High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan€¦ · Forestry Tasmania High Conservation...

High Conservation Values Assessment

and Management Plan

Assessment and management of high conservation value forest areas on the forest management unit managed by Forestry Tasmania

November 2014

Forestry Tasmania High Conservation Values (HCV) Management Plan This is a controlled document. All printed copies are uncontrolled. The electronic master copy is held on FT’s Forest Management System WIKI. of 154

Acknowledgements This plan has been prepared by a team of people at Forestry Tasmania, led by Suzette Weeding. The team included Mark Neyland, David Mannes and Martin Stone, supported by many staff at Forestry Tasmania including Julie Walters, Ruiping Gao, and Dion McKenzie. Consultant’s Rod Knight at Natural Resource Planning and Sandra Roberts provided considerable input to the development of sections of this Plan. Extensive consultation with stakeholders and valuable comments, submissions and input were an important part of the development of this plan. Citation: Forestry Tasmania (2014). High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart. © Copyright: Forestry Tasmania, 79 Melville Street, Hobart, Tasmania ISBN: 978-0-9806456-6-8 Forestry Tasmania will formally review this Plan every five years, however if new information becomes available in the interim that affects the identification or management of High Conservation Values this HCV Assessment and Management Plan will be updated accordingly. We also welcome input from stakeholders regarding any potential improvements. Input can be provided to the Stakeholder Engagement Coordinator by:

• Email to [email protected], or • Writing to the Stakeholder Engagement Coordinator, Forestry Tasmania, 79 Melville

St, Hobart 7000, or • Calling the Stakeholder Engagement Coordinator on 03 6235 8151.


Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 11

Forestry Tasmania’s HCV Assessment ..................................................................................... 18

HCV 1 Forest areas containing globally, nationally and regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia). ................................. 26

HCV 2 Forest areas containing regionally significant large landscape level forests, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution or abundance. ....................... 49

HCV 3 Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. ...... 58

HCV 3.1 Extant rainforests ....................................................................................................... 63

HCV 3.2 Areas for conservation of important genes or genetically distinct populations ....... 66

HCV 3.3. Ecosystems that are depleted or poorly reserved at the IBRA bioregion scale ....... 68

HCV 3.4 Old growth forests ..................................................................................................... 84

HCV 3.5 Remnant vegetation in heavily cleared landscapes. ................................................. 96

HCV 4 Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control). ........................................................................................... 105

HCV 4.1 Forest that provide protection from flooding. ........................................................ 106

HCV 4.3 Barriers to Fire ......................................................................................................... 110

HCV 4.4 Clean Water Catchments ......................................................................................... 112

HCV 5 Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs or local communities (e.g. subsistence, health). ....................................................................................................... 115

HCV 6 Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities). ................................................................................................ 118

HCV 6.1 and HCV 6.4 Aesthetic and Social Values ................................................................ 119

HCV 6.2 Historic Values ......................................................................................................... 121

HCV 6.3 Scientific Values ....................................................................................................... 126

HCV 6.5 Aboriginal Heritage Values ...................................................................................... 129

7. Plan Review ....................................................................................................................... 133

References ............................................................................................................................. 134

Appendix 1. Acronyms ........................................................................................................... 136

Appendix 2. FSC Australia Directory of Information Sources consulted ............................... 137

Appendix 3. Other Information Sources consulted ............................................................... 139

Appendix 4. Glossary ............................................................................................................. 140


Executive Summary Forestry Tasmania has undertaken extensive and detailed scientific assessment of the forest within its Forest Management Unit (FMU) of approximately 742,000 ha in order to identify forest areas which are of High Conservation Value (HCV). This assessment has been guided by the Forest Stewardship Council Australia’s HCV Evaluation Framework and other relevant sources pertaining to the assessment and identification of HCV’s. This assessment has involved consultation with experts in the subject areas assessed, independent research, literature review, extensive spatial analysis and extensive consultation with interested and affected stakeholders. Extensive feedback and public consultation on an earlier draft has been incorporated into this final report. Forestry Tasmania has implemented a precautionary approach in the assessment process and development of management prescriptions for HCV areas. For example, the assessment of the conservation status of vegetation and old growth communities has considered two scenarios. The first of these is based on the Tasmanian Reserve Estate layer, which classifies Future Potential Protection Forest land as Informal Reserves managed by the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. The second scenario acknowledges that the title of the Future Potential Production Forest Land implies that this reservation status may not necessarily be maintained in the long term (for example, if the Tasmanian Parliament was to decide to convert some of the FPPF land to PTPZ land after 2020). The second scenario reports the reservation status of vegetation and old growth vegetation communities if the subset of Future Potential Production Forest land that was outside the Comprehensive Adequate and Representative reserve system that was established prior to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement was to become unreserved. The assessment process is based on the best available information, and in some cases (for example forest community mapping) is indicative, rather than definitive. The presence of a polygon identified as HCV forest does not necessarily guarantee the presence of the value. Similarly, the absence of a mapped value does not preclude its presence. HCV values will be assessed for, and field verified, as part of operational Forest Practices Plan preparation. Where HCV values are identified during Forest Practices Plan preparation they will be managed in accordance with the management strategies outlined in this document. Management prescriptions were identified for HCV areas focussed on maintaining and/or enhancing HCV values contained within such areas, ranging from full protection to modified production regimes. Importantly this HCV assessment, and the results and management actions arising from the assessment, do not replace the already extensive forest management requirements as outlined in Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Plan. Where management actions are required under this HCV Assessment and Management Plan they are additional to the standard management requirements in the Forest management Plan.


HCV 1 – Forest areas containing globally, nationally or regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity values. The assessment for this HCV category included two key components:

• Analysis of significant concentrations of biodiversity values; and • Analysis of significant concentrations (populations) of endangered species.

The analysis identified considerable areas of HCV 1, with significant concentrations of biodiversity values identified in six distinct localities and concentrations of endangered species identified in many localities across the FMU. The total area of HCV 1 identified on the FMU is approximately 49,000 ha. The management prescriptions for HCV 1 have been developed in the context of a well developed and regulated Forest Practices System. This system requires a detailed evaluation and verification process for the identification of threatened species in the development of Forest Practices Plans. This approach significantly contributes to the protection of threatened species, including those which have been identified in this analysis in HCV 1 areas. In addition to these existing management provisions, Forestry Tasmania has developed additional management prescriptions for HCV 1 areas identified as containing concentrations of biodiversity values. These prescriptions are precautionary and focused on additional retention and maintenance of values within areas identified as HCV 1. These management prescriptions include:

• Harvesting using an appropriate retention-based silvicultural system, unless specifically constrained by safety considerations and requirements. An appropriate retention based silvicultural system will depend on the forest type and values identified within the coupe. This can range from light partial harvest regimes through to aggregated retention to clearfelling with enhanced retention around the periphery.

• Application of the Landscape Context Planning system to all clearfell and aggregated retention harvesting operations within these areas. A minimum of 20% of mature forest where it is present and/or potentially mature forest (where mature forest is absent) will be retained for long-term retention (notionally at least 100 years) within a 1 km radius around each coupe.

The extent of forest allocated to long-term retention (notionally 100 years) for each HCV 1 area will be monitored and reported annually in Forestry Tasmania’s Annual Report. As new information on management emerges or the status of species change, Forestry Tasmania will alter the species-specific management prescriptions to be applied. HCV 2 – Forest areas containing regionally significant large landscape level forests, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution or abundance. The assessment for this HCV category included evaluation of five values:

• 2.1 Naturalness; • 2.2 Large areas of regional significance;


• 2.3 Connectivity; • 2.4 Roadless areas; and • 2.5 Forests unaffected by management activities.

The analysis identified areas of large, natural landscape level forest which contained concentrations of the values identified above. The analysis identified three sites of HCV 2 on the FMU, totalling approximately 1,200 ha. Two of these areas, located in the north-west of the state, are very much outer edges of larger landscape level forests in reserves. The other small area located in the Eastern Tiers has important connectivity value in addition to other significant conservation values. The management prescriptions for HCV 2 areas take a precautionary approach to maintaining the value of the broader landscape level forest. These areas represent the outlying edges of much larger, well connected landscapes. Forestry Tasmania’s management prescription for these areas therefore focuses on maintenance of landscape values through mandating high levels of long term retention. These management prescriptions include:

• Harvesting using an appropriate retention based silvicultural system, unless specifically constrained by safety considerations and requirements.

• Application of the Landscape Context Planning system to all clearfell and aggregated retention harvesting operations within these areas. A minimum of 30% of mature forest where it is present and/or potentially mature forest (where mature forest is absent) will be retained for long term retention (notionally at least 100 years) within a 1 km radius around each coupe.

Forestry Tasmania will monitor and report annually on harvesting activity within HCV 2 areas and the extent of forest allocated to long-term retention (notionally 100 years) for each HCV 2 area. HCV 3 – Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. The assessment of this HCV category included evaluation of five values:

• 3.1 Extant rainforests; • 3.2 Areas for conservation of important genes or genetically distinct populations; • 3.3 Ecosystems that are depleted or poorly reserved at the Interim Bio-

Regionalisation of Australia bioregional scale; • 3.4 Old growth forests; and • 3.5 Remnant vegetation in heavily cleared landscapes.

Each of these values was analysed and reported separately. As guided by the FSC evaluation framework, these HCV 3 areas may include these values. The important determination for each of these values was whether they are “rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems”.


As mentioned above the analysis for ecosystems and old-growth forests, that are depleted or poorly reserved at the IBRA bioregional scale and old growth forests, includes two scenarios and the adoption of a precautionary scenario management approach. The analysis for HCV 3 identified many sites across the FMU, totalling in excess of 30,000 ha. With the exception of identified remnant areas, these areas are not depicted on maps because the vegetation mapping in particular is only indicative; the identified communities can only be managed for protection after their presence on the FMU has been confirmed through ground verification. The detailed analysis of areas in the FMU is provided based on best available information and communities with specific additional reservation or management constraints identified. The management prescriptions for rainforest (HCV 3.1), vegetation communities (HCV 3.3) and oldgrowth (HCV 3.4), are a mix of strategies including:

• Full protection throughout the FMU; • Full protection in specific bioregions; or • Increased levels of reservation within the FMU with production in other areas.

The management prescriptions for genetically distinct populations (HCV 3.2) include:

• Protection of rarer species of eucalypts; • A requirement that the proportion of trees by species retained in partial harvesting

operations reflects pre-harvest proportions; and • Maintenance of a comprehensive seed management system.

The management prescriptions for remnant vegetation areas (HCV 3.5) include:

• Existing management strategies, maintenance of native forest and existing protection status e.g. streamside reserves; and

• Application of the Landscape Context Planning system to all clearfell and aggregated retention harvesting operations within these areas. A minimum of 30% of mature forest where it is present and/or potentially mature forest (where mature forest is absent) will be retained for long-term retention (notionally at least 100 years) within a 1 km radius around each coupe.

Forestry Tasmania will monitor and report annually in the Annual Report:

• Changes to rainforest community extent; • New locations of rare species of eucalypts identified; • Compliance with the seed management system; • Progress toward meeting reservation targets for vegetation and old growth

communities that require increased levels of reservation; and • Harvesting of any identified remnants and the extent of forest allocated to long-

term retention (notionally 100 years) for each HCV 3 area.


HCV 4 – Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control). The assessment of this HCV category included evaluation of four values:

• 4.1 Forests which provide protection from flooding; • 4.2 Forests which provide protection from erosion; • 4.3 Forests which provide barriers from destructive fire; and • 4.4 Forests which provide clean water catchments.

Each of these values was analysed and reported separately. HCV 4 is focused on ecosystem services in critical situations. The FSC evaluation framework provides some guidance on what constitutes critical situations; “An ecosystem service is considered critical when a disruption of that service is likely to cause, or poses a threat of, severe negative impacts on the welfare, health or survival of local communities, on the environment, on HCV’s, or the functioning of significant infrastructure”. The assessment for HCV 4 did not identify any HCV 4 areas within the FMU. It did however identify potential stakeholder concerns in relation to domestic water outtakes, particularly those that are unregistered and unrecorded. The management prescription identified to address this concern is focused on improved communication in relation to upcoming operations and provision of the opportunity for potentially affected stakeholders to register their potential issues or concerns at an early stage. This will be achieved through:

• Publishing the three year plan annually via the web-based interactive map viewer and encouraging stakeholders to register their interest in particular proposed operations.

HCV 5 – Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health). HCV 5 is focused on fundamental and basic needs of local communities. The FSC evaluation framework provides guidance on basic human needs “Local communities use the area to obtain resources on which they are critically dependent” and needs are described as being fundamental when “the loss of resources from this area would have a significant impact in the supply of the resource and decrease local community well-being”. Local communities do not live on the FMU, and no areas were identified as being fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities. The assessment for HCV 5 did not identify any HCV 5 areas within the FMU. HCV 6 – Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities). The assessment of this HCV category included evaluation of five values:

• 6.1 Aesthetic values; • 6.2 Historic values;


• 6.3 Scientific values; • 6.4 Social (including economic) values; and • 6.5 Spiritual values.

Aesthetic and social values were identified as having overlapping synergies and were combined for analysis. The other values were analysed separately. The analysis for HCV 6 identified many localities on the FMU, often in small and localised sites around specific features. The area identified exceeded 7,500 ha. Management strategies for HCV 6 areas are dependent on the specific value and the required precautionary management strategy for the maintenance of that value. Management prescriptions include:

• On-ground verification during operational planning to determine site-specific values and appropriate operational controls.

• Implementation of viewshed analysis when designing coupes in areas of high visual amenity.

• Protection of historic and Aboriginal heritage sites. • Implementation of existing management controls and harvesting guidelines for sites

with identified scientific value. Forestry Tasmania will monitor and update at least annually the Special Management Zone database as new information becomes available on social, aesthetic, historic, scientific and Aboriginal heritage values.


Introduction This document:

• Describes the process Forestry Tasmania has undertaken in the assessment of High Conservation Value (HCV) forest areas;

• Identifies the HCV forest areas on Forestry Tasmania managed lands; • Identifies management prescriptions for the identified HCV forest areas; and • Outlines monitoring and on-going operational verification processes for identified

HCV forest areas.

This introduction provides information on Forestry Tasmania, the scope of assessment, legislative framework and information on the HCV assessment process.

About Forestry Tasmania Forestry Tasmania (FT) is a statutory authority established under the Government Business Enterprise Act 1995. FT’s principal purpose as defined in the Forest Management Act 2013 is: “to manage and control all Permanent Timber Production Zone (PTPZ) land and to undertake forest operations on PTPZ land for the purpose of selling forest products.” In accordance with Section 36 of the Government Business Enterprise Act 1995, a Ministerial Charter sets out strategic directions for FT in undertaking its core business. The directions in the current charter include:

• Manage the PTPZ land based on sustainable forest management principles. • Have regard to the financial merits of any initiatives from the view of the state. • Provide input to forest policy development and implementation. • Retain Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) certification and achieve Forest

Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. • Work with the Department of State Growth to encourage economic forest

industry development in the state. • Enable and facilitate a successful Tasmanian forest industry. • Work with key stakeholders to manage existing tourism activities on PTPZ land. • Manage remaining reserves in accordance with the Tasmanian Reserve

Management Code of Practice. • Continually improve business operations, systems and processes. • Be socially responsible and take all reasonable steps to reduce the risk of adverse

environmental effects from FT’s activities. • Comply with Government Policies.

The areas managed by FT have recently undergone significant reduction. Under the Forestry Act 1920, FT had responsibility to manage all areas dedicated as State forest by Parliament. However, implementation of the Tasmanian Government’s decision in 2013 to separate the


management of production forests and formal reserves, and commencement of the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Act 2013 (TFA Act 2013) now repealed, through the Forest Management Act 2013 saw a reduction in the area managed by FT in that over 200,000 ha of formal Forest Reserves were re-classified to become Conservation Reserves or Regional Reserves under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NC Act 2002), and are now managed by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service in the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIPWE). The TFA Act 2013 also designated approximately 493,000 ha of State forest as tranche 1 and 2 Future Reserve Land. With the commencement of the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014 these areas are now classified as Future Potential Production Forest (FPPF) and are managed as Crown Land by DPIPWE or as conservation reserves under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. The remainder of State forest managed by FT has been reclassified under legislation as Permanent Timber Production Zone (PTPZ) land to emphasise its intended primary purpose. Geographic Scope – The Forest Management Unit The geographic scope of FT’s HCV Management Plan is the area, or Forest Management Unit (FMU), for which FT is seeking Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification – both Forest Management Certification and Controlled Wood. FSC certification requires long-term management control of the FMU. The FMU is approximately 742,000 ha and is located across Tasmania. The FMU comprises approximately 700,000 ha of native vegetation and 42,000 ha of plantation; these are predominantly hardwoods with a smaller area of softwoods. Consistent with FSC requirements, the intended status of particular types of land within the PTPZ is clarified as follows: Areas of PTPZ land included in the FMU:

• Production forest areas within the long-term management control of FT. • Areas where short-term Forestry Rights have been contracted to third parties,

but where FT maintains effective forest management control. • Areas of third-party private property where FT manages a plantation Joint

Venture on behalf of the private owner. Areas of PTPZ land excluded from the FMU:

• Areas where long-term Forestry Rights have been contracted to Norske Skog and New Forests.

• All other areas that are currently subject to temporary third party Property Rights (e.g. leases, registered Forestry Rights) where FT does not have forest management control. When these rights expire in the future and when control is


returned to FT, these areas will be considered for subsequent addition into the FMU.

• Wood production areas of the Buckland Military Training Area, where FT undertakes wood production operations by agreement with the landowner and lessee, but does not have full forest management control.

• Waterbodies (Hydro lakes and Macquarie Harbour) where FT has salvage rights with Hydro Electric Commission and/or Parks and Wildlife Service for native pines, but does not have full forest management control.

Legislative Framework Forestry activities in Tasmania are regulated by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) in accordance with the Forest Practices Act 1985. The Forest Practices Act 1985 provides that the Forest Practices Code (2000) shall prescribe the manner in which forest practices are conducted. Forest harvesting operations in Tasmania require a Forest Practices Plan (FPP), developed in accordance with the Forest Practices Code (generally referred to hereafter as ‘the Code’). The Code contains legally enforceable guidelines and standards which cover all aspects of forest management including:

• Planning; • Building access into the forest (roads, bridges, quarries etc.); • Harvesting of timber; • Conservation of natural and cultural values (soil and water, geomorphology,

visual landscape, flora, fauna and cultural heritage); and • Establishing and maintaining forests.

The Forest Practices System and application of the Code provides for protection and management of conservation values in forest operations. The production of an FPP requires a detailed evaluation of threatened species (known locations and those with potential to occur), threatened vegetation communities and a range of other natural and cultural values, including soil, water, landscape, Aboriginal and historic heritage. The FPP is developed to include prescriptions and strategies for the protection and/or management of identified values in relevant operations. Importantly this HCV assessment, and the results and management actions arising from that assessment do not replace these requirements and others outlined in Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Plan; where management actions are required herein they are additional.


Legislation relevant to the protection and management of conservation values, including High Conservation Values, in forest management activities in Tasmania includes:

• Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 • Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1995 • Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (C’wealth) • Fire Services Act 1979 • Forest Management Act 2013 • Forest Practices Act 1985 • Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 • Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 • Mineral Resources Development Act 1995 • Nature Conservation Act 2002 • Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 • Water Management Act 1999 • Weed Management Act 1999

The Australian Federal Government Department of the Environment (DoE) administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999), which protects matters of national environmental significance as part of a national scheme of environment and heritage protection and biodiversity conservation. The EPBC Act 1999 recognises that in each region that has a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), such as the Tasmanian RFA, a comprehensive assessment has been undertaken to address the environmental, economic and social impacts of forestry operations. Matters of national environmental significance that are protected under the EPBC Act include: world heritage properties; national heritage places; wetlands of international importance (listed under the RAMSAR Convention); listed threatened species and ecological communities; and migratory species protected under international agreements. In support of these responsibilities, DoE maintains authoritative registers of places and conservation values that have national and global significance, and oversees the conduct of assessments to review the significance of matters that are nominated for registration. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification Requirements FT is seeking FSC Forest Management certification for all eligible areas of its FMU and Controlled Wood certification for the remainder. Under FSC Forest Management certification requirements, plantations which have been converted by FT from native forest since November 1994 are ineligible for full Forest Management certification. Accordingly, FT has delineated two complementary areas within the FMU – one area to be covered by full Forest Management Certification, and the other to be covered by Controlled


Wood certification. Operationally these areas will be managed as a single FMU under FT’s management system, with the application of consistent management policies and procedures for both areas. The difference in certification between the areas is only relevant to the tracking and tracing of products so that they are sold with the appropriate certification status e.g. FSC Pure, FSC Mix, Controlled Wood. The HCV assessment and management process is a specific requirement of FSC certification, and is required for both Forest Management and Controlled Wood certification. FSC certification is based on 10 principles of sustainable forest management. Principle 9 is relevant to HCV and is the “Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forests”. Specific criteria and indicators relevant to these certification standards can be found in the SCS Interim Standard for Natural Forest and Plantation Forest Management Certification in Australia under the Forest Stewardship Council (SCS 2011) and the FSC Controlled Wood Standard for Forest Management Enterprises FSC-STD-30-010 (FSC 2006). High Conservation Values The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) developed the High Conservation Value (HCV) concept in 1999 as a component of the FSC certification process to ensure the maintenance and/or enhancement of significant environmental and social values in a responsible forest management context. The HCV concept provides an acknowledgement that whilst many forest areas contain values that are of conservation significance, some values and therefore forest areas containing these values are more important than others. The identification of areas as HCV essentially means that extra management efforts may be required in a forestry context to ensure that the values they contain are maintained and/or enhanced. High Conservation Value Categories There are six internationally recognised categories of HCV: HCV 1 – Forest areas containing globally, nationally or regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity values. HCV 2 – Forest areas containing regionally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance. HCV 3 – Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. HCV 4 – Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).


HCV 5 – Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health). HCV 6 – Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities). Key Steps in the HCV Assessment Process Identification – Using appropriate tools and guidelines identify HCV areas which are located within the FMU. Management – Where HCV areas are identified establish management prescriptions to ensure HCV areas are maintained and/or enhanced. Management includes awareness and training of relevant staff and operators in the management of HCV. Monitoring – Implementation of an ongoing operational verification program for identified areas in the field and undertake monitoring to determine the effectiveness of management prescriptions in maintaining and/or enhancing HCV areas. FSC Australia High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework FSC Australia has developed a High Conservation Values (HCV) Evaluation Framework [Final V.3.4 March 2013] intended for use in the context of implementing FSC certification to the FSC Principles and Criteria and Controlled Wood standards. The Framework includes reference to The Directory of Information Sources which provides a list of references, GIS data/sources, tools and other resources which may be used to assist in the assessment of HCV in an Australian context. A detailed gap analysis and data audit against this Directory is included in Appendices 2 and 3. The HCV Evaluation Framework provides further breakdown of the six HCV categories into specific values (Table 0.1) and provides an assessment pathway for each of the categories.


Table 0.1 HCV Categories and Values HCV Reference* Name Category HCV 1 Forest areas containing globally, nationally or regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity

values. HCV 1 Values HCV 1.1 Areas that contain species that are rare, threatened or endangered, or contain centres of

endemism. HCV 1.2 Areas that contain species that are depleted or poorly reserved at the Interim Biogeographic

Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) region scale. HCV 1.3 Areas with mapped significant seasonal concentrations of species (e.g. migratory staging areas). HCV 1.4 Areas of high species/communities diversity. HCV 1.5 Refugia and mosaics.Category HCV 2 Forest areas containing regionally significant large landscape level forests, contained within, or

containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

HCV 2 Values HCV 2.1 Native forests that are rare at the regional or finer scale because they contain forest communities with successional stages, forest structures, and species composition that are similar in distribution and abundance to native forests that have been only subject to natural disturbance processes or minimal human intervention. This would include areas within such forests. While these forest may not contain old growth, they would typically contain an abundance of older forest attributes characteristic of the forest type, as indicated by tree species composition, tree size, or other attributes applicable to the forest community type, such as coarse wood debris, stags, herb diversity, structural understorey diversity, and the lack of invasive plant species.

HCV 2.2 Forests recognised as being regionally significant at the bioregion or larger scale by conservation organisations (in formally recognised reports or peer reviewed journals) due to unusual landscape-scale biodiversity values provided by size and condition of the forest relative to the regional forest land cover and land use trends.

HCV 2.3 Forests that provide regionally significant habitat connectivity between larger forest areas or between refugia and mosaics.

HCV 2.4 Roadless areas. HCV 2.5 Forest that haven’t been affected by forest management activities.Category HCV 3 Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. HCV 3 Values HCV 3.1 Extant rainforests. HCV 3.2 Areas for conservation of important genes or genetically distinct populations. HCV 3.3 Ecosystems that are depleted or poorly reserved at the IBRA region scale. HCV 3.4 Old growth forests – ecologically mature forest where the effects of disturbance are now

negligible. Defined as part of Comprehensive Regional Assessments. HCV 3.5 Remnant vegetation in heavily cleared landscapes.Category HCV 4 Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection,

erosion control). HCV 4 Values HCV 4.1 Forests which provide protection from flooding. HCV 4.2 Forests which provide protection from erosion.

Areas with highly erodible soil. Areas with steep slopes

HCV 4.3 Forests which provide barriers to destructive fire. HCV 4.4 Forests which provide clean water catchments.

Clean water and/or irrigation supply systems Vulnerable areas which support rare or endangered ecosystem functions.

Category HCV 5 Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health).HCV 5 Values HCV 5.1 Unique/main sources of water for drinking and other daily uses. HCV 5.2 Unique/main sources of water for the irrigation of food crops. HCV 5.3 Food, medicine or fuel etc for local consumption.Category HCV 6 Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological,

economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities). HCV 6 Values HCV 6.1 Aesthetic values. HCV 6.2 Historic values. HCV 6.3 Scientific values. HCV 6.4 Social (including economic) values. HCV 6.5 Spiritual values.* HCV value nomenclature attributed by FT for ease of review in this management plan.


Forestry Tasmania’s HCV Assessment Objectives FT’s objectives for the assessment and management of High Conservation Values are to:

• Undertake a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the six HCV categories, using the best available information and appropriate tools and references to identify HCV areas within the FMU;

• Where HCV areas are identified, establish management prescriptions to ensure HCV’s are maintained and/or enhanced;

• Produce a publicly available HCV Assessment and Management Plan, incorporating stakeholder feedback into the analysis methodology, the areas identified and management prescriptions; and

• Develop and implement an ongoing operational verification and monitoring program.

