coordinator for international workshop on the implementation of codes of harvesting practice, Sandakan, Malaysia. February and May 2007.

•FAOandJapaneseOverseasForestryConsultingAssociation (JOFCA ) – Conduct training workshop on monitoring and evaluation systems for the implementation of codes of harvesting practice in Vietnam, Myanmar and Laos PDR, Bangkok, July 2006.


43

3.4 Forest Practices OfficersThe Forest Practices Authority (FPA) appoints Forest Practices Officers (FPOs) under s. 38 and s. 39 of the Forest Practices Act. FPOs have powers and responsibilities under the Act, and the FPA may delegate further responsibilities in relation to functions such as the certification of FPPs and the laying of complaints under the Forest Practices Act. FPOs are employed by forest companies, Forestry Tasmania, Private Forests Tasmania and as consultants to plan, supervise and monitor forest practices and ensure that operations comply with the Forest Practices Act.

The prerequisite qualifications for appointment as an FPO are:

•FPO(Planning)–adegreeinforestryorequivalent academic qualifications or demonstrated personal expertise together with at least five years’ practical forestry experience in planning and supervision of forest operations.

•FPO(Inspecting)–atertiaryqualificationordemonstrated technical expertise and at least five years’ experience in supervising forest operations.

In addition, a person who wishes to be appointed as an FPO must successfully complete a training course conducted by the FPA, which consists of a number of teaching sessions, field trips, and practical exercises in various parts of the state, and a formal examination. The training course covers legislation, and implementation of the Forest Practices Code (the Code), with an emphasis on harvesting, roading and reforestation. Specialist subjects include botany, zoology, soils and water, geomorphology, cultural heritage and visual landscape. Periodic refresher courses are also obligatory. FPOs (Inspecting) may be appointed as FPOs (Planning) following further training and accreditation for appropriate experience in forest planning.

Table 3.4.1 Forest Practices Officers appointed by the Forest Practices Authority

FPO (Planning)

As at 30/6/06 As at 30/6/07

Industry 41 45

Independent consultants 22 24

Forestry Tasmania 44 49

Forest Practices Authority 3 3

Private Forests Tasmania 7 7

Total FPO (Planning) 118 128

FPO (Inspecting)

As at 30/6/06 As at 30/6/07

Industry 16 20

Independent consultants 17 21

Forestry Tasmania 36 49

Forest Practices Authority 1 2

Private Forests Tasmania - -

Total FPO (Inspecting) 69 92

TOTAL (Planning & Inspecting) 187 220

3.4.1 Disciplinary action

FPOs are a most important part of the forest practices system and the FPA expects FPOs to maintain very high standards. The FPA has a disciplinary policy for instances of unsatisfactory performance by FPOs. There were no incidents requiring disciplinary action against FPOs during the year.

One of the roles of Forest Practices Officers is to prepare Forest Practices Plans. The inaugural winner of the Forest Practices Award for excellence in preparing Forest Practices Plans was Terry Ware, from Forestry Tasmania’s Huon District, pictured above in front of a reserve in a clearfelled coupe in the Southern Forests. The reserves in the coupe were designed to protect several special values: Denison crayfish, Thismia rodwayi (a bizarre plant which spends most of its life underground), Eucalyptus viminalis, the Mount Mangana stag beetle and the water catchment for the Snowy Range Trout Fishery.


44

3.5 Forest Practices Authority staffThe Forest Practices Authority employed 20 long-term staff and six short-term staff during 2006–07.

Research and Advice Programs

Forest Practices

Chris Mitchell BSc (Forestry) Forest Practices Advisor

Earth Sciences

Nathan Duhig(until February 2007) BSc (Hons) Geoscientist

Andrew Hammond(from March 2007) BSc (Hons), M App Sc, PhD Geoscientist

Peter McIntosh BSc (Hons), PhD Senior scientist (soils and water)

Landscape and Cultural Heritage

Denise Gaughwin BA (Hons), MA Senior Archaeologist

Darrell West Senior Aboriginal Heritage Officer

Bruce Chetwynd BA, Grad Dips Recreation and Landscape Planning Senior Landscape Planner

Biodiversity

Fred Duncan BSc (Hons) Senior Botanist

Simon Davies B Agr Sc (Hons), PhD Tree Fern Project Officer

Anne Chuter BSc (Hons) Scientific Officer

Richard Barnes BSc (Hons), PhD Senior Ecologist

Karen Richards BSc (Hons) Ecologist

Colin McCoull BSc (Hons), PhD Ecologist

Robbie Gaffney (May – June 2007) BSc (Hons) Scientific Officer*

Nina Roberts (3days/weekfromDec2006) BA, BSc (Hons) Scientific Officer*

Sarah Munks BSc (Hons), PhD Senior Zoologist

Chris Spencer Technical Officer

Compliance

Aidan Flanagan BSc, Grad Dip (FOR), MIFA Senior Manager, Compliance

Paul Wilkinson B Nat Res Environmental Officer

Administration

Joan Calvert Administration Officer

Christine Grove BA (Hons), MSc (Forestry) Publications Officer*

Adrienne Liddell Administration Assistant

Sheryl Wolfe Office Manager

Birgit Kruse(until July 2006) B Sc, M Appl Sc GIS Officer*

David Wilson (from Sept 2006) BSc (Hons) GIS Officer*

Bernard Walker B Sc For Information Management*

* Contractor


45

3.6 Forest Practices TribunalThe Forest Practices Tribunal is an independent body established under s. 34 of the Forest Practices Act. The Forest Practices Tribunal Registry has been incorporated into the Registry of the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal’s role is to conduct hearings and make determinations with respect to appeals that are lodged under the Forest Practices Act by aggrieved parties. Appeals may be lodged against decisions of the FPA with respect to the following matters:

•anapplicantforaPrivateTimberReserve(PTR)may appeal against the refusal of the PTR

•aprescribedpersonmayappealagainstthegranting of a PTR

•anapplicantforaForestPracticesPlan(FPP)may appeal against the refusal, amendment or variation of the plan

•aperson[whois]servedanoticeunders.41ofthe Act may appeal against the notice

•apersonwhohaslodgedathree-yearplanmayappeal if the FPA varies or refuses the three-year plan.

Members of the tribunal are appointed by the Governor in accordance with s. 34(1) of the Forest Practices Act. Members in 2006–07 were as follows:

•barristersorlegalpractitionerswhohavepractised for at least five years: Keyran Pitt, Philip Wright

•personswithasoundandpracticalknowledgeof forestry, road construction in forests, and harvesting of timber: Marcus Higgs, Bert Witte, and Donald Frankcome

•personswithtertiaryqualificationsandsubstantialpractical experience in the sciences appropriate to land and forest management: Robert Ellis, John Pretty, Rod Pearse

•personswithasoundknowledgeof,andatleastfive years’ practical experience in, agriculture and forestry: John Shoobridge, Neville Calvert, Robert Henry

•personswithasoundknowledgeof,andatleastfive years’ practical experience in, conservation science: Gintaras Kantvilas, Louise Gilfedder, Ray Brereton.

The Chief Chairman of the Tribunal in 2006–07 was Mr Keyran Pitt QC.

The tribunal is presently revising its website and consequently no website is currently available for the Forest Practices Tribunal. The registry’s contact details are as follows: Forest Practices Tribunal c/-GPOBox2036 HOBART 7001 Phone: 6233 6464 Fax: 6224 0825 Email:[email protected]

A total of two appeals were lodged in 2006–07.

Appeal against grant of PTR 1800

A third party appellant (‘prescribed person’) appealed against the granting of a PTR. The appeal was withdrawn prior to a hearing occurring.

Appeal against grant of PTR 1844

A third party appellant (‘prescribed person’) appealed against the granting of a PTR primarily concerning hydrological factors. This appeal has not yet been finalised.

3.7 Public interest disclosures and freedom of information requestsThe Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002 commenced on 1 January 2004. The FPA has, in accordance with the Act, prepared procedures, which are available to be viewed at the FPA’s offices during working hours. There were no public interest disclosures this year. The figures in the following table are for freedom of information requests.

Table 3.7.1 Public interest disclosures and freedom of information requests, 2006–07

Source of requests

Individuals 6

Politicians 13

Total for FPA 19

Request status

Decided 13

Transferred externally 3

Outcome of requests

Decided – Full access 4

Information not in possession of agency (S22) 2

Decision time (days)

1–30 days 9

Fees and charges

Total charged $18.95

Waived or reduced 15

Waiving reasons

Routine request 4

Impecunious applicant -

Member of parliament 11


46

3.8 FundingThe objective of the Tasmanian forest practices system is to deliver sustainable forest management in a way that is as far as possible self-funding (Schedule 7 Forest Practices Act). The Act also provides under s. 44 that certain functions of the Forest Practices Authority will be paid out of money allocated by parliament. Full financial details for the year 2006–07 are presented in section 4 of this report (Financial statements).

3.9 Self-funding of activities conducted by industryThe industry has self-funded the implementation of the Forest Practices Act by providing the following services:

• theemploymentofForestPracticesOfficersand other staff involved in the preparation, certification and supervision of Forest Practices Plans

• trainingandeducationofcontractorsandoperators.

The Forest Practices Authority estimates the value of theseservicestobeinthevicinityof$7millionperannum in 2006–07.

3.10 Self-funding of activities conducted by the Forest Practices AuthorityThe self-funding activities of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) are primarily related to the cost of the advice and services provided by FPA staff in relation to the processing of Forest Practices Plan (FPP) applications (see section 2 of this report). The funding for these activities of the FPA is derived from an application fee for FPPs in accordance with s.18 of the Forest Practices Act.

In addition to the direct funding of the research and advisory programs, the FPA receives income from research grants and consultancy work. The FPA also regulates the harvesting of tree ferns under a user-pays system. All tree ferns must be affixed with a tag issued by the FPA prior to removal from the harvesting area. Revenue collected from the sale of tree fern tags is used to cover the cost of regulatory activities and to fund further research into the long-term sustainability of harvesting tree ferns. The schedules of fees for FPPs and tree fern tags are detailed in the Forest Practices Regulations.

