Forest Practices News - June 2016 vol 13 no 1 ISSN 2204–5457
Peter Volker: the new
Chief Forest Practices Officer
Contents
Editors’ corner
4
Threatened butterflies
get their day in the sun
5
Carbon accumulation in
native eucalypt forests
6
Biodiversity Program
update8
Spotlight on protection of
masked owl nest sites
11
Bryology – are you a
‘budding protonema’?
12
The Board of the FPA
14
Compliance Program
update 15
Forward training program
15
Chris Grove, Publications and Training Officer, Forest Practices Authority
You were appointed CFPO on 5 April 2016.
Why did you apply for the CFPO position?
I have been closely involved with the
forest practices system since it started, in
both research and operational forestry,
so I understand how the system works.
I’ve been on the FPA Board and I was a
Planning FPO for ten years.
I’m a bit unusual in that I’ve got a strong
research as well as operational background
and in recent years I have also worked as
an adviser to a Federal Minister so I have
a good idea of the internal machinations
of government and policy development.
These are all strengths that I can bring to
the position.
Why did you go into forestry?
I grew up in Scottsdale, which was a very
forestry-oriented town. When I came
home from boarding school in Melbourne
I was very bored in the holidays so Geoff
Whitehead from the Forestry Commission
took me out into the bush to see what
they did. I loved it. I was going to be an
engineer but when I found out you could
do a degree in forestry I was hooked. I
won a scholarship from the Tasmanian
Government to go to ANU but I would
have done a forestry degree even if I hadn’t
got the scholarship. The scholarship came
with a job and I worked for the Forestry
Commission in the holidays. I finished
my forestry degree in 1981 and our class
Threatened flora habitat
descriptions16
FungiFlip17
Myrtle rust
update report
17
Platypus use of small
streams 18
Harvesting plantations on
non-vulnerable land – a
streamlined approach
20
The new Chief Forest Practices Officer, Peter Volker, (third from left) inspecting a coupe in northeastern Tasmania with FPA’s new Compliance Manager Tim Leaman (second from left), Randall
Norris from FT (left) and contractor Ted (right). Peter is keen to get into the forest with FPOs so give
him a call if you are going bush.
Tasmania’s independent forest regulator administering the Forest Practices Act • Advising • Researching • Monitoring • Enforcing
Banner photograph: David Tucker, Forest Practices Officer, entered this photograph of an oyster fungus (Pleurotus ostreatus) into the FPA’s 2014 photographic competition.
Peter Volker: the new Chief Forest Practices Officer
from ANU have remained life-long friends.
We recently had a reunion, which we
do at every five-year anniversary of our
graduation.
What was it that really appealed about
forestry?
The irony is I chose forestry because
I loved working outdoors, but most
foresters spend most of their time inside.
I’d always had an interest in biology. The
forestry degree taught me that there
were all sorts of aspects to forestry, from
pure science to engineering. That’s what I
loved about the degree. We learnt to do
surveying and build roads and bridges but
then we also studied botany and zoology
and other sciences. There were so many
opportunities that the degree threw up
that you could pursue in your career. I
ended up, more by accident than design,
working in forest genetics. When I left
A brief chat with Peter
How long have you worked in forestry?
I’ve got close to 40 years of experience
which includes operational forestry, tree
breeding, forest genetics and plantation
silviculture.
Where have you worked?
I’ve had lots of different jobs: state and
federal government, including GBEs;
universities; research institutions; small
companies; a large company; and as a
self-employed consultant. All of this has
been in Tasmania, although I’ve been
lucky enough to work in China, Chile and
2
university I worked in the Retreat area
of north-eastern Tasmania for about six
months and then the Forestry Commission
tree breeding researcher resigned so I was
asked to take over. That was in the very
early days of eucalypt plantations so I very
quickly got involved in tree breeding and
plantation establishment. This was about
1982, before the Forest Practices Code
which came out in 1987.
When did you first work with the Forest
Practices Code?
I wasn’t involved in the early days of the
code as I worked in research with the
CSIRO from 1986 for about four years. In
1990 I went to ANM Forest Management
to work as Research Superintendent
but after a year I became Silviculture
Superintendent. I was responsible for all
plantation and native forestry and that was
when I started having real exposure to the
code. I was involved in the development of
the code for plantation establishment.
I was with ANM until 1997 and then I
joined Serve-Ag as a forestry consultant.
During this time I was also on the Board
of the FPA from 1999 until 2002, when I
resigned because I went back to work at
Forestry Tasmania in plantation research. I
then became Forestry Tasmania’s Manager,
Field Services from 2007 to 2013. I was
also the Chair on another couple of
Boards during this period – Southern Tree
Breeding Association Inc. and PlantPlan
Genetics Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Southern
Tree Breeding Association.
What do you think about the forest practices
system?
It was pioneering in its time and it is still
regarded as one of the best systems
in Australia, if not the world. No other
New Zealand on short-term consultancy
jobs. My most recent job was as forestry
adviser to the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator
Richard Colbeck.
and I’ve held many managerial positions
throughout my career.
What experience do you have with the forest
practices system?
I’ve got several. Here is a list:
I started working in forestry in Tasmania in
the early 1980s, before the forest practices
system started, and I’ve been involved with
the system on many different levels as it
has developed. I was involved in developing
the Forest Practices Code provisions for
plantations. I was a Forest Practices Officer
(Planning) from 1995 to 2005 and I was on
the Forest Practices Board from 1999 until
2002.
What other governance and leadership roles
have you held?
As well as being on the Forest Practices
Board I was also on the Private Forests
Tasmania Board at the same time. I have
been Chairman of the Southern Tree
Breeding Association Inc and PlantPlan
Genetics Pty Ltd and have been on the
Boards of various sporting groups. From
2005 to 2011 I was National President
of the Institute of Foresters of Australia
What qualifications do you have that will
assist you as the new CFPO?
• University of Tasmania
• MBA (Professional),
Environmental Management,
2012–13
• PhD, Forest genetics, 1993–2002
• The Australian National University
• GradDipSc (Forestry), Forest
genetics, 1988–89
• BSc (Forestry), 1978–1981
• Australian Institute of Company
Directors course 2011 and I’ve just
completed a refresher.
You will be busy as CFPO but what will you
do when you get some precious free time?
I’m a keen cyclist and golfer, a nationally
accredited rowing coach and a regular
volunteer. I like to travel and lately I’ve
been around international rowing events
to watch my children competing. Oh and
on TV, watching too much sport is never
enough!
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
Peter Volker: the new Chief Forest Practices Officer
state in Australia has anything that even
approaches the forest practices system
in terms of covering all land tenures and
offering a one-stop shop for forestry
activities.
The co-regulation in the system is a real
strength. We have to protect the integrity
of this – the ability of FPOs to self-report
and resolve conflicts of interest with their
employers is something we have to be
careful of. The system remains strong while
we continue to do this, but the system
could very quickly fall apart if we drop the
ball on that.
Can you see anything that you think could be
improved in the forest practices system?
It worries me that it could become very
complex. One of its strengths so far has
been the tools that the FPA specialists have
developed for Forest Practices Officers
because without those it would be very
difficult to take account of all the forest’s
special values and work out how to manage
them. This has been a strength over other
states where it can be very expensive
and difficult to do assessments of, say,
threatened species or soil and water issues
associated with forestry activities.
What are you looking forward to working on
as the new CFPO?
I like to reduce red and green tape. I
would like to listen to people and, if I
think it’s possible, I’d like to implement
some changes to make the system more
efficient. But I’m still finding my way on
these things. One of the weaknesses in
the system has been the limited ability
of small private landholders to meet the
requirements of the system both in terms
of their knowledge and the costs involved
with meeting the regulatory requirements.
I’d like to support them more through the
process and I’m looking for ideas on how
to do this.
I’d really like to spend time in the field,
particularly with FPOs. I don’t want to be
going out there as the CFPO with a big
stick. I want to find out what their issues
are on a day-to-day basis. So if any FPOs
are going out into the bush and they’d like
me to tag along, give me a ring. And if they
don’t want me to tag along, I might ring
them!
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
I’d also like to work on our training
program to see if we can get national or
even international accreditation. That
also includes a system of continuing
professional development so that FPOs can
be sure they are up-to-date with current
knowledge and can get recognition for any
additional relevant training they undertake.