Assessment Process The HCV assessment has been guided by FSC Australia’s HCV Evaluation Framework (FSC 2013). The HCV assessment for each category uses a range of best available information, combined with expert input and stakeholder feedback. Wherever possible and relevant the landscape level context has been considered in the assessment of HCV categories and values. Future Potential Production Forest The Forest Policy Branch within the Department of State Growth has advised that Future Potential Production Forest land will maintain the classification of “informal reserve” on the Tasmanian Reserve Estate (TRE) layer. The TRE spatial layer is maintained by DPIPWE to provide spatial representation of the extent, type and distribution of the comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system in Tasmania. The TRE layer is updated in June each year, meaning this classification may not be reflected in the layer until June 2015. The relevant area however is currently maintained as “informal reserve” in the TRE as tranche 1 and 2 Future Reserve Land. The transition of Future Reserve Land to Future Potential Production Forest classification has caused much confusion amongst stakeholders. Whilst the area and management intent of Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Unit remains unchanged by this process, during the HCV Assessment and Management Plan consultation process many stakeholders raised concerns regarding the reservation status of communities, as relevant to the assessment of HCV3, given the Government’s intent for the FPPF land outlined in the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014. In considering this stakeholder feedback this HCV assessment includes a HCV 3.3 and 3.4 ‘scenario 2’ whereby the FPPF land outside the June 2012 CAR reserve system is considered as unprotected for the purposes of identifying potential HCV’s and required management actions. This precautionary approach adopted by Forestry Tasmania allows an analysis of the consequent effect on reservation status of forest communities and therefore potential


identification of areas under the HCV 3 criterion if FPPF land is converted to PTPZ land after April 2020 for the purposes of timber harvesting. Regional Ecosystem Model The Regional Ecosystem Model (REM, Knight 2014) is a Tasmanian specific model developed by Natural Resource Planning Pty Ltd (NRP). The REM was initially developed with the aim of assisting prioritisation of property management actions in the Tasmanian Midlands, with a view to delivering effective management of terrestrial biodiversity, freshwater aquatic ecosystems and land and soil resources. The REM report (Knight 2014) is publicly available from FT’s website. The REM was originally developed with funding from the Australian Government’s Caring for Our Country program in 2008. Its purpose was to give greater certainty to biodiversity and land management outcomes through use of systematic processes to comprehensively map the components of biodiversity, identify relative management priorities across the landscape, and highlight the range of issues needing management in any given location. The Australian Government has continued to support projects using the REM to identify priority areas for changes to management, and to use it to measure the change to biodiversity values arising from management. The total Commonwealth investment in the four projects to date is $1.3M. In addition to Government funded projects, the REM has been used in whole or in part by a broad range of timber companies (Norske-Skog, Gunns, PF Olsen), local governments (Kingborough, Huon Valley, Clarence), and by a range of smaller private companies, non-Government organisations and landowners. Development of the REM was overseen by a highly experienced and qualified Steering Committee (see below). The REM is underpinned by a robust scientific process involving ongoing review of scientific research, management expertise and spatial data processing techniques. The REM was originally developed with a spatial coverage of the Tasmanian Midlands. Following completion of the initial project and further development, NRP expanded its coverage to the entire State at a resolution of 0.25 ha. Ongoing development has increased its spatial resolution to 0.1 ha, making its use as a biodiversity database and planning aid widely applicable for a range of purposes. This has been accompanied by an ongoing expansion in the range of issues and data incorporated in the REM, for example in the development of spatial habitat models for all Tasmanian threatened species, incorporation of comprehensive coverage of vegetation condition and hollow dwelling species habitat, and linkages to other management systems such as the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Values database. Development is continuous to ensure the accuracy, reliability and relevance of the REM as a management planning tool.


REM development steering committee (positions as at the time): Dr Nan Bray – Midlands farmer, former Chief of Marine Science, CSIRO; Dr Michael Brown – former Head of Research, Forestry Tasmania; Dr Steve Cork – director Ecoinsights, former Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; Philip Cullen – NRP Director, Landscape Ecologist; Nikki den Exter – botanist, NRM and Council planner; Michael Foley – partnerships manager, Conservation Volunteers Australia; Rod Knight – NRP CEO, Conservation Information Scientist and Planner; George Rance – director National Strategic Services, former CEO Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association; and Rae Young, Midlands farmer, former DPIPWE botanist. The REM is a comprehensive system for:

• Integrating spatial data on the distribution of the major components of biodiversity, and the factors affecting them;

• Analysing the relationships among the components of biodiversity and the environment; and

• Spatially identifying areas which have immediate or potential conservation concerns, and providing indicators of their relative importance, to inform approaches and priorities for management.

The REM has been used as the basis for much of the analysis of HCV categories 1, 2 and 3 in this report and specific use of the REM and technical information is outlined in the following HCV category assessment sections. Stakeholder Consultation FSC defines stakeholders as “Any individual or group whose interests are affected by the way in which a forest is managed”. FSC recognises the following classifications:

• Affected stakeholders – people who are or have the potential to be subject to the effects of management activities – e.g. neighbours, workers, customers etc.

• Interested stakeholders – people who have shown an interest, or are known to have an interest in the activities of an organisation – e.g. Unions, non-Governmental Organisations etc.

• Expert stakeholders – people that hold expertise in specific areas. A range of expert stakeholders was consulted during the methodology review and HCV assessment analyses. A Consultation Draft was developed and formally published for a 60 day public consultation period during May and June 2014. Stakeholder briefings, meetings and open drop-in sessions were held during the consultation period across Tasmania to


facilitate understanding and feedback on the HCV areas identified and management prescriptions. This management plan has been developed in consideration of and incorporating stakeholder feedback. Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia The Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) was developed by the Australian Government as a means of dividing the landscape into a number of bioregions. IBRA was developed as a landscape level planning tool and has been used for many purposes, most notably the development of a National Reserve System. IBRA is updated as improved spatial mapping and information becomes available; currently the latest version is IBRA 7. IBRA 5 has been used for this plan, as this was also the basis for the Regional Ecosystem Model. IBRA 5 and IBRA 7 are effectively identical for Tasmania.


Figure 0.1 IBRA 5 for Tasmania


Management of Conservation Values by FT FT maintains a comprehensive spatial database of the FMU (and PTPZ land). FT’s Management Decision Classification (MDC) system is a map-based system used to zone land and record management prescriptions for identified values. It is within the MDC system that informal reserves are designated and Special Management Zones (SMZ’s) are delineated. In the context of the management of identified HCV areas the MDC system will include the HCV areas as SMZ’s and outline management actions. These management actions may include specific verification requirements on an operational (coupe) level. Prior to any harvesting taking place within the FMU, as part of the preparation of the Forest Practices Plan (FPP) for each coupe, extensive ground surveys are conducted. This allows the Forest Practices Officer or planner preparing the FPP to identify the vegetation communities and other values within the proposed operational area, and will also allow for verification of HCV areas where mapped data are not necessarily locally accurate. The management strategies for identified HCV areas are described in the following sections. Landscape Context Planning system The Landscape Context Planning (LCP) system is a geographic information system (GIS) -based system developed by Forestry Tasmania that uses mapped information on forest type, harvest boundaries and forest zoning, to inform, implement, and monitor habitat retention and coupe dispersal decisions. The LCP system provides field planners with the tools to take a landscape approach to biodiversity management. A landscape approach can be defined as a systematic planning and management approach that incorporates the principles of landscape ecology into forest management. The LCP system is a planning approach developed by FT that guides harvest operations to ensure non-wood values are maintained in production forests at both the coupe and landscape scales. The LCP system incorporates the principles of landscape ecology into operational coupe planning. It is used to maintain habitat connectivity across the landscape and heterogeneity in forest age class structure, with particular emphasis on maintaining mature forest habitat. It does this by prescribing areas of forest to be set aside from harvesting for the long term, and by limiting the proportion of young forest (less than five years old) in an approximately one-kilometre radius of each coupe centre. The production forest landscape consists of a mosaic of formal reserves managed by other public agencies, informal reserves, non-production areas, and areas available for wood production. FT planners will now account for the spatial distribution of this mosaic when planning harvest operations. Any requirement for additional forest retention will be identified within the context of the coupe that is being planned for harvesting.


While the LCP system can be applied at any scale (e.g. local, forest block or regional), planners at Forestry Tasmania are mainly using the system to determine and report on the areas of forest that have been, or will need to be, set aside from harvesting for the long term within a 1 km radius of a coupe’s centre. The system is also used to manage the proportion of young forest (less than five years old) within the local (1 km radius) landscape. This coupe-centroid approach allows a “moveable window” to be viewed for each planned or actual operation so that performance against objectives for mature habitat retention and coupe dispersal can be tested and reported. The system accounts for all existing retention in the landscape including set-asides for wildlife habitat strips, streamside, skyline and/or biodiversity reserves as well as formal (Nature Conservation Act 2002) reserves on public land. Forestry Tasmania is using the LCP system to achieve compliance against two key objectives for clearfell and aggregated retention operations in native forest on PTPZ land. The objectives are to:

• Provide for mature (existing and/or potential) habitat at the local landscape level by requiring long-term retention from harvesting of at least 20 per cent of the public native forest within a 1 km radius surrounding the centre of each clearfell and aggregated retention coupe. The definition of long term for this purpose will be greater than one rotation of the adjoining harvest area and can notionally be taken as being at least 100 years.

• Limit the concentration of harvesting in local landscapes, and potential effects on biodiversity, visual amenity, bushfire risk, soils, water quality and flow by ensuring that no more than 50 per cent of the public native forest within a 1 km radius surrounding the centre of each clearfell and aggregated retention coupe is less than five years old at any one point in time.

Recognising that it will not be possible to achieve the above objectives in all cases, due to previous land use decisions and configurations, Forestry Tasmania has set a target that each objective will be met in at least 90 per cent of all native forest coupes harvested using clearfell or variable retention silviculture. The LCP system includes a set of analytical tools to assist planners in adjusting the location and extent of harvest operations in order to meet these objectives. The system was first implemented in 2013 as part of the Three-Year Plan process with the results of monitoring reported in the 2014 Stewardship Report. Forestry Tasmania’s landscape objectives are supported by a major landscape level biodiversity study conducted in Tasmania, and are consistent with current conservation paradigms. The landscape study, completed in 2012 in a 112 000 hectare area in southern Tasmania, found that forests with at least 20 per cent mature native forest in their surrounding one to two kilometre landscape are able to retain, and be recolonised by, species that inhabit mature forest, including those that are poor at dispersing. Hence Forestry Tasmania is confident that the LCP system objectives, when implemented on all relevant coupes in the PTPZ land, and combined with the existing Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative reserve system, will provide sufficient habitat for species, including


those dependent on mature forest habitat, to persist in, and to recolonise, local landscapes after harvest disturbance. The LCP system is a powerful tool that may also be used for:

• the development and monitoring of area-specific objectives, such as for areas within the range of a particular species or on the margins of regionally significant landscape level forests where desired retention thresholds vary from Forestry Tasmania’s primary landscape objectives;

• reporting on habitat connectivity and heterogeneity of forest age class structure of landscapes at different spatial scales, such as forest blocks; and

• ensuring that Forestry Tasmania meets or exceeds the duty of care requirements under the Forest Practices Code.

Forestry Tasmania will continue to explore opportunities and promote the use of the LCP system for managing biodiversity using a landscape approach. Further information on Forestry Tasmania’s LCP system is available on Forestry Tasmania’s website. Threats to HCV’s The HCV categories encompass a broad range of values, many of which are subject to similar threats and threatening processes. These threats are not unique to HCV areas with the majority of the FMU vulnerable to varying degrees to a range of natural and human-induced impacts. Threats to HCV’s and forest areas may include:

• Unauthorised entry and clearing of native vegetation including firewood cutting; • Impacts from natural events including fire, flood and wind; • Inappropriate fire regimes; • Invasion by feral species and weeds; • Dumping of rubbish; • Impacts from diseases and pathogens such as Phytophthora cinnamomi; • General public knowledge and impacts on sites; and • Physical disturbances or impacts.

Forestry Tasmania implements a range of management actions, operating procedures and operational management prescriptions for these threats to forest areas. In addition to these standard management provisions, this management plan outlines management actions and monitoring for HCV identified areas to minimise risks and ensure that the values such areas contain are maintained and/or enhanced.


HCV 1 Forest areas containing globally, nationally and regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia). Background It is widely recognised that Tasmania, and particularly Tasmania’s forests, contain many conservation values. HCV 1 is aimed at recognising significant concentrations of biodiversity values, such as species which are endemic or classified as rare, vulnerable or endangered. Threatened species in particular are important conservation values. The Common Guidance for the Identification of HCV’s (Brown et al. 2013) states that HCV 1 areas within the FMU are those which contain significant concentrations of globally, regionally or nationally significant threatened species, which can be individual or numbers of species. The document clarifies that a sighting or recorded presence of a threatened species does not necessarily qualify as HCV. The FMU contains threatened species locations and Forestry Tasmania uses established procedures to identify and manage threatened species and habitat. These procedures incorporate field surveys, searches of spatial conservation databases, use of Forest Practices Authority (FPA) manuals and/or other information sources and, where required, the seeking of specialist/expert advice. Where threatened species or habitats are identified, management prescriptions are incorporated into Forest Practices Plans to ensure management of that value during operations. This HCV assessment, and the results and management actions arising from that assessment, do not replace these requirements and others outlined in Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Plan; where management actions are required herein they are additional. The prescriptions used by Forestry Tasmania for many threatened species have been developed by specialists and incorporated into the Forest Practices System, which requires FT to meet all legislative requirements and the prescribed duty of care under the Forest Practices Code (Forest Practices Board 2000). The duty of care includes all measures that are required to protect soil and water values and the exclusion of forest practices from areas containing other significant environmental and social values, at a level up to an additional five percent of the forest on the property for areas totally excluded from operations, or up to ten percent where partial harvesting of the reserve area is compatible with the protection of values. The Forest Practices Authority has determined that “property” for the purposes of the application of the duty of care provisions to PTPZ land is a management unit of approximately 400 ha. In most cases, and in taking a precautionary approach, FT seeks to exceed its duty of care obligations by applying its own Landscape Context Planning system which requires long term retention from harvesting of at least 20 percent of the public native forest within a 1 km radius surrounding the centre of each operational coupe. Where required, strategic management plans are prepared in collaboration with the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) and the FPA for the management of nominated threatened species and their habitat. An example is the management plan for Simson’s stag beetle, which has been agreed between FT and DPIPWE and lodged under a Public Authority Management Agreement provided for under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.


A note about terminology The FSC High Conservation Value Evaluation Framework document refers under criterion 1.1, to ‘areas that contain species that are rare, threatened or endangered’, and, under criterion 3, to ‘forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems’. In Tasmania, the term threatened, whether applied to species or ecosystems, is an umbrella term used to encompass rare, vulnerable or endangered species or ecosystems, and these terms have precise meanings; for example in the Threatened Species Act 1995, the terms rare, vulnerable and endangered are all precisely defined (see ‘Guidelines for eligibility for listing under the Threatened Species Act 1995’ www.dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Threatspeciesguidelines.pdf). Similarly, with respect to communities the terms rare, vulnerable and endangered have precise meanings:

• Endangered – depletion approaching 90% or more of pre-1750 extent; • Vulnerable – depletion approaching 70% or more of the pre-1750 extent; and • Rare – not significantly depleted but of limited extent (and see below).

A rare ecosystem is defined in JANIS (1997) as “one where the geographic distribution involves a total range of generally less than 10 000 ha, a total area of generally less than 1000 ha or patch sizes of generally less than 100 ha, where such patches do not aggregate to significant areas”. Consequently, there is a difference between the way the term ‘threatened’ is interpreted within the FSC documentation, and the way the term is interpreted generally in Tasmania. Throughout this report, as and when appropriate, the terms rare, vulnerable and endangered are used, rather than ‘rare, threatened and endangered’ as in the FSC HCV evaluation framework. However, wherever the text is quoting the evaluation framework, or other sources, the words have not been changed. Analysis methodology The analysis of HCV 1 values within the FMU contained two key components:

• Analysis of significant concentrations of biodiversity values; and • Analysis of significant concentrations (populations) of endangered species.

These two components are presented separately as follows.


Significant Concentrations of Biodiversity Values The values detailed in the FSC High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework for HCV 1 are:

• HCV 1.1 Areas that contain species that are rare, threatened or endangered, or contain centres of endemism.

• HCV 1.2 Areas that contain species that are depleted or poorly reserved at the IBRA region scale.

• HCV 1.3 Areas with mapped significant seasonal concentrations of species (e.g. migratory staging areas).

• HCV 1.4 Areas of high species/community diversity. • HCV 1.5 Refugia and mosaics.

The first two of the values above were too complex to assess as written, so were each split into two separate values as outlined below. HCV 1.1 Value for areas that contain species that are rare, threatened or endangered, or contain centres of endemism was split into:

• Areas that contain species that are rare, threatened or endangered; and • Areas that are centres of endemism.

HCV 1.2 Value for areas that contain species that are depleted or poorly reserved at the IBRA region scale was split into:

• Areas that contain species that are depleted at the IBRA region scale; and • Areas that contain species that are poorly reserved at the IBRA region scale.

This resulted in seven values to be assessed for identifying concentrations of HCV 1 values: • HCV 1.1a Areas that contain species that are rare, threatened or endangered; • HCV 1.1b Areas that are centres of endemism; • HCV 1.2a Areas that contain species that are depleted at the IBRA region scale; • HCV 1.2b Areas that contain species that are poorly reserved at the IBRA region

scale; • HCV 1.3 Areas with mapped significant seasonal concentrations of species (e.g.

migratory staging areas); • HCV 1.4 Areas of high species/community diversity; and • HCV 1.5 Refugia and mosaics.

Significant Concentrations of Endangered Species HCV 1 is defined as forest areas containing globally, nationally and regionally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia). Concentrations of individual threatened species which are endangered or critically endangered may also be considered as possessing HCV 1 value where they exist on the FMU, are critically dependent on the area in question and are considered to be important


locations for the long-term maintenance of species viability. With this view HCV 1.1a was addressed for concentrations of individual endangered species in their own right. Data Sources The FSC Directory of Information Sources identifies the following GIS coverages as potentially contributing to the analysis of high conservation values for species:

• Commonwealth Heritage List • National Heritage List • Register of the National Estate • DPIPWE Project Prioritisation Protocol report • Tasmanian National Estate (TNE) – Fauna centres of endemism • TNE – Fauna species richness • TNE – Flora centres of endemism • TNE – Flora species and community richness • TNE – Key fauna habitat • TNE – Primitive and relictual fauna • TNE – Primitive and relictual flora • TNE – Refugia from present processes

The Commonwealth Heritage List had no overlap with the FMU, and was therefore excluded from further consideration. The National Heritage List lists places of National Heritage value and was not considered informative with respect to identifying places of high conservation value for species. The Register of the National Estate is also a list of places of natural significance, and again, was not considered informative with respect to identifying places of high conservation value for species. The Project Prioritisation Protocol data was used to identify populations of individual species that are considered to be important for the long term maintenance of species viability. The eight Tasmanian National Estate coverages listed above were prepared by a team of experts during the Comprehensive Regional Assessment project which was part of the Regional Forests Agreement process (Public Land Use Commission 1997). As such, whilst based on expert opinion rather than on detailed inventory, they are considered informative to this assessment. The layers relating to centres of Floristic and Faunal centres of endemism were not used in the final analysis, as more contemporary data were available through the Regional Ecosystem Model (see below). All other TNE layers were used in the analysis, resulting in six TNE layers being used in the final analysis. Gap analysis of the available data compared to the seven sub-values showed that there was good data available for six of the seven sub-values but that data were lacking for HCV 1.3 ‘areas with mapped significant seasonal concentrations of species (e.g. migratory staging areas)’. Seasonal migratory species in Tasmania’s forests are predominantly birds, and Birds


Australia was contacted for advice about seasonal concentrations of birds. Birds Australia had previously prepared a map showing ‘Important Bird Areas’ in Tasmania. This coverage was acquired, and used in the subsequent analyses. Regional Ecosystem Model (REM) The primary data source for assessment of significant concentrations of biodiversity values is the Regional Ecosystem Model (REM). The base polygon layer for the REM is a State-wide coverage of offset hexagons each of 0.1 ha. Each polygon is attributed with a large array of information, e.g. which TASVEG vegetation community is present in the polygon, how many priority endemic species are present and so on. There are over 130 different data fields attached to each polygon. These are described in full in attachment 5 of the REM report. In addition, for the purposes of this assessment, new fields were created within the REM in order to address the particular sub-values. Each of these new fields is described in Table 1.3 below. Two concepts are introduced in the table which merit some explanation – Landscape Dependent Fauna and Critically Limited Locations. “The habitat, distribution, sensitivity and population characteristics of threatened species vary enormously. Some species occur widely across the landscape and, while threatened, are sensitive to only certain types of disturbance (albeit some critically). Other species are more localised and may need all of their extent to be protected. These factors apply particularly to Tasmanian threatened fauna. Two concepts were developed as a means of providing differentiation among species based on variation in these characteristics – Landscape Dependent Fauna (LDF) and fauna species with Critically Limited Locations (CLL). “The LDF species group was created as a means to differentiate those species that occur widely across the landscape. These species are not necessarily sensitive to loss of any one area from their distribution. Instead they are considered to be dependent on an adequate supply of key habitat features at the landscape scale across their distribution. Table 1.1 (below) shows the species considered to have the characteristics of LDF. Within this group a further attribute was also identified for den, nest or roost sites, which may be locally sensitive. Critically Limited Location (CLL) fauna species were used to identify those species whose distribution is either highly restricted, or whose range of environmental situations in which the species occurs is limited. These species are considered either more likely to be sensitive to loss, disturbance or inappropriate management, or to carry greater risk to survival of the species across its range. CLL species were defined as those that have been recorded on only one land system or on no more than six land system components (six components generally being the maximum number in a land system). Eighty-four fauna species were identified as meeting the criteria for CLL (Table 1.2 below) and not all of these species occur within the FMU” (Knight 2014).


Table 1.1 Landscape Dependent Fauna (from Knight 2014) Species EPBC status TSPA

status Dens/ nest/ roosts

Notes

Australian Grayling (Prototroctes maraena)

VU v

Bass Strait Wombat (Vombatus ursinus subsp. ursinus)

VU Species does not occur in FMU. Included for completeness.

Clarence Galaxias (Galaxias johnstoni)

EN e

Eastern Barred Bandicoot (Perameles gunnii) VUEastern Quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus)

Y Non-listed species. Not part of index but included for completeness. No dens in NVA.

Giant Freshwater Crayfish (Astacopsis gouldi) VU vGrey Goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae)

e Y

Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae)

VU e Y

Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)

VU r Y Only one den in NVA.

Swan Galaxias (Galaxias fontanus)

EN e

Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor)

EN e Y

Tasmanian Azure Kingfisher (Ceyx azureus subsp. diemenensis)

EN e Y No nest site data currently available. Species nests in areas adjacent to rivers.

Tasmanian Bettong (Bettongia gaimardi)

Non-listed species. Not part of index but included for completeness.

Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii)

EN e Only post-2005 recorded locations are included as extant habitat. Approximately 30 dens in NVA.

Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax subsp. fleayi)

EN e Y

White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) v Y

Table 1.2 Fauna species with Critically Limited Locations (from Knight 2014)

Species EPBC status

TSPA status

King Island Brown Thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla subsp. archibaldi) EN e

King Island Scrubtit (Acanthornis magna subsp. greeniana) CR e

Chevron looper moth (Amelora acontistica) v

Rapid River freshwater snail (Beddomeia angulata) r

Hydrobiid snail (West Gawler) (Beddomeia averni) e

Bell's freshwater snail (Beddomeia bellii) r

Hydrobiid snail (Bowry Creek) (Beddomeia bowryensis) r

Hydrobiid snail (Cam River) (Beddomeia camensis) e

Hydrobiid snail (Table Cape) (Beddomeia capensis) e

Hydrobiid snail (Heathcote Creek) (Beddomeia fallax) r

Forth River freshwater snail (Beddomeia forthensis) r

Hydrobiid snail (Frankland River) (Beddomeia franklandensis) r

Hydrobiid snail (Frome River) (Beddomeia fromensis) e


Hydrobiid snail (Farnhams Creek) (Beddomeia fultoni) e

Hydrobiid snail (Salmon River Road) (Beddomeia gibba) r

Hydrobiid snail (Buttons Rivulet) (Beddomeia hallae) e

Hydrobiid snail (Viking Creek) (Beddomeia hermansi) e

Hulls freshwater snail (Beddomeia hullii) r

Upper Castra freshwater snail (Beddomeia inflata) r

Hydrobiid snail (Macquarie River) (Beddomeia kershawi) e

Hydrobiid snail (Dip Falls) (Beddomeia kessneri)

Hydrobiid snail (St Pauls River) (Beddomeia krybetes) v

Hydrobiid snail (Cataract Gorge) (Beddomeia launcestonensis) e

Castra Rivulet freshwater snail (Beddomeia lodderae) v

Blythe River freshwater snail (Beddomeia petterdi) e

Hydrobiid snail (Keddies Creek) (Beddomeia phasianella) v

Hydrobiid snail (Emu River) (Beddomeia protuberata) r

Hydrobiid snail (St Patricks River) (Beddomeia ronaldi) e

Hydrobiid snail (Salmon River) (Beddomeia salmonis) r

Savage River Mine freshwater snail (Beddomeia trochiformis) r

Hydrobiid snail (Great Lake) (Beddomeia tumida) e

Claytons Rivulet freshwater snail (Beddomeia waterhouseae) e

Wilmot River freshwater snail (Beddomeia wilmotensis) r

Hydrobiid snail (Blizzards Creek) (Beddomeia wiseae) v

Zeehan freshwater snail (Beddomeia zeehanensis) r

Great Lake glacidorbid snail (Benthodorbis pawpela) r

Craggy Island cave cricket (Cavernotettix craggiensis) r

Tunbridge looper moth (Chrysolarentia decisaria) e

Saltmarsh looper moth (Dasybela achroa) v

Ammonite snail (Discocharopa vigens) CR e

Flinders Island cave slater (Echinodillo cavaticus) r

Caddis fly (Macquarie River) (Ecnomina vega) r

Weldborough forest weevil (Enchymus sp. nov) r

Furneaux burrowing crayfish (Engaeus martigener) EN v

Hydrobiid snail (Great Lake) (Glacidorbis pawpela) pr

Cave Beetle (Ida Bay) or blind cave beetle (Goedetrechus mendumae) v

Salt lake slater (Haloniscus searlei) e

Ida Bay cave harvestman (Hickmanoxyomma cavaticum) r

Bornemissza's stag beetle (Hoplogonus bornemisszai) CR e

Caddis fly (St Columba Falls) (Hydrobiosella sagitta) r

Caddis fly (Upper Scamander River) (Hydroptila scamandra) r

Cave beetle (Hastings Cave) (Idacarabus cordicollis) r

Ida Bay cave beetle (Idacarabus troglodytes) r

Isopod (Great Lake) (Mesacanthotelson setosus) r

Isopod (Great Lake) (Mesacanthotelson tasmaniae) r

Southern sandstone cave cricket (Micropathus kiernani) CR e


Spider (Cataract Gorge) or Plomley's trapdoor spider (Migas plomleyi) e

Stanley snail (Miselaoma weldii) e

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) e

Caddis fly (South Esk River) (Oecetis gilva) r

Cave spider (Bubs Hill Cave) (Olgania excavata) r

Isopod (Great Lake & Shannon Lagoon) (Onchotelson brevicaudatus) r

Isopod (Great Lake) (Onchotelson spatulatus) e

Caddis fly (Wedge River) (Orphninotrichia maculata) r

Caddis fly (Derwent River) (Orthotrichia adornata) r

Great Lake galaxias (Paragalaxias eleotroides) VU v

Arthurs galaxias (Paragalaxias mesotes) EN e

Cave cricket (Parvotettix rangaensis) r

Whinray's cave cricket (Parvotettix whinrayi) r

Snail (Cataract Gorge) (Pasmaditta jungermanniae) v

Warratah Road freshwater snail (Phrantela annamurrayae) r

Little Henty River freshwater snail (Phrantela conica) r

Heazlewood River freshwater snail (Phrantela marginata) r

Green Rosella (King Island) (Platycercus caledonicus brownii) v

Lake Fenton trapdoor spider (Plesiothele fentoni) e

Tasmanian hairstreak (Pseudalmenus chlorinda tax myrsilus) r

Cave pseudoscorpion (Mole Creek) (Pseudotyrannochthonius typhlus) r

Caddis fly (Corinna) (Ramiheithrus kocinus) r

Silky snail (Roblinella agnewi) r

Schayer's grasshopper (Schayera baiulus) e

Caddis fly (Bluff Hill Creek) (Stenopsychodes lineata) r

Caddis fly (Huon & Picton Rivers) (Tasimia drepana) r

Amphipod (Great Lake) (Tasniphargus tyleri) r

Isopod (Great Lake) (Uramphisopus pearsoni) r

Table 1.3 Additional REM fields developed to inform the assessment of HCV 1 Field (REM code)

Field explanation Notes

Endsp_num Number of endemic priority species

All listed threatened species, poorly reserved flora species, and two non-listed fauna species (Tasmanian Bettong and Eastern Quoll). For all of the above, endemic species only.