Total revenue received under the self-funding activities oftheFPAin2006–07amountedto$1.808millionandexpenditurewas$1.387million.

In accordance with s. 4E(1)(a) of the Forest Practices Act, the Board reports that the forest practices system satisfied the principle of self-funding in 2006–07.

3.11 Funding of the Forest Practices Authority from parliamentSection 44 of the Forest Practices Act provides that the costs and expenses incurred for the following activities are to be paid out of monies provided by parliament:

•annualassessmentoftheforestpracticessystemand FPPs

•preparationoftheannualreporttoparliamentunder s. 4F

•detectionandinvestigationofbreachesoftheAct• layingofcomplaintsandprosecutingoffences•paymentofcompensationfortherefusalof

Private Timber Reserves• remunerationoftheChiefForestPractices

Officer•administrativesupportfortheChiefForest

Practices Officer•exerciseoftheForestPracticesAuthority’s(FPA’s)

powers and functions.Total revenue provided by parliament for the independent regulatory functions of the FPA in 2006–07amountedto$1.306million.Afurther$97,000wasreceivedfromthepaymentoffinesandother revenue. Expenditure for the year amounted to $1.142million.

The independent regulatory functions of the FPA were funded by the income received under s. 44 of the Forest Practices Act in 2006–07.

The tree fern tag system covers the cost of regulating the tree fern industry and funds research into the long-term sustainability of the industry.


47

Income Statement for the year ended 30 June 2007

Notes2007Actual$’000

2006Actual$’000

Income

State Government Appropriation 1.4 (a) 1,306 965

Industry Contributions and Grants 1.4 (a) 11 155

Commonwealth Government Grants 1.4 (a) 11 …

Sales of Goods and Services 1.4(d), 3.1 1,751 1,206

Fines and Regulatory Fees 1.4(c), 3.1 14 16

Other Revenue 1.4(g), 3.1 118 25

Total income 3,211 2,367

Expenses

Employee entitlements 1.5(a), 4.1 1,397 1,203

Superannuation 1.5(a), 4.1 144 119

Depreciation 1.5(b) 3 5

Grants and subsidies 1.5(b) 13 14

Supplies and Consumables:

Consultants 103 59

Property Services 101 87

Communications 26 25

Information Technology 71 66

Travel and Transport 186 208

Advertising and Promotion 1 4

Other Supplies and Consumables 1.5(f) 4.2 389 389

Other expenses 1.5(f) 4.2 95 85

Total expenses 2,529 2,264

Net operating surplus (deficit) 682 103

Equity interests … …

Net surplus (deficit) attributable to the State 682 103

This Income Statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

4 Financial statement


48

Income Statement by Activity for the year ended 30 June 2007

NoteSELF-FUNDING ACTIVITIES INDEPENDENT REGULATION

ACTIVITIES

2007$’000

2006$’000

2007$’000

2006$’000

Income

State Government Appropriation 1.4(a) … 100 1,306 865

Industry Contributions and Grants 1.4(a) 11 155 … …

Commonwealth Government Grants 1.4(a) 11 … … …

Sales of Goods and Services 1.4(d), 3.1 1,751 1,206 … …

Fines and Regulatory Fees 1.4(c), 3.1 … 1 14 15

Other Revenue 1.4(g), 3.1 35 14 83 11

Total Income 1,808 1,476 1,403 891

Expenses

Employee entitlements 1.5(a), 4.1 849 724 548 479

Superannuation 1.5(a), 4.1 86 70 58 49

Depreciation 1.5(b) 3 4 … 1

Grants and subsidies 13 … … 14

Supplies and Consumables:

Consultants 71 24 32 35

Property Services 51 59 50 28

Communications 17 17 9 8

Information Technology 45 40 26 26

Travel and Transport 137 151 49 57

Advertising and Promotion … 2 … 2

Other Supplies and Consumables 1.5(f), 4.2 57 276 332 113

Other expenses 1.5(f), 4.2 58 50 38 35

Total Expenses 1,387 1,417 1,142 847

Net Operating Surplus/(Deficit) 421 59 261 44

This Income Statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.


49

Balance Sheet as at 30 June 2007

Notes

2007 2006

Actual $’000

Actual $’000

Assets

Current Assets

Cash and deposits 1.6 (a), 5.1 808 376

Receivables 2.11(b), 5.2 479 330

Other Financial Assets 147 …

Total Current Assets 1,434 706

Non-Current Assets

Property, Plant and Equipment 1.6 (d), 5.4 2 5

Non-Current Assets 2 5

Total assets 1,436 711

Liabilities

Current Liabilities

Creditors and Accrued Expenses 6.1 1 21

Employee entitlements 1.7 (c), 6.2 263 214

Total Current Liabilities 264 235

Non-Current Liabilities

Employee entitlements 1.7 (c), 6.2 57 43

Total Non-Current Liabilities 57 43

Total liabilities 321 278

Net assets (liabilities) 1,115 433

Equity

Accumulated funds 1,115 433

Total Equity 8.1 1,115 433

This Balance Sheet should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.


50

Statement of Cash Flows for the year ended 30 June 2007

Cash flows from operating activities Notes

2007 2006

Actual$’000

Actual$’000

Cash inflows Inflows (Outflows)

Inflows (Outflows)

State Government Appropriation 1,306 965

Industry Contributions and Grants 29 155

Commonwealth Government Grants 11 …

Other Cash Receipts 1,567 1,027

Total cash inflows 2,913 2,147

Cash outflows

Employee entitlements (1,338) (1,443)

Other cash payments (1,143) (765)

Total cash outflows (2,481) (2,208)

Net cash from (used by) operating activities 9.2 432 (61)

Net increase (decrease) in cash held 432 (61)

Cash at the beginning of the reporting period 376 437

Cash at the end of the reporting period 9.1 808 376

This Statement of Cash Flows should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.

Statement of Recognised Income and Expenses for the year ended 30 June 2007

Notes 2007 $’000

2006 $’000

Income and expenses recognised directly in equity

Increase/(Decrease)inAssetRevaluationReserve 8.1 … …

Increase/(Decrease)inNetAssetsduetoadministrativerestructuring … …

Gains/(losses)onrevaluationofassetsavailableforsale … …

Net income recognised directly in equity … …

Netsurplus/(deficit)fortheperiod 682 103

Total recognised income and expense for the period 682 103

This Statement of Recognised Income and Expense should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.


51

Note 1 Significant Accounting Policies

1.1 Objectives and FundingThe Forest Practices Authority is a body corporate, established by the Forest Practices Act 1985.

The role of the Forest Practices Authority is to advance the objective of the state’s forest practices system and to foster a cooperative approach towards policy development and management. The FPA facilitates self-regulation through the training and oversight of the work done by Forest Practices Officers employed within the forestry sector. This is underpinned by research and advisory services that promote continuing improvement. The FPA also independently monitors, enforces and reports to parliament on the standards achieved and on the degree of compliance with the Forest Practices Code and Forest Practices Act.

The functions of the FPA can be divided into two main areas, namely:

Self-funding Activities

These activities comprise the Research and Advisory program which is funded by fees for Forest Practices Plans. Other revenue received is primarily for Tree Fern Tag sales, the recovery of training and publication costs and other grants.

The FPA reports in accordance with Section 4E(1)(a) of the Forest Practices Act that the forest practices system in 2006–07 satisfied the principle of self-funding.

Independent Regulation Activities

These activities are primarily supported by state government funding and relate to administration, independent auditing and investigations into the standards of planning and implementation of Forest Practices Plans and compliance with the Act. Fines collected by the FPA relate to penalties imposed under s.47B of the Forest Practices Act 1985.

To reflect these separate activities, an additional statement of financial performance has been prepared which breaks up the operating revenue and operating expenditure between each of the activities.

1.2 Basis of AccountingThe Financial Statements are a general purpose financial report and have been prepared in accordance with:

•AustralianAccountingStandardsissuedbythe Australian Accounting Standards Board. In particular, AAS 29 Financial Reporting by

Government Departments has been applied; and•TheTreasurer’sInstructionsissuedunderthe

provisions of the Financial Management and Audit Act 1990.

Australian Accounting Standards include Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AEIFRS). Compliance with AEIFRS may not result in compliance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), as AEIFRS includes requirements and options available to not-for-profit organisations that are inconsistent with IFRS. The FPA is considered to be not-for-profit and has adopted some accounting policies under AEIFRS that do not comply with IFRS.

The Financial Statements have been prepared on an accrual basis and, except where stated, are in accordance with the historical cost convention. The accounting policies are generally consistent with the previous year except for those changes outlined in Note 1.3 below.

The Financial Statements are presented in Australian dollars.

The financial statements are prepared on the basis that the FPA will continue to operate in its present form. The continued existence of the FPA in its present form, undertaking its current activities, is dependent on government policy and on continuing appropriations by parliament for the FPA’s administration and activities.

1.3 Changes in Accounting Policies

(a) Impact of new Accounting Standards

The FPA has not adopted any new or revised standards and interpretations issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) that are relevant to its operations and effective for the current annual reporting period.

(b) Impact of new Accounting Standards yet to be applied

The following new standard has been issued by the AASB and are yet to be applied:

AASB 2007-4 Amendments of Australian Standards arising from ED151 and Other Amendments.

The adoption of the above standard in the 2007–08 financial year is not expected to result in any financial impact on the FPA.

1.4 IncomeIncome is recognised in the Income Statement when an increase in future economic benefits related to an

Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2007


52

increase in an asset or a decrease of a liability has arisen that can be measured reliably.

(a) Appropriation Revenue

Appropriations are recognised as revenues in the period in which the FPA gains control of the appropriated funds. Except for any amounts identified as carried forward, control arises in the period of appropriation.

(b) Grants

Grants are recognised as revenue when the FPA gains control of the underlying assets. Where grants are reciprocal, revenue is recognised as performance occurs under the grant. Non-reciprocal grants are recognised as revenue when the grant is received or receivable. Conditional grants may be reciprocal or non-reciprocal depending on the terms of the grant.

(c) Fines and Regulatory Fees

Revenue from fines and regulatory fees is recognised upon the first occurrence of either:

• receiptbythestateofataxpayer’sself-assessedtaxes and fees; or

• thetimetheobligationtopayarises,pursuanttothe issue of an assessment.