Some of the issues we’ll be looking at
over the next year or so include further
revisions of the Forest Practices Code,
long-term forest practices plans, code
of conduct, continuing professional
development for FPOs and maintaining
competency, improving advisory tools
and streamlining the system as much as
possible. I’m always open to suggestions,
so keep those cards and letters coming in!
What are you passionate about in forestry?
I’m passionate about forestry; I don’t know
why everyone doesn’t want to become a
forester! I’ve seen some amazing places and
made some great friends in forestry around
the world. I really like the Tasmanian
and Victorian Eucalyptus regnans forests;
especially really vigorous re-growth stage
when the trees are really healthy.
I’m passionate about good science and I’m
not backwards about criticising scientists
who have used poor research methods
but go public with their research before it
has been peer reviewed. That’s a standard
that I put on myself too. As CFPO, I need
to work out how much I can speak out.
In some of my previous roles, such as
President of the Institute of Foresters
Australia, I was quite vocal when people
would selectively quote science to support
their own point of view.
crops have hundreds if not thousands of
generations of breeding. I’m also interested
in the conservation of genetic resources.
You’ve got a long list of qualifications. Can you
tell me about them?
After I finished my forestry degree at ANU
in 1981, I did a Grad Dip Sc when I was
working with CSIRO in northern Tasmania.
When the CRC for Forestry started in
Hobart in 1993, I enrolled for a PhD on
hybridising Eucalyptus globulus with E. nitens,
which I had worked on when I was at
CSIRO. I finished that in 2002; it took nine
years as I was working full time – first with
ANM and then with Serve-Ag –and raising
a young family with my wife (she did most
of the hard yards).
After I finished my PhD I swore I would
never go back to university. But when I
finished my term as President of the IFA I
had got so used to spending 20 hours per
week after work on IFA business that I
wondered what I could do with that time
– maybe watch TV or ride my bike? But
then I saw an advert in the paper for an
MBA Professional at UTas and I decided to
do that. That took me two years and then
I swore I wouldn’t go back to university
again! Now I’m involved in the UTas alumni
One of the things I’ve realised since I
became CFPO is that even some people
in the forestry sector don’t know what the
FPA is and the understanding in the general
community is even lower. Having just been
working in a politician’s office, which was
very media-focussed, it’s hard to wind back
from that but I’ll be listening to people
before I rush in with any new approaches.
I’m also passionate about the huge
potential for forest genetics to improve
productivity. We’ve only just scratched
the surface as we are only one generation
away from the wild. Other agricultural
Peter Volker in coupe Picton 39a while working for
Forestry Tasmania (photo by FT).
3
Peter Volker: the new Chief Forest Practices Officer
mentor program and I’m in the process of
becoming an Honorary Research Associate.
I learnt a whole lot about management
during the MBA, like how different
personalities work in different
environments. I went into it a bit sceptical
but I came out of it thinking it was a
worthwhile thing to do. It reinforced my
management style which is very open. I like
to give people responsibilities for their own
roles – I’m not a control person, I’m more
of a delegator. I like people to explore their
own potential and I think it’s important to
celebrate success. I’ve had good and bad
managers in my time and I’ve tried to take
the best of them and leave behind the
worst of them.
How are you planning on putting that
experience into practice with the FPA?
The staff members are all well qualified,
work very hard and are passionate about
their work. I’m keen on continuing the
culture of working as a team. One of the
challenges will be in how to involve the
wider network of FPOs in that culture. We
can do this by contact from me and the
FPA staff through our refresher courses
and briefing sessions; personal interaction is
very important, it’s better at developing a
culture than communicating through email
and phone calls. We are also investigating
setting up an FPO reference group which
could be involved as a peer group to
provide input on things such as disciplinary
measures for FPOs and providing advice on
operational matters.
Another challenge is that we have become
Hobart-centric. When we appoint the
Forest Practices Advisor up north I will
make an effort to work a few days a month
out of the northern office.
What do you like to do with your free time?
I’ve been involved in sport all my life and
dabbled in many different sports.
I was a reasonable footballer (Glenorchy
in TFL, Belconnen in ACTAFL, ANU and
Tasmania University in amateurs) until I
snapped my ACL and had a reconstruction.
I also played cricket and hockey with some
moderate success in lower grades. Our
school team won the hockey under-16
premiership in Melbourne, when all of us
were only second-year players up against
the best Victoria had to offer.
I’m a rowing coach and both my kids are
elite rowers, which is a source of pride –
both of them have rowed for Australia.
I’ve coached mostly junior rowers and
it’s a real joy to see them go from being
absolute novices who are frightened about
falling out of the boat, to being competent
athletes working together as a team. Not
only that, it’s just as much fun to watch
them grow up and develop into great
people.
I can’t help but be involved in
administration of sport. It started when my
wife was playing basketball in the Women’s
National Basketball League. I was spending
so much time in basketball stadiums and
driving mini-buses around the country
that I decided I may as well get involved
in running the joint. I spent nine years as
Captain of Tasmania Golf Club, the largest
club by membership in the State, and I
learnt a lot about management in that
time. I am currently a Board member with
Rowing Tasmania.
Editors’ corner
The FPA has welcomed Peter Volker as
the new Chief Forest Practices Officer.
Peter is keen to get out and meet FPOs
and managers in the forest so feel free to
contact him and arrange a visit.
There have a been a few other staff
changes at the FPA – Dydee Mann has
been contracting her services for years
and now has a part-time position. And Tim
Leaman has moved from the Biodiversity
Program to head up the Compliance
Program, which is about to get a new
Compliance Advisor up north.
Our previous Compliance Program
Manager, Mick Schofield, has sent in an
article from his new job at Norske Skog.
4
We really welcome these contributions
from our readers so we hope that you will
feel inspired to share any great experiences
that you have had.
If you would like to send in a contribution
to Forest Practices News, please contact
the editors. Include illustrations and a
photo of yourself with your contributions.
Contributions can be supplied either as
hard copy or electronically. If forwarding
material electronically, please ensure that
figures/pictures are sent as separate files
and not embedded in Word documents.
Deadline for contributions to next
Forest Practices News:
Monday 21 December 2016
FPOs on the move
If you are an FPO and have
a new job or contact details,
please remember to
let the FPA know.
The address is: [email protected]
Chris Grove and Peter McIntosh
Forest Practices News Editors
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
Threatened butterflies get a day in the sun
Phil Bell, Consultant Ecologist, Forest Practices Authority
Karen Richards, Senior Zoologist (Threatened Species), DPIPWE
The Forest Practices Authority, DPIPWE’s
Threatened Species Section and Parks
and Wildlife Service, and the Tasmanian
Fire Service are contributing to a project
to monitor the impact of fire and habitat
disturbance on the endangered Chaostola
skipper and the rare subspecies of
Tasmanian hairstreak butterfly. The project
will monitor habitat and abundance of
butterflies in reserves before planned
burns and in the years following the burns.
The aim of the project is to assess the
impact of habitat loss and monitor the
re-establishment and/or recolonisation of
butterflies in regenerating habitat. This
information is vital in the development of
effective management prescriptions for
forestry, planned burning and a range of
development activities. Passive monitoring
projects of this type need to be long
running, potentially for many years, to
return the data and information needed.
Where there are limited resources
for research, they are often a cheap
and effective way to collect ecological
information.
A high proportion of Tasmania’s
butterflies are threatened. Five of our
30-odd butterfly species are listed under
the Threatened Species Protection Act
1995. Three of these are listed under the
Commonwealth’s Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
including ptunarra brown butterfly
Oreixenica ptunarra, chaostola skipper
Antipodia chaostola leucophaea and
Marrawah skipper Oreisplanus munionga
larana.
We know little of the ecology and critical
habitat features of Tasmania’s threatened
butterflies, aside from the critical nature of
their foodplants, and much of what we do
know is based on studies on related species
elsewhere in Australia and overseas.
Understanding habitat regeneration
and suitability, and how butterflies reestablish and/or recolonise sites after
disturbances such as fire and forest
harvesting, is important in the development
of management prescriptions for their
conservation.
Caterpillar/pupal shelter of Chaostola skipper
in thatch sawsedge (Gahnia radula) at Peter
Murrell Conservation Area. The shelter is made
by joining several leaves of the sedge together
with silk - the caterpillar rests in the shelter with
its head downwards with the shelter opening at
the bottom.