Flora_poor Number of poorly reserved non-listed priority flora species

Defined as species that are represented in <2 reserves in the bioregion, except where represented in a single large reserve (> 1000 ha).

FlorT_poor Number of poorly reserved threatened flora species

Defined as:Endangered or critically endangered species with records in reserves on less than 30% of the land systems on which the species has been recorded. Rare or vulnerable species with records in reserves on reserved on less than 15% of land systems on which species has been recorded.

Fauna_poor Number of poorly reserved threatened fauna species

Defined as above.

LDF_denest The number of Landscape Dependent Fauna that are threatened and which

Species for which the attribute is assigned are:Masked owl; Wedge-tailed eagle; White-bellied sea eagle;


are attributed as den or nest sites

Grey goshawk;Swift parrot; Tasmanian devil; Spotted-tailed quoll

LDF_RTE Number of threatened Landscape Dependent Fauna species in an area

LDF species are:Masked owl; Wedge-tailed eagle; White-bellied Sea eagle; Swift parrot; Gray goshawk; Tasmanian devil; Spotted-tailed quoll; Australian grayling; Azure kingfisher; Giant Freshwater crayfish; Swan galaxias; Clarence galaxias; Eastern barred bandicoot.

RV_notLDF Number of Rare or Vulnerable species that are not Landscape Dependent Fauna

A count of the number of species as described.

End_notLDF Number of Endangered or Critically Endangered species that are not Landscape Dependent Fauna

A count of the number of species as described.

CLL_spp Number of species attributed as having Critically Limited Locations

CLL species are those occurring in 1 land system or <= 6 land components

Derived fields In order to conduct a State-wide assessment of the significant concentrations of high conservation values it was necessary to create some additional fields that were derived from the raw data within the REM. For example, it is not informative to the analysis to know that endangered species A, rare species D and rare species Y are present within a polygon, whereas it is informative to the analysis to know that there is one endangered species and two rare species present in the polygon, and then in turn even more informative to know how to rank this information compared to a polygon which contains, for example, two endangered species and one rare species. Four additional fields were created as described below. Species reservation index [Sppres_ndx] The species reservation index was calculated as the total number of poorly reserved species. The index [Sppres_ndx] is the sum of [Flora_poor], [FlorT_poor] and [Fauna_poor] (see table above for explanations of these codes). Threatened species concentration index [RTEcon_ndx] “Species conservation status in the indicator is differentiated into two groups – species that are Endangered or Critically Endangered, and species that are Rare or Vulnerable. Habitat specificity is differentiated into three non-exclusive classes – LDF species, den and nest sites of LDF species, and other species. Distribution of species is differentiated on the basis of them being CLL species or not. The index gives a higher weighting to species that are of more


threatened conservation status, greater habitat specificity and more limited distribution.” (Knight 2014). ‘Scores’ are summed for each species attributed to the polygon to generate the index value. Table 1.4 Threatened species concentration index Species type Rare/vulnerable species Endangered/critically endangered species Landscape Dependent Fauna – den or nest sites

1 100

Landscape Dependent Fauna – habitat

0 10

Other species with Critically Limited Location

1 100

All other species, not as above 1 10

Threatened species depletion index [Sppdep_ndx] The rationale for the scoring system is that species depletion is explicitly considered as part of the process of determining listing of threatened species. Species depletion is an explicit factor in determining whether species are listed as threatened. It is used in species determinations for the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TSP Act 1995), and is also part of the IUCN framework for maintenance of the global ‘Red List’ of threatened species. Rare species are generally considered not to have been significantly depleted; they are naturally rare and the risk to their survival is largely from stochastic factors. Vulnerable and Endangered species have higher levels of depletion, including potential future depletion, as part of the guidelines for listing (Knight 2014). As for the threatened species concentration index, a higher weighting is given to species with critically limited locations. ‘Scores’ are summed for each species attributed to the polygon to generate the index value. Table 1.5 Threatened species depletion index Species status Critically limited location species Not critically limited location speciesRare 0 0 Vulnerable 2 1 Endangered, Critically Endangered 3 2

Threatened species that are not landscape dependent fauna index [Thrnot_LDF] The threatened species that are not landscape dependent fauna index [Tht_notLDF] was calculated as the sum of the number of rare or vulnerable species that are not landscape dependent fauna [RV_notLDF] and the number of endangered or critically endangered species that are not landscape dependent fauna [End_notLDF]. Analysis The final stage of the HCV analysis for concentrations of values involved combination of the four derived fields, i.e. species reservation index [Sppres_ndx], threatened species


concentration index [RTEcon_ndx], threatened species depletion index [Sppdep_ndx], and the threatened species that are not landscape dependent fauna index [Tht_notLDF] together with the only variable from the table above that stood alone, i.e. that did not contribute to any derived field, being [Endsp_num], which is the number of priority endemic species within any given polygon, and the six Tasmanian National Estate layers and the Important Bird Areas map. The six Tasmanian National Estate layers and the Important Bird Areas map all identify areas that are deemed to be of conservation significance, that is, each polygon is identified as either important for that value, or not. However the four derived fields [Sppres_ndx], [RTEcon_ndx], [Sppdep_ndx] and [Tht_notLDF], and [Endsp_num] each provided a range of scores. In order to determine whether to include or exclude each polygon from the final overlay it was necessary to threshold each of these five fields. Table 1.6 Thresholds for the five REM fields Field Range Threshold Species reservation index [Sppres_ndx] 0 to 12 Index greater than or equal to one Threatened species concentration index [RTEcon_ndx]

0 to 230 Index greater than or equal to three

Species depletion index [Sppdep_ndx] 0 to 16 Index greater than or equal to two Threatened not LDF index [Tht_notLDF] 0 to 7 Index greater than or equal to two Number of endemic priority species [Endsp_num] 0 to 7 Three or more endemic species present

The distributions of the five REM fields and the thresholds used can be found in the following charts (Charts 1.1 - 1.5). After the thresholding process for the five REM fields was completed, the five REM fields, the six TNE layers and the Important Bird Areas were all combined into one spatial coverage. For each polygon, the maximum potential score was therefore 11, that is, one polygon could have all 11 identified values. In fact, the maximum score that any one polygon was found to have was 9. To identify areas within the FMU that contained significant concentrations of high conservation values the threshold for inclusion was set at 5 or more. Areas that scored seven or more were defined as HCV. Additionally, areas that scored a 5 or 6 that were adjacent to higher scoring areas, or that formed large aggregates in their own right were also mapped as HCV. Areas that scored below 5 were also added where it was logical to do so to produce a manageable boundary. It is possible to vary all or any of the thresholds. During this process, the thresholds were set at different levels, and the resulting outputs were examined. The interesting outcome of this process was that the same areas consistently showed up as having significant concentrations of biodiversity values. There was some variation of course, but the final coverage used has captured those areas consistently identified.


Distribution histograms and thresholds applied for HCV 1 Chart 1.1 Species Reservation Index (Sppres_ndx) Threshold applied >= 1 Total number of poorly reserved species

In keeping with a precautionary approach, the presence of a single poorly reserved species was deemed enough to identify an area as a potential candidate for significant concentrations of biodiversity values.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12

Number of Poorly reserved species by hectares within the FMU

Area(Ha)


Chart 1.2 Threatened Species concentration index (RTEcon_ndx) Threshold applied >= 3 Weighted score of concentrations of RTE species with higher weightings for higher threatened status, greater habitat specificity or more limited distribution.

The weighting of this index was heavily skewed towards the more endangered EPBC ratings (see Table 1.4). A score of less than ten indicates the presence of rare or vulnerable species. A score of ten or greater indicates the presence of endangered or critically endangered species. The threshold for consideration as HCV 1 was set at three or greater to capture all of the critical or endangered species habitat as well as areas where concentrations of threatened species existed. The presence of only one or two rare or vulnerable species was not considered to be a concentration.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

0 3 10 13 16 22 30 33 41 101 104 112 120 123 131 201 211 220 223

Area (Hectares) on the FMU of Threatened species Concentrations (RETcon_ndx) Score

AREA_HA


Chart 1.3 Threatened species depletion index (Sppdep_ndx) Threshold applied : >= 2 Score of the number of rare, vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species within a polygon, weighted towards endangered/critically endangered and species with critically limiting limited locations.

A score of one indicates the presence of a single vulnerable species that was not found in a critically limited location (see Table 1.5). Whilst of potential concern, these values will be managed under the Forest Practices System, and the risk is commensurably lower than for species with more severely restricted habitat, or higher risk of extinction (endangered, critically endangered ratings). Everything equal to, or greater than an index of two - that is, all endangered, or critically endangered species as well as vulnerable species with critically limited locations were included as potential candidate areas for HCV 1.

050000

100000150000200000250000300000350000400000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Area (Hectares) on the FMU of threatened species depletion index (Sppdep_ndx) score

AREA_HA


Chart 1.4 Threatened not-landscape dependent fauna index (Tht_notLDF) Threshold applied : >= 2 Score of the number of rare, vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species within a polygon, weighted towards endangered/critically endangered and species with critically limiting limited locations.

A threshold of greater than or equal to two was chosen to capture all concentrations of threatened, non-landscape dependent fauna. Concentrations of single species have been considered separately and were not considered for this analysis.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Area (Hectares) on the FMU by threatened (not-landscape dependent fauna) index (Tht_notLDF) score.

AREA _HA


Chart 1.5 Number of endemic priority species (Endsp_no) Threshold applied : >=3 Count of all listed threatened species, poorly reserved flora species, and two non-listed fauna species (Tasmanian Bettong and Eastern Quoll).

This index is a simple count. The presence of three or more endemic species was deemed to be sufficient to be considered a concentration for candidacy as potential HCV 1, as well as an indicator of significant endemic values. Project Prioritisation Protocol data and Fauna data The primary data source for assessment of significant concentrations of endangered species is the Project Prioritisation Protocol (PPP) data and Fauna data. The Biodiversity Conservation Branch of DPIPWE conducted a Project Prioritisation Protocol in 2010 to prioritise recovery/conservation projects that would be most likely to minimise the probability of extinction (DPIPWE 2010). Part of this project involved identification of key populations across all tenures that were important for the long term conservation of threatened species. The species assessed had already been pre-filtered as part of the PPP analysis. Populations that were considered to be secure (regardless of its status under the EPBC Act 1999) by DPIPWE were not analysed for the PPP. Whilst the original project included work on fauna, the level of detail was inconsistent compared to flora species. Recent work by DPIPWE has applied similar business rules to the identification of areas of faunal ‘distinctiveness’ within the Tasmanian landscape, utilising the range boundaries of EPBC Act 1999 listed species to identify concentrations of occurrences of these species. This data has been accessed by Forestry Tasmania to assist in the identification of concentrations of endangered species that may meet the criteria for HCV 1. This approach is similar to that undertaken by FT in the analysis of concentrations of HCV values utilising the REM, and the distinctiveness scores developed were not used for this portion of the analysis. The range boundary for each identified listed species was considered in isolation.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Area (Hectares) on the FMU by number of endemic priority species (Endsp_no)

AREA_HA


The spatial layers associated with both studies were used as the basis for the identification of populations or concentrations of endangered species that may meet the criteria for HCV 1. HCV 1 Areas Identified Significant Concentrations of Biodiversity Values Six locations have been identified as having significant concentrations of biodiversity values. They are shown in Figure 1.1. The locations, their area, and the conservation values within them are described in Table 1.7. All of the locations are rich in landscape dependent fauna: Tasmanian devil, wedge-tailed eagle, eastern quoll, spotted-tailed quoll (also known as the tiger quoll), and eastern barred bandicoot records are known from all or most of the locations. Masked owls and grey goshawk sites are less well known but occur in many locations. Management prescriptions are in place for all of these species. Other particular values identified within each location are detailed below. Table 1.7 Conservation values in areas identified for HCV 1

Location Area (ha)

Conservation Values

Goulds Country

1053 Dominant forest types present are Eucalyptus sieberi forest on granite and E. obliqua dry and wet forest. Some E. amygdalina dry forest. Identified values include primitive fauna, important habitat values, fauna richness, concentrations of endemic fauna, concentrations of threatened species and raptors. Rare, vulnerable or endangered (RVE) species known to occur in the area include giant velvet worms, grayling, snails, Simson’s stag beetle, Bornemissza’s stag beetle and some rare plants (Arthropodium strictum, Acacia ulicifolia, Veronica formosa).

Dunrobin 363 Dominant forest type present is E. obliqua wet forest with some E. obliqua dry forest and some short rainforest. Identified values include primitive flora, fauna and floristic richness, birds, endemic species, depleted species, poorly reserved species and raptors. RVE species known to occur in the area include green and gold frog, Phrantela pupiformis (freshwater snail) and the bettong.

Wielangta 853 Dominant forest types present are E. pulchella – E. globulus – E. viminalis dry sclerophyll forest, E. obliqua wet forest and E. obliqua dry forest. Identified values include important habitat values, fauna richness, concentrations of threatened species, raptors and birds. RVE species known to occur in the area include bettongs, broad toothed stag beetle, and some rare plants (Pterostylis atriola, Odixia achlaena, and Eucalyptus cordata).

Mount Read 142 Dominant forest types present King Billy Pine (Athrotaxis selaginoides) rainforests and scrubs, with Alpine heathlands. Identified values include- primitive flora, floristic richness, refugia from present processes, high numbers of endemic species and rare flora species (Planocarpa sulcata


and Orites milliganii).

Sideling 863 Dominant forest types present are E. regnans wet forest and E. obliqua wet forest with some rainforest. Identified values include important habitat values, concentrations of endemic species, fauna richness, concentrations of threatened species and raptors. RVE species known to occur in the area include Mt Arthur burrowing crayfish, giant freshwater crayfish, and some rare snails.

Togari 8025 Dominant forest types present are E. obliqua wet forest and Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood) swamp forests. Identified values include primitive fauna, important habitat values, endemic species, depleted species, critically limited species, raptors and concentrations of threatened species. RVE species known to occur in the area include the keeled snail, green and gold frog and some rare plants.


Figure 1.1 Identified HCV 1 Areas due to significant concentrations of biodiversity values.


Significant Concentrations of Endangered Species All significant populations of endangered flora species identified under the Project Prioritisation Protocol (DPIPWE 2010) on the FMU were considered to meet the criteria for HCV 1. These were:

• Maidenhair spleenwort (Asplenium hookerianum) • Mt Arthur boronia (Boronia hemichiton) • Scrambling ground-fern (Hypolepis distans) • Davies' waxflower (Phebalium daviesii)

All significant populations of endangered fauna species that coincided with the FMU that were identified under the fauna analysis (DPIPWE 2014) were also considered to meet the criteria for HCV 1. These were:

• King Island brown thornbill (Acanthiza pusilla subsp. archibaldi) • Chaostola skipper (Antipodia chaostola) • Hydrobiid snail (West Gawler) (Beddomeia averni) • Hydrobiid snail (Table Cape) Beddomeia capensis) • Hydrobiid snail (Buttons Rivulet) (Beddomeia hallae) • Hydrobiid snail (Cam River) (Beddomeia camensis) • Hydrobiid snail (Farnhams Creek) (Beddomeia fultoni) • Hydrobiid snail (Frome River) (Beddomeia fromensis) • Hydrobiid snail (St Patricks River) (Beddomeia ronaldi) • Miena jewel beetle (Castiarina insculpta) • Central north burrowing crayfish (Engaeus granulatus) • Scottsdale burrowing crayfish (Engaeus spinicaudatus) • Golden galaxias (Galaxias auratus) • Clarence galaxias (Galaxias johnstoni) • Bornemissza's stag beetle (Hoplogonus bornemisszai) • Broad-toothed stag beetle (Lissotes latidens) • Marrawah skipper (Oreisplanus munionga larana) • Ptunarra brown butterfly (Oreixenica ptunarra) • Arthurs Paragalaxias (Paragalaxias mesotes) • Forty-spotted pardalote (Pardalotus quadragintus) • Lake Fenton trapdoor spider (Plesiothele fentoni) • Blind velvet worm (Tasmanipatus anophthalmus)

The locations of areas designated as HCV 1 under this analysis are shown in Figure 1.2. In adopting a precautionary approach, although not meeting the definition of HCV 1, the range boundaries for all rare and vulnerable species identified in either analysis have been incorporated into FT’s Special Management Zoning to assist in operational planning. It is standard practice that the FPA planning tools be consulted in developing Forest Practices Plans that may impact on these species.


Figure 1.2 Identified HCV 1 Areas due to concentrations of endangered species


HCV 1 Management Prescriptions Management objectives:

• To maintain sufficient habitat values in long term retention within the landscape consistent with the long term persistence of the identified HCV 1 values.

• To provided enhanced levels of buffering, retention and refuges during harvest operations where HCV 1 values are identified.

• To alert forest Planners to the presence of important populations of endangered species that will require location specific management.

The extent, location and composition of the FMU within the Tasmanian landscape results in many known localities and potential habitat for species which are threatened and of conservation significance. The Forest Practices Code (FPB 2000) and FT’s FPP development process requires detailed verification of habitat and evaluation for the presence of known and potential threatened species and the development of management strategies for their protection and management. The Code and FT’s management system also provides for protection of other biodiversity values, retention of forest in the landscape through implementation of wildlife habitat strips and clumps, and retention of stream side reserves, as well as consideration and management of risks from weeds and diseases. Management prescriptions following are precautionary and additional to this approach. HCV 1 Management Prescriptions for areas containing concentrations of biodiversity values HCV 1 areas containing significant concentrations of biodiversity values will be managed to maintain and/or enhance the values the areas contain. This will be achieved through the application of two key management approaches in addition to Forest Practices Code and FPP development requirements:

• Harvesting using an appropriate retention based silvicultural system, unless specifically constrained by safety considerations and requirements. An appropriate retention based silvicultural system will depend on the forest type and the values identified within the coupe. This can range from light partial harvest regimes through to aggregated retention or enhanced levels of streamside reservation; and

• Application of the Landscape Context Planning system to all harvesting operations

(coupes) within these areas that would be harvested by clearfell or aggregated retention silviculture. A minimum of 20% of mature forest where it is present and/or potentially mature forest (where mature forest is absent) will be retained for long-term retention (notionally at least 100 years) within a 1 km radius around each coupe.

HCV 1 Management Prescriptions for areas containing concentrations of endangered species. HCV 1 areas where significant concentrations of endangered species have been identified will be managed to maintain and/or enhance the populations of species contained within the area.


Areas identified are generally localised and at risk from management activities through operational planning. As is standard practice, threatened species are managed in accordance with the requirements of the Forest Practices Code and associated planning tools. Site specific management prescriptions for each of the species identified in this HCV assessment are developed in accordance with the requirements of the Forest Practices Code and as required in consultation with Forest Practices Authority and/or DPIPWE specialists. Appropriate management can range from no change (for disturbance tolerant species), through to full reservation depending on the values verified in the planning process and the current ‘best practice’ for management of the identified species. There are areas of overlap between areas identified as HCV 1 under both analyses. Where these overlaps occur, both management prescriptions apply in addition to Forest Practices Code requirements. Monitoring The extent of forest allocated to long-term retention (notionally at least 100 years) for each HCV 1 area will be monitored and reported annually in Forestry Tasmania’s Annual Report. As new information on ‘best practice’ management emerges or the status of species change the DPIPWE threatened Species Unit and/or the Forest Practices Authority can, and does alter the species management prescriptions to be applied. These prescriptions will be adopted by Forestry Tasmania.


HCV 2 Forest areas containing regionally significant large landscape level forests, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution or abundance. Background FSC Australia’s HCV Evaluation Framework states that HCV 2 values occur in: “Forest areas containing regionally significant landscape level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance”. Of particular importance is the definition of significance. The HCV Evaluation Framework has defined significance in the following manner: “The forest is significant in the region due to its size, condition, and/or importance to biodiversity conservation. Factors to consider include:

• Rarity of forests of this size and quality within the region. • Less affected by anthropogenic factors than similar areas in the region”

Analysis methodology Values The values detailed in the FSC High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework for HCV 2 are:

• HCV 2.1 Native forests that are rare at the regional or finer scale because they contain forest communities with successional stages, forest structures, and species composition that are similar in distribution and abundance to native forests that have been only subject to natural disturbance processes or minimal human intervention. This would also include areas within such forests. While these forests may not contain old growth, they would typically contain an abundance of older forest attributes (biologically mature or late successional) characteristic of the forest type, as indicated by tree species composition, tree size, or other attributes applicable to the forest community type, such as coarse woody debris, stags, herb diversity, structural understorey diversity and the lack of invasive plant species.

• HCV 2.2 Forests identified as being regionally significant at the bioregion or larger scale by conservation organisations (in formally recognised reports or peer reviewed journals) due to the unusual landscape-scale biodiversity values provided by the size and condition of the forest relative to regional forest land cover and land use trends.

• HCV 2.3 Forests that provide regionally significant habitat connectivity between larger forest areas or between refugia and mosaics.

• HCV 2.4 Roadless areas. • HCV 2.5 Forests that haven’t been affected by forest management activities.


Data Sources Table 2.1 presents the full list of data sources that were consulted in the assessment of each value. Data sources that were utilised appear in italics. The constraints that were obtained from the utilised data sources and the weighting schema are also shown. Table 2.1 Data sources consulted for the assessment of each value HCV value Datasets (utilised datasets in

italics) Data Selection Criteria

HCV 2.1 Department of the Environment (DoE): World Heritage Area DoE: Commonwealth Heritage List DoE: Register of the National Estate DoE: RFA Old growth REM

REM Biophysical Naturalness REM Old growth status REM: Rare and Depleted type 2 Old growth

Biophysical Naturalness values of 4 or 5 (untouched or highly natural) and where type 1 old growth (i.e. RFA old growth) communities did not meet reservation targets AND where there was type 2 old growth (forest with mature characteristics and high naturalness) that could be used to make up the difference= 1, otherwise = 0

HCV 2.2 Independent Verification Group Report 5A (2012) Independent Verification Group Report – Appendix 7 – Polygons and their size for the ENGO 572,000 ha proposed reserves. Linking Landscapes (North East Bioregional Network 2006)

IVG report - Appendix 7 polygons

ENGO reserve proposal to the TFA = 1, otherwise = 0

HCV 2.3 Independent Verification Group Report 5A (2012)

Nominated connectivity polygons

Nominated areas with connectivity value = 1, otherwise = 0

HCV 2.4 DoE: World Heritage Area DoE: Commonwealth Heritage List DoE: Register of the National Estate FT: roads database LIST: roads database

All road vectors Contiguous areas greater than 7000 hectares further than 1000 metres from a road = 1, otherwise = 0

HCV 2.5 DoE: World Heritage Area DoE: Commonwealth Heritage List DoE: Register of the National Estate FT: PI database

FT: PI disturbance code polygons

No recorded disturbance = 1, otherwise = 0


HCV 2.1 Naturalness Areas listed on the World Heritage and Commonwealth Heritage listings did not feature on the FMU while the Tasmanian RFA old growth dataset has been updated and superseded by the more contemporary REM datasets so none of the available data from DoE was relevant to the assessment of this value. The Regional Ecosystem Model (REM) was evaluated as containing the most contemporary indicator of naturalness available. The REM dataset maps areas with no recorded disturbance and areas with only trace evidence of historical disturbance into polygons with high Biophysical Naturalness values (4 or 5). Biophysical Naturalness is a measure of the naturalness of an area. Its use is outlined in the REM report. Its use during the RFA is explained in Public Land Use Commission (1996), pages 159 to 161. A copy of these pages entitled ‘Biophysical Naturalness’ is available from the FT website. The Tasmanian National Estate datasets were reviewed, but found to be superseded or able to be updated significantly by the addition of more recent information. Additionally, a thorough analysis of the reservation status of old growth communities was also conducted using IBRA 5 as the regional context. REM “Old growth status” was considered the best representation of rare and depleted old growth (Type 1) in the landscape. Type 2 old growth was also identified where Type 1 old growth was rare and/or depleted within an IBRA 5 bioregion and had not already met reservation targets under the JANIS Criteria. Type 2 old growth forests are those forests with mature characteristics and high naturalness, but not meeting the strict old growth definition. The data sources investigated were able to be revisited with more recent information to provide a more contemporary view of these values. Natural Resource Planning was commissioned to do this work drawing on current datasets, and the latest reservation status data. HCV 2.2 Large areas of regional significance The three available datasets outlined in Table 2.1 form the basis of areas identified under indicator HCV 2.2, and are closely linked. The Linking Landscapes project (North East Bioregional Network 2006) very tightly overlaps the extent of the Environmental Non-Government Organisation (ENGO) Reserve Proposal to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA) in the northeast of Tasmania. The ENGO Reserve Proposals to the TFA were accepted as the most current indicator of HCV 2.2 values. The ENGO nomination polygons were assigned a value of one, while the remainder were assigned values of zero. HCV 2.3 Connectivity Independent Verification Group (IVG) Report 5A (see http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/independent-verification-group-report) formed the basis of the analysis for this value. Where the report specified an investigated area had connectivity value it was accepted as containing these values. The ENGO nomination polygons with connectivity value were assigned a value of one, while the remainder were assigned values of zero. The implementation of this approach has led to a high level of correspondence between the presence of HCV 2.2 (ENGO identified areas) and HCV 2.3 (connectivity) values as the ENGO


identified areas that were assessed in IVG Report 5A form the basis of both datasets. Areas identified as having connectivity values will also have been identified as important by the ENGOs. The spatial precision of some of these areas is poor. The ENGO nomination polygons tend to correspond with potential strategic-level management boundaries. IVG Report 5A identifies conservation values associated with the ENGO nomination polygons rather than their precise location within each polygon. Imprecision in the location of these values will be addressed through a verification process. HCV 2.4 Roadless areas Most of the datasets listed in Table 2.1 lack currency as they date from assessments conducted in the 1990’s and so are of limited value for defining roadless areas after over a decade of additional road construction. An analysis was conducted utilising the most current records of road extent available from the Forestry Tasmania and Land Information System Tasmania road datasets. For FT roads, all roads of Class 1-4 and tracks were considered as roads. Road lines were buffered by 1000 metres and filtered to retain any remaining polygons of size greater than 7000 hectares. These were then assigned values of one. The buffer distance and the minimum roadless area were selected to maintain consistency with both the RFA and Tasmanian National Estate studies in Tasmania. The latter constraint is smaller than the minimum used in comparable studies outside Tasmania, but can be justified by the highly variable landscape in this state. The state of roads was not taken into account. Presence of any road, including un-trafficable and remnant roads mitigated areas being deemed as roadless. The analysis was state-wide in scope and tenure-blind, so as to ensure that extensions of roadless areas from lands outside into the PTPZ were identified. The positional accuracy of road vectors ranges between 2 and 40 metres depending on the data source. Some roads were mapped using aerial photography where the accuracy of ground control is variable, while other roads have been mapped using GPS or LiDAR coverages and are more accurately positioned. The largest error source arises from the presence of unmapped roads that leads us to over-predict the extent of roadless areas in this analysis. This is particularly evident on private land where road and track extent may not be well mapped in current datasets. Imprecision in the location of these values needs to be addressed but is unlikely to have a significant impact on the boundaries of identified HCV 2 areas. HCV 2.5 Forests unaffected by management activities The Forestry Tasmania photo-interpretation (PI) database is considered to contain the most comprehensive and current record of forest disturbance available since it contains the complete coverage of aerial-photo interpreted forest structure maps and is constantly updated with new data following harvest events and other disturbances as they occur. The dataset used for this analysis was current as at 1/12/2013. Forestry Tasmania’s PI forest type mapping (Stone 1998) was used to infer disturbance levels across the FMU. This layer maps forest patches down to three hectares in size, and records


known harvesting events from harvest records as well as trace evidence of historical logging. Polygons identified with no history of disturbance were assigned a value of one, while the remainder were assigned values of zero. The implementation of this approach has led to a high level of correspondence between the presence of HCV 2.1 and HCV 2.5 values as the REM Biophysical Naturalness dataset draws upon PI-derived disturbance history data. The spatial precision of the Forestry Tasmania PI database is +/-25 metres. Areas identified with HCV 2.5 values have this same level of precision. Analysis All data were imported into ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 in shapefile format. Forestry Tasmania data were imported from Oracle databases. Other data were obtained directly in shapefile format from the relevant data custodians. For each data source, an additional field was added to the shapefile table and assigned a value of 1 where the polygon contained a HCV 2 value and assigned a value of 0 otherwise. A sequential overlay process was then undertaken to generate a master shapefile containing the relevant field from each shapefile and a summation field comprising an aggregated final score. Verification Two additional independent datasets from the Tasmanian-Commonwealth Regional Forest Agreement - National Estate Report (Public Land Use Commission 1997) were identified as being highly indicative of HCV 2 in general, and described characteristics that ranged across multiple HCV 2 values. These were the High Value Wilderness Areas dataset and the Undisturbed Catchments dataset. These datasets were used to verify the analysis. A second multi-criteria evaluation was undertaken, assigning Tasmanian National Estate (TNE) polygons with High Value Wilderness or Undisturbed Catchments values of one, and the remainder values of zero. The values were then aggregated in a linear combination of scores using a GIS vector overlay approach. The resulting layer was compared with the results of the earlier analysis. There was a high degree of correspondence between areas in the verification layer that featured in one or both of the verification layers, and areas in the HCV 2 layer with scores of 4. Areas of discrepancy could be attributed to errors in the verification layer arising from its poorer temporal currency. In one case, important connectivity values were identified in the FT HCV identification process that were not a factor in the TNE studies. This area was subsequently identified as HCV 2 despite not featuring on either verification layer.