Interest is charged on outstanding amounts and is brought to account, where possible, on an accrual basis, otherwise as it is received. The collectability of debts is assessed at balance date and specific provision is made for doubtful debts.

(d) Sales of Goods and Services

Amounts earned in exchange for the provision of goods are recognised when the good is provided and title has passed. Revenue from the provision of services is recognised when the service has been provided.

(e) Gain (Loss) from the Sale of Non-financial Assets

Revenue from the sale of non-financial assets is recognised when control of the asset has passed to the buyer.

(f) Resources Received Free of Charge

Services received free of charge by the FPA, are recognised as revenue when a fair value can be reliably determined and at the time the services would have been purchased if they had not been donated. Use of those resources is recognised as an expense.

Contributions of assets at no cost of acquisition or for nominal consideration are recognised at their fair value when the asset qualifies for recognition, unless received from another government agency as a consequence of restructuring of administrative arrangements, where they are recognised as contributions by owners directly within equity. In these circumstances, book values from the transferor agency have been used.

(g) Other Revenue

Revenue from sources other than those identified above are recognised in the Income Statement when an increase in future economic benefits related to an increase in an asset or a decrease of a liability has arisen that can be measured reliably.

1.5 ExpensesExpenses are recognised in the Income Statement when a decrease in future economic benefits related to a decrease in asset or an increase of a liability has arisen that can be measured reliably.

(a) Employee Entitlements

Employee entitlements include entitlements to wages and salaries, annual leave, long service leave, superannuation and any other post-employment benefits.

(b) Depreciation and Amortisation

All non-current assets having a limited useful life are systematically depreciated over their useful lives in a manner that reflects the consumption of their service potential.

(c) Grants and Subsidies

Grants are recognised to the extent that:

• theservicesrequiredtobeperformedbythegrantee have been performed

• thegranteligibilitycriteriahavebeensatisfied.A liability is recorded when the FPA has a binding agreement to make the grants but services have not been performed or criteria satisfied. Where grant monies are paid in advance of performance or eligibility, a prepayment is recognised.

(d) Loss on Sale of Non-financial Assets

The written down value of disposed physical assets reflects the carrying value of the assets at the time of disposal.

(e) Resources Provided Free of Charge

Services provided free of charge by the FPA, to another entity, are recognised as an expense when fair value can be reliably determined.

(f) Other Expenses

Expenses from activities other than those identified above are recognised in the Income Statement when a decrease in future economic benefits related to a decrease in asset or an increase of a liability has arisen that can be measured reliably.


53

1.6 AssetsAssets are recognised in the Balance Sheet when it is probable that the future economic benefits will flow to the entity and the asset has a cost or value that can be measured reliably.

(a) Cash on Hand and Deposit Accounts

Cash means notes, coins, any deposits held at call with a bank or financial institution, as well as funds held in the Special Deposits and Trust Fund. Deposits are recognised at their nominal amounts. Interest is credited to revenue as it accrues.

(b) Receivables

Receivables are recognised at the amounts receivable as they are due for settlement. Impairment of receivables is reviewed on an annual basis. Impairment losses are recognised when there is an indication that there is a measurable decrease in the collectability of receivables.

(c) Assets Held for Sale

Assets held for sale are measured at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less costs to sell.

(d) Property, Plant and Equipment

(i) Valuation basis

Valuation of assets is undertaken in accordance with the Department of Treasury and Finance publication Guidelines for the Recording, Valuation and Reporting of Non Current Physical Assets in Tasmanian Government Departments using historical cost accounting, with the exception that land, buildings, infrastructure, heritage and cultural assets are valued at their current value to the FPA, determined by reference to the asset’s fair value.

(ii) Asset recognition threshold

The asset capitalisation threshold adopted by the FPA is $5,000.Assetsvaluedatlessthan$5,000arechargedto the Income Statement in the year of purchase (other than where they form part of a group of similar items which are material in total).

(iii) Revaluations

Assets are revalued at least once in every 5 years with the following exception: plant and equipment having a costorrevaluationlessthanthethresholdof$50,000(annually).

(e) Impairment

All assets are assessed to determine whether any impairment exists. Impairment exists when the recoverable amount of an asset is less than its carrying amount. Recoverable amount is the higher of fair value less costs to sell and value in use. The FPA’s assets are not used for the purpose of generating cash flows; therefore value in use is based on depreciated

replacement cost where the asset would be replaced if deprived of it.

1.7 LiabilitiesLiabilities are recognised in the Balance Sheet when it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will result from the settlement of a present obligation and the amount at which the settlement will take place can be measured reliably.

(a) Payables

Payables, including goods received and services incurred but not yet invoiced, are recognised at the nominal amount when the FPA becomes obliged to make future payments as a result of a purchase of assets or services.

(b) Provisions

Provisions are recognised when it is probable that a payment will be made and the amount of the payment can be reliably measured. Any right to reimbursement relating to some or all of the provision is recognised as an asset when it is virtually certain that the reimbursement will be received.

(c) Employee Entitlements

Liabilities for wages and salaries and annual leave are recognised when the employee becomes entitled to receive the benefit. Those liabilities expected to be realised within 12 months are measured as the amount expected to be paid. Other employee entitlements are measured as the present value of the benefit at 30 June 2007, where the impact of discounting is material, and at the amount expected to be paid if discounting is not material.

A liability for long service leave is recognised, and is measured as the present value of expected future payments to be made in respect of services provided by employees up to the reporting date. Expected future payments are discounted using interest rates attaching, as at the reporting date, to Commonwealth Government guaranteed securities with terms to maturity that match, as closely as possible, the estimated future cash outflows.

A liability for on-costs (payroll tax and superannuation) is recognised and disclosed as part of Other Liabilities. On-costs are not classified as an employee benefit.

(d) Superannuation

The FPA does not recognise a liability for the accruing superannuation benefits of FPA employees. This liability is held centrally and is recognised within the Finance-General Division of the Department of Treasury and Finance.

During the reporting period, the FPA paid 11 per cent of salary in respect of contributory members of the


54

Retirement Benefits Fund into the Superannuation Provision Account within the Special Deposits and Trust Fund. The FPA paid the appropriate Superannuation Guarantee Charge into the nominated superannuation fund in respect of non-contributors. Under these arrangements the FPA has no further superannuation liability for the past service of its employees.

(e) Other Liabilities

Liabilities other than those identified above are recognised in accordance with the general criteria noted above.

1.8 LeasesThe FPA has entered into a number of operating lease agreements for property, plant and equipment, where the lessors effectively retain all the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of the items leased. Equal instalments of lease payments are charged to the Income Statement over the lease term, as this is representative of the pattern of benefits to be derived from the leased property.

1.9 Judgements and AssumptionsIn the application of Australian Accounting Standards, the FPA is required to make judgements, estimates and assumptions about carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. The estimates and associated assumptions are based on historical experience and various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis of making the judgements. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis. Revisions to accounting estimates are recognised in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period, or in the period of the revision and future periods if the revision affects both current and future periods.

Judgements made by the FPA that have significant effects on the financial statements are disclosed in the relevant notes to the financial statements.

The FPA has made no assumptions concerning the future that may cause a material adjustment to the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities within the next reporting period.

1.10 Comparative FiguresComparative figures have been adjusted to reflect any changes in accounting policy or the adoption of new standards. There were no changes to accounting policies which required a change in comparative figures.

1.11 RoundingAll amounts in the Financial Statements have been rounded to the nearest thousand dollars, unless otherwise stated. Where the result of expressing amounts to the nearest thousand dollars would result in an amount of zero, the financial statement will contain a note expressing the amount to the nearest whole dollar.

1.12 TaxationThe FPA is exempt from all forms of taxation except Fringe Benefits Tax, Payroll Tax and the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

In the Statement of Cash Flows, the GST component of cash flows arising from investing or financing activities which is recoverable from, or payable to, the Australian Taxation Office is, in accordance with the Australian Accounting Standards, classified as operating cash flows.

Note 2 Events Occurring After Balance DateNil

Note 3 Income

3.1 Sales of Goods and Services and Other Revenue

2007$’000

2006$’000

Fern Tree Tag Sales 130 139Recovery of Training and publication costs 60 60

Plan Fees 1,538 1007

Sales of Services Other 23 …

Total Sales of Goods and Services 1,751 1,206

Fines 14 16

Interest Income 31 …

Miscellaneous Revenue 87 25

Total Other Revenue 132 41

Total 1,883 1,247


55

Note 4 Expenses

4.1 Employee Entitlements

2007 $’000

2006 $’000

Wages and salaries 1,381 1,151

Long service leave 10 46

Fringe Benefits Tax 6 6

Total Employee Entitlements 1,397 1,203

Superannuation 144 119

Superannuation expenses relating to defined benefits schemes relate to payments into the Superannuation Provision Account (SPA) held centrally and recognised within the Finance-General Division of the Department of Treasury and Finance. The amount of the payment is based on an employer contribution rate determined by the Treasurer, on actuarial advice. The current employer contribution is 11 per cent of salary.

Superannuation expenses relating to the contribution scheme are paid directly to the superannuation fund at a rate of nine per cent of salary. In addition, the FPA is also required to pay into the SPA a ‘gap’ payment equivalent to two per cent of salary in respect of employees who are members of the contribution scheme.