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
The Parks and Wildlife Service is
implementing fire management plans for
Lime Bay State Reserve on the Tasman
Peninsula, and Peter Murrell Conservation
Area at Howden. These reserves contain
important populations of Tasmanian
hairstreak butterfly and Chaostola
skipper respectively. Threatened Species
Section, Senior Zoologist, Karen Richards
and Forest Practices Authority contract
ecologist Phil Bell will assess the distribution
and abundance of the Tasmanian hairstreak
butterfly across Lime Bay State Reserve,
and Chaostola skipper across Peter Murrell
Conservation Area, this year. More detailed
assessments of the abundance of butterflies
will be undertaken within proposed burn
areas prior to a burn, and then each year
following a burn. The project will track the
regeneration/regrowth of habitat and the
re-establishment and/or recolonisation
by butterflies following fire. Results of
the study will be used to inform the
development of appropriate management
prescriptions for these threatened
butterflies across all land uses, including
forest harvesting operations.
Surveys were undertaken for butterflies
in burn areas proposed for this autumn
in each of the reserves. Surveys in
the remainder of the Peter Murrell
Conservation Area can be done at any
time, as the characteristic larval/pupal
shelters in the foodplant (thatch sawsedge
Gahnia radula) are present year round.
Surveys for Tasmania hairstreak butterfly
are best done when the caterpillars are
on the food plant (silver wattle Acacia
dealbata) in spring and summer when they
can be easily identified by the trails of
attendant ants.
Authors’ contacts:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Caterpillar of Tasmanian hairstreak butterfly
feeding on silver wattle (Acacia dealbata) leaves
and attended by a small black ant Iridomyrex
foetans.
5
Can native eucalypt forests be expected to
accumulate significantly more carbon?
Peter McIntosh, Earth Sciences and Cultural Heritage Manager,
Forest Practices Authority (left)
Martin Moroni, Business Development Manager, Private Forests Tasmania (right)
In the media one occasionally reads articles
arguing that the best way to store carbon
(C) is to leave the native eucalypt forests
in Tasmania standing and unharvested,
to allow carbon to accumulate in the
trees and in the soil. Articles may be
accompanied by pictures of giant Eucalyptus
regnans trees. Such forests store up to
1000 tonnes of C per hectare, and more if
soil C is taken into account.
However, in most mature wet eucalypt
forests C-stocks are much lower as sites
are composed of shorter species, or
tree height is limited by site fertility. Wet
eucalypt forests able to store about
290 t C/ha (or more) in biomass covered
only 2.5% of State Forest land in a 2010
survey (Moroni et al. 2010).
Wet eucalypt forests able to
store about 290 t C/ha (or
more) in biomass covered only
2.5% of State Forest land in
2010 survey.
In 2010 the potential coverage for this
class of forest was only 10–15% of the
State forest area, because of climatic and
soil limitations. The average biomass C
of mature wet eucalypt forest in 2010
was 230 t/ha, less than a quarter of the
maximum C reported for an iconic (but
unrepresentative) tall tree site.
When addressing the question posed by
the title of this article, it is important for
commentators to note that wet eucalypt
forests are not the end point of forest
succession. As wet eucalypt forests age, in
the absence of fire and where a rainforest
understory develops, they transition to
pure rainforest. The transition occurs as
eucalypts grow old and die, a process that
takes 400-500 years. Rainforests contain
about half the biomass and C (120 t C/ha)
of mature wet eucalypt forests. So even
if harvesting ceased and Tasmanian land
managers achieved the impossible and
kept fire out of all wet eucalypt forests for
the next few hundred years, the ultimate
result at a landscape scale would be a peak
biomass C of about 230 t/ha and then a
decline to about 120 t/ha.
But we must not forget the soil, which
also stores C. The average amount of
C in soils under wet eucalypt forest to
100 cm depth has been calculated for 17
profiles described by soil scientists Mike
Laffan, Reece Hill and John Grant in several
publications. It comes to 135 t/ha, which is
about 60% of the mean biomass C of wet
eucalypt forests, and about 37% of total
ecosystem C. The lowest value was found
in a very stony soil in dolerite (37 t/ha) and
the highest value was found in a Stronach
soil in granite (270 t/ha). The latter figure
is similar to the 248 t/ha figure measured
in a well-drained soil under a New Zealand
lowland rainforest that has never burnt
(McIntosh 1995).
Some iconic stands of mature Eucalyptus
regnans forest may contain up to 1000 t/ha of
biomass carbon but because of soil and climate
limitations trees of this size will only ever cover
very small areas of Tasmania.
6
It is possible that soil C values may increase
as wet eucalypt forests transition to
rainforest, but there is no strong evidence
for or against this proposition. (It is true
that rainforests and mixed forest soils in
Tasmania have a mean C content of 210 t/
ha to 1 m depth, which is higher than that
under wet eucalypt forests, but this figure is
probably not typical: it was calculated from
results obtained on only four profiles, and
all were from medium-altitude high-rainfall
sites in which the soil moisture regime
favours C accumulation.)
On a landscape scale, forests in Tasmania
contain a mixture of recently burnt
forests, young forests and mature forests.
This is the natural state of affairs in the
forest estate, and is mimicked in managed
production forests. If, by an extraordinary
combination of circumstances, the
landscapes containing these fire-induced
forests were never burnt again, we can
assume that these forests would, on
average, all reach maturity and contribute
to a 365t C/ha average figure for total
ecosystem C (biomass+soil) for all the
state’s wet eucalypt forests.
In this scenario the total ecosystem C
would initially increase a little (because
the younger eucalypts in the mixed-age
forests would mature and grow bigger). But
the ultimate long-term result would be to
decrease the C content of the land these
forests occupy by about 30% (because
rainforest would take over). Not a good
return for a carbon accountant.
The above calculations ignore the effect
of fire on native forests. Fire is a natural
and essential part of eucalypt ecology
and although, in managed native forests,
attempts are made to limit fire spread,
nature has a way of taking control, as it
did in the disastrous Dunalley fires of 2013
and the fires in the north-west that began
in January 2016. Regular fires maintain
a mixed-age forest mosaic in the wet
eucalypt forests, preventing the landscape
as a whole from ever reaching the
condition of uniform mature-age wet forest
or rainforest – the theoretical scenario
considered above.
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
Can native eucalypt forests be expected to accumulate significantly more carbon?
Regular fires maintain a mixedage forest mosaic in the wet
eucalypt forests, preventing
the landscape as a whole from
ever reaching the condition of
uniform mature-age wet forest
or rainforest.
As the climate warms we can expect a
longer fire season, more high fire-danger
days and a shorter fire return interval
resulting in younger forests (on average)
with lower C-stocks.
Fire also maintains the dry forest structure
in the east of the state – forests which
contain on average only about 120 t/ha
of biomass C. And fires, together with
climate, also affect soil C values, which
on average (17 profiles to 1 m) are 90 t/
ha under dry forests. This low average soil
C figure means that the total ecosystem
C content for this forest type is about
210 t/ha, i.e. 40% less than in mature wet
eucalypt forests.
climate limitations. Secondly, forests and
forest soils do store large amounts of
carbon, but the carbon stocks in forests
are highly variable and prone to decline
because of the combined effects of natural
succession (transition to low-stature
rainforest) and fires.
We cannot protect forests from fire
indefinitely, particularly in a warming
climate, and even if we could, wet eucalypt
forests will lose C as they transition to
rainforest, thereby reducing landscape C
stocks over time.
...putting our wet eucalypt forests
into reserves will not increase
landscape carbon storage in the
long term.
The inescapable science-based conclusion
is that stopping harvesting and putting our
wet eucalypt forests into reserves will not
increase landscape carbon storage in the
long term.
References
McIntosh, PD 1995, Soils of the Edendale
District, Landcare Research Science Series
No. 15, Manaaki Whenua Press, 36 p.
Moroni, MT, Kelley, TH and McLarin, ML
2010, Carbon in trees in Tasmanian State
Forest, International Journal of Forestry
Research, volume 2010, article ID 690462,
13 p. doi: 10.1155/2010/690462.