HCV 2 Areas Identified HCV 2 values were identified as warranting specific management responses in all areas that obtained scores of 4 (out of a possible 5). Areas with scores of 3 or lower, surrounded by or contiguous with areas with scores of at least 4 were included where strategic management of HCV 2 would be improved by the inclusion. Two areas meeting the standard for HCV 2 were identified in areas in the northwest of Tasmania, and are contiguous with the extensive areas of high wilderness value in reserves to the southeast. Another smaller area was identified in the Eastern Tiers, which had important connectivity value, in addition to other significant conservation values. These areas are listed in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Descriptions of identified HCV 2 areas Identified Area Description Values IdentifiedBlackwater Long, narrow strip (60 hectares) along

the edge of the PTPZ land north of the Sumac forests in the vicinity of Blackwater road.

Rare/depleted old growth in a natural state, undisturbed, roadless, ENGO identified.

Holder Large (815 hectares) area of forest to

the northwest of the Tarkine largely within Holder Forest Block.

Rare/depleted old growth in a natural state, undisturbed, roadless, ENGO identified.

Moaners Tier 327 hectare forest that provides

connectivity between reserves or reserves in the Eastern Highlands.

Important connectivity within the Eastern Tiers, rare/depleted old growth in a natural site, undisturbed, ENGO identified.


Figure 2.1 Areas identified as HCV 2


HCV 2 Management Prescriptions Management objectives:

• To provide for enhanced levels of long term retention in the landscape to maintain high levels of natural forest.

• To ensure that connectivity values within HCV 2 identified areas are maintained to facilitate continued dispersal and movement of species.

Figure 2.1 shows the extent of High Quality Wilderness, or undisturbed catchments identified during the Tasmanian National Estate assessment process (Public Land Use Commission 1997) in context with those areas identified by Forestry Tasmania as HCV 2. It clearly shows that most of the land containing values consistent with HCV 2 is already in secure reservation, delivered through previous reservation processes. Areas identified as HCV 2 in Forestry Tasmania’s FMU represent the outer edges of much larger landscape scale forests. This is not to diminish their value. In a well connected landscape, these forests may provide important pathways for dispersal and movement within the broader forested landscape, as well as providing important forest structure types and habitats. Forestry Tasmania recognises this and is adopting precautionary management prescriptions that maintain the HCV 2 values at a landscape scale. As the areas identified represent the outlying edges of much larger, well connected landscapes, FT will manage these areas by mandating high levels of long term retention in HCV 2 identified areas through:

• Harvesting using an appropriate retention based silvicultural system (non-clearfell), unless specifically constrained by safety considerations and requirements. An appropriate retention based silvicultural system will depend on the forest type and the values identified within the coupe. This can range from light partial harvest regimes through to aggregated retention or enhanced levels of streamside reservation; and

• Application of the Landscape Context Planning system to all harvesting operations

within these areas that would be harvested by clearfell or variable retention silviculture. A minimum of 30% of mature forest where it is present and/or potentially mature forest (where mature forest is absent) will be retained for long-term retention (notionally at least 100 years) within a 1 km radius around each coupe.

In addition areas confirmed and verified during operational planning as containing rare/depleted old growth communities will be managed for protection (see section 3.4, HCV 3). For areas outside identified HCV 2 areas, FTs Landscape Context Planning system aims to maintain (or in depleted landscapes, enhance) mature forest elements in long term


retention throughout the FMU. This will assist in the maintenance of a connected landscape that links production forests to the large landscape scale forests already in secure tenures. Monitoring Forestry Tasmania will continue to monitor the status of HCV 2 designated areas, and will assess areas coming into the FMU (through expired leases or land transfers) for HCV 2 values. If new areas are found to meet the requirement for HCV 2 they will be managed as per the prescription above. Ongoing development of the Landscape Context Planning system may result in changes to management prescriptions as new information comes to light. Any additional management required for the LCP system will also accrue to management of values within HCV 2 areas. In addition, Forestry Tasmania will monitor and report annually on harvesting activity within HCV 2 areas and compliance with the management prescriptions outlined above through its Annual Report.


HCV 3 Forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems. Background The FSC High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework document identifies HCV 3 as: “Ecosystems that are rare and/or threatened at a global, national or regional level… Distinctiveness in terms of size, quality (particularly lack of human disturbance), or location within the ecosystem’s geographic range may be considered in assessing ecosystem rarity.” Values Areas with this HCV 3 may include:

• HCV 3.1 Extant rainforests. • HCV 3.2 Areas for conservation of important genes or genetically distinct

populations. • HCV 3.3 Ecosystems that are depleted or poorly reserved at the IBRA bioregion

scale. • HCV 3.4 Old growth forests. • HCV 3.5 Remnant vegetation in heavily cleared landscapes.

Each of the five values listed above was analysed and is reported separately. In adopting a precautionary approach to the management of forest ecosystems, Forestry Tasmania (FT) aims to ensure that all communities naturally occurring in the FMU, and the old growth forms of those communities, are reserved to at least the levels prescribed by the JANIS criteria for each IBRA region within Tasmania. The JANIS criteria were nationally agreed for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system for forests in Australia and to underpin Regional Forest Agreements. The acronym stands for Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Subcommittee. HCV 3.3 and HCV 3.4 each have two scenarios analysed to account for legislative changes in the proclamation of the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest industry) Act 2014 and repeal of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement Act 2013. These scenarios are termed scenario 1 and 2 and described as follows:

• Scenario 1 – all Future Potential Production Forest (FPPF) land (previously termed tranche 1 and 2 Future Reserve Land) is considered reserved for the purposes of community reservation analysis. This is consistent with the ‘informal reserve’ status attributed by DPIPWE to this land as at 30 June 2013; and

• Scenario 2 – all Future Potential Production Forest (FPPF) land outside the June 2012 comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system is considered unprotected. This is a precautionary approach by Forestry Tasmania in recognition of


stakeholder concerns and the Government’s future intent for this land outlined in the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest Industry) Act 2014. The Act indicates that a decision by Parliament to either convert the FPPF land to Permanent Timber Production Zone (PTPZ) land or to reserve it under the Nature Conservation Act 2002, cannot be made before April 2020. There is no requirement for Parliament to make such a decision after April 2020. Hence the long-term status of the FPPF land is unresolved, however wood production would likely remain constrained in the component of the FPPF land that was previously designated as part of the CAR reserve system under the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 1997 and the supplement to the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 2005. That component was reported as at June 2012 in the Tasmanian Reserve layer, that is, predating the outcomes of the Tasmanian Forests Agreement, and it is expected that this area will continue as reserves at all times.

The main difference between scenario 1 and 2 is that under scenario 2 a number of communities are less well represented in the reserve system. Forestry Tasmania is adopting a precautionary approach in applying management prescriptions as appropriate to communities identified under scenario 2; however both scenarios are presented for completeness and comparison. This legislative change has no impact on HCV 3.1 ‘Extant rainforest,’ as shown by the analysis below for HCV 3.3 and 3.4. The two rainforest communities in which timber harvesting is permitted are both very extensive and very well reserved under both scenarios. Nor do the changes to the land tenure base have any impact on HCV 3.2 ‘Genetically distinct populations’, as all the known populations of rare eucalypts are reserved under both scenarios, and the management systems that apply to the movement of eucalypt seed apply under both scenarios. And lastly, the changing land tenure base has no impact on HCV 3.5 ‘Remnants’. The rules for identifying and managing remnants in the landscape remain the same under the both scenarios. Hence, as stated above, reporting of the results of scenario 2 is limited to HCV 3.3 and HCV 3.4. The results of scenario 2 have only been presented where these differ from the results of scenario 1. Methodology Data Sources The aim of this analysis was to identify forest areas that are in or contain rare, vulnerable or endangered ecosystems. The analysis was largely completed within the Regional Ecosystem Model (REM), with some post-REM GIS processing. As the REM data is complete for the FMU, the various analyses were entire and complete. The various National Estate and Heritage coverages that were identified during the data gathering phase of the project, are considered to be superseded by the REM analysis, and thus were not consulted further. Regional Ecosystem Model (REM) The primary data source for assessment of the components under HCV 3 is the REM. As previously outlined the base polygon layer for the REM is a State wide coverage of offset hexagons each of 0.1 ha and there are over 130 different data fields attached to each polygon. These are described in full in the REM report (Knight 2014).


In addition, for the purposes of this assessment, new fields were created within the REM in order to address the particular sub-values being addressed here. Each of these new fields is described in Table 3.0.1 below. Further explanation of the use of each variable is provided in the relevant sections of this report. Table 3.0.1 Additional REM fields developed to inform the assessment of HCV 3 Field (REM code) Field explanation Notes

Rainft_ndx Rainforest indicator Values are 1 (rainforest) or 0 (not rainforest). Derived from TASVEG “R” codes. That is, all TASVEG codes that start with “R” are included as rainforest. This includes some areas that were classified as non-forest for the purposes of the RFA.

Vegdep_ndx Indicator of the level of depletion of the vegetation community within each bioregion

Values are:

0 – present, not threatened, nor rare

1 – vulnerable,

2 – rare and vulnerable,

3 – endangered, and

4 – rare and endangered.

Vegres_ndx Ecosystem reservation index for the vegetation community

See separate table in REM report, section 4.3.3

IBRA_STAZ Bioregional conservation status Derived from an analysis of the conservation status of each forest community within each IBRA region.

Codes are:

P – present, not threatened,

R – rare,

V – vulnerable,

RV – rare and vulnerable,

E – endangered, and

ER - endangered and rare.

OG_statusZ Bioregional conservation status of old growth forests

Derived from an analysis of the conservation status of the old growth stage of each forest community within each IBRA region.

Codes are:

P – present, not threatened,

R – rare,

D – depleted,

RD – rare and depleted

Ogres_targ Indicates if the old growth stage of the forest community is reserved to its JANIS target on an IBRA region basis

Code is Y (yes) or N (no).

OGtyp2_RD Indicates if the forest is type 2 old growth for a forest community for which old growth is rare or depleted

Type 2 old growth is mature forest where the Biophysical naturalness rating is 4 or 5.

OG1_resndx Reservation index for type 1 old growth

See separate table and discussion in REM report, section 4.2.3

OG2_resndx Reservation index for type 2 old growth (mature forest, biophysical naturalness 4 and 5)

See separate table and discussion in REM report, section 4.2.4

Indicator is based on the percentage of the unreserved areas of type 2 oldgrowth that would be needed to meet the reservation target for type 1 old growth which is rare or depleted (by community and IBRA region)


Field (REM code) Field explanation Notes

Remveg_ndx Index of significance of remnant vegetation patches

Value of indicator is 1 (vegetation patch is a remnant) or 2 (vegetation patch is not a remnant)

Conservation status The aim of this part of the HCV assessment was to identify forest areas that are in or contain rare, vulnerable or endangered ecosystems. The level of vegetation mapping used is the RFA equivalent mapping as derived from the REM as described below. The scale of the reservation analysis to determine conservation and reservation status is the IBRA regional mapping. The criteria used to assess depletion, reservation status and conservation status are consistent with those published by JANIS (1997). For scenario 1 - the conservation status of the different forests communities was derived from the DPIPWE Tasmanian Reserve Estate layer and represents the state of reservation as at 30 June 2013. For scenario 2 – the conservation status of the different forests communities was derived from the DPIPWE Tasmanian Reserve Estate layer and represents the state of reservation as at 30 June 2013, with the exception of the Future Potential Production Forest land area which was derived from the June 2012 CAR reserve system. ‘Reserves’ include all formal reserves (e.g. National Parks, State reserves, etc), private CAR reserves, other publicly managed informal reserves designated as contributing to the CAR system, Forestry Tasmania informal reserves (areas that are classified as ‘managed for protection under Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification (MDC) system). It does not include areas unavailable for harvest (e.g. due to steepness) within areas otherwise zoned for production. The aim of the analysis of the conservation and reservation status of each community was to ensure that the reservation/protection targets were met for each community within each IBRA region. To achieve this, the required area for protection has been determined from within the Forest Management Unit (FMU). However, throughout Tasmania there are significant areas of forest on private land. The private land estate contains areas of forests that are unavailable for timber protection through the normal Forest Practices Code requirements. Thus, in many instances, there will be additional areas of vegetation communities that are protected on private land. In most cases therefore the JANIS criteria will be more than met. Vegetation classification A brief summary from the REM report is provided here to explain how the vegetation classification and mapping was developed (see section 3.2.2 of the REM report, for full details of the development and application of the vegetation community mapping). The vegetation mapping forms the basis for all of the analyses that are reported in this section.


“The classification of ecosystems within the REM is at three levels. The base level mapping within the REM (field [Vegcom_usZ]) is the vegetation communities from the TASVEG classification (v2). In some cases Natural Resource Planning undertakes field mapping at a finer scale than TASVEG, in order to make the mapping more informative to the task at hand. This level of classification is used only for mapping and not in conservation analysis or generation of indicators.” “The second level of classification in the REM – REM vegetation (field [CPI_commZ]) – is an upward hierarchical classification of the base level mapping into the vegetation communities that are used for generating the standard REM indicators. Two principal factors were considered in developing the second level of classification:” “First was the coherence and consistency of available mapping data. Some communities, for example wetlands or understorey types in wet forests, are mapped in the TASVEG mapping as sub-units of a higher level of classification, and are not mapped systematically across their range. In these instances an agglomeration of the mapping to a higher level classification is used (e.g. the three understorey-defined communities in wet Eucalyptus obliqua forest are all treated as part of an undifferentiated wet E. obliqua community).” “The second factor considered in developing the classification was distinctiveness. These are mapped vegetation communities, particularly forest communities, which are either distinct from the communities into which they are included for analysis of the CAR reserve system, or have distinct and recognised conservation significance. Examples of communities in this category include Eucalyptus gunnii, E. barberi, E. perriniana and wet E. globulus forests, all of which are subsumed into higher level classifications under the RFA.” “The third level of classification is a further upward hierarchical classification of the REM vegetation to vegetation communities (ecosystems) to be used for the analysis of conservation status, reservation targets and reservation status against the JANIS criteria (field [JANIS_comX]). In the case of the REM for the Forestry Tasmania Forest Management Unit, these communities are the 51 forest communities recognised under the RFA. This classification is used for the HCV indicators described in Section 4 of the REM report, and for all of the analyses reported here.” “Attachment 8 of the REM report shows the derivation of the vegetation communities at all three levels of classification.” (Knight 2014). The basis for all of the subsequent analyses is therefore a GIS coverage showing the distribution of the 51 forest communities recognised under the RFA, but as mapped through the REM as based on the TASVEG mapping (TASVEG v2). Using this level of vegetation mapping, and the IBRA regions (IBRA5) provides the most consistent and comparable approach to analysing the reservation and conservation status of the different communities across the whole of the FMU.


Limitations of the mapping It is important to note that this analysis has been undertaken using the best available information. Much of the vegetation mapping is done through photo-interpretation, and here has been limited ground truthing. “TASVEG is a Tasmania-wide vegetation map produced by the Tasmanian Vegetation Monitoring and Mapping Program (TVMMP). TASVEG comprises 156 mapping units captured at a nominal scale of 1:25,000. The TASVEG mapping builds on and incorporates the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) mapping of forest vegetation communities, originally mapped at 1:100,000 scale, as well as the World Heritage Area (WHA) mapping that was carried out at 1:25,000 scale. TASVEG is continually revised and updated via photographic and satellite image interpretation and is verified in the field where possible.” (TASVEG Release Notes and Metadata Documentation, accessed online from DPIPWE website 24 March 2014) The JANIS report recommends that mapping of forest ecosystems at 1:100,000 or 1:250,000 is considered to be an appropriate scale for planning a reserve system. The current work is being conducted at a scale of 1:25 000 which clearly demonstrates substantial progress since the JANIS report was produced in 1996. As there has been only limited ground truthing of the TASVEG mapping, the areas shown in the tables which follow must be considered to be indicative. Prior to any harvesting taking place within the FMU, as part of the preparation of the Forest Practices Plan for each coupe, extensive verification through ground surveys is conducted. This allows the Forest Practices Officer or planner preparing the Forest Practices Plan to identify the vegetation communities and the structural stages (i.e. old growth or not) present on the area planned for harvesting. Following ground truthing, where priority communities (i.e. communities which require additional reservation in order to meet particular JANIS targets) are identified, they will be mapped as Special Management Zones within Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification system. Forestry Tasmania will monitor and report on changes, and will report on progress toward meeting reservation targets annually through the Annual Report. The tables that follow detail the distribution of each depleted or poorly reserved community by IBRA region. Under 'IBRA conservation status', the area of each community is shown by its conservation status, i.e. vulnerable, rare, rare and vulnerable, endangered, or endangered and rare. Where the community is either depleted or poorly reserved but is neither rare, vulnerable nor endangered, the area is shown as 'present'. Analysis methodology

HCV 3.1 Extant rainforests The vegetation coverage developed within the REM, as described above, was overlaid with the Bioregional Conservation Status of each community [IBRA_STATZ] to identify those areas within the FMU that contain rainforest communities that were endangered, rare, rare and endangered, vulnerable and/or rare and vulnerable. For the sake of completeness for this analysis only, the table below shows all areas of the different rainforest communities that lie within the FMU. This level of detail is not included in subsequent tables because the tables


become too large to consider, with up to 51 vegetation communities by 9 IBRA regions. The analysis showed that there are areas of rainforest communities on the FMU within the rare, vulnerable, and rare and vulnerable classifications (all of which are managed wholly for protection). There are no rainforest communities within the FMU that are endangered or rare and endangered.


HCV 3.1 Areas Identified Table 3.1.1 Area and conservation status of rainforest communities by IBRA region within the FMU (ha)

Note: p = present on the FMU (and not rare, vulnerable nor endangered), V = vulnerable, R = rare, VR = vulnerable and rare.

IBRA5 Region Vegetation CommunityConservation status

Area on FMU (ha)

Ben Lomond Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites p 6,946

Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites p 628

Central Highlands Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites p 4,510

King Billy pine forest V 529

King Billy pine with deciduous beech forest V 217

Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites p 1,809

King Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites p 3,801


Northern Slopes Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites p 7,690


South East Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites R 26

Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites R 1

Southern Ranges Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites p 1,291

Huon pine forest R 14

Pencil pine forest VR 9


West Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites p 11,547

Huon pine forest p 1,600

King Billy pine forest V 838


Grand Total 72,653


HCV 3.1 Management Prescriptions Management objectives:

• To ensure that all of the rare, vulnerable and rare and vulnerable rainforest communities within the FMU are managed for protection. (There are no rainforest communities within the FMU that are endangered or rare and endangered.)

The analysis shows that there are 1,634 ha of rare, vulnerable and rare and vulnerable rainforest communities within the FMU. All of this area will be managed for protection. King Billy pine forest, King Billy pine with deciduous beech forest and Pencil pine forest are managed wholly for protection on the FMU under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. Huon pine forest is managed for protection by prescription throughout the FMU with the exception of the Teepookana Plateau, Traveller Creek and Mt Huxley areas. Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites (callidendrous rainforest) and thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites (thamnic rainforest) in the South East IBRA region will be managed for protection by prescription. These areas will be delineated as SMZs and managed for protection within the Management Decision Classification system. Based on the vegetation mapping used for this analysis, which as previously stated combines the RFA vegetation mapping with the TASVEG mapping, there are 436,000 ha of ‘callidendrous and thamnic forests on fertile sites’ in Tasmania, of which just 35,785 ha, or 8.2% are available for timber production. There are 204,934 ha of ‘thamnic rainforests on less fertile sites’, of which just 33,634 ha, or 16.4% are available for timber production. These forests are important for special species timber production. In the last two years, no rainforest has been harvested, as all the special species timber production has been through arisings from harvesting in wet eucalypt forests. Monitoring Forestry Tasmania will monitor and report on changes to rainforest community extent annually through the Annual Report, utilising the latest state mapping, augmented by harvest records where appropriate. Where rainforest communities change category, either through continued depletion, legislation or natural processes, Forestry Tasmania will alter its management regime to address the change in status.

HCV 3.2 Areas for conservation of important genes or genetically distinct populations Analysis The assessment process for the conservation of important genes or genetically distinct populations focused on the eucalypts. These are the dominant species in the landscape, and since the end of native forest conversion to plantations in 2007, are the only species where genetic provenances may be significantly disrupted by the harvesting and regeneration processes. It is only eucalypt seed that is collected, stored and then aerially sown onto harvested coupes, and so has the potential to move genes around the landscape. As explained below, FT management procedures are designed to minimise this occurrence.


All of the rarer eucalypt species in Tasmania are well known. All the known populations of for example Eucalyptus cordata and E. perriniana are managed for protection, either through formal reservation or through Special Management Zone (SMZ) protection. Other rare eucalypts, whose occurrences are less well known such as E. barberi, are managed for protection through the SMZ process whenever and wherever they are identified through the Forest Practices Plan (FPP) preparation process. The Regional Forest Agreement recognised that a number of eucalypt forest communities had been preferentially cleared for agriculture, or were always less widespread, and those communities are now managed for protection on public land wherever prudent and feasible (RFA 1997). The west coast populations of E. globulus are recognised as distinct outliers. These populations are all protected under the SMZ system. Nearly all harvesting operations in highland and lowland dry eucalypt forests are managed by partial harvesting. Seed for the new regeneration which is established after the harvesting operation comes from the retained trees. Seedlings are often present at the time of harvesting and these also contribute to the regeneration. The prescriptions for such operations require that the trees retained for seed reflect the pre-harvest species composition. For example if the coupe comprised a 60/40 percent mix of E. delegatensis and E. dalrympleana then the trees retained for seed should broadly reflect this species mix. In this way, the genetics and species composition of the regenerating stand will reflect the pre-harvest condition. Other factors will also play a part. For example in the late 1970s a trial was established in harvested dry eucalypt forest in eastern Tasmania, in which the seed used to sow the harvested areas was biased towards the more commercial ash group species, rather than the ash/peppermint/gum mixtures which were present prior to harvesting. By age 10, the species composition of the regeneration was closer to that of the unlogged forest rather than the sowing mix used to regenerate the stand. Seedlings of the species best suited to the site had come to dominate the regeneration (Elliott et al. 2003). Following clearfell or variable retention operations, the coupe is aerially sown with seed. The rules for preparing the seed to be used are outlined in Native Forest Silviculture Technical Bulletin No.1, Eucalypt Seed and Sowing (Forestry Tasmania 2010). The aim in preparing all sowing mixes is to sow back local seed that reflects the pre-harvest stand. A minimum of 10% of the seed used must come from the coupe that is being regenerated, with the remainder of the seed coming from the same seed zone as the coupe that is being regenerated. Out-of-zone seed is not preferred, and in the last four years less than 1% of the seed sown onto clearfelled coupes has been out-of-zone. The seed zones are based on matching the altitude, dryness and coldness of the site to be regenerated. Each FT District reports at an annual review on the seed used and compliance with FT’s seed quality standards and this is reported each year in the Annual Report. Research on the two species used most commonly in clearfell burn and sow operations, E. obliqua and E. regnans, has shown that the seed zoning system is more than adequate to conserve the genetics of these two species (see Bloomfield et al. 2011 and Nevill et al. 2010). The genetic variation within these eucalypts shows significant variation at a scale akin to that


of the IBRA regions - 9 regions cover the whole of Tasmania. With 61 separate seed zones covering just the FMU, ensuring that the vast majority of seed used stays within the appropriate seed zone, also ensures that seed is not moved across genetic variation boundaries. HCV 3.2 Areas Identified No specific areas have been identified for HCV 3.2 beyond those populations already identified for protection and already reserved. HCV 3.2 Management Prescriptions Management objectives:

• To ensure that the natural genetic variation within Eucalyptus in Tasmania is maintained.

• To ensure that populations of the rare species of Eucalyptus in Tasmania are managed for protection.

The genetic diversity of eucalypts within the FMU is conserved by:

• Protection of the rarer species of eucalypt through formal reservation and informal protection through the SMZ system;

• Ensuring that the proportion of trees by species retained in partial harvesting operations reflects the pre-harvest proportions; and

• A comprehensive seed management system which is monitored and reported annually.

Monitoring Forestry Tasmania will continue to reserve locations of rare species of eucalypts when and where they are identified. Any new areas that are identified will be reported through the Annual Report. Forestry Tasmania will continue to maintain the seed system and will report each year in the Annual Report on all the seed sown as part of the regeneration program.

HCV 3.3 Ecosystems that are depleted or poorly reserved at the IBRA bioregion scale As outlined earlier in the ‘Vegetation classification’ section the basis for this assessment is the vegetation classification that was developed during the RFA. Fifty-one different forest vegetation communities have been mapped across Tasmania. Significant areas within the FMU are mapped as non-forest, and are not considered further here. As also noted earlier, the vegetation mapping has in the most part not been ground truthed. Prior to reservation, either formally or through the SMZ system, verification of the mapped communities will be required.


As also noted earlier, this section of the HCV plan, and section 3.4, address two different land tenure scenarios. Under scenario 1 all Future Potential Production Forest land is considered reserved for the purposes of community reservation analysis. This is consistent with the ‘informal reserve’ status attributed by DPIPWE to this land as at 30 June 2013. Under the precautionary scenario 2 all Future Potential Production Forest (FPPF) land outside the June 2012 comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reserve system is considered unprotected. The aim of the ecosystem analysis was to ensure that wherever possible, each vegetation community, within each IBRA region, achieved at least the appropriate reservation status. As detailed below, the percentage of each community that is required to bring that community to the desired level, varies according to its current depletion and reservation status. Assessment of the extent to which the different vegetation communities are depleted or poorly reserved was based on two indices developed within the Regional Ecosystem Model: the ecosystem depletion index (see REM report 4.3.2 for full details) and the ecosystem reservation index (REM report 4.3.3). The depletion index is a scale which indicates the relative depletion of an ecosystem in its bioregion since pre-1750, based on classes established by JANIS (1997). These categories can be summarised as:

• Endangered – depletion approaching 90% or more of pre-1750 extent; • Vulnerable – depletion approaching 70% or more of the pre-1750 extent; • Rare – not significantly depleted but of limited extent; and • Not threatened.