4.2 Other Supplies and Consumables and Other Expenses

2007$’000

2006$’000

Audit fees 4 19

Printing, Publications and Training costs 74 32

Contract Labour 188 136

Miscellaneous Expenses 123 126

Total Other Supplies and Consumables 389 313

Doubtful Debts 1 76

Workers Compensation 3 3

Payroll Tax 91 82

Total Other Expenses 95 161

Total 484 474

Note 5 Assets

5.1 Cash and DepositsThe FPA’s financial services are provided by the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, with the FPA’s funds separately accounted for within the Department’s operating account which is held in Special Deposits and Trust Funds with the Department of Treasury and Finance. The FPA also maintains a separate account with Tascorp. The balances of the FPA’s funds held were as follows:

2007$’000

2006$’000

Special Deposits and Trust Funds:

Independent regulation activities 122 144

Self-funding activities 389 232

Total Special Deposits and Trust Funds 511 376

Tascorp:

Investment Account 297 …

Total Tascorp 297 …

Total Cash and Deposits 808 376

5.2 Receivables

2007$’000

2006$’000

User charges and other revenue (inclusive of GST) 555 406

Less: Provision for impairment (76) (76)

Total 479 330

Settled within 12 months 479 330

Settled in more than 12 months … …

Total 479 330

5.3 Other Financial Assets

2007$’000

2006$’000

Accrued Revenue 147 …

Less: Provision for impairment … …

Total 147 …

Settled within 12 months 147 …

Settled in more than 12 months … …

Total 147 …


56

5.4 Property, Plant and Equipment

(a) Carrying amount

2007$’000

2006$’000

Plant and Equipment (at cost)

Computer Equipment 27 27

Less: Accumulated Depreciation (25) (22)

Less: Provision for impairment … …

Total Plant and Equipment 2 5

Total Property, Plant and Equipment 2 5

(b) Reconciliation of movements

Reconciliations of the carrying amounts of each class of property, plant and equipment at the beginning and end of the current and previous financial year are set out below.

Carrying amount at 1 July 5 10

Add: Additions … …

Less: Deletions … …

Less: Annual Depreciation (3) (5)

Less: Impairment losses … …

Carrying amount at 30 June 2 5

Note 6 Liabilities

6.1 Payables

2007$’000

2006$’000

Creditors and Accrued expenses 1 21

Total 1 21

Due within 12 months 1 21

Due in more than 12 months … …

Total 1 21

6.2 Employee Entitlements

2007$’000

2006$’000

Accrued salaries 13 6

Annual leave 88 65

Long service leave 219 186

Total 320 257

Due within 12 months 263 214

Due in more than 12 months 57 43

Total 320 257

Note 7 Commitments and Contingencies

7.1 Schedule of Commitments

2007$’000

2006$’000

By Type

Lease Commitments

Operating leases 379 449

Total lease commitments 379 449

By Maturity

Operating lease commitments

One year or less 209 190

From one to five years 88 157

More than five years 82 102

Total operating lease commitments 379 449

Total 379 449

NB: Commitments are shown as GST exclusive.The majority of the FPA’s leases are represented by land and building rental costs and vehicle lease costs. The total lease commitment for 2006–07 excludes local government and other executory costs where they are paid directly to a party other than the lessor. These costs are included elsewhere in the FPA’s expenditures.

The FPA also has entered into contingent rental arrangements. Contingent rental costs relate to land and building leases, and in the main comprise local government charges and the periodic escalation of leases by the Consumer Price Index. Since Contingent Rentals cannot be reliably determined, they have


57

been excluded in the calculations of Total Lease Commitments.

The FPA does not have any purchase rights flowing from the lease of the land and buildings. Some buildings have renewal options exercisable by the lessee. There are no building leases that have renewal rights exercisable at the sole discretion of the lessor.

The minimum lease payment for vehicles is based on the average age of the vehicle fleet and a standard lease period of 24 months.

7.2 Contingent Assets and LiabilitiesNil

Note 8 Equity and Movements in Equity

8.1 Reconciliation of Equity

Accumulated Results Total Equity

2007$’000

2006$’000

2007$’000

2006$’000

Balance at 1 July 433 330 433 330

Netsurplus/deficit 682 103 682 103

Balance at 30 June 1,115 433 1,115 433

Note that accumulated funds include both contributed capital on formation of the FPA and accumulated surpluses or deficits in subsequent years.

Note 9 Cash Flow Reconciliation

9.1 Cash and Cash EquivalentsCash includes the balance of the Special Deposits and Trust Fund Accounts held on behalf of the FPA within the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Operating Account.

2007$’000

2006$’000

Special Deposits and Trust Fund Balance 511 376

Tascorp Balance 297 …

Total Cash and Cash Equivalents 808 376

9.2 Reconciliation of Operating Surplus (Deficit) to Net Cash from Operating Activities

2007$’000

2006$’000

Net operating surplus (deficit) 651 103

Depreciation 3 5

Decrease (increase) in Receivables (149) (143)

Decrease (increase) in Other Financial Assets (116) …

Increase (decrease) in Employee entitlements 63 (36)

Increase (decrease) in Payables and Accrued expenses (20) 10

Net cash from (used by) operating activities 432 (61)

Note 10 Financial Instruments

10.1 Risk exposures

(a) Risk management policies

The FPA does not hold any derivative financial instruments.

(b) Credit risk exposures

The FPA is not exposed to credit risk of any significance. Cash deposits and cash held in Treasury’s Special Deposits and Trust Fund are readily convertible to cash

Debtor terms are 30 days net. Collectability of receivables is reviewed at balance date and provision for impairment raised when collection of a debt is judged to be doubtful.


58

(c) Interest rate risk

The FPA’s exposure to interest rate risk is minimal. The effective weighted average interest rate by maturity periods is set out in the following table. Exposures arise predominantly from assets bearing variable interest rates.

2007

WeightedAverage Effective Interest

Rate%

Floating Interest

Rate$’000

Fixed Interest Maturing in: Non-Interest Bearing$’000

Total$’0001 Year

$’0002 Years$’000

3 years$’000

4 years$’000

5 Years$’000

More than 5 Years$’000

Financial Assets

Cash at Tascorp 6 297 297

Cash in Special Deposits and Trust Fund 511 511

Receivables 479 479

Other Financial assets 116 116

Total 297 1,106 1,403

Financial Liabilities

Payables 1 1

Total 1 1

2006

WeightedAverage Effective Interest

Rate%

Floating Interest

Rate$’000

Fixed Interest Maturing in:Non-

Interest Bearing$’000

Total$’0001 Year

$’0002 Years$’000

3 years$’000

4 years$’000

5 Years$’000

More than 5 Years$’000

Financial Assets

Cash in Special Deposits and Trust Fund 376 376

Receivables 330 330

Total 376 330 706


Payables 21 21

Total 21 21


59

10.2 Net Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

2007 2006

Total CarryingAmount$’000

Net Fair

Value$’000

Total CarryingAmount$’000

Net Fair

Value$’000

Financial assets

Cash at Tascorp 297 297 … …

Cash in Special Deposits and Trust Fund 511 511 376 376

Receivables 479 479 330 330

Other Financial assets 147 147

Total financial assets 1,434 1,434 706 706


Payables 1 1 21 21

Total financial liabilities 1 1 21 21

Financial Assets

The net fair values of cash, interest bearing and non-interest bearing monetary financial assets approximate their carrying amounts.

The net fair values of receivables and other financial assets are based on the nominal amounts due less any provision for impairment.


The net fair values for payables (trade creditors) are approximated by their carrying amounts.


60


61

Continued on next page.


62


63

(Staff or associates of the FPA are indicated in bold type.)

Published papersDuncan, F 2006, ‘Native forests in Tasmania’, in Davidson, N, Volker, P, Leech, M, Lyons, A and Beadle, C (Eds), Farm Forestry – a technical and business handbook, pp. 82–87, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Duncan, F 2006, ‘Biodiversity and conservation’, in Davidson, N, Volker, P, Leech, M, Lyons, A and Beadle, C (Eds), Farm Forestry – a technical and business handbook, pp. 88–94, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Duncan, F 2006, ‘Identifying areas for conservation’, in Davidson, N, Volker, P, Leech, M, Lyons, A and Beadle, C (Eds), Farm Forestry – a technical and business handbook, pp. 95–99, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Grove, S, Richards, K, Spencer, C and Yaxley, B 2006, ‘What lives under large logs in Tasmanian eucalypt forest?’, The Tasmanian Naturalist, 128: 86–93.

Koch, N, Munks SA, Utesch, M, Davies, PE, and McIntosh, PD 2006, ‘The platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus in headwater streams, and effects of pre-Code forest clearfelling, in the South Esk River catchment, Tasmania, Australia’, Australian Zoologist 33 (4), December 2006.

Wapstra, M, Duncan, F, Buchanan, A and Schahinger, R 2006, ‘Finding a botanical Lazarus: tales of Tasmanian plant species “risen from the dead”’, The Tasmanian Naturalist, 128:61–85.

Wapstra, M, Munks, SA and Brown, B 2007, ‘A design for a lightweight, collapsible and inexpensive sampling frame for ecological research and monitoring’, Ecological Management & Restoration, 8 (1): 71–72.

Wilkinson, GR 2006, ‘Forest Practices Plans’, in Davidson, N, Volker, P, Leech, M, Lyons, A and Beadle, C (Eds), Farm Forestry – a technical and business handbook, pp. 27–31, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Wilkinson, GR 2006, ‘The forest practices system’, in Davidson, N, Volker, P, Leech, M, Lyons, A and Beadle, C (Eds), Farm Forestry – a technical and business handbook, pp. 22–26. University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Conference presentations and abstractsDuhig, N 2006, ‘Management of forested karst in Tasmania’, International Union of Geographical Research’, Conference Proceedings, Brisbane, July 2006.

Duncan, F and Munks, SA 2007, ‘Management of grassy blue gum forests for conservation and wood production in southeast Tasmania’, NRM Biodiversity Conference, Launceston, Tasmania.

Field, J, Duncan, F and Chuter, A 2006, ‘When is a species not a threatened species? When the community is involved!’ Australian Forest Growers Conference, Launceston.

Koch, AJ and Munks, SA 2006, ‘Development of predictive models to assist the conservation of habitat for hollow-using fauna in Tasmania’s production forest landscapes’, The Ecological Society of America, Memphis, Tennessee.

Koch, N, Munks SA, Utesch, M, Davies, PE, and McIntosh, PD 2006, ‘The platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus inheadwaterstreams,andeffectsofpre-Codeforestclearfelling,intheSouthEskRivercatchment’,FPA/CRCforForestry Headwater stream symposium and Field day, August 2007.

McIntosh, PD, Price, DM 2006, ‘Timing and causes of late Quaternary erosion events in lowland and mid-altitude Tasmania’, pp. 18–21 in: Legacy of an Ice Age, Abstracts of Conference Proceedings, Mungo Lodge, Lake Mungo, 6–9 September 2006.