Authors’ contacts:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Interestingly a significant amount of soil
C in both wet and dry forests is in the
form of inert charcoal, rather than organic
matter. We can tell this from the C/N ratio
of the topsoil organic matter. Well drained
forest topsoils which have never been
subjected to a fire, such as those found
under temperate rainforest remnants in
the South Island of New Zealand (McIntosh
1995), have a C/N ratio of around 16. In
contrast topsoils under both wet eucalypt
and dry eucalypt forests in Tasmania have
C/N ratios of 24, indicating that about a
third of the carbon in these topsoils is in
the form of charcoal – an unmistakable
signature of regular forest fires over
millennia. Further evidence for fires comes
from radiocarbon dating of charcoal in soils
and Quaternary deposits: dates obtained
indicate regular landscape burning, by fires
of natural or Aboriginal origin, over the last
40 000 years.
So there are two simple answers to the
question posed by the title of this article.
Firstly, a maximum biomass C storage of
around 1000 t/ha is impossible to achieve
at a landscape scale because of soil and
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
Typical tall wet eucalypt forest in Tasmania (top photograph) contains about 230t/ha of biomass carbon
whereas typical dry forest contains only about 120 t/ha (lower photo)
7
News from the Biodiversity Program
Sarah Munks, Biodiversity Program Manager, Forest Practices Authority
The FPA Biodiversity program provides
support to forest managers and planners
through expert advice, the development of
planning tools, training and research. Read on
to find out about program updates and topics
of interest to forest planners.
Updates to the Threatened
Fauna Adviser, a decision
support program
A number of minor edits and software
updates have been made to the
Threatened Fauna Adviser. Many are in
response to feedback received from forest
planners:
• Keeled snail recommendations for
situations where the species and its
habitat is present (or is assumed to
be present on public land) are now
available from the Threatened Fauna
Adviser.
• The strategic (landscape-level)
planning recommendations for existing
plantation and native forest operations
within the giant freshwater crayfish
potential range have been revised.
Ambitious eastern quoll investigating lures in a
Forico plantation with a grassy (Poa) understorey,
west of Guildford Rd, Surrey Hills, during winter
(June) 2014. The lure was baited with a mixture
of rolled oats, sardines, peanut butter and tuna
oil. Obviously irresistible! (Photo by Joanna Lyall)
8
• The recommendations for the tussock
skink have been simplified. Planners
will now only need to seek advice
if they are undertaking evaluations
for native forestry operations with
a known locality or potential habitat
(patchy or extensive) in the core
range, or in the potential range where
the habitat is extensive.
• The eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus)
has been added to the Threatened
Fauna Adviser and Biodiversity
Values Database in response to
its recent listing as endangered on
the Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act). We are working with
DPIPWE specialists to develop an
agreed management approach. In
the interim a draft management
recommendation has been sent out
as a CFPO Instruction. This species
is found only in Tasmania. There is
evidence that foxes drove the species
to extinction on the Australian
mainland 50 years ago. It is estimated
more than 10,000 are left in Tasmania,
but numbers have fallen rapidly in
recent years.
The updated version of the Threatened
Fauna Adviser is now available on the ‘FPA
Services’ page of the website. We depend
on feedback from users to maintain this
important planning tool. So keep sending in
your comments/suggestions to
[email protected]
or info@ fpa.tas.gov.au
New masked owl habitat Fauna
Technical Note
The Identifying masked owl habitat Fauna
Technical Note 17 is now available on ‘FPA
Services’. This Technical Note provides
information on identifying and assessing
masked owl habitat. It also provides
some guidance on how to manage known
masked owl sites and potential habitat.
Masked owl (Photo by Chris Bond)
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
News from the Biodiversity Program
The risk assessment/biodiversity
evaluation sheets
The first step in taking flora and fauna
values into account when planning a forest
practice is the ‘risk assessment’. This
involves identifying the value, considering
the risk of disturbing the value in some way,
deciding on the significance of the impact
(if any) and then making a decision on ways
to reduce the impact, or avoid it altogether.
The biodiversity evaluation sheets are
designed to guide and document this ‘risk
assessment’.
The level of risk varies depending on the
forestry operation, so there are now four
biodiversity evaluation sheets available
on ‘FPA Services’. One for clearance and
conversion operations, one for native forest
operations, one for plantation operations
and one for small-scale plantation/
thinning operations. If a particular area has
different types of operations then a sheet
appropriate for each operation should
be used. This will help to make it clearer
to any external parties how a particular
management prescription was arrived at for
a particular biodiversity value.
The information used to determine
appropriate actions to reduce or avoid any
negative impacts can be documented in
these sheets. Currently the final version of
these sheets and associated information
are uploaded to the FPA Coverpage
database. Some planners have asked for
clarification of the following words in the
original ‘uploading to Coverpage’ CFPO
instruction–
eagle nest search report (if done)
3. any specialist advice or reports.
If 2–3 have already been uploaded onto the
FPA notification database (sent in as part
of the advice request) then this information
doesn’t need to be uploaded again on to
the Coverpage database. In this case, only
the final special values sheet with the final
management prescriptions used in the FPP
(provided in the last section of the sheets)
needs to be uploaded.
Flora and frog field days in the
Spring
Clearance and conversion
plans – when is an ecological
consultant’s report required?
If you would like a field day on a particular
flora or fauna management issue or training
on identification of a particular habitat then
please let us know so we can add it to our
list.
Guidelines were released by the FPA on
1 September 2015 in response to queries
about when an ecological consultant’s
report might be required for a proposed
clearance and conversion operation. The
document ‘Supporting guideline for roles and
responsibilities of parties under the Tasmanian
forest practices system – The ecological
assessment requirements of forest practices
plan applications for clearance and conversion
of native vegetation’ is available via the FPA
web-site on the FPO documents page.
We have a couple of field days planned
for the Spring if there is enough interest.
Anne Chuter will run a plant identification
day and Dydee Mann will coordinate a
threatened frog field day. ‘Expression
of interest’ emails will be sent out to all
planners in July. We will have to limit the
numbers to 25, so look out for the emails
and get your name on the appropriate list.
Wedge-tailed eagle strategic
planning project
Applying eagle nest management
recommendations is often tricky and costly.
Jason Wiersma and Nick Mooney started
a project in late 2015 to develop a riskbased approach to identifying nesting areas
which are a priority for management. Initial
results indicate that it may be possible to
focus efforts on a sub-set of the known
nests in a particular region. Applying limited
conservation resources more effectively
‘Please include any necessary attachments
(coupe assessment maps, eagle search
reports etc.). Additional evaluations carried
out as part of future FPP variations also need
to be uploaded.’
Note that this request relates to any
information referred to in the final version
of the evaluation sheets and not additional
information that isn’t relevant to the final
decision. As a minimum this information
might include:
1. the final version of the evaluation
sheet relevant to the operation
2. any ‘mud-maps’/maps/reports of
field assessment done as part of the
biodiversity evaluation including the
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
Wedge-tailed eagle nest in north-eastern Tasmania, taken as part of surveys for the eagle strategic
planning project by Jason Wiersma.
9
News from the Biodiversity Program
will be beneficial for both the birds and the
forest industry. Invitations to a stakeholder
briefing will be sent out in the near future,
but in the meantime if you want to know
more contact Jason at
[email protected]
Staff changes and who to
contact
The Biodiversity Program had to farewell
(and congratulate!) Tim Leaman in April
when he was appointed as the FPA’s
Compliance Manager. Tim has been a
highly valued member of the Biodiversity
Team and his promotion has left a gap
in the advisory area. Planners have been
advised of possible delays while we recruit
a new ecologist. Dr Phil Bell has been
contracted in the interim to help us out.
Phil has many years experience working in
the forest practices system, including a stint
managing the Biodiversity Program. He is
an extremely experienced ecologist and is
happy to respond to any advice requests
from planners in his area.
One bit of good news is that Dydee Mann
was recently appointed as our part-time
FPA Ecologist. Dydee has worked with
us, as a contract scientist, since 2009. She
completed her degree (majors in plant
science and zoology) in 2003 and then
went on to complete her honours on
the impact of the devil facial tumour on
Dydee Mann identifying a Tasmanian devil skull
during a recent field trip.