A rare ecosystem is defined in JANIS (1997) as “one where the geographic distribution involves a total range of generally less than 10 000 ha, a total area of generally less than 1000 ha or patch sizes of generally less than 100 ha, where such patches do not aggregate to significant areas”. “The categories are not exclusive and both Endangered and Vulnerable ecosystems can also be Rare. The combination of Endangered or Vulnerable with Rare was considered to increase the risk to an ecosystem due to its limited extent. The index is shown below.” (Knight 2014)

JANIS bioregionalconservation status

Ecosystem depletion index

Not threatened 0Rare 0Vulnerable 1Vulnerable and Rare 2Endangered 3Endangered and Rare 4


The ecosystem reservation index is an indicator of the extent to which the ecosystem is reserved relative to its JANIS reservation target and also its JANIS conservation status. As a general criterion, JANIS set protection of at least 15% of the pre-1750 distribution of each vegetation communities as a minimum level of reservation. This was deemed to be adequate for vegetation communities that are widespread and abundant. However, where vegetation communities are vulnerable i.e. approaching a reduction in areal extent of 70% within a bioregional context, then the target for protection was set to at least 60% of their remaining extent. In taking a precautionary approach, where communities are limited in extent, (having an estimated area in 1750 of less than 6700 ha), then the minimum target area for protection has been set at 1000 ha (15% of 6700 ha is 1000 ha, so for communities of larger extent than 6700 ha, the target area for protection will be greater than 1000 ha. In other words, the minimum area for protection is always at least 1000 ha). Where vegetation communities are rare, or endangered, i.e. approaching a reduction in areal extent of 90% within a bioregional context, then the target for protection was set at 100% of their remaining extent. The REM ecosystem reservation index takes both the JANIS bioregional conservation status of each vegetation community, and the reservation shortfall against the JANIS target into account as in the table below:

Reservation shortfall on JANIS targetJANIS conservation status 0% 0-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50% Not threatened 0 1 2 3 3 Vulnerable (and not Rare) 0 1 2 3 3 Rare 0 2 3 4 4 Endangered 0 2 3 4 4

(Knight 2014) A table was then prepared showing the extent by conservation status for each vegetation community within each IBRA. The reservation index, depletion index and conservation status of each community within each IBRA region were used to assist in identifying the appropriate management approach for each community in each IBRA region. The table was still too large to be readable so it has been broken into management categories as follows:

• Vegetation communities that are managed wholly for protection under the Tasmanian RFA or under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (Table 3.3.1).

• Vegetation communities that are managed wholly for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (Table 3.3.2).

• Vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (Table 3.3.3).

• Vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection and production (Table 3.3.4).

• Vegetation communities that will be managed for production (Table 3.3.5).


Attachment 11 to the REM report provides full details of the extent, reservation status and depletion index of each vegetation community within each IBRA region within Tasmania. HCV 3.3 Areas Identified Communities identified as HCV 3.3 fell into five distinct management categories, each summarised in a separate table below. The first category of HCV identified in this analysis is rare, endangered or depleted communities that are wholly protected, either by the RFA or the Nature Conservation Act 2002. They are detailed in Table 3.3.1.


Table 3.3.1 Scenario 1 and 2 Vegetation communities that are managed wholly for protection under the Tasmanian RFA or under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (ha)

IBRA region Vegetation communityReservation index

Depletion index

Conservation status

Area on FMU

Ben Lomond E. amygdalina fores t on Ca inozoic depos its 4 4 ER 86E. amygdalina fores t on sandstone 3 1 V 302E. brookeriana wet forest 4 2 VR 20E. rodwayi forest 4 0 R 503E. viminalis grassy forest 0 0 p 314E. viminalis wet fores t on bas a lt 4 3 E 356Grass y E. globulus forest 4 2 VR 4M. ericifolia fores t 4 4 ER 6Notelaea ligustrina/Pomaderris apetala forest 4 4 ER 61Shrubby E. ovata forest 4 3 E 405

Centra l Highlands E. rodwayi forest 2 0 p 178King Bi l ly pine fores t 0 1 V 572King Bi l ly pine with deciduous beech fores t 0 1 V 175

Fl inders M. ericifolia fores t 4 3 E 1King E. brookeriana wet forest 3 1 V 1,224

E. viminalis grass y fores t 3 0 R 7King Is land E. globulus/E. brookeriana/E. viminalis fores t 4 4 ER 272M. ericifolia fores t 4 3 E 2

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina fores t on Ca inozoic depos its 3 1 V 26E. amygdalina fores t on sandstone 3 1 V 13E. viminalis grass y fores t 3 0 V 1Shrubby E. ovata forest 4 3 E 10

Northern Slopes E. amygdalina fores t on Ca inozoic depos its 3 1 V 136E. amygdalina fores t on sandstone 1 1 V 1,491E. brookeriana wet forest 4 0 R 10E. rodwayi forest 4 4 ER 15E. viminalis grass y fores t 4 0 R 4E. viminalis wet fores t on bas a lt 4 3 E 1,018Melaleuca ericifolia forest 4 4 ER 2Notelaea ligustrina/Pomaderris apetala forest 4 4 ER 15Shrubby E. ovata forest 4 3 E 249

South Eas t E. amygdalina fores t on sandstone 3 1 V 3,026E. rodwayi forest 3 0 p 219E. viminalis and/or E. globulus coasta l s hrubby fores t 4 2 VR 3E. viminalis grass y fores t 2 0 p 1,110Grass y E. globulus forest 3 1 V 362Inland E. tenuiramis forest 2 1 V 1,085Shrubby E. ovata forest 4 3 E 46

Southern Ranges E. amygdalina fores t on sandstone 4 2 VR 1E. rodwayi forest 2 0 p 567E. viminalis grass y fores t 4 2 VR 12Grass y E. globulus forest 4 2 VR 69Notelaea ligustrina/Pomaderris apetala forest 4 4 ER 2Penci l pine fores t 0 2 VR 9Shrubby E. ovata forest 3 1 V 1

West E. brookeriana wet forest 3 2 VR 34E. viminalis and/or E. globulus coasta l s hrubby fores t 3 2 VR 13King Bi l ly pine fores t 0 1 V 838

Grand Total 14,875


The communities protected under the RFA or under the NC Act 2002 are the same for both scenario 1 and scenario 2. The Nature Conservation Act 2002 (NC Act 2002) does not of itself prohibit harvesting of the listed threatened communities. It does prohibit clearing or conversion of those communities. However as shown in the ‘Priority and threatened forest communities list’ document available from Forestry Tasmania’s website, Forestry Tasmania has determined that it will adopt a precautionary and above legislation approach and will not harvest any of the vegetation communities listed as threatened under the NC Act 2002. The only community that this decision affects on the FMU is E. amygdalina on sandstone, which is listed under the NC Act 2002, but is not protected under the RFA. The second category consists of those communities that will be managed wholly for protection under internal Forestry Tasmania prescriptions.


Table 3.3.2 Scenario 1 and 2 Vegetation communities that are managed wholly for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (ha)

The communities managed wholly for protection under prescription by FT are the same for both scenario 1 and scenario 2. These communities rarely contain significant volumes of sawlog and can present regeneration challenges; all of E. pauciflora, E. subcrenulata and E. coccifera occur in very cold sites where frost damage to young seedlings can be significant. For these reasons, these communities have generally been excluded from harvesting operations in the past, and they will be managed wholly for protection in the future. The third category is those forest communities that are under-reserved at the bioregional level and that will be managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by FT. They are detailed in Tables 3.3.3a and b below.


Depletion index

Conservation status

Area on FMU

Ben Lomond Allocasuarina verticillata forest 4 0 R 4E. coccifera dry forest 0 0 p 25E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 3 0 p 606

E. pauciflora forest on other substrates 3 1 V 269L. Lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp forest 4 2 VR 17

Centra l Highlands E. coccifera dry forest 0 0 p 1,922E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 0 0 R 960E. subcrenulata forest 0 0 p 34L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp forest 3 0 R 2

King L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp forest 3 1 V 1,290Northern Midlands E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 4 0 R 2Northern Slopes L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp forest 4 2 VR 195South East E. coccifera dry forest 3 0 VR 145

E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 0 0 p 27

E. pauciflora forest on other substrates 3 1 V 10L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp forest 4 2 VR 20

Southern Ranges Allocasuarina verticillata forest 4 0 R 17E. coccifera dry forest 0 0 p 854E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 0 0 p 4,146

E. pauciflora forest on other substrates 4 2 VR 71E. subcrenulata forest 0 0 p 318Huon pine forest 2 0 R 18L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp forest 3 0 R 168

West Huon pine forest 0 0 p 1,600L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp forest 0 0 R 572

Grand Total 13,293


Table 3.3.3a Scenario 1 Vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (ha)


Depletion index

Conservation status

Area on FMU

Ben Lomond A. melanoxylon on flats 0 4 R 156

A. melanoxylon on rises 2 4 VR 79

E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyll forest

0 4 R 39

Central Highlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 0 3 p 221

Flinders A. dealbata forest 0 3 p 22

E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 0 3 p 29

E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest

0 4 R 113

King A. dealbata forest 0 3 p 2

Northern Midlands Dry E. obliqua forest 4 4 ER 5


4 3 ER 128

South East A. dealbata forest 0 2 p 190

A. melanoxylon on rises 0 4 R 2

Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites

0 2 R 26


0 4 R 50

Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 0 4 R 1

Southern Ranges E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 0 4 R 23

West A. dealbata forest 0 3 R 131

A. melanoxylon on flats 0 3 p 445

Grand Total 1,661


Table 3.3.3b Scenario 2 Vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (ha)

The number of communities managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by FT increases under scenario 2. Table 3.3.3b details those communities within particular bioregions where the analysis has shown that all of the area on the FMU is required to contribute towards meeting the JANIS criteria. Forestry Tasmania in adopting a precautionary approach will manage bioregionally for protection communities identified under scenario 2. The fourth category identified is those communities that are under-reserved and will be managed bioregionally for protection and production. These areas are detailed in Tables 3.3.4a and b.


Depletion index

Conservation Status

Area on FMU

Ben Lomond A. melanoxylon on flats 4 0 R 156A. melanoxylon on ri s es 4 0 VR 79E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis gras sy shrubby dry sclerophyl l fores t 4 0 R 39

Centra l Highlands E. amygdalina fores t on doleri te 3 0 p 221

Fl inders A. dealbata forest 3 0 p 22E. amygdalina fores t on doleri te 3 0 p 29E. amygdalina fores t on muds tone 1 0 p 20E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 4 0 R 113

King Acacia dealbata fores t 3 0 p 2

Northern Midlands Coasta l E. amygdalina forest 2 2 VR 14E. obliqua dry fores t 4 4 ER 5E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 4 0 ER 128

Northern Slopes E. regnans fores t 3 1 V 644

South East A. dealbata forest 3 0 p 190A. melanoxylon on ri s es 4 0 R 2Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra infores t on ferti le s i tes 2 0 R 26E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 4 0 R 50Thamnic ra inforest on les s ferti le s i tes 4 0 R 1

Southern Ranges E. amygdalina fores t on muds tone 4 0 R 23

West A. dealbata forest 4 0 R 131A. melanoxylon on flats 3 0 p 445

Grand Total 2,340


Table 3.3.4a Scenario 1 Vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection and production (ha)

Table 3.3.4b Scenario 2 Vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection and production (ha)

Under scenario 2 there are some differences in the management required for some communities. E. regnans in the Northern Slopes IBRA region is managed entirely for protection under scenario 2 (see Table 3.3.3b), so does not appear in Table 3.3.4b. As in scenario 1 (Table 3.3.4a) there is sufficient area of A. melanoxylon on rises in the King IBRA region outside coupes to meet the required level of reservation. This is also the case for E. sieberi on other substrates in Flinders, and Thamnic rainforest in King. For E. obliqua tall forest in Flinders and E. amygdalina forest on mudstone in the Northern Slopes, areas that are currently available for production will need to be managed for protection. Notes to the tables Area on FMU – Current mapped area of the vegetation community within that IBRA region on the FMU Target – JANIS reservation target for the vegetation community in the bioregion Resv. – Area of the vegetation community currently in reserves. Includes both formal and informal reserves Short – Area of the vegetation community required to meet the target Couped – The area on the FMU that is within provisional coupes Uncouped – The area on the FMU that is outside provisional coupes The provisional coupe system is the way in which Forestry Tasmania maps the land it has a production interest in to distinguish the areas likely to be harvested for wood production from those areas that are unlikely to be harvested. Field planners identify areas of likely harvest operations as provisional coupes while excluding areas where logging is not allowed or unlikely. The fifth category identified are those communities that are more than adequately reserved and which can be managed on the FMU for production. The area available under scenario 2 is less than under scenario 1.


Depletion index

Conservation status Target Resv. Short Couped Uncouped

Area on FMU

King A. melanoxylon on ri ses 1 0 p 1,000 874 126 956 1014 2,214Northern Slopes E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 3 0 p 1,000 668 332 615 158 886

E. regnans fores t 2 1 V 1,437 869 568 240 217 644Grand Total 2,411 3,744


Depletion index

Conservation status Target Resv. Short Couped Uncouped

Area on FMU

Fl inders E. obliqua ta l l forest 3 0 p 1,000 661 339 393 205 682

E. sieberi forest on other substrates 1 0 p 1,607 1,597 10 2263 1357 4,053

King A. melanoxylon on ri ses 1 0 p 1,000 759 241 1014 956 2,214Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 1 0 p 3,609 3,457 152 3504 4533 9,410

Northern Slopes E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 3 0 p 1,000 449 551 615 158 886

Grand Total 6,923 17,245


Table 3.3.5a Scenario 1 Vegetation communities that will be managed for production


Depletion index

Conservation status

Area on FMU

Ben Lomond A. dealbata forest 0 0 p 3,046Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 6,954Coastal E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 14,693E. amygdalina fores t on mudstone 0 0 p 5,363E. amygdalina fores t on doleri te 0 0 p 2,087E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 19,602E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 18,368E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 11,019E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 13,559E. regnans forest 0 0 p 13,388 E. sieberi fores t on grani te 0 0 p 4,881E. sieberi fores t on other substrates 0 0 p 5,904E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l fores t 0 0 p 4,811Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 630

Centra l Highlands A. dealbata forest 0 0 p 717A. melanoxylon on rises 0 0 p 206Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 4,516E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 17,967E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 17,367E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 240E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 954Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 1,807

Fl inders Coastal E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 7,823E. amygdalina fores t on mudstone 0 0 p 20E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 1,523E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 682E. sieberi fores t on grani te 0 0 p 3,069E. sieberi fores t on other substrates 0 0 p 4,053

King A. melanoxylon on flats 0 0 p 4,597Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 3,806E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 1,224E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 1,240E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 3,152E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 42,961E. regnans forest 4 0 R 644Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 9,410

Northern Midlands Coastal E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 3 2 VR 14E. amygdalina fores t on mudstone 0 0 p 54E. amygdalina fores t on doleri te 0 0 p 296

Northern Slopes Coastal E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 738A. dealbata forest 0 0 p 6,630A. melanoxylon on rises 0 0 p 862Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 7,693E. amygdalina fores t on doleri te 0 0 p 2,587E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 4,182E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,557E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 794E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 599E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 9,790E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 32,175E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l fores t 0 0 p 8,483Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 6,484



Depletion index

Conservation status

Area on FMU

South East Coastal E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 80E. amygdalina fores t on doleri te 0 0 p 5,416E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 21,304E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,305E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 8,631E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,154E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyl l fores t 0 0 p 980E. regnans forest 0 0 p 1,273E. tenuiramis forest on doleri te 0 0 p 1,056

Southern Ranges A. dealbata forest 0 0 p 1,660Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on 0 0 p 1,197E. amygdalina fores t on doleri te 0 0 p 617E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 16,398E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 32,308E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 126E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 3,938E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 6,203E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 52,331E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyl l fores t 0 0 p 980E. regnans forest 0 0 p 24,849Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 2,233

West A. melanoxylon on rises 0 0 p 1,259Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 11,546E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 79E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 716E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 1,919E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 13,559E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 770E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,889Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 12,976

Grand Total 591,973


Table 3.3.5b Scenario 2 Vegetation communities that will be managed for production

IBRA region Vegetation communityReservation

indexDepletion

indexConservation

StatusArea on

FMU Ben Lomond A. dealbata forest 0 2 p 3,046

Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 1 p 6,954Coasta l E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 14,693E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 0 0 p 2,087E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 0 0 p 5,363E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 19,602E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 18,368E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 11,019E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 13,559E. regnans forest 0 0 p 13,388E. sieberi forest on granite 0 0 p 4,881E. sieberi forest on other substrates 0 0 p 5,904E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 4,811Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 630

Centra l Highlands A. dealbata forest 0 0 p 717A. melanoxylon on ri ses 0 0 p 206Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 1 p 4,516E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 17,967E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 17,367E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 240E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 954Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 1,807

Fl inders Coasta l E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 7,823E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 1,523E. sieberi forest on granite 0 0 p 3,069

King A. melanoxylon on flats 0 0 p 4,597Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 3,806E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 1,224E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 1,240E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 3,152E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 42,961

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 0 0 p 296E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 0 0 p 54

Northern Slopes A. melanoxylon on ri ses 0 0 p 862A. dealbata forest 0 0 p 6,630Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 7,693Coasta l E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 738E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 0 0 p 2,587E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 4,182E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,557E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 794E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 9,790E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 32,175E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 0 4 p 8,483Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 6,484


For all these communities, the JANIS targets for reservation are more than adequately met. These communities are all extensively distributed, and well represented in the reserve system. On the FMU, these communities are managed for production within coupes, and are also managed extensively for protection, where they occur outside provisional coupes.

IBRA region Vegetation communityReservation

indexDepletion

indexConservation

StatusArea on

FMU South East Coasta l E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 80

E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 0 0 p 5,416E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 21,304E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,305E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 8,631E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,154E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyl l forest 0 0 p 5,901E. regnans forest 0 0 p 1,273E. tenuiramis forest on doleri te 0 0 p 1,056

Southern Ranges A. dealbata forest 0 0 p 1,660Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 1,197E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 0 0 p 617E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 16,398E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 32,308E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 126E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 599E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 6,203E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 52,331E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy 0 0 p 980E. regnans forest 0 0 p 24,849Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 2,233

West A. melanoxylon on ri ses 0 0 p 1,259Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 11,546E. delegatensis dry forest 0 0 p 79E. delegatensis ta l l forest 0 0 p 716E. nitida dry forest 0 0 p 1,919E. nitida wet forest 0 0 p 3,938E. obliqua dry forest 0 0 p 770E. obliqua ta l l forest 0 0 p 8,889Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 0 0 p 12,976

Grand Total 568,512


HCV 3.3 Management prescriptions Management objectives:

• To ensure that all of the different vegetation communities are managed for protection, at the IBRA region scale, to at least the levels required under the JANIS criteria.

Management prescriptions vary for each of the five categories of HCV 3.3 identified, ranging from full protection to mixed strategies of production/protection. These strategies are based on legislative and practical constraints as well as the extent of the identified communities. The prescriptions for each category are:

• Vegetation communities requiring protection under the Nature Conservation Act or RFA (Table 3.3.1). These communities will be managed wholly for protection, with the exception of stands of Huon pine on the Teepookana Plateau Traveller Creek and Mt Huxley areas. The Teepookana Plateau and Traveller Creek areas were cut-over for Huon pine during the first half of the 20th century, and there are extensive fire killed stands of Huon pine on Mt Huxley. Dead and down timber, and trees in poor condition, are recovered from previously cut-over stands. All other stands of Huon pine are protected. Huon pine is also sourced from stockpiled timber salvaged from the flooding of Lake Gordon in 1978.

• Vegetation communities that are managed wholly for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (Table 3.3.2). All of the communities listed in this table will be managed wholly for protection.

• Vegetation communities managed bioregionally for protection (Table 3.3.3b). All of the communities listed within each IBRA region will be managed wholly for protection within the identified region.

• Vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection and production (Table 3.3.4b). All of these vegetation communities within the identified IBRA regions will be managed for protection and production by prescription through SMZ zoning within Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification (MDC) system. The shortfall in the targets to reach the appropriate level of reservation for these communities can be reached in some cases by reserving areas that are currently outside production coupes. In the other cases, areas of production forest will need to be managed for protection or increased levels of reservation achieved on other public land. Areas on which the communities of concern are identified and where changes are made through SMZ zoning within the MDC system will be reported each year through FT’s annual report.

• Vegetation communities that will be managed for production (Table 3.3.5b). For these communities the JANIS targets for reservation are more than adequately met.

Note that vegetation mapping is indicative, vegetation communities present on coupes will be verified during harvest planning, and appropriate management (as per the strategies above) applied wherever the community exists.


Monitoring The majority of the different forest communities analysed above fall into one of two categories. Either they are managed wholly for protection, or, usually for the more extensively distributed communities, they are well represented in the reserve system, meeting all the JANIS criteria for reservation and they are managed on the FMU within provisional coupes, for production. However the communities detailed in Table 3.3.4b must be managed for both protection and production, and require the identification of additional areas to be managed for protection from within the FMU or increased levels of reservation achieved on other public land. Suitable verified areas of these communities will be managed for protection by prescription through SMZ zoning within Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification (MDC) system. Forestry Tasmania will report on these changes, and will report on progress towards meeting the reservation targets, annually through the Annual Report. In addition, as noted at the end of this report, a full formal review of this Management Plan will be undertaken every five years.


HCV 3.4 Old growth forests The definition of old growth forest used in the FSC HCV Evaluation Framework (Forest Stewardship Council 2013) is the same as the definition of old growth used nationally in the Regional Forest Agreements, that is, ‘old growth forest is ecologically mature forest where the effects of disturbances are now negligible’. The FSC HCV Evaluation Framework defines two different types of old growth. Type 1 old growth is ‘stands that have never been logged and that display late successional/old growth characteristics. Type 2 old growth is stands that have been logged but which retain significant late-successional/old growth structure and functions’. The approach applied here is that wherever possible the reservation targets are met by identifying and managing for protection areas of type 1 old growth forest. Where the targets for reservation cannot be met through protection of type 1 old growth forest, then type 2 old growth is considered, and where necessary, areas set aside for protection. The conservation status of old growth forests is classified under the JANIS criteria as:

• Rare – generally having an extent of 1,000 ha or less in the bioregion (“R”); • Depleted – the proportion of a forest community which is old growth is less than

or around 10% of the total community area (“D”); and • Present but not Rare or Depleted (“p”).

The categories of Rare and Depleted are not exclusive; old growth forest may be either Rare or Depleted or both (“RD”). The targets for reservation vary depending on the conservation status of each community within each IBRA region. For old growth forests, the general target is that at least 60% of the remaining extent of that community be protected. For rare, depleted, or rare and depleted communities, the target is 100%. Old growth forest mapping was integrated into the REM and old growth determined using logical rules based on the associated vegetation community having a recognised old growth form, and equivalence between TASVEG communities and RFA communities for JANIS analysis (see attachment 8 to the REM report). The conservation status of old growth forests on a bioregional basis was sourced from the IVG report of Knight et al. (2012), which automatically assigned Rare or Depleted status where the quantitative thresholds were met and incorporated qualitative determinations where:

• The extent of old growth was 1,000 – 1,500 ha; or • The percentage of the forest community extant as old growth was 10 – 15%.

(Knight et al. 2012).


FT has used the JANIS reservation criteria as the basis for its reservation targets. Where Knight (2012) made qualitative decisions on the reservation levels required for communities that were inconsistent with JANIS, JANIS has been used. Type 2 old growth forest was defined by Forestry Tasmania as forests that are not old growth but are:

• Mature forests in PI-type mapping; and • Have a biophysical naturalness of four or five.

Note that by these criteria, there is no type 2 old growth rainforest. As defined in the RFA, all undisturbed rainforest is type 1 old growth. There are only small areas of disturbed rainforest or regrowth rainforest (usually Nothofagus cunninghamii (myrtle) dominated pole stands) on the FMU and these areas are not considered old growth. As noted during the RFA, identifying ‘old growth forest’ for some communities is challenging. All native conifer communities (Pencil pine, King Billy pine) were deemed to be old growth. Allocasuarina, Banksia, Callitris and Notelaea dominated communities do not have recognisable old growth stages, so the study for the RFA, from which the current assessment draws considerable data, relied on identifying undisturbed patches of these communities. For Leptospermum/Melaleuca swamp forest and Acacia melanoxylon on flats, expert opinion was used to identify the least disturbed and oldest examples of these communities. For Acacia dealbata and Acacia melanoxylon on rises, a local reference panel advised that these communities were temporal and constitute an early successional phase reflecting disturbance. As such, these communities were excluded from further consideration in the old growth assessment, both for the RFA, and the present assessment. HCV 3.4 Areas Identified The aim of the analysis was to examine the reservation status of each old growth community by each IBRA region, wherein that community occurs, in order to determine whether each community met the required level of reservation in order to meet at least the JANIS criteria. To do so, data from the REM was overlaid with the FMU, and tables prepared as below. The tables do not report old growth forest communities that are not found in any given IBRA region on the FMU; that is, lines in the table that showed zeros for both old growth type 1 and old growth type 2 for any community within any bioregion, were left out. (Attachment 10 to the REM report provides full details of each old growth community within each IBRA region across all land tenures within Tasmania). For old growth type 1, the table shows the old growth area of each community within each IBRA region, and the extent to which the old growth stage of that community is already reserved, within each IBRA region. It shows the area that is required to be reserved in order for that community to reach the minimum area required to meet the JANIS criteria for that community, and it shows the breakdown of the old growth area of each community within production forest on the FMU. The table also shows the same data for type 2 old growth. Details of the different column headings within the tables are provided below.


As was the case for the community depletion and reservation analysis in section 3.3 above, the table was too large and complex to be readable, so it has been sub-divided into management categories as follows:

• Table 3.4.1 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed wholly for protection under the RFA or under the Nature Conservation Act 2002.

• Table 3.4.2 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed wholly for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania.

• Table 3.4.3 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania.

• Table 3.4.4 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection and production.

• Table 3.3.5 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed for production. Notes to the tables Total area OG1 – Current mapped area of the type 1 old growth forest community within that IBRA region Status – JANIS conservation status of the type 1 old growth of the community in the bioregion: p – present but not threatened, D – Depleted, R – Rare, RD – Rare and Depleted OG1 index – Reservation index for type 1 old growth forest (see section 4.2.3 of REM report) Area OG1 on FMU – Current mapped area of the type 1 old growth forest community within that IBRA region on the FMU Total area OG2 – Current mapped area of the type 2 old growth forest community within that IBRA region OG2 index – Reservation index for type 2 old growth forest (see section 4.2.4 of REM report) Area OG2 on FMU – Current mapped area of the type 2 old growth forest community within that IBRA region on the FMU Target descriptor – defines the percentage of the old growth community that is required under the JANIS criteria. Where ‘Status’ equals ‘p’ the target is 60%, otherwise (R, D, RD) it is 100% Target – JANIS reservation target for old growth in the bioregion Resv. – Area of old growth currently in reserves. Includes both formal and informal reserves Short – Area of old growth required to meet the target Couped – The area on the FMU that is within provisional coupes Uncouped – The area on the FMU that is outside provisional coupes The provisional coupe system is the way in which Forestry Tasmania maps the land it has a production interest in to distinguish the areas likely to be harvested for wood production from those areas that are unlikely to be harvested. Field planners identify areas of likely harvest operations as provisional coupes while excluding areas where logging is not allowed or unlikely. Unresv. – Area of type 2 old growth currently outside reserves


Table 3.4.1 Scenario 1 and 2 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed wholly for protection under the RFA or under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (ha)

The communities protected under the RFA or under the NC Act 2002 are the same for both scenario 1 and 2. All these old growth communities are managed wholly for protection.