Munks, SA and Koch, AJ June 2007, ‘Conservation of hollow-using fauna in Tasmania's production forests’, NRM Biodiversity Conference, Launceston, Tasmania.

Richards, A, Hopgood-Douglas, S, Munks, SA, Doran, N and Peters, D 2006, ‘Predicting the distribution of a threatened freshwater burrowing crayfish; E.granulatus in central northern Tasmania’, 16th meeting of the International Association for Astacology, Gold Coast, Australia.

Appendix 1 Publications, reports and presentations by staff or associates

of the Forest Practices Authority


64

Wang, Q, Cox, M, Preda, M, and Hammond, A 2006, ‘Shallow hydrological processes in a low-lying coastal plantation, north Tuan State Forest, SE Queensland, Australia’, 34th Congress of the International Association of Hydrogeologists, Beijing. 9–13 October 2006.

Wapstra, M, Duncan, F and Roberts, N 2007, ‘Threatened flora in Tasmanian wood production forests: a pragmatic approach to management’, NRM Biodiversity Conference, Launceston, Tasmania.

Webb, R, Cox, M, and Hammond, A 2006, ‘Spatial measurements to support groundwater monitoring in coastal settings, Southeast Queensland’, Land and Sea Spatially Connected – in a Tropical Hub, Combined 5th Trans TasmanSurveyConference&2ndQueenslandSpatialIndustryConference,Cairns,18–23September2006.

Wilkinson, GR 2006, ‘Managing private forests for public benefit – the challenge for forest conservation in Australia’, Sustainable Forestry – Everyone Benefits, conference papers of the Australian Forest Growers International Biennial Conference, Launceston, 22–25 October 2006, pp. 81–92.

Wilkinson, GR 2007, ‘Outlaws in the forest? An analysis of the nature and causes of illegal forest practices’, proceedings of the 2007 Institute of Foresters of Australia and New Zealand Institute of Forestry Conference, Coffs Harbour, NSW, 3–7 June 2007, pp. 480–488.

Wilkinson, GR 2007, ‘Transferring research findings into operational practice’, presentation to the Annual Science Meeting of the Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry, Barossa Valley, South Australia, 9–11 July 2007.

Wilkinson, GR 2007, Presentations to the Asia Pacific Regional Workshop Progress with the Implementation of Codes of Forest Harvesting Practices and Actions for the Future, Sandakan, Malaysia, 14–18 May 2007.

ReportsTheses submitted for projects supported or co-supervised by Forest Practices Authority

Chuter, A 2006, ‘Distribution and ecology of three threatened Boronia species’. A report to the Conservation Planning Section, Forestry Tasmania.

Davies, PE, Munks, SA, Cook, LSJ, Von Minden, P and Wilson, D 2007, ‘Mapping suitability of habitat for the giant freshwater crayfish, Astacopsis gouldi’, FPA Scientific Report No. 4.

Duncan, F, 2006 ‘Temperate Native Forests in Chile: Management, Conservation and Forest Practices’, report to the JW Gottstein Memorial Trust and the Forest Practices Authority.

Munks, SA, Spencer, C, Tonelli, P, Wiersma J and O’Connor, K 2007, ‘Platypuses at the Ponds’, A Report to the Inland Fisheries Service and the Lessee of the Salmon Ponds. June 2007.

Major reviews and management plansForest Practices Authority 2007, ‘Tree Fern Management Plan for the Sustainable Harvesting, Transporting of Trading of Dicksonia antarctica in Tasmania’, Forest Practices Authority, Tasmania.

National Flora Network 2007, ‘National Tree Fern Harvesting Guidelines’, Department of the Environment and Water, Canberra.

Theses submitted for projects supported or co-supervised by Forest Practices Board Jones, N 2007, ‘Biodiversity, pterophytes, tree ferns and quarantine: Putting the invertebrate associations of Dicksonia antarctica in perspective’, honours thesis submitted to School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania.

Koch, A 2007, ‘Tree hollows in Tasmanian Eucalyptus obliqua forest and their use by vertebrate fauna’, PhD thesis School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania.


65

Title Date published

A guide to planning approvals for forestry in Tasmania updated 2007 (on FPA website)

Atlas of Tasmanian Karst 1995

Fauna Conservation in Production Forests in Tasmania 1991

Fauna Technical Note series 1998 onwards

Forest Practices Act 1985 1985

Forest Practices Botany Manuals 1991–2005

Forest Practices Code 2000 2000

Forest Practices Geomorphology Manual 1990

Forest Practices News three times per year

Forest Practices Regulations 2007 2007

Forest Sinkhole Manual 2002

Forest Soils of Tasmania 1996

Manual for Forest Landscape Management updated 2006 (five chapters on FPA website)

Native Forest Silviculture Technical Bulletin series 1990 onwards

Rehabilitation Guidelines for Forest Construction 1990

Tasmanian Forest Soil Fact Sheets 1–26 2001 onwards (on FPA website)

Threatened Fauna Adviser (Expert systems program) 2002

Threatened Fauna Manual for Production Forests in Tasmania 1998 (on FPA website)

Visual management topic papers on skyline and roadside management 2006 onwards (on FPA website)

Appendix 2

Major reference documents related to forest practices


66

The scoring system used for all questions in the audit of Forest Practices Plans

Performancerating Description Score

High Fully addressed all judgment criteria and achieved a very good result without causing a noticeable or likely adverse impact. 4

Above sound – scored but not defined 3.5

Sound Satisfactorily addressed the judgment criteria and achieved an acceptable result without causing an actual or likely significant adverse impact 3

Less than sound – scored but not defined 2

Unacceptable Notadequatelyaddressedjudgmentcriteriaorachievedanunacceptableresultand/orhasorislikelytoresultin serious adverse impact 1

Not auditableThecondition/situationdoesnotoccure.g.higherodibilityOperations have as yet not commencedInsufficient or no objective evidence to make a judgment

NA/0

Planning Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies

Independent forest owners State forest

No. Mean CR No. Mean CR No. Mean CR No. Mean CR

1 Was a complete copy of FPP available? 107 3.9 AS 41 3.8 AS 17 4.0 H 49 3.9 AS

2 Was the FPP in a sound and secure filing system? 102 3.8 AS 38 3.8 AS 15 3.6 AS 49 3.8 AS

3 Was FPP and variations fully signed and dated? 107 3.6 AS 41 3.7 AS 17 2.9 BS 49 3.7 AS

4 IsFPP/variationscompletely,clearlyand legibly documented? 107 3.6 AS 41 3.8 AS 17 2.7 BS 49 3.7 AS

5 Is the FPP and variations in accordance with the Code? 107 3.7 AS 41 3.9 AS 17 3.2 S 49 3.7 AS

6 Were all variations documented? 55 3.3 S 19 3.6 AS 9 2.0 BS 27 3.5 AS

7 Was state and local gov’t consulted, as required? 23 3.8 AS 9 3.6 AS 2 3.5 AS 12 4.0 H

8 Was local gov’t notified of the operational start date? 86 3.7 AS 26 3.8 AS 16 3.8 AS 44 3.6 AS

9 Have all adjacent landholders been identified and notified? 55 3.7 AS 21 4.0 H 12 3.5 AS 22 3.5 AS

10 FPP indicate that a fire management plan was prepared? 90 2.9 BS 38 3.0 S 12 2.5 BS 40 3.0 S

11 Has planning identified intakes, aquaculture and threatened sps? 35 3.9 AS 16 4.0 H 4 3.5 AS 15 4.0 H

Weighted mean 3.6 AS 3.7 AS 3.2 S 3.7 AS

Weighted std 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2

NotesNo. is the sample for the question i.e. the number of FPPs where the question was applicable.CR is the compliance rating, which can be H (high), AS (above sound), S (sound), BS (below sound) or U (unacceptable) as defined in the table at the beginning of this appendix.

Appendix 3

Results of the 2006–07 audit of Forest Practices Plans


67

Appendix 3 Results of the 2006–07 audit of Forest Practices Plans (continued)

RoadingTotal for all tenures

Industrial forest companies



12 Rdlocationminimisedsoilerosion&streamsedimentation? 78 3.9 AS 26 3.9 AS 8 4.0 H 44 3.9 AS

13 Has valley bottom roading minimised potential stream sediment? 25 3.9 AS 10 4.0 H 3 3.7 AS 12 3.8 AS

14 Has roading avoided high or very highly erodible soils? 24 3.6 AS 9 3.8 AS 0 - - 15 3.6 AS

15 Has the road standard proven adequate to the haulage task? 86 3.8 AS 32 3.9 AS 10 3.8 AS 44 3.8 AS

16 Are table drains properly constructed to carry likely flows? 85 3.6 AS 30 3.7 AS 8 3.3 S 47 3.6 AS

17 Is culvert spacing and location adequate? 80 3.7 AS 30 3.9 AS 8 2.9 BS 42 3.7 AS

18 Have culverts been effectively designed and constructed? 76 3.6 AS 30 3.7 AS 5 3.6 AS 41 3.6 AS

19 Has the road been adequately drained? 88 3.6 AS 32 3.6 AS 10 3.0 S 46 3.7 AS

20 Have access tracks been drained and stabilised after use? 43 3.2 S 19 3.4 S 9 2.9 BS 15 3.1 S

21 Arecutsandfillsbalancedand/orspoildisposed of properly? 48 3.9 AS 14 4.0 H 5 3.8 AS 29 3.9 AS

22 Are batter slopes stable? 44 3.9 AS 14 3.9 AS 4 4.0 H 26 3.9 AS

23 Have potential instability been recognised and managed? 15 3.7 AS 7 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 7 3.3 S

24 Have Code steep country prescriptions been implemented? 5 3.8 AS 3 3.7 AS 0 - - 2 4.0 H

25 Has clearing width and top soil stripping been minimized ? 63 3.9 AS 21 4.0 H 5 4.0 H 37 3.9 AS

26 Have new or upgraded stream crossings been well located? 26 3.8 AS 10 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 15 3.7 AS