10
devil populations in 2004. She has gained
considerable knowledge of Tasmania’s
biodiversity (both theory and field) over
the past 15 years through her post-degree
work with DPIPWE, Parks and Wildlife,
UTas, Volunteering Tasmania and as a
private consultant. In particular, Dydee
has extensive knowledge and experience
of threatened carnivores and Tasmania’s
mammals. She also has technical expertise
in remote monitoring technology and,
importantly for the FPA, can drive our
XpertRule software!
Amy Koch, the FPA’s Senior Research
Biologist, is on maternity leave – our new
FPA baby arrived this month! Dr Perpetua
Turner joined us recently as A/Research
Biologist (five days a fortnight). Perpetua
has 20 years research experience working
in forest ecology both in Victoria and
Tasmania. She is currently an honorary
research associate at the University
of Tasmania and has ongoing research
projects initiated at FT and NSW Forests.
Her main areas of interest are forest and
fire ecology, biodiversity conservation
and population dynamics. She also has
knowledge and expertise in bryophyte
ecology. See Pep’s article on bryophytes in
this issue. Perpetua is keen to learn more
about the work of the FPA in general, so
if anyone has any interesting field trips
coming up let her know.
Pep Turner conducting fieldwork with Forestry
Tasmania (photo by FT).
Advice requests sent in via the notification
system will be covered over the next few
months as follows:
Bass (East)/King Island/Derwent East
Phil Bell will be the primary contact for
advice to planners (state and private)
preparing FPPs in these areas.
Murchison/Bass West (old Mersey)
Jason Wiersma is the primary contact for
advice to planners (State and Private) on
native forest operations only in this area
while he is focussing on the eagle strategic
planning project in 2016.
Phil Bell, Dydee Mann and Anne Chuter
are covering requests for advice on
clearance and conversion proposals in this
region.
Huon/Derwent West
Dydee and Anne (both part-time) are the
primary contacts for advice to planners
(state and private) preparing plans in these
areas.
Note that because of staff changes there
may be some delays in response to advise
requests in the next few months. However
we will make every effort to get advice
back to you as soon as possible (within the
agreed 6 week period).
Author’s contact:
[email protected]
FPA’s newest member, Caleb, with mum Amy Koch
and CFPO Peter Volker.
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
Spotlight on protection of
masked owl nest sites
Phil Bell, Consultant Ecologist, Forest Practices Authority (left)
Jason Wiersma, Ecologist, Forest Practices Authority (right)
The focus on masked owl management
over the past year culminated in the release
of an FPA Fauna Technical Note on masked
owl habitat and several field days on the
ecology and management of this species
within the forest practices system (see
Forest Practices News December 2015 vol
12 no 4).
To maintain the momentum, the FPA has
initiated a project that aims to monitor
the efficacy of management prescriptions
designed by FPA ecologists for the
protection of nest and roost sites in forest
practices plans. The project will involve
annual monitoring of nest reserves and
other management actions that have been
implemented in FPPs for the protection of
known nest and/or roost sites.
owls need very large hollows for nesting.
As little is known about many of the
species’ other habitat requirements, the
current management guidelines focus on
large hollows. As the birds have very large
territories, management of the hollow
resource needs to be considered at a range
of spatial scales. The current approach
focuses on tree size as a surrogate for large
hollow availability due to the unreliability
and labour-intensive nature of groundbased searches.
17 Identifying masked owl habitat and it is
recommended reading.
FPA raptor specialist, Jason Wiersma, and
ecologist, Phil Bell, will begin monitoring
nest/roost sites in May 2016 and visit FPP
areas where reserves have been designed
and implemented for the conservation of
known breeding habitat. Although there
are only a few reserves in place so far, any
new nest/roost reserves will be added to
the annual monitoring schedule, as the
project is expected to run for several years.
On-ground data will be collected on the
condition of breeding habitat and roost/
nest trees, the potential for recruitment of
nest trees, and evidence of ongoing use of
the site by masked owls. In the longer term
the project may help us to understand
whether current localised and broader
landscape approaches within the forest
practices system are effective in maintaining
site occupation by masked owls and their
breeding success. Interim findings of the
monitoring project will be reported in
future issues of the Forest Practices News.
The masked owl is not easy to manage
in forestry landscapes. The problem is
this species is secretive at nesting and
roosting so searches at coupe-level can
be unreliable. Further, identifying suitable
hollows from ground-based searching is
not always successful. Masked owls occupy
very large territories, potentially in excess
of 2000 ha, and it can be difficult to
determine whether specific parts of such a
large area are critical to breeding success.
Nonetheless, one thing is certain – masked
Notwithstanding the above, searches at the
coupe-level have been useful in identifying
trees used by owls. However, masked owls
can use a number of hollows as roosting
sites so ongoing monitoring is usually
necessary to determine whether a hollow
is used for nesting purposes. Detection
of a nest or hollow roost site can depend
more on happenstance than good survey
technique and many of the features we
might associate with use of a hollow
for nesting can be absent (e.g. pellets of
regurgitated skin and bones, feathers
and droppings) – even during breeding!
The FPA/DPIPWE agreed approach to
the conservation of large hollows for the
masked owl, both in the local and broader
landscape, is articulated in Technical Note
A masked owl nest/roost site at Interlaken
The contents of an active nest felled during a forest harvesting operation on a farm in northern
Tasmania. As well as a young chick the hollow contained a large number of fresh black rats (Rattus
rattus) and house mouse (Mus musculus).
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
Authors’ contacts:
[email protected]
[email protected]
11
Bryology – are you a ‘budding protonema’?
Pep Turner, Senior Research Biologist (while Amy Koch is on maternity leave), FPA
Pep Turner is the FPA’s Senior Research
Biologist while Amy Koch is on maternity
leave. Pep has 20 years research experience
working in forest ecology both in Victoria
and Tasmania. She is currently an honorary
research associate at the University of
Tasmania and has ongoing research projects
initiated at FT and NSW Forests. Her main
areas of interest are forest and fire ecology,
biodiversity conservation and population
dynamics. She also has a high degree of
knowledge and expertise in bryophyte
ecology.
The following article is taken from her blog
‘Pep Talks’ where she introduces the exciting
field of bryology.
If you are interested in knowing what that
green stuff growing in the pavement cracks
is, or curious about the green carpet of
cool temperate rainforest, then don’t be
scared to find out more. Bryology isn’t as
hard as it looks. Consider them as vascular
plants at a much smaller scale.
At the end of my degree, I had no idea
that I would be launched into the world
of mosses, liverworts and hornworts
for my Honours year. I began a project
looking at Ecological Vegetation Classes
and their ability to be surrogates for other
components of biodiversity, i.e. bryophytes.
The journey began, and I was hooked.
‘Is this a moss, or a liverwort? Or maybe it’s
a hornwort?’
These were the words the late Dr George
Scott asked me, after placing what looked
like a tiny scrap of green something-orother on the viewing plate of a dissecting
microscope. ‘Liverwort’ I answered.
Woohoo! I was right! George named me a
‘budding protonema’ and I am sure he also
gave others this name.
If you are used to identifying vascular plants,
then you should be used to noting lichens
and bryophytes. However, you may not be
used to separating bryophytes into moss,
liverwort and hornwort. So, assuming
See Pep’s blog for image credits
12
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
Bryology – are you a ‘budding protonema’?
some botanical knowledge, follow the
diagrams on the previous page as a rough
guide. For starters, moss and liverwort
reproductive structures (sporophytes) are
easy to differentiate. But more often than
not, these are not present. So look at the
stems and leaves, or the absence of them,
and look at the roots (rhizoids). You should
be able to differentiate your green stuff
into moss, liverwort or hornwort using this
simple sheet.
Now that you have more confidence,
you can leap forward to working out
what your moss/liverwort/hornwort is
classified as. I can recommend purchasing
Read and Slattery (2014) or Meagher
and Fuhrer (2003) for some direction.
Although the titles indicate they are moss
field guides, and Australian based, they
will give you the basics for learning how to
identify bryophytes anywhere in the world
and Meagher and Fuhrer does include
liverworts and hornworts (the ‘allied plants’
in the book title). For something more
specific, Jarman and Fuhrer (1995) is great
for Tasmanian rainforest.
To get past the initial stage of moss or
liverwort, I relied on a couple of technical
books. Some are still relevant today but
most are out of print and very expensive
to buy (hold onto them if you find or have
them!).