IBRA region Vegetation CommunityTotal area

OG 1 Status OG1 indexArea OG1 on FMU

Total area OG 2 OG 2 index

Area OG2 on FMU

Ben Lomond E. amygdalina forest on Ca inozoic depos its 39 RD 3 0 146 0 1

E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 1,208 D 3 216 3,631 0 513E. amygdalina forest on sands tone 347 RD 3 35 501 0 20

E. brookeriana forest 1 RD 3 0 4 0 2E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 28 RD 2 8 175 0 52

E. rodwayi forest 47 RD 3 9 169 0 41E. sieberi fores t on grani te 1,069 D 2 149 3,701 0 541E. sieberi fores t on other substrates 1,036 D 3 330 5,197 0 848E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 431 RD 3 153 1,591 0 532E. viminalis grassy forest 172 RD 4 3 1,299 0 54E. viminalis wet forest on basa lt 53 RD 3 6 138 0 37Shrubby E. ovata forest 47 RD 4 12 351 0 60

Centra l Highlands E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 3,156 p 0 73 2,381 0 169E. rodwayi forest 217 RD 4 21 641 2 10King Bi l ly pine forest 13,965 p 0 479 0 0 0

King Bi l ly pine with deciduous beech fores t 2,780 p 0 168 0 0 0

Fl inders E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 56 RD 3 0 392 0 9E. sieberi fores t on grani te 192 RD 3 113 1,472 0 684

E. sieberi fores t on other substrates 414 RD 4 60 2,145 0 528E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina /E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 14 RD 3 1 68 0 2

King E. brookeriana forest 659 R 3 29 913 3 0

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 308 RD 4 0 597 0 19

E. amygdalina forest on sands tone 168 RD 3 6 688 0 0E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 88 R 1 1 122 0 11

E. viminalis grassy forest 3,024 D 4 1 2,560 4 0Shrubby E. ovata forest 157 RD 4 0 186 4 1

Northern Slopes E. amygdalina forest on Ca inozoic depos its 12 RD 4 0 191 0 17

E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 119 RD 3 5 213 0 77E. amygdalina forest on sands tone 760 RD 3 64 1,948 0 184

E. brookeriana forest 0 RD 4 1 0 0 0E. viminalis wet forest on basa lt 134 RD 4 51 233 0 66E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 1,578 D 3 410 1,596 0 277

Notelaea ligustrina/Pomaderris apetala forest 19 R 3 11 0 0 0Shrubby E. ovata forest 140 RD 4 1 167 4 36

South East E. amygdalina forest on sands tone 7,563 p 0 757 2,378 0 69

E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 859 R 2 6 495 2 5E. rodwayi forest 875 R 3 111 302 4 7E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyl l forest 17 R 3 18 35 3 24E. viminalis grassy forest 6,650 D 4 164 9,663 3 101

E. viminalis wet forest on basa lt 83 R 2 1 2 4 0

Grassy E. globulus forest 5,710 p 3 84 3,064 0 0Inland E. tenuiramis fores t 7,485 p 2 179 8,064 0 379Shrubby E. ovata forest 407 R 2 22 188 4 8

Southern Ranges E. pauciflora on Jurass ic doleri te 3,106 p 0 788 2,965 0 1,385E. rodwayi forest 150 RD 3 84 319 0 120

E. viminalis grassy forest 28 RD 4 2 18 4 0Grassy E. globulus forest 18 RD 4 4 49 2 0Penci l pine forest 615 R 0 5 0 0 0

West E. brookeriana forest 178 R 1 2 6 0 0E. viminalis/E. globulus coas ta l shrubby forest 13 R 3 13 0 0 0

King Bi l ly pine forest 9,850 p 0 194 0 0 0Grand Total 76,045 4,850 60,964 6,889


Table 3.4.2 Scenario 1 and 2 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed wholly for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (ha)

Table 3.4.2 details those communities within particular bioregions where the analysis has shown that all of the area on the FMU is required to contribute towards meeting the JANIS criteria. These communities are the same under both scenario 1 and 2. These old growth communities will be managed bioregionally for protection.


OG1 Status OG1 indexArea OG1 on FMU

Total area OG2 OG2 index

Area OG2 on FMU

Ben Lomond E. coccifera fores t 115 RD 2 0 67 0 4E. pauciflora on s ediments 3 RD 0 0 141 0 40L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp fores t 3 R 2 3 0 0 0

Central Highlands E. coccifera fores t 24,790 p 0 447 4,022 0 239E. subcrenulata forest 7,353 p 0 12 378 0 10

King L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp fores t 185 RD 3 31 0 0 0

Northern Slopes L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp fores t 141 R 3 7 0 0 0South Eas t E. coccifera fores t 73 R 3 56 0 4 0

E. pauciflora on s ediments 557 RD 4 4 857 4 1Southern Ranges E. coccifera fores t 6,292 p 0 60 712 0 13

E. pauciflora on s ediments 0 R 0 0 139 0 5E. subcrenulata forest 4,834 p 0 130 232 0 5Huon pine forest 90 R 0 19 0 0 0L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp fores t 107 R 1 6 0 0 0

Wes t Huon pine forest 12,179 p 0 499 0 0 0L. lanigerum/M. squarrosa swamp fores t 2,013 p 0 86 0 0 0

Grand Total 58,735 1,360 6,548 317


Table 3.4.3a Scenario 1 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (ha)

Table 3.4.3b Scenario 2 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection under prescription by Forestry Tasmania (ha)

The old growth vegetation communities protected bioregionally for protection under prescription by FT increase under scenario 2. Tables 3.4.3a and 3.4.3b above detail those old growth communities within particular bioregions where the analysis has shown that all of the area on the FMU is required to contribute towards meeting the JANIS criteria. These communities will be managed bioregionally for protection.




Area OG2 on FMU

Ben Lomond E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyll forest 5 RD 4 5 34 0 2

Central Highlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 253 RD 4 85 92 4 17

E. nitida dry forest 958 R 2 37 102 4 2

Flinders E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 207 RD 4 0 952 2 10

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 775 RD 3 59 2,026 0 5

Northern Slopes E. nitida dry forest 930 R 1 83 158 0 11

South East Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 3 R 3 1 0 0 0

Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 505 R 1 29 0 0 0

Southern Ranges E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 618 R 1 91 156 2 46

West E. delegatensis dry forest 819 R 2 56 25 4 0

Grand Total 5,073 490 3,545 93




Area OG2 on FMU

Ben Lomond E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyll forest 5 RD 4 5 34 2 2

Central Highlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 253 RD 4 85 92 4 17

E. nitida dry forest 958 R 2 37 102 4 2

Flinders E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 207 RD 4 0 952 2 10

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 775 RD 3 59 2,026 0 5

Northern Slopes E. nitida dry forest 930 R 1 83 158 0 11E. regnans forest 98 RD 4 6 326 2 61

South East Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 3 R 3 1 0 0 0

Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 505 R 2 29 0 0 0

Southern Ranges E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 618 R 1 91 156 2 46

West E. delegatensis dry forest 819 R 2 56 25 4 0

Grand Total 5,171 452 3,871 154


Table 3.4.4a Scenario 1 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection and production (ha)

Type 1 old growth Type 2 old growth


OG1 StatusTarget

descriptor Target Resv. Short OG1

index Couped UncoupedOG1 on

FMU Total area

OG 2 Resv. Unresv. OG2


FMU Ben Lomond E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 1,961 D 100% 1,961 1,180 781 4 32 36 114 8,785 2,183 6,602 0 158 168 382

E. delegatensis ta l l forest 7,924 p 60% 4,754 4,175 579 2 980 504 2,014 4,013 2,570 1,443 0 537 495 1,272E. obliqua dry forest 1,848 D 100% 1,848 1,465 383 3 157 127 408 4,056 2,329 1,727 0 373 483 1,027E. obliqua ta l l forest 3,093 D 100% 3,093 2,152 942 4 450 327 1,148 4,519 2,660 1,859 0 524 629 1,378

Fl inders E. obliqua ta l l forest 264 R 100% 264 220 44 2 0 12 13 325 241 83 0 25 32 78King E. nitida dry forest 4,906 p 60% 2,939 2,309 630 2 55 120 344 1,038 628 410 0 6 117 143

E. nitida wet forest 596 R 100% 596 396 200 3 9 56 106 632 207 425 0 10 61 80E. obliqua dry forest 2,095 p 60% 1,266 896 370 2 61 206 379 807 378 429 0 3 22 29E. obliqua ta l l forest 6,729 p 60% 4,037 3,347 690 4 1451 1173 3,441 4,392 1,760 2,632 4 219 262 608Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 6,835 p 60% 4,102 2,899 0 2 1372 2254 6,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern Slopes Coasta l E. amygdalina 801 R 100% 801 650 151 2 1 0 17 1,854 1,527 328 0 37 37 103E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 362 RD 100% 362 227 135 4 2 9 96 878 326 552 0 12 41 231E. obliqua ta l l forest 7,818 D 100% 7,818 6,464 1,354 3 477 428 2,120 4,512 2,899 1,613 0 339 462 1,245E. regnans forest 98 RD 100% 98 87 11 3 0 6 6 326 261 65 0 13 4 61

South Eas t E. delegatensis dry forest 17,948 p 60% 10,782 9,820 962 1 1330 1182 4,607 3,300 392 2,908 0 78 225 494E. regnans forest 690 R 100% 690 577 113 2 19 1 20 544 244 300 0 83 36 125

Southern Ranges E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyl l forest 383 RD 100% 383 94 289 4 5 14 22 1,524 338 1,186 0 4 46 66

Grand Total 64,351 21,133 41,505 7,322


Table 3.4.4b Scenario 2 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection and production (ha)

Type 1 old growth Type 2 old growth


OG1 StatusTarget

descriptor Target Resv. Short OG1


FMUTotal area

OG2 Resv. Unres OG2


FMU Ben Lomond Cal l idendrous and thamnic

ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 24,154 p 60% 14,492 14,276 216 1 523 680 6,305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 1,961 D 100% 1,961 874 1,087 4 32 36 114 8,785 1,652 7,133 2 158 166 382E. delegatensis ta l l fores t 7,924 p 60% 4,754 3,015 1,739 3 972 500 2,014 4,013 1,549 2,463 0 542 483 1,272E. obliqua dry forest 1,848 D 100% 1,848 1,185 663 4 159 126 408 4,056 1,424 2,632 2 377 480 1,027E. obliqua ta l l forest 3,093 D 100% 3,093 1,564 1,529 4 450 328 1,148 4,519 1,406 3,113 3 526 638 1,378E. regnans fores t 4,117 p 60% 2,451 2,410 41 1 595 343 1,420 2,897 910 1,987 0 533 650 1,541

Fl inders E. obliqua dry forest 1,383 p 60% 1,000 985 15 1 3 29 82 602 279 324 0 30 53 98E. obliqua ta l l forest 264 R 100% 264 191 73 2 0 12 13 325 115 209 2 25 32 78

King Ca l l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 7,293 p 60% 4,376 4,327 49 1 950 880 3,447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0E. nitida dry forest 4,906 p 60% 2,939 2,150 789 2 55 120 344 1,038 597 441 0 6 117 143E. obliqua dry forest 2,095 p 60% 1,266 751 515 3 62 205 379 807 358 449 0 4 22 29E. obliqua ta l l forest 6,729 P 60% 4,037 3,055 982 2 1,453 1,175 3,441 4,392 1,487 2,904 2 226 257 608E. nitida ta l l fores t 596 R 100% 596 364 232 3 9 55 106 632 149 483 3 10 61 80Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 6,835 p 60% 4,102 2,672 1,430 3 1,114 1,864 6,278 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern Slopes Coasta l E. amygdalina forest 801 R 100% 801 617 184 2 1 0 17 1,854 1,012 842 1 36 37 103E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 362 RD 100% 362 225 137 4 2 9 96 878 324 554 2 11 38 231E. obliqua ta l l forest 7,818 D 100% 7,818 5,552 2,266 3 475 434 2,120 4,512 1,908 2,604 4 343 462 1,245

South East E. delegatensis dry forest 17,948 p 60% 10,782 8,139 2,643 2 1,301 1,180 4,607 3,300 349 2,950 0 78 224 494E. obliqua dry forest 14,563 p 60% 8,769 8,393 376 1 606 336 1,828 3,838 1,371 2,467 0 11 32 88E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyl l forest 52296 p 60% 31,650 31,220 430 1 527 252 2,072 11,670 2,623 9,047 0 58 80 189E. regnans fores t 690 R 100% 690 458 232 3 19 1 20 544 194 349 3 84 36 125

Southern Ranges E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyl l forest 383 RD 100% 383 93 290 4 5 14 22 1,524 338 1,186 2 4 46 66

Grand Total 115,763 36,281 60,186 9,177


For all of the old growth vegetation communities in Table 3.4.4b above, the reservation targets can be met through appropriate management of that community. For each community within each IBRA region, the table shows that the target for reservation for that community has not been met through the formal reserve system. The column headed ‘Target’, shows the area by which that community falls short of the required target area within that IBRA region. For each community within each IBRA region, it can be seen in the table above that the target for reservation can be met from areas of that community that are type 1 old growth that are outside coupes (see column headed ‘Uncouped’ under ‘Type 1 old growth’’, for old growth type 1), OR, from areas of that community that are type 2 old growth that are outside coupes (see equivalent column as previously but for type 2 old growth), OR, in most instances, more than the area required to meet the reservation targets has already been reserved but as type 2 old growth forest (see column ‘Resv.’ under old growth type 2). For example, for E. amygdalina in the Ben Lomond IBRA region (Table 3.4.4b), the target for reservation is 1,961 ha. There are 874 ha already reserved, leaving a shortfall of 1,087 ha. There are 36 ha of uncouped type 1 old growth, 1,652 ha of type 2 old growth reserved, and 158 ha of uncouped type 2 old growth. Together this comprises 1,846 ha, which more than meets the required 1,087 ha. This is the case for every community by IBRA region in Table 3.4.4b with one exception. For old growth E. delegatensis dry forest in the South East IBRA region, the target for reservation is 10,782 ha. There are 8,139 ha already reserved, leaving a shortfall of 2,643 ha. There are 1,180 ha of uncouped type 1 old growth, 349 ha of type 2 old growth reserved, and 224 ha of uncouped type 2 old growth. Together this comprises 1,753 ha which is still 890 ha short of the required area. There are 1,301 ha of couped type 1 old growth and 78 ha of coupes type 2 old growth so some of this area may be required to be reserved in order to contribute to the target area, or additional areas of this old growth community will require reservation on public land. As is always the case, suitable areas of these communities, when they are identified, will be managed for protection by prescription through SMZ zoning within Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification (MDC) system. Forestry Tasmania will report on these changes, and will report on progress towards meeting the reservation targets, annually through the Annual Report.


Table 3.4.5a Scenario 1 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed for production

IBRA region Vegetation communityTotal area

OG 1 Target Resv.Area OG1 on FMU

Total area OG 2 Resv.

Area OG2 on FMU

Ben Lomond Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 24,154 14,492 18,714 6,305 0 0 0Coasta l E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 6,370 3,812 5,620 333 9,227 5,380 2,478E. delegatensis dry forest 6,796 4,146 5,771 955 7,380 5,539 1,481E. regnans forest 4,117 2,451 2,934 1,420 2,897 1,477 1,541Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 4,376 2,265 3,720 539 0 0 0

Centra l Highlands Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 48,405 29,043 44,952 3,944 0 0 0E. delegatensis dry forest 21,667 12,973 16,507 2,359 14,427 6,725 2,156E. delegatensis ta l l forest 30,047 18,095 27,613 1,878 5,401 3,528 1,412E. nitida wet forest 7,154 4,292 6,878 250 1,355 1,264 38Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 13,157 7,894 11,325 1,580 0 0 0

Fl inders Coasta l E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 13,602 7,992 8,838 289 20,740 9,396 463E. obliqua dry forest 1,383 1,000 1,243 82 602 372 98

King Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 7,293 4,376 4,856 3,447 0 0 0

Northern Slopes Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 20,873 12,524 18,654 3,730 0 0 0E. delegatensis dry forest 1,862 1,117 1,607 283 1,107 858 272E. obliqua dry forest 4,250 2,527 3,492 935 4,364 3,425 555E. delegatensis ta l l forest 2,208 1,327 1,797 468 1,295 976 356Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 14,299 8,579 11,165 4,809 0 0 0

South East Coasta l E. amygdalina sclerophyl l forest 7,149 4,315 5,284 8 1,174 752 0E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 29,044 17,490 21,328 2,328 8,167 1,200 156E. obliqua dry forest 14,563 8,769 9,258 1,828 3,838 1,586 88E. obliqua ta l l forest 8,020 4,878 6,736 1,287 1,585 1,136 205E. pulchella/E. globulus/E. viminalis grassy shrubby dry sclerophyl l 52,296 31,650 31,754 2,072 11,670 2,750 189E. tenuiramis forest on doleri te 5,031 3,018 4,293 372 627 392 81E. delegatensis ta l l forest 8,766 5,218 6,030 3,407 738 508 154

Southern Ranges Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 45,325 27,195 44,839 1,126 0 0 0E. delegatensis dry forest 10,435 6,269 8,447 3,449 4,821 3,076 1,635E. nitida dry forest 2,874 1,724 2,861 3 455 452 4E. nitida wet forest 11,263 6,758 11,259 5 1,118 1,109 10E. obliqua dry forest 5,988 3,651 4,096 1,291 3,988 1,628 664E. obliqua ta l l forest 30,628 18,409 27,503 4,995 9,233 6,178 3,126E. regnans forest 7,349 4,420 6,077 2,040 1,310 791 397E. delegatensis ta l l forest 40,792 24,707 37,126 6,291 4,674 3,013 2,014Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 19,014 11,408 18,101 1,940 0 0 0

West Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 263,343 158,006 253,919 10,502 0 0 0E. nitida dry forest 10,766 6,459 10,180 678 679 608 54E. nitida wet forest 75,689 45,410 75,195 506 2,563 2,286 128E. obliqua dry forest 6,941 4,174 6,401 215 568 503 20E. obliqua ta l l forest 27,363 16,518 25,448 1,980 6,118 5,197 496E. delegatensis ta l l forest 12,658 7,591 12,157 370 277 249 15Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 122,588 73,553 114,182 8,684 0 0 0

Grand Total 1,049,898 630,495 938,160 88,983 132,398 72,354 20,286


Table 3.4.5b Scenario 2 Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed for production

For all these communities in Tables 3.4.5a and 3.4.5b, the JANIS targets for reservation are more than adequately met. These communities are all extensively distributed, and well represented in the reserve system. On the FMU, these communities are managed for production within coupes, and are also managed extensively for protection, where they occur outside provisional coupes.


OG1 Target Resv.Area OG1 on FMU

Total area OG2 Resv.

Area OG2 on FMU

Ben Lomond Coasta l E. amygdalina s clerophyl l forest 6,370 3,812 5,495 333 9,227 3,716 2,478E. delegatensis dry forest 6,796 4,146 4,493 955 7,380 3,603 1,481Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 4,376 2,265 3,028 539 0 0 0

Centra l Highlands Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 48,405 29,043 43,956 3,944 0 0 0E. delegatensis dry forest 21,667 12,973 14,829 2,359 14,427 5,028 2,156E. delegatensis ta l l forest 30,047 18,095 26,862 1,878 5,401 3,299 1,412E. nitida wet forest 7,154 4,292 6,854 250 1,355 1,172 38Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 13,157 7,894 10,910 1,580 0 0 0

Fl inders Coasta l E. amygdalina s clerophyl l forest 13,602 7,992 8,480 289 20,740 8,831 463

Northern Slopes Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 20,873 12,524 17,797 3,730 0 0 0E. delegatensis dry forest 1,862 1,117 1,556 283 1,107 811 272E. delegatensis ta l l forest 2,208 1,327 1,691 468 1,295 699 356E. obliqua dry forest 4,250 2,527 2,859 935 4,364 2,228 555Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 14,299 8,579 10,033 4,809 0 0 0

South East Coasta l E. amygdalina s clerophyl l forest 7,149 4,315 5,284 8 1,174 752 0E. amygdalina forest on doleri te 29,044 17,490 20,178 2,328 8,167 1,150 156E. delegatensis ta l l forest 8,766 5,218 5,641 3,407 738 462 154E. obliqua ta l l forest 8,020 4,878 6,147 1,287 1,585 861 205E. tenuiramis forest on doleri te 5,031 3,018 4,149 372 627 354 81

Southern Ranges Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 45,325 27,195 44,654 1,126 0 0 0E. delegatensis dry forest 10,435 6,269 7,086 3,449 4,821 2,886 1,635E. delegatensis ta l l forest 40,792 24,707 35,388 6,291 4,674 2,680 2,014E. nitida dry forest 2,874 1,724 2,859 3 455 450 4E. nitida wet forest 11,263 6,758 11,259 5 1,118 1,109 10E. obliqua dry forest 5,988 3,651 4,004 1,291 3,988 1,568 664E. obliqua ta l l forest 30,628 18,409 26,747 4,995 9,233 5,859 3,126E. regnans forest 7,349 4,420 6,060 2,040 1,310 780 397Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 19,014 11,408 17,880 1,940 0 0 0

West Cal l idendrous and thamnic ra inforest on ferti le s i tes 263,343 158,006 248,025 10,502 0 0 0E. delegatensis ta l l forest 12,658 7,591 12,044 370 277 243 15E. nitida dry forest 10,766 6,459 9,295 678 679 395 54E. nitida wet forest 75,689 45,410 74,531 506 2,563 1,988 128E. obliqua dry forest 6,941 4,174 5,651 215 568 245 20E. obliqua ta l l forest 27,363 16,518 22,571 1,980 6,118 3,961 496Thamnic ra inforest on less ferti le s i tes 122,588 73,553 107,105 8,684 0 0 0

Grand Total 946,092 567,757 835,401 73,829 113,391 55,130 18,370



• To ensure that all of the different old growth forms of the vegetation communities, are managed for protection, at the IBRA region scale, to at least the levels required under the JANIS criteria.

Management prescriptions vary for each of the five categories of HCV 3.4 identified, ranging from full protection to mixed strategies of protection and production. These strategies are based on legislative and practical constraints as well as the extent of the identified communities. The prescriptions for each category are;

• Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed wholly for protection under the RFA or under the Nature Conservation Act 2002 (Table 3.4.1) will be managed wholly for protection.

• Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed wholly for protection by prescription by Forestry Tasmania (Table 3.4.2) will be managed wholly for protection.

• Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed bioregionally for protection by prescription by Forestry (Table 3.4.3b) will be managed bioregionally for protection. For these communities within the relevant IBRA region, the analysis has shown that all of the area of that community within that IBRA region is required to be managed for protection in order to contribute to meeting the JANIS criteria for reservation. These communities will be managed bioregionally for protection.

• Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed for protection and production and where in most cases the shortfall in the reservation targets can be met from areas within the FMU (Table 3.4.4b) will be managed for production where they exist in coupes. Areas required to meet the desired levels of protection will be identified in areas of type 1 and type 2 old growth outside coupes and from areas of type 2 old growth that are already reserved. Areas on which the old growth communities of concern are identified and where changes are made through SMZ zoning within the MDC system will be reported each year through the Annual Report. In the case of old growth E. delegatensis dry forest in the South East IBRA region, areas that are currently managed for production will need to be identified, and then managed for protection, in order to meet the reservation targets, or increased levels of reservation will need to be achieved on other public land.

• Old growth vegetation communities that will be managed as production forests are detailed in Table 3.4.5. For these communities, the targets for reservation are more than adequately met.

Monitoring The majority of the old growth vegetation communities analysed above fall into one of two categories. Either they are managed wholly for protection, or, usually for the more extensively distributed communities, they are well represented in the reserve system, meeting all the JANIS criteria for reservation. The communities detailed in Tables 3.4.4b will be managed for both protection and production, but require the identification of additional areas to be managed for protection from within the FMU. As stated above, when suitable


areas of these communities are identified, they will be managed for protection by prescription through SMZ zoning within Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification (MDC) system. Forestry Tasmania will report on these changes, and will report on progress towards meeting the reservation targets, annually through the Annual Report. In addition, as noted at the end of this report, a full formal review will be undertaken every five years.

HCV 3.5 Remnant vegetation in heavily cleared landscapes. Many patches of native forest are now isolated from other native forests by land that has been cleared for agriculture, or converted to plantations. These patches are known as remnants. In heavily cleared landscapes such remnants can have higher conservation values than if they were contiguous with other native forests. Within the REM report, attribution of patches as remnants is described in detail in Section 3.1.3 Remnant vegetation. A remnant vegetation index (REM report, Section 4.3.4) was developed to identify patches of remnant vegetation considered to be in heavily cleared landscapes. This was a binary indicator that attributed each remnant patch as either ‘yes’ is a remnant in a heavily cleared landscape, or ‘no’, is not. Remnants were considered to meet the requirements of the indicator if they:

• Have a High or Very High Immediate Level of Concern for landscape ecological function (see Section 3.1.6 of the REM report); or

• Are located on a land system component with >90% clearing bias (see Section 3.1.5); or

• Are located in an area where the density of native vegetation is <10% at the one kilometre scale, or less than 30% at the five kilometre scale (see REM report attachment 3, for a description of this data).

HCV 3.5 Areas Identified Table 3.5.1 below shows the area on the FMU that meets the criteria for remnants in heavily cleared landscapes. There are 1169 ha of such forests, of which 444 ha lie within production forest, of which only 224 ha are available for harvesting. Examination of the distribution of the remnant patches on the GIS showed that the majority are linear streamside reserves of native forest in landscapes that have been largely converted to plantations or cleared for agriculture or both (Figures 3.5.1 and 3.5.2).


Table 3.5.1 Remnant vegetation in heavily cleared landscapes (ha)

IBRA5 Region RFA Equivalent CommunityPresent Vulnerable Rare Rare &

VulnerableEndangered Endangered

& RareTotal

Ben Lomond A. dealbata forest 32 0 0 0 0 0 32A. melanoxylon on flats 0 0 2 0 0 0 2Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 52 0 0 0 0 0 52Coastal E. amygdalina dry sclerophyll forest 5 0 0 0 0 0 5E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 27 0 0 0 0 0 27E. amygdalina inland forest on Cainozoic deposits 0 0 0 0 0 17 17E. delegatensis dry forest 9 0 0 0 0 0 9E. obliqua dry forest 48 0 0 0 0 0 48E. obliqua tall forest 183 0 0 0 0 0 183E. regnans forest 154 0 0 0 0 0 154E. rodwayi forest 0 0 3 0 0 0 3E. sieberi forest on granite 23 0 0 0 0 0 23E. sieberi forest on other substrates 25 0 0 0 0 0 25E. viminalis grassy forest 1 0 0 0 0 0 1E. viminalis wet forest on basalt 0 0 0 0 32 0 32E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest

2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Shrubby E. ovata forest 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 6 0 0 0 0 0 6

Ben Lomond Total 566 0 5 0 33 17 620Central Highlands A. dealbata forest 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Central Highlands Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Flinders E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

E. obliqua dry forest 10 0 0 0 0 0 10Flinders Total 11 0 0 0 0 0 11King A. melanoxylon on flats 15 0 0 0 0 0 15

A. melanoxylon on rises 7 0 0 0 0 0 7E. obliqua dry forest 5 0 0 0 0 0 5E. obliqua tall forest 4 0 0 0 0 0 4King Island E. globulus/E. brookeriana/E. viminalis forest 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

King Total 31 0 0 0 0 1 32Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 6 0 0 0 0 0 6Northern Midlands Total 6 0 0 0 0 0 6Northern Slopes A. dealbata forest 34 0 0 0 0 0 34

A. melanoxylon on rises 41 0 0 0 0 0 41Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 1 0 0 0 0 0 1E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 11 0 0 0 0 0 11E. amygdalina forest on sandstone 0 2 0 0 0 0 2E. delegatensis dry forest 1 0 0 0 0 0 1E. obliqua dry forest 9 0 0 0 0 0 9E. obliqua tall forest 244 0 0 0 0 0 244E. viminalis wet forest on basalt 0 0 0 0 1 0 1E. viminalis/E. ovata/E. amygdalina/E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest

38 0 0 0 0 0 38

Leptospermum lanigerum/Melaleuca squarrosa swamp forest

0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Shrubby E. ovata forest 0 0 0 0 14 0 14Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Northern Slopes Total 382 2 0 1 14 0 399Southern Ranges A. dealbata forest 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 7 0 0 0 0 0 7E. delegatensis dry forest 33 0 0 0 0 0 33E. obliqua dry forest 6 0 0 0 0 0 6E. obliqua tall forest 9 0 0 0 0 0 9E. pauciflora on Jurassic dolerite 11 0 0 0 0 0 11E. regnans forest 14 0 0 0 0 0 14Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 18 0 0 0 0 0 18

Southern Ranges Total 99 0 0 0 0 0 99Grand Total 1,096 2 5 1 47 18 1,169

IBRA Conservation Status


Two examples showing the distribution of remnants within heavily cleared landscapes are provided below.