27 Have new or upgraded stream crossings been well designed? 25 3.8 AS 10 3.7 AS 1 4.0 H 14 3.9 AS

28 Havenew/upgradedstreamcrossingsbeenwell constructed? 25 3.8 AS 10 3.8 AS 1 3.5 AS 14 3.9 AS

29 Has drainage been diverted within 50 m of streams? 32 3.4 S 13 3.4 S 1 1.0 U 18 3.6 AS

30 Havetemporarycrossingsclass2&3beenremoved and drained? 12 4.0 H 10 4.0 H 0 - - 2 4.0 H

31 Have permanent all weather roads been suitably surfaced? 84 3.8 AS 29 3.8 AS 8 3.8 AS 47 3.9 AS

32 Have nonconforming or hazardous roads been closed or rehab? 17 3.0 S 7 3.4 S 1 2.0 BS 9 2.8 BS

33 Does the condition of all retained roads minimise erosion? 82 3.4 S 31 3.5 AS 8 3.1 S 43 3.5 AS

34 Does the condition of roads, of no further use, min. erosion? 21 3.5 AS 10 3.8 AS 0 - - 11 3.3 S

35 Have quarries and pits been well located, mged and rehab’ed? 8 2.5 BS 1 1.0 U 0 - - 7 2.7 BS

36 Has an effective maintenance system been applied? 76 3.3 S 28 3.4 S 10 3.2 S 38 3.3 S

37 HastheFPP/variations/Codebeenfollowed? 87 3.6 AS 32 3.7 AS 8 3.3 S 47 3.7 AS


Weighted std 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2NotesNo. is the sample for the question i.e. the number of FPPs where the question was applicable.CR is the compliance rating, which can be H (high), AS (above sound), S (sound), BS (below sound) or U (unacceptable) as defined in the table at the beginning of this appendix.


68


Harvesting Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



38 Is the extraction design consistent with the Code? 86 4.0 H 37 4.0 H 14 3.9 AS 35 3.9 AS

39 Has appropriate harvesting equipment been used? 81 3.9 AS 32 4.0 H 15 3.8 AS 34 3.9 AS

40 Has the harvesting boundary been clearly marked? 80 3.7 AS 33 4.0 H 13 2.5 BS 34 3.8 AS

41 Has harvesting been confined within the boundary? 80 3.8 AS 34 3.9 AS 13 3.3 S 33 3.9 AS

42 Has all debris been retained within the harvesting boundary? 81 3.9 AS 32 3.9 AS 14 3.9 AS 35 3.9 AS

43 Has snigging complied with wet weather limitations ? 24 3.7 AS 3 4.0 H 2 3.5 AS 19 3.7 AS

44 Has snigging avoided the creation of bypass tracks? 36 4.0 H 11 3.9 AS 3 4.0 H 22 4.0 H

45 Has cartage complied with wet weather limitations? 16 3.9 AS 5 4.0 H 2 3.5 AS 9 4.0 H

46 Does snig track location and construction facilitate drainage? 67 3.8 AS 26 3.9 AS 9 3.5 AS 32 3.9 AS

47 Have STs avoided crossing Class 1 and 2 watercourses ? 17 3.8 AS 9 4.0 H 4 3.3 S 4 4.0 H

48 HaveCl3&4STcrossingsbeenminimised,&welllocated? 48 3.7 AS 24 3.6 AS 4 3.8 AS 20 3.8 AS

49 Have wet major STs, taken steps to minimise avoidable impact? 24 3.4 S 8 3.3 S 2 2.5 BS 14 3.7 AS

50 Has snigging avoided serious avoidable impact? 71 3.8 AS 29 3.9 AS 10 3.5 AS 32 3.8 AS

51 Has snigging along drainage lines been avoided? 58 4.0 H 25 4.0 H 4 4.0 H 29 4.0 H

52 In thinning ops, has ST location minimised damage to trees? 3 3.7 AS 1 4.0 H 1 3.0 S 1 4.0 H

53 Have snig tracks been progressively drained ? . 23 3.8 AS 8 3.9 AS 0 - - 15 3.8 AS

54 Does snig track drainage comply with Code specifications? 63 3.5 AS 22 3.8 AS 8 2.4 BS 33 3.6 AS

55 Has snig track drainage been effective? 57 3.5 AS 19 3.8 AS 6 2.7 BS 32 3.5 AS

56 Has snig track rutting been stabilised? 37 3.6 AS 9 3.8 AS 2 1.5 U 26 3.8 AS

57 Have snig tracks crossings been removed and stabilised? 32 3.5 AS 15 3.5 AS 0 - - 17 3.5 AS

58 Are landings appropriately located? 83 3.9 AS 36 4.0 H 13 3.8 AS 34 3.8 AS

59 Are landings appropriately sized? 76 3.9 AS 33 4.0 H 10 3.9 AS 33 3.8 AS

60 Have landings been properly constructed? 72 3.9 AS 32 4.0 H 8 3.6 AS 32 3.9 AS

61 Have landings been properly managed and stabilised? 76 3.5 AS 33 3.7 AS 11 3.1 S 32 3.5 AS

62 Is the width of the streamside reserves or MEZ correct? 65 3.9 AS 24 4.0 H 10 3.6 AS 31 3.9 AS

63 HaveCl1,2,&3SRs&required,Cl4MEZ,been clearly taped? 57 3.6 AS 20 3.8 AS 7 2.3 BS 30 3.8 AS

64 Have required cl 4 streams been upgraded to new guidelines? 34 3.8 AS 17 3.9 AS 4 3.5 AS 13 3.8 AS

65 Has felling avoided unreasonable damage to SSRs and MEZs? 60 3.8 AS 23 3.9 AS 8 3.6 AS 29 3.8 AS

Table continued on next page.


69


Harvesting (continued) Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



66 Has machinery been excluded from SSRs and MEZs? 61 3.8 AS 24 3.8 AS 9 3.4 S 28 3.9 AS

67 Has harvesting slash been kept out of SSRs or Class 4 MEZs? 57 3.8 AS 22 3.8 AS 6 3.7 AS 29 3.9 AS

68 Has felling in SSRs and MEZs complied with the Code? 19 3.9 AS 10 4.0 H 0 9 3.9 AS

69 Has harvesting in plantation SSRs complied with Code? 16 4.0 H 13 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 2 4.0 H

70 Have cables been pulled through cl 1, 2, 3 SSR without damage? 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -

71 Have potential cable erosion channels been stabilised? 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -

72 Has the FPP and variations been followed? 84 3.6 AS 35 3.8 AS 15 2.9 BS 34 3.6 AS


Weighted std 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1

Reforestation Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



73 Has the FPP and variations been followed? 64 3.7 AS 28 3.8 AS 7 2.8 BS 29 3.8 AS

74 Has an appropriate reforestation technique been prescribed? 47 3.7 AS 16 4.0 H 6 3.2 S 25 3.7 AS

75 Has fuel reduction burns, been effectively carried out? 22 3.5 AS 6 3.3 S 0 - - 16 3.6 AS

76 Have streamside reserves been protected from fire? 14 3.9 AS 3 4.0 H 0 - - 11 3.9 AS

77 Have class 4 stream MEZs been protected from fire? 14 3.1 S 4 3.5 AS 0 - - 10 3.0 S

78 Has appropriate seed been selected for native forest regen.? 20 4.0 H 10 4.0 H 1 3.0 S 9 4.0 H

79 Is an effective stocking likely to be achieved? 44 3.4 S 15 3.4 S 7 2.4 BS 22 3.7 AS

80 Havetreesbeenprotectedfromgrazing&browsing damage? 28 3.3 S 9 3.1 S 5 2.3 BS 14 3.9 AS

81 Has burning been effectively carried out and protected SRs? 21 3.7 AS 12 3.8 AS 1 3.5 AS 8 3.7 AS

82 Has cultivation minimized the risk of soil erosion? 27 3.8 AS 19 3.9 AS 1 3.0 S 7 3.8 AS

83 Cultivation excluded within 2m of drainage depressions? 19 3.8 AS 13 3.8 AS 0 - - 6 3.8 AS

84 Have class 1,2 and 3 streams and their SRs been protected? 17 3.9 AS 12 3.9 AS 0 - - 5 4.0 H

85 Have class 4 streams and their 10m MEZs been protected? 26 3.8 AS 20 3.8 AS 1 4.0 H 5 4.0 H

86 Have the specified stocking standard been achieved? 30 3.7 AS 20 3.8 AS 2 2.5 BS 8 3.8 AS

87 Havetreesbeenprotectedfromgrazing/browsing damage? 28 3.7 AS 19 3.6 AS 1 3.5 AS 8 3.9 AS

88 Doestracks&firebreakslocationprotectwater&visualvalues? 52 3.1 S 27 3.4 S 1 3.5 AS 24 2.8 BS

Weighted mean 3.6 AS 3.7 AS 2.8 BS 3.6 ASWeighted std 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4