These days the internet is a great source of
information for bryology. If you are reading
a hardcopy of this newsletter, check out
the online version for the hyperlinks. The
Australian National Botanical Gardens
Bryophyte Portal is my first port-of-call
for taxonomic information. Here you can
read all about bryophytes: ecology, habitat,
bryogeography etc. If you want more
specific information then there is an online
Australian Mosses page and a checklist
of Australian Liverworts and Hornworts.
There is an online key at the University
of Tasmania School of Biological Sciences.
Don’t be put off by the ‘Vascular plant’ title
– scroll down and you will see liverworts
and mosses are covered. And if you want
to search records or plot maps don’t forget
the Australian Virtual Herbarium and Atlas
of Living Australia.
Lastly, there is a bryological network in
Australia and they produce the Australasian
Bryological Newsletter. It’s been published
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
Bryology guidebooks
Read, C & Slattery, B 2014, Mosses of dry forests in south
eastern Australia, Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests (Mount
Alexander Region), Castlemaine. 101 pp. Price $15.00 AUD.
ISBN: 978-0-646-91693-4. Paperback.
This is a handy fit-in-your-back-pocket-size and suitable for
the drier Australian forests. The photography displays details
well and the list of extra species in the back of the book will
direct you to further information. They give some ideas on
shape and function to help decipher bryophytes and even
give a brief explanation of ‘what’s in a name’ as bryophytes
don’t often have common names.
Meagher, D & Fuhrer, B 2003, A Field Guide to the Mosses
and Allied Plants of Southern Australia, CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood. Price ~$52.95 USD. ISBN: 978-0642568281.
Paperback.
Meagher has included a key in the book where you can
take your moss/liverwort/hornwort and place it in a group
based on some feature or other. The keys don’t rely on
reproductive structures (sporophytes), so getting to a
species, genus or family is quite assured. Fuhrer’s images
image shows distinctive characteristics which will help with
your identifications. Useful Information is included on which
Australian state each species is found.
Jarman, SJ & Fuhrer, B 1995, Mosses and Liverworts of
Rainforest in Tasmania and South-eastern Australia, CSIRO
Publishing and Forestry Tasmania, Collingwood. ISBN:
0643056858. Paperback.
Forestry Tasmania has been the backbone for much
bryological research in Tasmania. The book is cool
temperate rainforest focused and the brief species
descriptions are complemented by detailed photographs.
for a while now (it’s only 5 years younger
than me!) and the issues are well worth
reading.
These are just a few tools which will help
get you started in the non-vascular plant
world. I can assure you, once you identify
a few specimens, you will be hooked. The
thrill and wonder of these small, ecologically
important, ancient and intricately detailed
plants is something you will never overlook
again.
Happy bryophyte hunting!
Pep’s blog is at
https://peptalkecology.wordpress.
com/2015/07/31/bryology-are-youinterested-in-becoming-a-buddingprotonema/
Author’s contact:
[email protected]
13
Introducing the Board of the FPA
(continued from Forest Practices News December 2016)
the FPA. On leaving the Tasmanian public
sector in 2005 I had a number of consulting
roles, one of which was the second review
of the Tasmanian RFA.
So when the opportunity arose to apply
for the position of Chair of the FPA, I was
interested to again play a role in supporting
the science and best practice regulation of
the Tasmanian Forest sector.
John Ramsay
Chairperson and Board member
with expertise in public
administration and in environmental
or natural resource management and
governance
In the 1990s I was a member of the
Board of the then constituted FPA. After
moving to a different public sector role
in 1999, I maintained a continued interest
in the regulation of forestry in Tasmania,
and the forest science conducted by
While my University training was in law, I
have always had a personal and professional
interest in sustainable development. During
my time as Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Land Management in the
1990s, there was considerable legislative
and administrative reform undertaken with
sustainable development as its foundation.
This occurred both in the state and
nationally and most of those reforms are
still in place today.
In addition to administrative involvement
in the natural resources/sustainable
development area, since 2005, I have also
had 2 regulatory roles that provided a
practical experience as a regulator. I was
agricultural and forestry issues. Previous
to that role, I was in local government for
some 10 years on the Campbell Town and
Northern Midlands Councils.
David Gatenby
Board member with applied
knowledge and expertise in
sustainable forest management on
private land
As a private landowner I have had a
lifetime’s interest and experience in
forestry in my farming operations in the
Midlands of Tasmania. I was President
of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers
Association from 2009 to 2013 when I
represented some 3000 farmers in both
14
As a seventh-generation farmer, sustainable
forest management is of the utmost
importance to me. I'm a strong believer
in a balanced social, economic and
environmental forest practices system. I
believe our forest practices system is an
industry leader in Australia and is as good
as anywhere in the world. I am really
looking forward to bringing a first-hand
forest owner’s perspective to the Board.
I understand the strengths and the
weaknesses of the system. I see the Forest
Practices Officers as being one of the main
strengths in the system. They are well
trained to understand forest values and
how to manage them. But good forestry
is a team effort – they also supervise the
forest contractors and communicate the
forest practices plan clearly to them. Our
forests practices system requires total
understanding from all those involved and
a strong communication link between all
Chair of the Board of the state EPA for
six years, and I continue to be a member
of the State Planning Commission.
In addition to my Planning Commission
and FPA roles, I am Chair of the
Governing Council of the Tasmanian
Health Service. Significant reforms are
taking place in the Tasmanian health
sector with the establishment of a statewide health service from three previously
regional-based health organisations.
In my spare time, I am renovating a
1920s cottage, spending time with 2
grand children, I walk on Mt Wellington
whenever I can, and I am on the
Committee of the Hobart Real Tennis
Club.
Tasmania’s reputation for sound
regulatory practice in the forest sector
is strong, and I hope to maintain and
develop that reputation with the cooperation and support of my colleagues
on the Board, the CFPO and the highly
professional and knowledgeable staff in
the FPA office and the FPOs in the field.
stakeholders. People who work within
the system know that they do a good job
but one of the weaknesses in the system
is that we don’t communicate this very
well.
It is important that the Board continues
to review our forest practices, identifying
the strengths and weaknesses, as all
regulatory systems can be improved.
Our forests in Tasmania are so important
to the economy, to our social wellbeing through job creation, and to the
environment. I believe the Board has a
huge responsibility to achieve a balance
in any decision we make. I look forward
to making a contribution and to the many
challenges that lie ahead in making good
positive outcomes.
Apart from the Board, I’m kept busy by
my positions on the Tasmanian Heritage
Council, and various local committees
including the ANZAC Committee, the
school committee and I’m Vice President
of the local football club. Many years
ago I played Sheffield Shield Cricket for
Tasmania.
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
Compliance Program updates
The FPA has appointed Tim Leaman as our
new Compliance Manager.
Tim has been a specialist FPA Ecologist and
adviser to Forest Practices Officers for the
last seven years and already has significant
experience in the FPA’s monitoring and
assessment programs, and investigation and
enforcement activities at the FPA. He has
expert knowledge of biodiversity issues,
the administration of the forest practices
system, its legislation and its operation, and
of FPA operations. He also has substantial
experience in field-based forestry coupe
assessment and planning processes, gained
from his previous employment as a Forest
Officer (Planning) with Forestry Tasmania.
The Compliance Program is about to
expand with a new northern-based Forest
Practices Advisor in the process of being
appointed.
Right: Tim has been a member of the Bio Team
for the last seven years but has left them to be
Manager of the Compliance Program. From left:
Dydee Mann, Jason Wiersma, Anne Chuter, Sarah
Munks, Amy Koch and Tim Leaman.
Forward training program
Course
Contact
Timing
Duration
Location
Course content and cost
Plant identification
Anne Chuter
[email protected]
Spring
1 day
TBA
Expression of interest emails
will be sent out to all planners
in July. Numbers limited to 25.
Threatened frog field day
Dydee Mann
[email protected]
Spring
1 day
TBA
Expression of interest emails
will be sent out to all planners
in July. Numbers limited to 25.
Forest Supervisors Course
Dean Tuson
Dean.Tuson@forestrytas.
com.au
25–28 October
2016
4 days
Maydena
Run in collaboration with
Forestry Tasmania, contact FT
for details.