Figure 3.5.1. The distribution of remnants within heavily cleared landscapes in the Flowerdale area, northern-western Tasmania. Only the hatched area is available for timber production. The areas marked ‘V’ are pasture. The unhatched purple areas top centre of the image are steeply incised gullies which have been excised from the harvestable area. The unhatched area around the coupe bottom left is a wildlife habitat strip, which is also excised from the harvestable area.


Figure 3.5.2. The distribution of remnants within heavily cleared landscapes in the Payanna area, north-eastern Tasmania. Only the hatched area is available for timber production. The areas marked ‘V’ are pasture.


There are 224 ha of remnants that occur within the production forest and that will remain available for timber production. The photo-interpretation (PI) types shown below (Table 3.5.2) indicate that all of these forest are regrowth, arising from past harvesting events or wildfires. (ER indicates eucalypt regrowth). Table 3.5.2 Coupes containing identified HCV 3.5


• To maintain the forests demarcated as remnants on the FMU as forest. Management of the majority of the identified remnants requires no change to current practices. Areas within streamside reserves will continue to be managed for protection. Communities that are protected already under the RFA will continue to be protected. As noted above there are only 444 ha of remnants within production coupes, and as shown in the figures above, these areas still contain significant set-asides, as streamside reserves or wildlife habitat strips, leaving just 224 ha available for timber production. The production areas will continue to be maintained for production. All the native forest that is defined as remnants will be retained as native forest. The LCP system will be applied to all of these coupes to ensure that wherever possible, there is also 30% long term retention in the 1 km radius area centred on the coupe of interest. This will ensure the retention of the public native forest and ultimately of later successional stages within the landscape. Monitoring Harvesting of any of the identified remnants together with the appropriate LCP system metrics will be reported annually through the Annual Report.

Coupe Growth Stage Dominant PI type Vegetation Community Hectares IBRAOL022D Regrowth ER4b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 12.6 KingOL025B Regrowth ER4b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 15.0 KingOL025J Regrowth ER4b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 5.0 KingOL025E Regrowth ER4b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 18.6 KingOL025F Regrowth ER4b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 13.3 KingPA135E Regrowth ER4b/2 E. regnans forest 18.3 Ben LomondPA146F Regrowth ER4b/2 E. viminalis wet forest on basalt 10.4 Ben LomondPA146G Regrowth ER4b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 15.3 Ben LomondPA152F Regrowth ER4b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 29.6 Ben LomondSF148B Regeneration E(85)/2d(P)/+3 E. regnans forest 65.0 Ben LomondSF177A Regrowth ER3b/2 E. obliqua tall forest 21.0 Ben Lomond

Grand Total 224


Scenario 1 - Correction As a consequence of the confusion arising through the changing legislation and the changing land tenure which occurred during the preparation of this report, the area known as Tranche 3, or ‘once-off-log-regenerate-and-restore, and log-of-last-resort’ coupes, was included in the draft HCV assessment and management plan analysis as reserves, as this is how it was assigned in the DPIPWE Tasmanian Reserve Estate layer. It was subsequently realised that this was incorrect. To correct this, the area contained within Tranche 3 was analysed as a stand-alone area, and the consequences of the changes to the land tenure were compared to establish whether this had any impact on the area required to meet the JANIS reservation targets for the affected communities. The following three tables present the results of that analysis. The impact was analysed separately for the communities (Table 3.6.1), for old growth type 1 (Table 3.6.2) and for old growth type 2 (Table 3.6.3). In brief, there are no significant consequences of the change. The three tables show all of the communities, by IBRA region, that were affected. The target area for reservation for each community, whether for the community itself, for old growth type 1 or for old growth type 2 remains unchanged. The area reserved for each community, whether for the community itself, for old growth type 1 or for old growth type 2, has been adjusted by subtracting the area of that community that lay within Tranche 3, from the area reserved shown in attachments 10 and 11 to the REM report. Where there was no area, whether for the community itself, for old growth type 1 or for old growth type 2, the target area and reserved area are shown as ‘no change’. The area reserved was then compared to the target area. The right hand column in each table details the management implications, if any, of the changes. Where the reserved area exceeded the target area prior to this analysis, and continues to do so following the analysis, the right hand column also states ‘no change’. In instances where the reserved area is less than the target area, a decision has usually been made prior to this analysis to protect that community, either through the RFA, through the Nature Conservation Act 2002, or by prescription by FT as a consequence of this analysis. In these cases the right hand column indicates the reason why that community or old growth stage has been protected. The community analysis, Table 3.6.1, shows there are no management implications as a consequence of the changes. For all the communities, they are either wholly protected, or there is more than sufficient area of that community within the reserve system already to meet the appropriate JANIS target. For the old growth type 1 analysis, Table 3.6.2, there are management implications for four communities where the area required to meet the JANIS targets has increased, and where the area currently reserved is not sufficient to meet the targets. However, as shown in the table, and as detailed further in Table 3.4.4a, there is sufficient area outside coupes within the FMU, or more than sufficient area reserved of type 2 old growth, to more than meet the reservation targets for those communities. The old growth type 2 analysis, Table 3.6.3, shows there are no management implications as a consequence of the changes.


Table 3.6.1 Community analysis for changes arising from Tranche 3.

IBRA Region Vegetation communityTRANCHE 3 area

Target area for reservation Area reserved

Management implications for the community

Ben Lomond A. dealbata forest 1 1,554 4,274 No changeCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 4 8,345 21,543 No changeE. amygdalina forest on dolerite 237 6,614 11,594 No change

E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 57 3,720 10,186 No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 1,397 7,558 26,326 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 339 5,893 19,307 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 3 4,275 12,464 No changeE. regnans forest 25 4,572 15,359 No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 1 64 37 FT protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 7 1,000 4,545 No change

Central Highlands Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 44 22,645 47,704 No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 250 18,010 42,257 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 11 18,095 51,177 No changeThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 8 5,255 13,155 No change

Flinders E. sieberi forest on other substrates 1 1,607 5,017 No changeKing Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on

fertile sites 5 4,010 5,399 No changeE. nitida dry forest 1 2,939 6,213 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 4 1,371 2,669 No changeE. obliqua tall forest 101 9,231 14,205 No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 5 2,820 1,261 FT protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 47 3,609 3,774 No change

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 34 2,940 3,486 No changeE. amygdalina forest on mudstone 11 1,000 1,479 No changeygobliqua damp sclerophyll forest 6 523 362 FT protected

Northern Slopes Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 1 10,963 23,826 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 90 4,915 16,514 No changeE. obliqua tall forest 146 16,842 34,328 No change

South East E. delegatensis dry forest 14 10,782 16,173 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 7 5,218 10,313 No change

Southern Ranges A. verticillata forest 7 92 32 FT protectedAcacia dealbata forest 1 1,000 1,200 No changeCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 146 22,107 45,013 No changeE. coccifera forest 9 3,776 21,633 No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 2,609 6,352 20,374 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 2,842 24,707 60,199 No changeE. nitida dry forest 30 1,724 9,186 No changeE. nitida wet forest 31 6,758 25,175 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 114 5,631 13,785 No changeE. obliqua tall forest 2,542 20,933 71,500 No changeE. pauciflora forest on dolerite 654 2,264 7,071 No changeE. regnans forest 68 6,317 15,668 No changeE. rodwayi forest 42 1,000 782 RFA/NCA protected

E. subcrenulata forest 23 2,888 9,694 No changeGrassy E. globulus forest 29 716 92 RFA/NCA wholly protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 155 7,952 18,387 No change

West Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 154 122,083 255,407 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 27 7,591 16,610 No changeE. nitida dry forest 10 6,459 20,788 No changeE. nitida wet forest 25 45,410 184,067 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 22 4,174 9,542 No changeE. obliqua tall forest 1,261 16,518 44,049 No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 85 1,212 6,288 No changeThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 170 56,418 117,471 No change


Table 3.6.2 Old growth type 1 analysis for changes arising from Tranche 3.

Table 3.6.3 Old growth type 2 analysis for changes arising from Tranche 3.

IBRA Region Vegetation communityTranche 3 Old growth type 1


Management implications for the old growth form of the community

Ben Lomond A. dealbata forest 0 No change No change No changeCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 4 14,492 18,710 No changeE. amygdalina forest on dolerite 0 No change No change No change

E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 0 No change No change No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 22 4,146 5,749 No change

E. delegatensis tall forest 2 4,754 4,173

See table 3.4.3. Increases the area of OG required to meet the target from 579 ha to 581 ha. There are 2570 ha of type 2 OG reserved in the FMU.

E. obliqua dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. regnans forest 0 No change No change No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 0 No change No change FT protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 6 2,265 3,714 No change

Central Highlands Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 24 29,043 44,928 No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 29 12,973 16,478 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 0 No change No change No changeThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 6 7,894 11,319 No change

Flinders E. sieberi forest on other substrates 0 No change No change No changeKing Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest

on fertile sites 3 4,376 4,853 No changeE. nitida dry forest 0 No change No change No change

E. obliqua dry forest 2 1,266 894

See table 3.4.3. Increases the area of oldgrowth required to meet the target from 370 ha to 372 ha. There are 378 ha of type 2 oldgrowth reserved, so the total target can be met.

E. obliqua tall forest 5 4,037 3,342

See table 3.4.3. Increases the area of OG required to meet the target from 690 ha to 695 ha. There are 1173 ha of type 1 OG outside coupes, plus significant areas of type 2 reserved.

L. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 0 No change No change FT protected

Thamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 45 4,102 2,854

See table 3.4.3. Increases the area of OG required to meet the target from 1202 ha to 1247 ha. There are over 2000 ha of this community on the FMU in the King IBRA region outside coupes.

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 0 No change No change No change

E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 0 No change No change No changeE. viminalis – E. ovata – E. amygdalina – E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest 0 No change No change FT protected

Northern SlopesCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 1 12,524 18,653 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua tall forest 0 No change No change No change

South East E. delegatensis dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 0 No change No change No change

Southern Ranges A. verticillata forest 0 No change No change FT protectedAcacia dealbata forest 0 No change No change No changeCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 128 27,195 44,711 No changeDry E. delegatensis forest 1326 6,269 7,121 No changeE. coccifera forest 2 3,776 6,265 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 1359 24,707 35,767 No changeE. nitida dry forest 1 1,724 2,860 No changeE. nitida wet forest 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua dry forest 2 3,651 4,094 No changeE. obliqua tall forest 216 18,409 27,287 No changeE. pauciflora forest on dolerite 237 1,867 2,631 FT protectedE. regnans forest 1 4,420 6,076 No changeE. rodwayi forest 10 150 113 RFA/NCA protectedE. subcrenulata forest 6 2,888 4,784 FT protectedGrassy E. globulus forest 0 No change No change No changeThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 118 11,408 17,983 No change

West Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 125 158,006 253,794 No changeE. nitida dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 23 7,591 12,134 No changeE. nitida wet forest 6 45,410 75,189 E. obliqua dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua tall forest 154 16,518 25,294 No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 18 1,212 1,917 FT protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 145 73,553 114,037 No change


IBRA region Vegetation communityTranche 3 Old growth type 2


Management implications for the old growth form of the community

Ben Lomond A. dealbata forest 0 No change No change No changeCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 0 No change No change No changeE. amygdalina forest on dolerite 54 1,961 3,309 No change

E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 17 1,208 2,720 No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 222 4,146 11,078 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 44 4,754 6,701 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. regnans forest 0 No change No change No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 0 No change No change FT protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 0 No change No change No change

Central Highlands Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 0 No change No change No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 12 12,973 23,220 No changeTall E. delegatensis forest 1 18,095 31,140 No changeThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 0 No change No change No change

Flinders E. sieberi forest on other substrates 0 No change No change No change

KingCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 0 No change No change No changeE. nitida dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua tall forest 9 4,037 5,098 No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 0 No change No change FT protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 0 No change No change No change

Northern Midlands E. amygdalina forest on dolerite 1 775 785 No change

E. amygdalina forest on mudstone 5 308 397 No changeE. viminalis – E. ovata – E. amygdalina – E. obliqua damp sclerophyll forest 0 No change No change No change

Northern Slopes Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua tall forest 0 No change No change No change

South East E. delegatensis dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 0 No change No change No change

Southern Ranges A. verticillata forest 0 No change No change FT protectedAcacia dealbata forest 0 No change No change No changeCallidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 0 No change No change No changeE. coccifera forest 0 No change No change No changeE. delegatensis dry forest 182 6,269 11,341 No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 280 24,707 39,859 No changeE. nitida dry forest 3 1,724 3,310 No changeE. nitida wet forest 0 No change No change No changeE. obliqua dry forest 5 3,651 5,719 No changeE. obliqua tall forest 48 18,409 33,633 No changeE. pauciflora forest on dolerite 190 1,867 4,634 FT protectedE. regnans forest 0 No change No change No changeE. rodwayi forest 14 150 325 RFA/NCA protectedE. subcrenulata forest 1 2,888 5,021 FT protectedGrassy E. globulus forest 0 No change No change No changeThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 0 No change No change No change

West Callidendrous and thamnic rainforest on fertile sites 0 No change No change No changeE. nitida dry forest 0 No change No change No changeE. delegatensis tall forest 0 No change No change No changeE. nitida wet forest 2 45,410 77,839 No changeE. obliqua dry forest 3 4,174 6,901 No changeE. obliqua tall forest 66 18,409 33,615 No changeL. lanigerum - M. squarrosa swamp forest 1 1,212 1,934 FT protectedThamnic rainforest on less fertile sites 0 No change No change No change


HCV 4 Forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control). Background FSC Australia’s High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework provides the following specific guidance on this HCV: “HCV 4 is focused on basic ecosystem services in critical situations. Substantial alteration of these forests is likely to result in an unacceptable impact on the delivery of ecosystem services. These services include: consolidation of highly erodible soils including on steep slopes, forests that protect against flooding or forests that provide barriers to fire.” With further guidance on what constitutes Critical Situations; “An ecosystem service is considered to be ‘critical’ where a disruption of that service is likely to cause, or poses a threat of, severe negative impacts on the welfare, health or survival of local communities, on the environment, on High Conservation Values, or on the functioning of significant infrastructure (roads, dams, buildings, etc). The notion of criticality here refers to the importance and risk for natural resources and environmental and socioeconomic values. (Source: FSC-STD-01-001 V5-0 D4-9 p115).” “Critical situations encompass: areas with highly erodible soil; areas with steep slopes; clean water and/or irrigation supply systems; areas which protect against flooding; and vulnerable areas which support rare or endangered ecosystem functions”. Critical Situation Thresholds; “FSC Australia cannot provide clear thresholds on when an area provides critical protection. An operable question to help address this question may be, ‘What is the impact of removing the forest cover?’” And specific advice on ‘critical situations’ with respect to Watershed Protection: “A forest that is part of a local drinking water catchment, irrigation supply system, or is a critical source for a remote location (i.e. water is pumped to a remote location) may be considered a critical situation, particularly when people are dependent on the guarantee of water, where the regulation of water flow guarantees the existence of fishing grounds or agricultural land or protects downstream communities from flooding. Forests which provide critical protection of water supplies for rare, threatened, or endangered aquatic species and/or ecosystems are also ‘critical situations.” Analysis methodology Values The values detailed in the FSC High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework for HCV 4 are:

• HCV 4.1 Forests which provide protection from flooding. • HCV 4.2 Forests which provide protection from erosion.


• HCV 4.3 Forests which provide barriers from destructive fire. • HCV 4.4 Forests which provide clean water catchments.

Each HCV 4 value was evaluated separately, as they are very different. The details of each value analysis are found in the sub-sections below.

HCV 4.1 Forest that provide protection from flooding. This section refers to HCV areas that may provide protection from flooding. Data Sources The following datasets are current and were assessed as providing useful information in the identification of potential HCV 4 areas: Dataset Utilised forCentres of high flood risk (BoM/DPIPWE) Identification of places at critical risk of flooding CFEV Catchments (DPIPWE) Identification of catchments contributing to flood risk Indicative Strategic Harvest schedule (FT) Calculation of predicted catchment disturbance figures Harvest Records 2009-2013 (FT) Calculation of past catchment disturbance figures

Analysis The Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) have identified 12 floodplains in Tasmania where there is significant risk of economic loss or loss of life from flooding. These are:

• Derwent River through New Norfolk; • Upper reaches of the Tamar River; • Lower reaches of the North Esk River; • Huon River at Huonville and Mountain River; • South Esk River through Longford to the Tamar River; • Jordan River below Pontville; • Mersey River through Latrobe; • Bagdad Rivulet, • Elizabeth River through Campbell Town; • Macquarie River at Ross; • Coal River at Richmond; and • Meander River at Deloraine.


Figure 4.1.1 Areas considered to be “at risk” of catastrophic flooding


The most important factors influencing flooding are rainfall and catchment and stream topography. Forest cover may influence small to moderate floods in small catchments (<10 km2), but usually has little influence in large catchments (>10 km2) or during severe meteorological events (FAO and CIFOR 2005). The analysis sought to identify a threshold at which protection from flooding could be assumed to be diminished by forest harvesting. Small scale catchment experiments show that when 20% or more of a catchment’s vegetation is altered, measurable changes in stream flow may occur including increases in peak flow when forest cover is reduced (Bosch and Hewlett 1982). As forests are regenerated after harvesting, 5 years was selected as the period during which forest cover is diminished after harvesting. This is the period that coincides with maximum increases in water yield (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982) because canopy closure has not yet occurred and evapotranspiration is still lower than for mature forest (Roberts et al. 2012). It has been concluded that flood protection could be diminished if more than 20% of the area of a catchment of a defined floodplain was harvested within a 5 year period. This is a conservative approach as, typically, rivers in large catchments are less responsive to changes in vegetation type than rivers in small catchments and it is likely that an area greater than 20% would need to be altered before there is a change in flood protection (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982). To assess the probability that forest management would decrease protection from flooding, the area of Forestry Tasmania Permanent Timber Production Zone (PTPZ) land in the catchments of DPIPWE defined floodplains was quantified. Table 4.1.1 shows the proportion of PTPZ land within each of the “of concern” flood catchments. Table 4.1.1 Proportion of PTPZ within “of concern” catchments Location Grid coordinate of

catchment outlet Total Catchment Area (km2)

Catchment Area in PTPZ land (%)

Derwent River through New Norfolk 503612, 5235438 789 16 Tamar and North Esk Rivers 510729, 5412981 1064 24 Huon River at Huonville 503794, 5235438 2462 13 Huon Catchment at Mountain River 508916, 5243557 0 South Esk River at Longford 510358, 5396313 7435 12 Jordan River below Pontville 521412, 5275951 0 Mersey River at Latrobe 449989, 5434991 1700 18 Bagdad Rivulet 521859, 5273434 0 Elizabeth River at Campbell Town 540853, 5357556 405 9 Macquarie River at Ross 540533, 5346692 1542 7 Coal River at Richmond 536020, 5268644 538 3 Meander River at Deloraine 471495, 5402943 384 5

Only one DPIPWE defined floodplain in Tasmania has more than 20% PTPZ land in its catchment area – the North Esk River/Tamar Estuary. Assessment of forest age classes showed that under FT’s proposed management regime, no more than 3% of the catchment area will have forest within the PTPZ land that is aged less than 5 years at any time. This means that it is extremely unlikely that FT’s forest management will decrease protection from flooding for the North Esk River/Tamar Estuary, or in any other DPIPWE defined floodplain in Tasmania. The results of the harvest analysis for the North Esk catchment can be found in Table 4.1.2.


Table 4.1.2 Percentage of canopy removed in the previous 5 years in the North Esk Catchment.

Year % of North Esk catchment with forest/plantation

clearfell harvested in last 5 years

% of North Esk catchment with forest/plantation

partially harvested in last 5 years

Total % area of harvesting during last 5 years (all of

column 2 and 2/3 of column 3)

2013 0.52 1.82 1.73 2014 0.69 1.68 1.81 2015 0.87 2.26 2.38 2016 1.24 2.41 2.85 2017 1.35 2.60 3.08 2018 1.27 2.50 2.94 2019 1.27 2.54 2.96 2020 1.22 1.95 2.52 2021 0.94 1.69 2.07 2022 0.97 1.36 1.88 2023 1.05 1.31 1.93 2024 1.16 1.02 1.85 2025 1.42 0.99 2.08 2026 1.61 0.99 2.27

The consultant’s report (Roberts 2014a) is available from the FT website.

HCV 4.1 Areas Identified There are no areas identified on Forestry Tasmania’s FMU which meet HCV 4.1 criterion as being forest areas providing critical protection from flooding. HCV 4.2 Protection from Erosion This section refers to HCV areas that may provide protection from erosion. Data Sources The following datasets are current and were assessed as providing useful information in the identification of potential HCV 4 areas:

Dataset Utilised for Geology (soil substrates) (MRT) Identification of problematic soil complexes State 25 m DEM (DPIPWE) Identification of areas of steep slopes LiDAR derived slope mapping (FT) Identification of areas of steep slopes

Analysis Expert consultation identified several soil complexes that were considered to require additional sensitivity when harvesting – namely coastal dune systems near Strahan (under Pinus radiata plantations), and karst landscapes wherever they occurred. Each of these has guidelines in place (draft in the case of coastal dune systems) that are being routinely followed in harvest operations on Forestry Tasmania’s FMU. Areas where steep slopes are found in combination with moderately or highly erosive soils are also points of concern, but are managed through guidelines in the Forest Practices Code


(Forest Practices Board 2000), which effectively prohibits ground-based logging in these situation. The guidelines limit harvesting options to methods which involve lower amounts of ground contact (e.g. cable harvesting), or are prohibited altogether if the terrain is not suitable for such methods. No areas were identified with steep slopes, high erodibility and where ground-based harvesting techniques would be permitted. No forest was identified where removal of forest through harvesting managed under the Code would have a critical effect on erosion. HCV 4.2 Areas Identified Several candidate soil systems were identified as having erosive characteristics that required management beyond that required in the Code, but were covered by operational supplementary guidelines. In no case was it established that harvesting of forest using extant guidelines would constitute a critical risk. No areas were identified as containing values consistent with HCV 4.2. Erosion mitigation is practiced routinely on all FMU land through rigorous application of the soil protection provisions present in the Code, and relevant supplementary and interim guidelines put in place by the Forest Practices Authority for soil management. The Code takes slope and soil type into consideration, and can proscribe harvesting techniques where the combination of risk factors will result in a high risk of erosion. For example, ground-based logging may be prohibited on highly erosion prone, steep slopes. In addition there are currently two sets of guidelines that are routinely deployed above and beyond the provisions of the Code for soils and land systems that can present challenges to erosion control. These are the FPA Sinkhole guidelines (operations in karst) and the FPA Strahan guidelines (operations in coastal sands in the Strahan pine plantations).

HCV 4.3 Barriers to Fire This section refers to HCV areas that may provide barriers to destructive fire. Analysis The Tasmanian climate routinely creates conditions conducive to wildfire: high temperatures, strong winds, low relative humidity, and prolonged drying of vegetative fuels. Lightning strikes regularly ignite wildfires, as do multiple factors of human origin. Each summer, most areas experience extreme conditions where wildfire is serious and likely, and in most years the wildfire season extends for several months on either side of its peak. Whilst eastern Tasmania is generally warmer and drier than western areas, all parts of the state experience hot, dry and windy weather conditions, and those conditions can be extreme in all areas. Fire is a natural part of the Tasmanian environment. In most Tasmanian ecosystems, fire is not only common, but is a critically important, pervasive natural disturbance. Indeed, eucalypt forests are structured and regenerated by wildfires.


Management of operations on the FMU, particularly through the application of the Landscape Context Planning system seeks to promote and maintain a mosaic of forest ages throughout the FMU. The target is 20% long term retention in the landscape, with an emphasis on retention of mature forest. This will have some mitigating effect in wetter forests on the spread of bushfire, but is unlikely to be a significant factor in extreme events. Forestry Tasmania also contributes to the state targets for fuel reduction burning on public land, contributing additional areas that are low in fuel and may affect the rate of spread of bushfire in some conditions. These areas concentrate on corridors likely to affect urban centres. With the exception of aquatic communities and (arguably) feldmark, there are no Tasmanian plant communities which are unlikely to burn under foreseeable conditions, although many are sensitive to fire. There are no forest communities which will not burn in any circumstances:

• Some temperate rainforest communities are the most fire resistant. All Tasmanian temperate rainforest will burn given a sufficiently long drought, high enough temperatures and windspeeds, and sufficiently low relative humidity. Some protection against fire may be provided by aspect and/or topographic features, but not by the vegetation itself.

• Thamnic rainforest is probably the least likely to burn as a ground fire, although the heads of standing dead myrtles (Nothofagus cunninghamii) will support fire propagation across and through the forest canopy in suitable conditions, followed by a more generalised fire within the rainforest stand.

• Montane temperate rainforest is probably the most likely to burn because of the enhanced drainage, isolation, and increased fire intensity arising from the slopes on which it commonly grows.

• Mixed forest, tall wet eucalypt forest, and dry eucalypt forest are (in that order) increasingly likely to burn if ignited, to burn more frequently, and under milder weather conditions.

In summary, no Tasmanian forest or forest type provide absolute “barriers from destructive fire”, only conditional barriers. The sort of fire conditions where protection from fire would be “critical”, (i.e. likely to cause or threaten severe negative impacts on the welfare, health or survival of local communities, on the environment, or High Conservation Values, or on the functioning of significant infrastructure), would render all Tasmanian vegetation types highly flammable. In consideration of FSC Australia’s criterion for thresholding ‘critical situations’, (i.e. “What is the impact of removing the forest cover?”), there is no evidence that Forestry Tasmania’s forest operations, which are overwhelmingly in eucalypt forests, would effectively remove a barrier that would otherwise have protected adjacent areas from wildfire.


HCV 4.3 Areas Identified There are no areas identified which meet HCV 4.3 as being forest areas which provide barriers to destructive fire. Where identified HCV forest or fire sensitive forest communities occur adjacent to harvesting operations, appropriate precautions such as firebreaks will be put in place to protect the HCV from the effects of regeneration or controlled burns where those burns would be deleterious to the HCV.

HCV 4.4 Clean Water Catchments This section refers to the identification of HCV areas that may provide clean water catchments. Data Sources The following datasets are current and were assessed as providing useful information in the identification of potential HCV 4 areas:

Dataset Utilised for Geology (soil substrates) (MRT) Identification of erodible soils. CFEV Catchments (sub catchments) (DPIPWE) Location of sub-catchments Irrigation outtake points (DPIPWE) Identification of irrigation outtake points Domestic water outtake points (FT) Identification of domestic water outtake points.