70


Fuels & Rubbish Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



89 Have fuels, oils, greases and chemicals been well managed? 22 3.9 AS 9 4.0 H 1 2.0 BS 12 4.0 H

90 Has all rubbish been removed? 95 3.7 AS 34 3.6 AS 14 3.6 AS 47 3.9 AS

Weighted mean 3.8 AS 3.7 AS 3.5 AS 3.9 AS

Weighted std 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0

Soils & WaterTotal for all tenures Industrial forest

companiesIndependent forest

owners State forest


91 Has the soil erodibility rating been correctly determined? 103 3.7 AS 37 3.8 AS 17 3.5 AS 49 3.8 AS

92 Has landslip potential been correctly determined? 75 3.9 AS 30 3.9 AS 13 3.9 AS 32 4.0 H

93 Has burning intensity been appropriate for the soil? 59 3.9 AS 24 3.9 AS 5 4.0 H 30 3.9 AS

94 High/vhigherodibilitysoilsor>landslidethreshold referred? 29 3.7 AS 11 3.7 AS 2 3.0 S 16 3.7 AS

95 Evidence of post-operational accelerated soil erosion? 91 3.5 AS 34 3.6 AS 12 3.4 S 45 3.5 AS

96 Have all cl 1,2 3and 4 streams been identified &classified? 91 3.8 AS 31 3.9 AS 16 3.6 AS 44 3.8 AS

97 Evidence of significant post-harvest stream erosion? 69 3.9 AS 30 3.9 AS 7 4.0 H 32 3.9 AS


Weighted std 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2

Flora Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



98 FPP evaluation correctly completed for plant communities? 107 3.9 AS 41 3.9 AS 17 3.7 AS 49 3.9 AS

99 Has the evaluation correctly completed for priority plant species? 88 3.9 AS 36 3.8 AS 13 3.7 AS 39 3.9 AS

100 Has the evaluation completed for sites of potential significance? 87 3.9 AS 37 3.9 AS 13 3.8 AS 37 3.9 AS

101 FPP evaluation completed for effects on Reserves&SMZs? 86 4.0 H 33 3.9 AS 13 3.9 AS 40 4.0 H

102 Have flora values been referred to FPB Botanist as required? 61 3.9 AS 21 3.9 AS 10 4.0 H 30 3.9 AS

103 Have important flora values been taken into account in FPP? 46 3.7 AS 16 3.8 AS 6 3.2 S 24 3.8 AS

104 Have the botanical requirements of the FPP been followed? 36 3.8 AS 12 4.0 H 4 3.0 S 20 3.8 AS


Weighted std 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1

NotesNo. is the sample for the question i.e. the number of FPPs where the question was applicable.CR is the compliance rating, which can be H (high), AS (above sound), S (sound), BS (below sound) or U (unacceptable) as defined in the table at the beginning of this appendix.


71


Fauna Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



105 Was all the required information supplied in the evaluation? 88 3.9 AS 34 3.9 AS 8 3.8 AS 46 3.9 AS

106 Wereknownlocalities&habitatforthreatened sp. identified? 107 3.9 AS 41 4.0 H 17 3.7 AS 49 3.9 AS

107 Was FPB advice sort on threatened species, if required? 91 4.0 H 33 3.9 AS 12 3.9 AS 46 4.0 H

108 Were prescriptions for threatened species included in FPP ? 100 3.8 AS 39 3.9 AS 13 3.2 S 48 3.9 AS

109 If present, were WHS identified and WHS prescriptions incorporated? 40 3.7 AS 11 3.6 AS 3 2.7 BS 26 3.8 AS

110 Ifpresent,werefaunalSMZsidentified&prescriptions included in FPP? 14 4.0 H 5 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 8 4.0 H

111 Was the requirement for WHC’s correctly assessed? 80 3.8 AS 29 3.9 AS 13 3.3 S 38 3.9 AS

112 Have FPP threatened fauna prescriptions been implemented? 42 3.8 AS 17 3.8 AS 3 3.5 AS 22 3.9 AS

113 Have WHS prescriptions in the FPP been implemented? 23 3.9 AS 6 4.0 H 0 - - 17 3.8 AS

114 Were the SMZ prescriptions in the FPP implemented? 11 4.0 H 4 4.0 H 0 - - 7 4.0 H

115 Were the WHC prescriptions in the FPP implemented? 49 3.5 AS 21 3.6 AS 4 2.3 BS 24 3.6 AS


Weighted std 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1

LandscapeTotal for all tenures Industrial forest

companiesIndependent forest

owners State forest


116 Was the LMO assessed correctly? 105 3.7 AS 41 3.5 AS 16 3.6 AS 48 3.9 AS

117 Have all viewing issues been identified.? 87 3.5 AS 36 3.6 AS 14 2.9 BS 37 3.8 AS

118 Was a notification sent to the FPB where required? 18 4.0 H 7 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 10 4.0 H

119 Clearfall Harvesting 13 3.5 AS 5 3.9 AS 2 3.5 AS 6 3.3 S

120 Plantation development 9 3.8 AS 5 3.8 AS 0 - - 4 3.8 AS

121 Partial harvesting 13 4.0 H 3 4.0 H 0 - - 10 4.0 H

122 Roads, Snig Tracks, Landings, firebreaks and Quarries 11 4.0 H 5 4.0 H 0 - - 6 4.0 H

123 Skylines 9 3.9 AS 4 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 4 3.8 AS

124 Steep areas 2 4.0 H 0 - - 0 - - 2 4.0 H

125 Were the FPP prescriptions applied correctly? 25 3.7 AS 9 3.9 AS 4 2.8 BS 12 3.9 AS

126 Was the Recommended LMO achieved? 65 3.9 AS 21 3.9 AS 9 3.6 AS 35 3.9 AS


Weighted std 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1

NotesNo. is the sample for the question i.e. the number of FPPs where the question was applicableCR is the compliance rating, which can be H (high), AS (above sound), S (sound), BS (below sound) or U (unacceptable) as defined in the table at the beginning of this appendix.


72


Cultural Heritage Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



127 Has MDC zoning been complied with on State Forest? 42 4.0 H 4 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 37 4.0 H

128 Has Conserve been consulted and site info. identified? 104 3.8 AS 40 3.9 AS 15 3.0 S 49 4.0 H

129 Has Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity been identified? 96 3.9 AS 36 3.9 AS 16 3.8 AS 44 4.0 H

130 Was archaeologist’s advice sought where necessary? 25 3.8 AS 6 3.7 AS 5 3.2 S 14 4.0 H

131 Have cultural heritage prescriptions been followed? 14 3.9 AS 6 3.7 AS 0 - - 8 4.0 H

132 If a post op survey recommended, was it completed? 41 3.0 S 11 2.4 BS 3 1.0 U 27 3.5 AS

133 Havesiterecording&mgtbeeninaccordancewith Act? 6 4.0 H 2 4.0 H 0 - - 4 4.0 H


Weighted std 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.2

Geoscience Total for all tenures Industrial forest companies



134 Has Geoscience evaluation been correctly completed? 105 4.0 H 41 4.0 H 15 3.9 AS 49 4.0 H

135 Has the FPB geoscientist been consulted as required? 5 4.0 H 0 - - 0 - - 5 4.0 H

136 Have Vulnerable Karst Soils been correctly identified? 15 3.9 AS 2 4.0 H 0 - - 13 3.8 AS

137 Have appropriate prescriptions been included in the FPP? 8 4.0 H 4 4.0 H 1 4.0 H 3 4.0 H

138 Have geomorphology prescriptions been implemented? 4 4.0 H 2 4.0 H 0 - - 2 4.0 H

139 In a karst area, have the FPC provisions been followed? 2 3.5 AS 0 - - 0 - - 2 3.5 AS

Weighted mean 4.0 H 4.0 H 3.9 AS 4.0 H

Weighted std 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

NotesNo. is the sample for the question i.e. the number of FPPs where the question was applicable. CR is the compliance rating, which can be H (high), AS (above sound), S (sound), BS (below sound) or U (unacceptable) as defined in the table at the beginning of this appendix.


73

Woolnorth bioregion

No. RFA Forest Community 2002 RFA area (ha)

2006–07 decrease

(ha)

Total decrease 1996–2007 (ha)

% decrease from 2002 RFA area

1 Coastal E. amygdalina dry sclerophyll forest 24,646 160 653 2.6

2 E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 18,134 473 1,133 6.3

3** Inland E. amygdalina forest 902 0 121 13.4

4* E. amygdalina forest on sandstone 330 0 8 2.4

5 Allocasuarina verticillata forest 177 0 0 0.0

6* E. brookeriana wet forest 4,439 1 149 3.3

7 Acacia melanoxylon forest on flats 7,987 33 316 3.9

8 Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises 7,852 2 138 1.7

9* Banksia serrata woodland 156 0 0 0.0

10 E. coccifera dry forest 41 0 1 2.4

12 Dry E. delegatensis forest 3,892 1 52 1.3

13E.viminalis / E. ovata / E. amygdalina / E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest 29,915 20 1,651 5.5

14 Tall E. delegatensis forest 14,552 90 2,297 15.8

16* E. viminalisand/orE. globulus coastal shrubby forest 10 0 0 0.0

19* King Island E. globulus / E. brookeriana / E. viminalis forest 2,411 0 9 0.4

20 Leptospermumspecies/Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest 7,304 42 146 2.0

21 Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 28,659 105 4,406 15.4

22 Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 25,623 0 226 0.9

23* Melaleuca ericifolia coastal swamp forest 198 6 17 8.6

25 Dry E. nitida forest 14,012 22 217 1.5

27* Notelaea ligustrina / Pomaderris apetala forest 42 0 3 7.1

28 Tall E. nitida forest 2,932 41 250 8.5

29 Dry E. obliqua forest 29,106 296 3,486 12.0

30 Tall E. obliqua forest 124,714 1,354 18,204 14.6

31* Shrubby E. ovata / E. viminalis forest 2,979 2 66 2.2

37 E. regnans forest 2,632 11 843 32.0

39 E. rodwayi forest 104 0 3 2.9

41 Silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) forest 16,450 12 505 3.1

43 E. subcrenulata forest 125 0 0 0.0

47 E. viminalis grassyforest/woodland 2,905 0 61 2.1

49* Wet E. viminalis forest on basalt 2,610 0 284 10.9

50* King Billy Pine Forest 0 0 0 0.0

65 E. amygdalina forest on mudstone - 58 58 -

Total 375,842 2,728 35,303 9.4

1. Only forest communities that occur within each IBRA region are shown. 2. Results are estimates, based on RFA mapping and area data provided in Forest Practices Plans. The area shown as a decrease is likely to be an over-estimate as it is generally based on gross area, which excludes informal reserves such as streamside reserves. 3. * Indicates a threatened native vegetation community (rare, vulnerable or endangered). 4. ** During 2005–06, Inland E. amygdalina was separated into ‘Inland E. amygdalina – E. viminalis – E. pauciflora forests and woodlands on Cainozoic deposits’ and ‘E. amygdalina forest on mudstone’, with only the former being considered a threatened forest community. No conversion of the threatened community occurred in this bioregion.