TBA
Refer to the FPO resource
training manual on the
FPA website for more
details: www.fpa.tas.gov.au/
fpa_services/training_and_
education
TBA
Refer to the FPO resource
training manual on the
FPA website for more
details: www.fpa.tas.gov.au/
fpa_services/training_and_
education
Forest Practices Officers
Course
Chris Grove
[email protected]
Biodiversity Course
(previously Flora and Fauna
courses I and II)
Sarah Munks
[email protected]
Chris Grove
[email protected]
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
April –
December 2017
Winter 2017
1 or 2 days a
month
4 days
15
Threatened flora habitat descriptions
Anne Chuter, Ecologist, Forest Practices Authority
Mark Wapstra, Senior Scientist/Manager, ECOtas
Approximately 500 flora species that occur
in Tasmania are listed as threatened at the
state and/or national level. Many of these
occur in areas that may be subject to the
forest practices system, such as forests or
woodlands or threatened native grasslands.
In order to manage threatened flora
species we need to find out their known
locations and where they have the potential
to occur. Known localities of threatened
flora species can be accessed though
DPIPWE’s Natural Values Atlas (www.
naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au) or linked
databases including the FPA’s Biodiversity
Values Database and Forestry Tasmania’s
Conserve database. These records often
include information that may be relevant
when planning a forestry operation, such
as the date and accuracy of an observation.
If you are planning a forestry operation
that may impact on a known locality of a
threatened flora species you should seek
advice from the FPA biodiversity program.
Understanding where a species has the
potential to occur is also important and
not as straightforward. Habitat descriptions
and distribution information are crucial
for determining where a species has the
potential to occur. Until recently, this
information was scattered across a variety
of sources and often some digging through
different websites or books was required
to find the most recent and relevant
information. There are some excellent
sources of information, such as DPIPWE’s
threatened species listing statements and
DPIPWE’s Threatened Species Link (www.
threatenedspecieslink.tas.gov.au), which
provide a wealth of information including
notes on potential habitat and distribution.
However, existing habitat descriptions
vary in how up-to-date they are and are
currently not available for all species.
This ‘gap’ in information was highlighted
through the Threatened Plant Adviser
project (see Forest Practices News Dec
2015 for an overview of the project). To
develop the Threatened Plant Adviser
16
Boronia gunnii (river boronia), a species listed as vulnerable at a state and Commonwealth level that
occurs along flood-prone river systems of the east coast amongst reserved and production forest.
Collaborative research between the FPA, DPIPWE, Forestry Tasmania, Tasmanian Herbarium and
species’ specialists clarified the distribution and habitat of the species, which will be used to develop
management prescriptions in the Threatened Plant Adviser. Photographs by Anne Chuter – habitat;
Mark Wapstra – flower.
Odixia achlaena (golden everlastingbush), a species listed as rare at the Tasmanian state level and
familiar to many East Coast foresters as a shrub that benefits from native forest silviculture (and even
occurs in plantations). Research by the University of Tasmania supported by the Forest Practices
Authority showed that this species has a restricted range but is unlikely to need special management
prescriptions to ensure it does not become further threatened. Photographs by Mark Wapstra.
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
Threatened flora habitat descriptions
we needed to know where species have
the potential to occur. Therefore, one
of the first jobs that the project team
completed was a review and update of
the habitat description and distribution
notes for all threatened flora species. The
update involved reviewing and building on
DPIPWE’s latest information using relevant
literature and expert opinion, and has been
reviewed by a scientific reference group of
field botanists.
The information collected has been
summarised in a simple table, called
Species
Common name
Boronia gunnii*
river boronia
Odixia achlaena*
golden
everlastingbush
Status
TSPA,
EPBCA
v, VU
r, -
‘Habitat descriptions of threatened flora
in Tasmania’ and includes species name
(including common name), conservation
status, life form, and habitat description and
distribution notes, such as the examples in
the table below.
This table is intended to provide clear
and concise information on a species and
its potential habitat and will assist with
determining whether a species has the
potential to occur within a proposed FPP
area. The table will include all threatened
flora species and will be available via the
Life
form
Tasmanian habitat description (and
distribution)
shrub
Boronia gunnii is strictly riparian in habitat,
occurring in the flood zone of the Apsley, St
Pauls, and Dukes rivers (where extant) and
the Denison Rivulet and South Esk River
(where presumed extinct) in rock crevices
or in the shelter of boulders. The base
substrate is always dolerite.
shrub
Odixia achlaena occurs only on dolerite,
mainly in dry eucalypt forest dominated by
Eucalyptus pulchella on ridges and slopes. It
has also been found in plantations.
FungiFlip
FungiFlip is the third in the Flip series
produced by Rob Wiltshire of the School
of Biological Sciences, University of
Tasmania, and is co-authored by fungi
experts Genevieve Gates and David
Ratkowsky, and features the exquisite
photography of Matthias Theiss and
Michael Pilkington.
FungiFlip is a pictorial guide to 360 of the
more common macrofungi of Tasmania
and will open your eyes to the remarkable
beauty and diversity of this fascinating
group of organisms. It is available at a wide
range of bookshops across Tasmania and at
most National Park Visitor Centres, along
with TreeFlips and EucaFlips, for less than
$10. Funds raised by sales to the public
enable the School of Biological Sciences
to provide class sets as an educational
resource to schools across Tasmania, free
of charge. Contact:
[email protected]>
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
FPA website (www.fpa.tas.gov.au). Keep
an eye on the version as the table will be
updated as species are listed/delisted or as
new information becomes available.
If you have any questions or comments on
the threatened flora habitat descriptions
table, or if you would like more information
on the Threatened Plant Adviser project
please contact Anne Chuter.
Author’s contact:
[email protected]
References (examples)
Chuter, AE (2010) Distribution and ecology of three
threatened tasmanian endemic species of Boronia. The
Tasmanian Naturalist 132: 63-77.
Duretto, MF (2009) 87 Rutaceae, version 2009:1. Flora
of Tasmania Online.
Schahinger, RB (2004) Distribution & Conservation
Status of the Tasmanian Endemic Shrubs Boronia gunnii,
Boronia hemichiton and Boronia hippopala (with
Brief Notes on Other Newly Described Boronia Species).
Report to the Threatened Species Unit, Department
of Primary Industries, Water & Environment, Hobart.
Leaman, TC (2004) Conservation ecology of Odixia
achlaena. Unpublished honours thesis. University of
Tasmania.
Myrtle rust
update report
A Myrtle Rust Emergency Response
was initiated in February 2015 when
this destructive plant pathogen was first
identified in Tasmania. The aim is to survey,
detect and destroy all infected matter.
As at 26 April 2016 there have been 59
Myrtle rust detections on Lophomyrtus
plants in the North West Coast area
and 11 detections in Launceston – all in
residential gardens.
No evidence of the disease had been found
in the southern part of Tasmania or in the
wild by April 2016.
Information including photographs showing
signs of Myrtle rust is available on the
Biosecurity Tasmania website http://www.
dpipwe.tas.gov.au/myrtlerust
If you see anything that you suspect to be
Myrtle rust, please report it on the Myrtle
Rust Hotline (03) 6165 3785.
17
What influences the use of small streams by platypus?
Sarah Munks, Biodiversity Program Manager, Forest Practices Authority
the use of the streams.
This was one of the questions which
Tamika Lunn, an FPA-supported student
from the University of Tasmania, explored
last year in her honours thesis. Tamika
returned to the cold highland streams, on
the slopes of Ben Nevis, that had been
sampled by another of our students,
Nina Koch, in December 2001 (see Forest
Practices News vol 4 no 2) to see how the
platypus were doing in this area which has
a long history of forestry activity.
streams. These include streamside reserves
(20–40 m) for the larger streams, and
reserves of 10–30 m for small streams on
erosion-prone soils, and sites important for
threatened aquatic species. The Code also
prohibits machinery within 10 m of a small
headwater stream and felling of trees into
streams unless unavoidable. CBS continued
in this area until the early 90s, but since
2000 only partial harvest methods have
been used.
Timber harvesting in the Upper Esk river
catchment dates back to 1934. For many
years there were few restrictions on
harvest or machinery use near streams.
Recorded practices through the late
1970s–1980s were clear-fell, burn and
sow (CBS) operations, which involved
the complete removal of trees over
large areas using heavy machinery, high
intensity burning to clear ground cover,
and aerial sowing of seeds. Machinery
crossing of streams and felling of trees into
streams at this time were commonplace.
Environmental regulation brought about by
the Forest Practices Act 1985, and associated
Forest Practices Codes in 1987, 1993 and
2000, has progressively introduced ways
to reduce the impact of forestry on
Nina’s study in 2000 found that despite this
history of forestry disturbance, platypuses
inhabited the small streams in the
catchment, with the larger small streams
(class 3) being used more often than the
small headwaters (class 4). However, the
animals she caught in the small headwaters
were mainly sub-adults and adults in poor
condition and they appeared to avoid
streams heavily disturbed in the 1980s by
the pre-code logging practices. Tamika’s
follow-up study in the autumn and winter
of 2015 aimed to see how the platypus
were doing in the area 15 years later, and
explore in more detail why some streams
are used more than others by platypuses,
and the influence of forestry activities on
Forest harvesting history in the Upper Esk subcatchment and the location of the stream sites.
Tamika setting a Fyke net in Tasmania’s Upper Esk catchment. Please note a scientific permit is required
from both DPIPWE and IFS to trap platypus.
18
Tamika and her team of volunteers spent
many chilly nights and days monitoring
Fyke nets, cage traps, remote cameras
and surveying stream features at 33
sites. Re-locating Nina’s 2000 sites was
particularly difficult, as anyone who knows
the rate at which those forestry tracks
in the area regenerate might appreciate.
Unfortunately Tamika didn’t recapture any
individuals from the 2000 study, but her
capture numbers confirmed the presence
of a similar sized platypus population. She
also confirmed Nina’s finding, that the
platypus prefer the larger streams, but will
occasionally use the small headwaters.
Back in the lab she mastered a
novel statistical modelling technique
(‘structural equation modelling’ for those
mathematicians out there!), and combined
her data with Nina’s to show that use
of streams by platypus in the Upper Esk
sub-catchment is influenced primarily by
both local and catchment factors, and to a
lesser extent disturbance through forestry
operations.
For example, platypuses avoided streams
Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1 June 2016
What influences the use of small streams by platypus?
Tamika (left) and Sarah Munks (right) weighing
a platypus during one of the many cold nights of
fieldwork.
Tamika with a healthy female trapped at Upper
Esk
Tamika and FPA intern Muse Opiang set up a
remote monitoring camera on a Class 4 stream.
which locally had a lot of fine sediments
and barriers to movement, and where
the overall catchment area was small and
where there were barriers to movement
at the sub-catchment scale. Her analysis
showed that while forestry activities,
such as harvesting and roading, resulted
in disturbance to local stream habitats
(e.g. bank erosion, in-stream material)
they had little effect on the use of the
streams by the platypus. She found that
the degree to which local, catchment and
forestry disturbance variables influence the
presence of platypus varies according to
the position of the stream in the broader
river catchment.
land management practices that have
resulted in significant stream bank erosion,
loss of riparian vegetation and channel
sedimentation. Tamika’s study, however,
suggests that the population of platypus
in the Upper Esk catchment has not
significantly changed over the last 15 years,
despite the long term forestry operations
in the catchment. This may reflect both
the improvements made to management
practices and the resilience of this species
to environmental change. Tasmania has
always been considered a stronghold for
the platypus with its wide variety of wet
and wild habitat (lakes, tarns, lagoons,
farm dams, river systems) favoured by this
secretive animal and the absence of the fox.
understanding of local and catchment
features that influence platypus stream use,
through studies like Tamika’s, are needed
to help inform management of stream
and riparian habitats on which the species
depends to ensure its survival into the
future.
For example, local features such as the
stream substrate, bank characteristics
and presence of sediment, were most
important in headwater streams, followed
by disturbance factors and catchment
factors (such as stream order, catchment
area, and distance to a larger stream).
Whereas catchment factors were most
important when considering stream use
at the larger sub-catchment scale. Local
habitat features and disturbances from
forestry operations were less important at
this scale.
Several studies have reported declines in
platypus populations on the mainland of
Australia within individual river systems.
These have been attributed to poor
June 2016 Forest Practices News vol 13 no 1
While the platypus is currently regarded as
common throughout its range, improved
For more information see:
Lunn, T 2015, ‘Causal processes of a
complex system: modelling stream use
and disturbance influence on the platypus
(Ornithorhynchus anatinus)’, Honours Thesis,
School of Biological Sciences, University of
Tasmania.
Author’s contact:
[email protected]
Tasmania has always been considered a stronghold for the platypus with its wide variety of wet and wild
habitat. A platypus leaves its trail in an icy Lake Botsford (southeastern corner) in winter 2014 on a day
on which much of the ground was frozen solid. (Photo by James Kirkpatrick)
19
The views expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily those of the Forest Practices Authority.
Articles may be reproduced in other publications including websites providing that the FPA is informed,
they are reproduced in full and that the FPA and original publication in Forest Practices News is acknowledged.
Printed on paper from sustainably managed sources.
Harvesting plantations on non-vulnerable land –
a streamlined approach that reflects the risk
Michael Schofield, Forest Certification Coordinator, Norske Skog
The need for a simplified forest practices
plan and evaluation process that reflects
the risks when conducting forest practices
on non-vulnerable land was identified by
Norske Skog, Private Forests Tasmania
and several independent Forest Practices
Officers. For the definition of vulnerable
land see the Forest Practices Regulations
2007.
In response to this need, the Forest
Practices Authority, Norske Skog and
Private Forests developed a simplified FPP
using an associated natural and cultural
heritage values evaluation process. The
FPP has been used at two plantation pine
harvesting operations at Runnymede and
Glendevie.
In the past, FPOs have found the existing
process of preparing a standard FPP and
completing the evaluations to be costly and
time consuming and out of proportion to
the inherent risk.
For example, Norske Skog foresters
were contacted by a landowner while the
company was harvesting in the surrounding
area, which resulted in only a short time to
prepare an FPP. The proposition appeared
economic, but there was insufficient time
for FPP preparation. Consequently the
harvesting opportunity for the landowner
passed and the resource for industry was
lost. In another instance a landowner
subsequently cleared a small plantation as
the FPP process was too onerous, and the
FPA had to investigate potential breaches
of the Forest Practices Act 1985.
The process of developing a simplified
FPP, endorsed by the FPA Board in 2015,
requires a Forest Practices Officer to
determine the following:
1. the harvest area is less than five
hectares
2. the FPP is for non-vulnerable land
3. only minor roading is required.
If the above conditions exist then the
standard FPP and evaluation process is
not required and a simplified FPP and
evaluation is deemed sufficient to assess
the risk. The content of the simplified FPP
is the responsibility of the FPO and/or
company preparing the plan.
Norske Skog has prepared a
straightforward document consisting of the
standard coverpage and signature page,
one or two pages of text and a map. The
evaluation requires a desktop and field
assessment to determine that the land is
non-vulnerable. The desktop assessment
involves a search of the various databases
for known sites regarding natural and
cultural heritage values. Note the Forest
Practices Code provisions apply, as do the
mandatory reports on compliance as
required by the Forest Practices Act 1985.
The simplified approach costs less, although
the difference between it and the standard
approach is not great. The main gain is in
the ability to be able to prepare a plan
quickly, and this gives greater opportunity
for small plantations to be harvested on
private land.
While only two operations so far have
used the simplified process, it is apparent
in these that there have been no
environmental issues and in these cases the
process appears to have been sufficient for
detecting risks.
There are two possible ways in which
the simplified process could be improved.
Firstly, the FPA Board could consider
expanding the list of indicators of
vulnerable land to include the presence
of cultural heritage sites. Secondly, the
five hectare FPP area threshold could
be removed, as area is not generally an
indicator of environmental risk. At a
minimum the area threshold should be
consistent with section 4(e)(ii) of the Forest
Practices Regulations 2007 which sets
10 hectares as the limit for establishing
trees without an FPP, under certain
circumstances.
Author’s contact:
[email protected]
Published by the Forest Practices Authority 30 Patrick Street Hobart Tasmania 7000 Phone (03) 6233 7966 Fax (03) 6233 7954 [email protected] www.fpa.tas.gov.au
Banner photograph: Chief Forest Practices Officer, Peter Volker (left), and the FPA’s Earth Sciences and Cultural Heritage Manager, Peter McIntosh,
investigate a coupe in north-eastern Tasmania.