Appendix 4

Monitoring of the maintenance of the Permanent Native Forest Estate


74

Ben Lomond bioregion


2006–07 decrease

(ha)



1 Coastal E. amygdalina dry sclerophyll forest 133,418 597 4,757 3.6


3** Inland E. amygdalina forest 4,567 0 1,167 25.6

4* E. amygdalina forest on sandstone 1,024 0 205 20.0


6* E. brookeriana wet forest 0 0 2 &

7 Acacia melanoxylon forest on flats 259 0 13 5.0

8 Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises 75 3 24 32.0


12 Dry E. delegatensis forest 29,876 183 1,314 4.4

13E. viminalis / E. ovata / E. amygdalina / E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest 2,091 4 867 41.4


20 Leptospermum species/Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest 41 0 0 0.0

21 Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 25,085 8 364 1.4

23* Melaleuca ericifolia coastal swamp forest 400 0 3 0.8



30 Tall E. obliqua forest 53,509 347 6,731 12.6

31* Shrubby E.ovata / E. viminalis forest 428 0 89 20.9

36 E. pauciflora forest on sediments 1,851 0 0 0.0

37 E. regnans forest 27,517 320 9 33.1

39 E. rodwayi forest 39 0 77 &

40 E. sieberi forest on granite 16,866 0 215 1.3

41 Silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) forest 21,434 68 1,435 6.7

42 E. sieberi forest on other substrates 43,278 0 244 0.6

47 E. viminalisgrassyforest/woodland 18,872 1 95 0.5

49* Wet E. viminalis forest on basalt 92 0 45 48.9


Total 500,654 2,536 39,174.9 7.8

1. Only forest communities that occur within each IBRA region are shown. 2. Results are estimates, based on RFA mapping and area data provided in Forest Practices Plans. The area shown as a decrease is likely to be an over-estimate as it is generally based on gross area, which excludes informal reserves such as streamside reserves. 3. * Indicates a threatened native vegetation community (rare, vulnerable or endangered). 4. ** During 2005–06, Inland E. amygdalina was separated into ‘Inland E. amygdalina – E. viminalis – E. pauciflora forests and woodlands on Cainozoic deposits’ and ‘E. amygdalina forest on mudstone’, with only the former being considered a threatened forest community. No conversion of the threatened community occurred in this bioregion.5.Anomaliesinmapping(shownwithanampersand(&))aresubjecttofurtherfieldverification.Areadatamaybemodifiedasmappingisrefined.


75

Midlands bioregion


2006–07 decrease

(ha)




2 E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 41,279 161 811 1.9

3** Inland E. amygdalina forest 19,734 7 632 3.2





14 Tall E. delegatensis forest 3,812 133 181 4.8

16* E. viminalis and/orE. globulus coastal shrubby forest 70 0 0 0.0

17* Grassy E. globulus forest 2,805 0 158 5.6

21 Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile soils 108 0 0 0.0

22 Thamnic rainforest on less fertile soils 113 0 0 0.0

24* E. morrisbyi forest 22 0 0 0.0

25 Dry E. nitida forest 7 0 0 0.0



30 Tall E. obliqua forest 8,315 122 414 4.9

31* Shrubby E. ovata / E. viminalis forest 2,656 0 38 1.4

32E. pulchella / E. globulus / E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyll forest 28,223 11 397 1.4

34 E. pauciflora forest on Jurassic dolerite 450 0 49 10.9


37 E. regnans forest 996 4 84 8.4

38* E. risdonii forest 375 0 2 0.4

39* E. rodwayi forest 113 0 10 8.8


43 E. subcrenulata forest 10 0 0 0

46* Inland E. tenuiramis forest 33,913 0 5 0.01




Total 244,855 1,219 6,472 2.6

1. Only forest communities that occur within each IBRA region are shown. 2. Results are estimates, based on RFA mapping and area data provided in Forest Practices Plans. The area shown as a decrease is likely to be an over-estimate as it is generally based on gross area, which excludes informal reserves such as streamside reserves. 3. * Indicates a threatened native vegetation community (rare, vulnerable or endangered). 4. ** During 2005–06, Inland E. amygdalina was separated into ‘Inland E. amygdalina – E. viminalis – E. pauciflora forests and woodlands on Cainozoic deposits‘ and ’E. amygdalina forest on mudstone‘, with only the former being considered a threatened forest community. Conversion of 6.7 hectares of this threatened community occurred in this bioregion.


76

Freycinet bioregion


2006–07 decrease

(ha)





3** Inland E. amygdalina forest 568 0 154 27.1



6* E. brookeriana wet forest 19 0 1 5.3


11* Callitris rhomboidea forest 606 0 0 0.0

12 Dry E. delegatensis forest 66,809 283 1,176 1.8

13E. viminalis / E. ovata / E. amgdalina / E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest 0 51 225 &


16* E. viminalisand/orE. globulus coastal shrubby forest 977 0 0 0.0

17* Grassy E. globulus forest 10,842 0 338 3.1

20 Leptospermum species / Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest 81 0 2 2.5

21 Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 627 0 0 0.0


29 Dry E. obliqua forest 30,256 431


31* Shrubby E. ovata / E. viminalis forest 719 3 4 0.5


34 E. pauciflora forest on Jurassic dolerite 1,274 1 1 0.0

36 E. pauciflora forest on sediments 47 0 0 0.0

37 E. regnans forest 3,280 30 772 23.5

39 E. rodwayi forest 2,149 1 1 0.0

40 E. sieberi forest on granite 829 0 0 0.0


42 E. sieberi forest on other substrates 2,986 0 0 0.0

44 E. tenuiramis forest on granite 2,983 0 2 0.1

45 E. tenuiramis forest on dolerite 7,514 9 35 0.5





Total 444,226 1,428 9,072 2.0

1. Only forest communities that occur within each IBRA region are shown. 2. Results are estimates, based on RFA mapping and area data provided in Forest Practices Plans. The area shown as a decrease is likely to be an over-estimate as it is generally based on gross area, which excludes informal reserves such as streamside reserves. 3. * Indicates a threatened native vegetation community (rare, vulnerable or endangered). 4. ** During 2005–06, Inland E. amygdalina was separated into ‘Inland E. amygdalina – E. viminalis – E. pauciflora forests and woodlands on Cainozoic deposits’ and ‘E. amygdalina forest on mudstone’, with only the former being considered a threatened forest community. No conversion of the threatened community occurred in this bioregion. 5.Anomaliesinmapping(shownwithanampersand(&))aresubjecttofurtherfieldverification.Areadatamaybemodifiedasmappingisrefined.


77

Central Highlands bioregion


2006–07 decrease

(ha)



1 Coastal E. amygdalina dry sclerophyll forest 276 0 0 0.0

2 E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 5,986 47 174 2.9



8 Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises 151 0 0 0.0

10 E. coccifera dry forest 49,927 9 9 0.0

12 Dry E. delegatensis forest 165,758 1,366 4,036 2.4



15* King Billy pine with deciduous beech forest 176 0 0 0.0

20 Leptospermumspecies/Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest 388 0 0 0.0

21 Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 24,755 209 2,191 8.9





30 Tall E. obliqua forest 14,125 199 904 6.4



33* Pencil pine with deciduous beech forest 176 0 0 0.0

34 E. pauciflora forest on Jurassic dolerite 17,079 2 62 0.4

35* Pencil pine forest 314 0 0 0.0


37 E. regnans forest 7,843 18 716 9.1

39 E. rodwayi forest 6,272 32 35 0.6


43 E. subcrenulata forest 3,610 2 2 0.0

45 E. tenuiramis forest on dolerite 8 0 0 0.0




50* King Billy pine forest 3,568 0 0 0.0

65 E. amygdalina on mudstone - 1 1 -

Total 572,381 3,511 15,802 2.8

1. Only forest communities that occur within each IBRA region are shown. 2. Results are estimates, based on RFA mapping and area data provided in Forest Practices Plans. The area shown as a decrease is likely to be an over-estimate as it is generally based on gross area, which excludes informal reserves such as streamside reserves. 3. * Indicates a threatened native vegetation community (rare, vulnerable or endangered).


78

West and Southwest bioregion


2006–07 decrease

(ha)




7 Acacia melanoxylon forest on flats 744 0 0 0.0

8 Acacia melanoxylon forest on rises 5,074 1 286 5.6





16* E. viminalis and/orE. globulus coastal shrubby forest 99 0 0 0.0

18 Huon pine forest 8,503 0 0 0.0

20 Leptospermumspecies/Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest 9,309 206 431 4.6






29 Dry E. obliqua forest 24,924 0 249 1.0


37 E. regnans forest 12,588 488 1,381 11.0

41 Silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) forest 499 0 1 0.2



Total 776,054 1,078 5,432 0.7



79

D’Entrecasteaux bioregion


2006–07 decrease

(ha)



1 Coastal E. amygdalina dry sclerophyll forest 61 0 0 0.0

2 E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 219 3 3 1.1


10 E. coccifera dry forest 3,952 0 0 0.0




17* Grassy E. globulus forest 596 0 61 10.2

18 Huon pine forest 9 0 0 0.0

20 Leptospermum species / Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest 1,244 1 10 0.8






29 Dry E. obliqua forest 29,486 198 446 1.5



32E. pulchella / E. globulus / E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerpohyll forest 10,905 27 45 0.4

35* Pencil pine forest 11 0 0 0.0

37 E. regnans forest 21,388 289 1,182 5.5



45 E. tenuiramis forest on dolerite 766 0 0 0.0


47 E. viminalis grassyforest/woodland 194 0 0 0.0



Total 261,596 1,108 12,999 4.9



80

Furneaux bioregion


2006–07 decrease

(ha)




11 Callitris rhomboidea forest 120 0 0 0.0

20 Leptospermum species / Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest 285 0 0 0.0

23 Melaleuca ericifolia coastal swamp forest 11 0 0 0.0

26 Furneaux E. nitida forest 29,712 63 63 0.2

48 Furneaux E. viminalis forest 135 0 0 0.0

Total 30,405 63 63 0.2

Tasmania

2002 RFA area (ha)

2006–07 decrease

(ha)


% decrease from 2002

RFA area

State total 3,206,013 13,672 124,316 3.9

Documents

The Annual Report of the Forest Practices Authority …...Board of the Forest Practices Authority (FPA). The year 2006–07 heralded a new era in the continuing evolution of the forest