Analysis Water quality Forests on the FMU are important sources of water for both domestic consumption and irrigation. Many rivers and streams that are utilised as water sources rise in forested catchments within the FMU and beyond. People living close to forests are more vulnerable to having the quantity and/or quality of their domestic water supplies impacted by forestry activities, particularly for domestic outtakes located high in the headwaters of a catchment, or within small catchments, where local effects can be more pronounced. Furthermore, many of these domestic outtakes are unrecorded and consequently difficult to manage. Forestry Tasmania routinely applies the provisions of the Forest Practices Code (Forest Practices Board 2000) which requires stringent management measures be undertaken where operations are located upstream and within 2 km of an outtake point. These measures are tailored to each Forest Operation, and include extended streamside reserves, restriction of stream crossings amongst other management prescriptions. In answering the question of what is a critical situation, FSC gives the advice “What is the impact of removing the forest cover?” In Forestry Tasmania’s situation, removal of forest cover is relatively short term, and always results in a regenerated or replanted forest on the site, usually within two years. Removal of forest cover is also sympathetic to water quality


concerns, with filter strips and machinery exclusion zones left in place along water courses and drainage lines as part of routine forest management. These have been shown to mitigate against increased sedimentation in streams. Paired catchment studies in the Tyenna valley by Forestry Tasmania (Roberts 2014b) identified short term measureable effects on water quality of about one month duration associated with road construction on erodible soils within a small headwater catchment. For the same catchment the effects of harvesting and regeneration burns were not measureable, as filter strips along streams and restrictions on the harvest of steep areas combine to reduce the amount of sediment entering watercourses. On this evidence it was very difficult to isolate areas where removal of forest cover would have an appreciable impact on water quality as long as the current policy settings are in place. Apart from harvesting, there are a number of other processes that can also affect the quality of water from managed forests. Contamination, through fuel, oil or grease spills or chemical release close to, or into water courses is managed through application of the Code, which specifies management procedures that minimise risk. Fuel and oil products are required to be stored in locations where leaks will neither directly nor indirectly affect water courses. Chemical handling, use and application can only be conducted by trained persons. Contractors performing chemical application must be licensed, and risk to water courses is minimised. It is a requirement that clean-up procedures be initiated promptly where spills occur, and that notification of appropriate authorities (in this case DPIPWE) is mandated where significant spills do occur. Water Yield In Tasmania, forested catchments are frequently relied upon to provide water for domestic purposes, hydro-electric dams, aquaculture facilities, industry, stock and irrigation. Within the PTPZ land forests may be harvested and replanted, thinned or fuel reduction burnt. Research shows that when forests or plantations are harvested and regrown or thinned or burnt that there are changes in water yield. Typically an increase in water yield occurs in the period immediately following complete or partial removal of the trees. The growth rates of the regenerating or remaining forest determine the ongoing effect on water yield. Unless there is a significant change in species, stand structure or growth rates, most forest types return to a water yield that is similar to that of the original forest (Bosch and Hewlett, 1982). Where mature forest is replaced with dense fast growing regeneration (e.g. after fire in E.regnans forest) water yield reductions may occur (Kuczera 1987; Watson et al. 1999). The best way to minimise increases and decreases in water yield is by spreading harvesting and regeneration events through space and time, with a limit on the level of disturbance over a five to ten year period (Webb 2012). The Forest Practices Code makes specific provision for water supply catchments and aquaculture facilities in sections C4.4 and D2.2, recommending that no more than 5% of a town water supply catchment is felled annually. In the majority of catchments listed in the Code, this provision should result in no significant change to water yield. However, it is possible that in some rural areas, water supplies extracted from small streams for domestic use could be defined as ‘critical’. In many instances this use of water is not licensed and as such is difficult to identify. Forestry Tasmania needs to ensure that it communicates with


potential downstream water users during the planning of activities to ensure that as far as practicable unlicensed off-takes are identified and considered in the planning for harvest operations. Threatened species Forestry Tasmania management of water yields in catchments containing rare and/or threatened species dependent on water supplies is done on a case by case basis. Forestry Tasmania is required to seek specialist advice from the FPA during planning, and an assessment is made of the risk to rare, vulnerable and/or endangered species such as the Swan Galaxiid, and harvest plans altered to minimise risk to the potentially affected species. In addition, Forestry Tasmania complies with all aspects of the Forest Practices Code, which already has management strategies outlined to protect water quality. Domestic and irrigation water rising from the FMU Forestry Tasmania routinely manages for water quality through application of the Code which mandates operational timing, chemical use, wet weather limitations, use of fuel, grease and oils and methods of road construction that can be used in forest operations likely to affect water supplies, specifically within 2 km of a known outtake point. The bigger issue is that many domestic outtake points are not registered. Once Forestry Tasmania is aware of the presence of domestic outtake points, there is a range of planning options that can be deployed to minimise the impact of harvest related activities (e.g. road construction) on sediment load in water courses. HCV 4.4 Areas Identified There were no areas of HCV 4.4 forest identified in this study. HCV 4.4 Management Prescriptions Management objectives:

• To identify operations that may impact on the quality or quantity of water available to downstream so that they can be taken into account during planning.

The primary issue associated with HCV 4 is the presence of unregistered domestic outtake points and potential for localised short-term operational impacts on water users. Forestry Tasmania will publish annually its three year plan via the web-based interactive map viewer and encourage potentially affected stakeholders to register and identify potential issues or concerns in relation to operations at an early stage.


HCV 5 Forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs or local communities (e.g. subsistence, health). Background FSC Australia’s High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework provides several definitions for guidance. Basic human needs are defined in the following terms: “Local people use the area to obtain resources on which they are critically dependent. This may be the case if local people harvest food products from the forest, or collect building materials or medicinal plants. Potential fundamental basic needs include, but are not limited to: unique sources of water for drinking and other daily uses; food, medicine, fuel, building and craft resources; the production of food crops and subsistence cash crops; protection of “agricultural” plots against adverse microclimate (e.g. wind) and traditional farming practices. Forest uses such as recreational hunting or commercial timber harvesting (i.e. that is not critical for local building materials) are not basic human needs.” Needs are defined as being fundamental when “loss of the resources from this area would have a significant impact in the supply of the resource and decrease local community well-being”. The HCV Evaluation Framework also notes that, “In the definition of basic needs, priority is given to potentially affected parties e.g. local community and neighbours. The forest management operation shall implement a communications and stakeholder participation plan regarding affected parties. There is also the need to set up a dispute resolution mechanism if conflicts or disputes are present.” Values The values detailed in the FSC Australia High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework for HCV 5 are:

• HCV 5.1 Unique/main sources of water for drinking and other daily uses. • HCV 5.2 Unique/main sources of water for the irrigation of food crops. • HCV 5.3 Food, medicines or fuel etc for local consumption.

Community Context The Permanent Timber Production Zone (PTPZ) land has been dedicated under Tasmanian government legislation for the sustainable production of timber. Local communities do not live on the land covered by the Forest Management Unit (FMU). Small areas of cleared PTPZ land are leased from Forestry Tasmania for residential and agricultural purposes, but these areas are excluded from the FMU. No indigenous communities live on the land covered by the FMU. Much of the land covered by the FMU forms a rural mosaic with farmland. Residents homes are scattered across the farmland. Generally, however, townships and built-up areas are not adjacent to the FMU. The neighbouring local communities operate within a western mixed economy where basic goods and services are readily available and affordable. They are supported by extensive


social welfare services, and are connected to well-developed communication and transport infrastructure. Whilst individuals may supplement their food and medicinal needs from forests in the FMU, these sources constitute at most a marginal and discretionary input to consumption by local communities. Harvesting of Products The harvesting of products from the FMU for local community use is subject to formally planned, externally regulated, and market-based mechanisms, managed by Forestry Tasmania. Whilst a proportion of the forest products that are harvested from PTPZ land may be used by local communities, they are sourced widely from across PTPZ land and allocated by market mechanisms. There are no instances whereby products from a particular area are reserved for the use of particular local communities who live within them and whose lives are critically dependent on them. All harvesting of forest products from the FMU is subject to formal contracts, permits, or licences that are issued by Forestry Tasmania in accordance with the Forest Management Act 2013. These are commercial arrangements, and the rights are limited to explicit quantities, specifications, locations, and time periods. In general, the licensed harvesting from PTPZ land of craftwood, roundwood (poles), firewood (fuel), tree-ferns, and other ‘minor forest products’ is integrated with the industrial harvesting of sawlogs, peeler-logs, and pulpwood. Hunting on PTPZ land is essentially recreational in nature, not to supply a fundamental food requirement of local communities. The collection of nectar from native vegetation (primarily leatherwood) to produce honey is a commercial industry rather than providing a providing a staple food for local consumption. It is subject to a hive-site permit system. Water Local communities use water from the Forest Management Unit in a variety of ways:

• Water used for the irrigation of commercial food crops is generally drawn from river flows downstream of forests in the FMU. Water extraction for this purpose is licensed by DPIPWE, and the quantities allocated to irrigators are based on calculated sustainable flow levels that reflect the rainfall, terrain, and land use in each catchment. The small scale, diffuse location, and low intensity of forest operations do not materially impact the quantity of water available to commercial irrigators. Analyses undertaken to assess HCV 4 confirm this.

• Water used for domestic consumption through reticulated town water schemes is also drawn from river flows downstream of forests in the FMU. Water


extraction for this purpose is undertaken by TasWater (a Tasmanian Government Business Enterprise). Regulatory controls in the Tasmanian Forest Practices Code limit the scale and ground disturbance associated with forest practices within the catchments upstream of scheme outtakes. The small scale, diffuse location, and low landscape-level intensity of forest operations on PTPZ land do not materially impact the quantity of water available for TasWater schemes. Analyses undertaken to assess HCV 4 confirm this.

Separately from the schemes operated by TasWater, private local residents and companies also draw water for domestic consumption directly from streams within, or immediately downstream of, forests in the FMU. These arrangements are licensed by the DPIPWE Water Management Branch, and property rights (leases, easements) covering the associated infrastructure (pipelines, dams) are issued and managed by Forestry Tasmania. The location and significance of these private outtakes are actively considered when planning forestry operations adjacent to or immediately upstream of them. Notwithstanding neighbours’ preference to use water from their private outtakes from streams on or adjacent the FMU, most are equipped to withstand short term interruptions to the quality or quantity of their supply. Such interruptions are usually due to sustained drought rather than forestry operations. Accordingly, most residents have storage tanks and roof off-takes to harvest rainwater, and bulk water can be delivered affordably by truck from neighbouring towns. HCV 5 Areas Identified There are no areas identified which meet the FSC HCV 5 criteria as being forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities, e.g. subsistence, health.


HCV 6 Forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities). Background FSC Australia High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework has defined Cultural Significance as: “... aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.” The HCV Evaluation Framework also notes that, “while the focus on ‘traditional cultural identity’ highlights the importance of traditional owners and areas critical to their cultural identity, HCV 6 also recognises places critical to non-Indigenous culture and heritage”, and specifically lists “aesthetic values”, “social (including economic) values” and “spiritual values” as requiring assessment. Cultural identity is defined in the following terms: “Certain communities are so closely bound to some areas that it is highly likely that these are critical to their traditional cultural identity and heritage. Cultural identity is dynamic and is not just tied to traditions that occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago. In some cases, as in Australia where Indigenous people were dispossessed from their lands by colonisation, knowledge about traditional places may have been lost for several generations, but has been revived in a way that suits the modern context. Significant places may not just relate to ‘traditional’ identity, but to how people see themselves today, which is a combination of traditions and intercultural history (for settler societies) and modernity”.

The following examples are provided: “Areas may include religious/sacred sites, burial grounds or sites at which regular traditional ceremonies take place. They may also include outstanding natural landscapes that have evolved as a result of social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative (i.e. fossils, artefacts, areas representing a traditional way of life). They may also include areas that by virtue of their natural properties possess significant religious, artistic, aesthetic or cultural association (such as traditional hunting/gathering) that have been used/recognised over the years”. Analysis Methodology Values The values detailed in the FSC High Conservation Values Evaluation Framework document for HCV 6 are:

• HCV 6.1 Aesthetic values. • HCV 6.2 Historic values. • HCV 6.3 Scientific values. • HCV 6.4 Social (including economic) values. • HCV 6.5 Spiritual values.


HCV 6.1 and 6.4 have overlapping synergies and for the purpose of this analysis have been combined.

HCV 6.1 and HCV 6.4 Aesthetic and Social Values Data Sources The following datasets are current and archived registers, administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE) that list places of national and global significance.

Dataset Coverage type Administered by World Heritage Areas Points and polygons DoENational Heritage List Points and polygons DoECommonwealth Heritage List Points and polygons DoERegister of the National Estate Points and polygons DoE

The Tasmanian National Estate Social and Aesthetic assessment (Public Land Use Commission 1997), undertaken in conjunction with the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, lists places of national social and aesthetic significance that were agreed as worthy of consideration to be listed on the Register of the National Estate. The coverage (points, lines and polygons) is administered by DoE. Analysis All areas identified as having indicative Social and Aesthetic cultural values in the Tasmania National Estate project were accepted as having been assessed by state and national experts as potentially having HCV. The spatial locations of these HCV areas have been obtained from records in a variety of registers and databases, and as such the actual location of many of the values may be inaccurate. Two particular issues were noted:

• The delineation of areas in the Tasmania National Estate project was “indicative only”, with the conscious expectation that they would be more precisely identified prior to formal listing on the Register of the National Estate; and

• Many areas were originally delineated using old maps, old coordinate systems, or less accurate survey techniques, i.e. prior to GPS.

Accordingly, the location of all HCV areas must be understood to be indicative, and subject to field verification standard operational procedures will require survey and confirmation of any HCV which is mapped as being within or near a planned operation.


HCV 6.1 and 6.4 Areas Identified Figure 6.1.1 shows the areas identified as HCV 6 under criteria 6.1 and 6.4.

Figure 6.1.1 Areas identified as HCV values 6.1 or 6.4


Table 6.1.1 Descriptions of Areas identified as HCV values 6.1 or 6.4 over 500 hectares Location Area (ha) Conservation Values

Lake Gordon 1000+ Aesthetic Values

Mt. Black (Rosebery) 1500+ Aesthetic Values

Mt. Field 1000+ Aesthetic Values

Western Tiers 1000+ Aesthetic & Social Values

In total approximately 7,500 hectares were identified as HCV 6.1 and HCV 6.4. HCV 6.1 and 6.4 Management Prescriptions Management objectives:

• To alert forest Planners to the presence of HCV values within the coupe consistent with HCV’s 6.1 and 6.4 and to aid in the development of site specific management prescriptions.

Areas identified as HCV 6.1 or 6.4 will be managed to minimise the impact of harvesting activity on the long term aesthetics of the nominated areas through modification of coupe shape, road designs and harvest timing. Forestry Tasmania uses viewshed analysis software (such as Visual Nature Studio) when designing coupes in areas of high visual amenity. Furthermore, on-ground verification and determination of site specific values will be required as a component of operational planning regardless of whether a coupe falls into a HCV 6.1 and 6.4 identified area. Monitoring Forestry Tasmania will make use of the best available data on areas of social or aesthetic value within Tasmania, and will update its Special Management Zone database where it becomes of aware of new values identified through credible, verifiable processes.

HCV 6.2 Historic Values Primary Data Sources The following datasets are current and archived registers, administered by DoE, that list places of national and global significance.

Dataset Coverage type Administered by

World Heritage List Points and polygons DoE

National Heritage List Points and polygons DoE

Commonwealth Heritage List Points and polygons DoE

Register of the National Estate Points and polygons DoE


The Tasmanian Heritage Register is a point coverage administered by Heritage Tasmania that lists significant historic places in Tasmania. The Historic Points dataset is a point coverage administered by the FPA that lists historic sites in Tasmanian forests. The Historic Lines dataset is a line coverage administered by the FT that lists additional historic sites in the PTPZ. Analysis All areas listed as Historic on the DoE register of World Heritage Areas were accepted as having been assessed by national and international experts as having HCV significance at the global level. All areas listed as Historic on the DoE National Heritage List, DoE Commonwealth Heritage List and DoE Register of the National Estate were accepted as having been assessed by national experts as having HCV significance at the national level. Places listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register vary widely in their level of significance, but few are situated in forest environments. All points recorded within the FMU were tentatively accepted as having HCV significance subject to on-ground verification. Sites listed on the FPA Historic Points and FT Historic Lines datasets are not attributed according to their level of significance. However, a range of regional inventories which focus on historic values associated with the timber industry and forests have been undertaken by expert archaeologists. The reports of these inventories present an overview of the history of the region, describe the places and artefacts that remain, and list the sites according to their significance. Together, these cover all of the FMU, and provide a basis to identify historic HCV areas: all sites that are listed on the FPA Historic Points and FT Historic Lines datasets that were classified as “Highly Significant” in the regional inventory reports were therefore selected as having HCV significance. HCV 6.2 Areas Identified The spatial locations of these HCV areas were obtained from records in a variety of registers and databases, and as such the actual location of many of the values may be inaccurate. Three particular issues were noted:

• Certain areas were listed as containing several concurrent values, (e.g. Historic and Natural), but without any indication where each value was distributed within the area. Whilst all such values may constitute HCV, the management required to maintain or enhance each value may need to differ.


• Recording errors (e.g. transposed coordinates) have resulted in some sites being in the wrong position.

Accordingly, the location of all HCV areas must be understood to be indicative, and subject to field verification standard operational procedures will require survey and confirmation of any HCV which is mapped as being within or near a planned operation.


HCV 6.2 Areas Identified

Figure 6.2.1 Areas identified as containing values consistent with HCV 6.2


Table 6.2.1 Descriptions of areas identified as containing values consistent with HCV 6.2 Location Area Conservation Value

Adventure Bay Area 332.5 Historical Site(s)

Arve Loop Road 6.0 Historical Site(s)

Avenue Huts Site 0.6 Historical Site(s)

Chatsworth Convict Station 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Clennett's Top Mill 2.0 Historical Site(s)

Convict Station (Former) 0.0 Historical Site(s)

Dawson Road, Quarry Road Section 1.6 Historical Site(s)

Dawsons River Settlement (Florence Township) 0.3 Historical Site(s)

Dawsons Road Blue Bridge 0.7 Historical Site(s)

Dawsons Road Old Mill Road Section 2.6 Historical Site(s)

Dempsters Track 1.0 Historical Site(s)

Derby Town 0.0 Historical Site(s)

Devils Gate Dam and Lake Barrington 13.3 Historical Site(s)

E.H.Fentons Salmon River Sawmill 3.2 Historical Site(s)

Evercreech Forest Reserve 1.9 Historical Site(s)

Florentine Huts (Florence Township) 1.8 Historical Site(s)

Frome Power Station (Moorina PS) 1.9 Historical Site(s)

Garibaldi Miners' Township 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Gordon Dam and Lake Gordon 213.9 Historical Site(s)

Haines Sawmill 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Hartz Track, Kermandie Falls and Picnic Area 78.1 Historical Site(s)

Harveys Creek Spur Hauler Site 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Harveys Creek Spur Timber Complex 2.8 Historical Site(s)

Hollybank House and Farm 46.3 Historical Site(s)

Jaegers Newhaven Sawmill 0.0 Historical Site(s)

Jaegers South Redpa Sawmill 0.2 Historical Site(s)

Laughing Jack Dam and Lagoon 1.1 Historical Site(s)

Lisle Alluvial Workings - Creek Diversion Site 9.8 Historical Site(s)

Lisle Sluicing and Alluvial Site 0.0 Historical Site(s)

Long Hill Forest Reserve 3.0 Historical Site(s)

Long Marsh Dam Area 0.1 Historical Site(s)

McMullens Leithbridge Sawmill Complex 57.3 Historical Site(s)

Milkshake Hills Forest Reserve Area 0.3 Historical Site(s)

Misery Plateau Convict Camp 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Moorina Hydro - electricity Power Development 86.2 Historical Site(s)

Mount Bischoff Tin Mining Complex 52.6 Historical Site(s)

Mount Cameron Water Race 52.0 Historical Site(s)

North East Dundas Tramway 17.8 Historical Site(s)

Peak Rivulet Hut Site 2.0 Historical Site(s)

Pearly Brook Sawmill and Settlement 19.8 Historical Site(s)

Peppers Spot Mill Number 5 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Platform Peak Survey Cairn 3.1 Historical Site(s)


Poimena - Weldborough Track 1.5 Historical Site(s)

Queenstown Hills Cultural Landscape 0.1 Historical Site(s)

Scottsdale to Branxholm Railway Extension 21.6 Historical Site(s)

Sideling Arboretum 7.6 Historical Site(s)

Signal Hill Semaphore Hill Station 13.9 Historical Site(s)

Slaughter Yard Creek Sluicing Site 1.6 Historical Site(s)

Smiths plains shoeboards 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Storys Creek Town Site 115.7 Historical Site(s)

Strahan Historic Town 0.9 Historical Site(s)

Tasman Peninsula 6992.9 Historical Site(s)

Tasman Peninsula Tramway 6.3 Historical Site(s)

The Mount (Misery) Station 3.1 Historical Site(s)

Three Notch Track 0.2 Historical Site(s)

Volunteer Gold Mine 19.8 Historical Site(s)

Winterbrook (Black Bluff) Sawmill and Tramway 1.2 Historical Site(s)


• To alert forest Planners to the presence of historical values identified as HCV 6.2 which are likely to require location specific management prescriptions.

Historic heritage is protected in Tasmania by the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995, which is administered by the state government. In Tasmania’s production forests, historic heritage is further protected by requirements to search, identify and protect any sites when planning any forest operations, regardless of the identification of the site as HCV or otherwise. These requirements are detailed in the Resource guide for managing cultural heritage in wood production forests, which is administered by the Forest Practices Authority, an independent statutory body that regulates forest management in Tasmania. Historic heritage sites are routinely managed within buffered reserve areas which provide protection from forest operations. These reserved areas are managed along with other Special Management Zones within Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification system. Monitoring Forestry Tasmania will review the registers of historic sites annually.


HCV 6.3 Scientific Values Primary Data Sources The following datasets are current and archived registers, administered by DoE, that list places of national and global significance.


World Heritage Areas Points and polygons DoE

National Heritage List Points and polygons DoE

Commonwealth Heritage List Points and polygons DoE

Register of the National Estate Points and polygons DoE

The TNE – Fauna Type Localities and TNE – Flora Type Localities datasets are outcomes of the Tasmania National Estate project, undertaken in conjunction with the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, and list places of national scientific significance that were agreed as worthy of consideration to be listed on the Register of the National Estate. They are point coverages administered by DoE. The Tasmanian Geoconservation Database is a point and polygon coverage administered by Heritage Tasmania that lists places in Tasmania that have significant geomorphology. Analysis All areas listed as Natural on the DoE register of World Heritage Areas were accepted as having been assessed by national and international experts as having HCV significance at the global level. All areas listed as Natural on the following were accepted as having been assessed by national experts as having HCV significance at the national level:

• DoE National Heritage List; • DoE Commonwealth Heritage List; and • DoE Register of the National Estate

All areas identified as Fauna Type Localities and Flora Type Localities in the Tasmania National Estate project were accepted as having been assessed by state and national experts as potentially having HCV significance at the national level. Places listed on the Tasmanian Geoconservation Database, which lists places in Tasmania that have identified geomorphological or geological value, vary widely in their level of significance. All places whose Significance was recorded as Global or Continental (i.e. national) or Regional (i.e. state), and whose Conservation Status was recorded as Threatened or Endangered, were accepted as having HCV significance at the level nominated. The spatial locations of these HCV areas were obtained from records in a variety of registers and databases, and as such the actual location of many of the values may be inadequately accurate. Four particular issues were noted:


• Certain areas were listed as containing several concurrent values, (e.g. Historic and Natural), but without any indication where each value was distributed within the area. Whilst all such values may constitute HCV, the management required to maintain or enhance each value may need to differ.

• The delineation of areas in the Tasmania National Estate project was “indicative only”, with the conscious expectation that they would be more precisely identified prior to formal listing on the Register of the National Estate.


• Recording errors (e.g. transposed coordinates) have resulted in some sites being in the wrong position.

Accordingly, the location of all HCV areas must be understood to be indicative, and subject to field verification. Standard operational procedures will require survey and confirmation of any HCV which is mapped as being within or near a planned operation.


HCV 6.3 Areas Identified

Figure 6.3.1 Areas identified as containing values consistent with HCV 6.3


Table 6.3.1 Areas identified as containing values consistent with HCV 6.3 Location Conservation Values

Mole Creek Karst

Teepookana Macquarie graben fluvial geomorphic system

Henty Dunes Coastal dunefield (geomorphological values)

Wombat Plain Fluvial and floodplain features


• To alert forest Planners to the presence of scientific values consistent with HCV 6.3 that may require site specific management prescriptions.

Forestry Tasmania will not undertake actions that are inconsistent with maintenance of the scientific values identified;

• Mole Creek karst values are managed using the guidelines in ‘Forest Operations around Sinkholes’ (McIntosh, 2014).

• Henty dunes are either managed for protection, or under the West Coast Pine interim harvesting guidelines if pine plantation.

• The geomorphological values associated with the Macquarie graben at Teepookana will not be impacted by the very light footprint of salvage harvesting of Huon Pine.

• Wombat Plain is not managed for wood production, and is either in Forestry Tasmania Informal Reserve, or in informal reservation within the Future Potential Production Forests.

Furthermore geological sites identified within the Tasmanian Geological Database (and not designated as HCV 6) are managed in accordance with the recommendations in that database, in consultation with experts at the FPA. Monitoring Forestry Tasmania will make use of the best available data on scientifically important sites within Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania will appropriately protect new locations as we are made aware of them. Important scientific values discovered during harvest planning or during harvest events will be managed by prescription consistent with appropriate legislation.

HCV 6.5 Aboriginal Heritage Values Data Sources The following datasets are current and archived registers, administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE), that list places of national and global significance:



World Heritage Areas - Cultural Points and polygons DoE

National Heritage List - Indigenous Points and polygons DoE

Register of the National Estate - Indigenous Points and polygons DoE

The Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Register (formerly the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index) is a point coverage administered by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) that lists significant Aboriginal heritage places in Tasmania. Within the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, (DPIPWE), Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania administers the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, and is responsible for protecting Tasmania's Aboriginal cultural heritage. In support of this function, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania is responsible for maintaining the Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Register that lists all known Aboriginal sites. The Interim Aboriginal Heritage Council (IAHC) was established by the Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage to provide a consolidated view of the Aboriginal community to the Minister on matters including the protection and management of Aboriginal heritage in Tasmania. Its role is intended to become permanent with passage of updated Aboriginal heritage legislation. At the time of publication drafted legislation has not been approved by Parliament. The Tasmanian Forest Practices Authority (FPA) administers the Forest Practices Act 1985, regulating the management of forest and threatened non-forest vegetation. In support of this function, the FPA provides expert advice on the conservation and management of Aboriginal values on forested land, and undertakes inventories of Aboriginal values. As manager of the Permanent Timber Production Zone land, and in compliance with the Forest Practices Act 1985, Forestry Tasmania (FT) undertakes surveys of Aboriginal values, and manages Aboriginal sites. Forestry Tasmania is also an active member of the Forestry Working group, chaired by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. This group meets regularly to discuss Aboriginal heritage management and is a mechanism for continuous improvement in management practices. Analysis All areas listed as Indigenous on the DoE register of World Heritage Areas were accepted as having been assessed by national and international experts as having HCV significance at the global level. All areas listed as Indigenous on the DoE National Heritage List and the DoE Register of the National Estate were accepted as having been assessed by national experts as having HCV significance at the national level.


Places listed on the Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Register vary widely in their level of significance. Having explained the purpose and definition of HCV areas, FT requested AHT to advise which sites on its register would qualify as having HCV significance under the FSC Australia HCV Evaluation Framework. With the endorsement of the IAHC, AHT identified 748 areas as being “of a highly significant status”, based on their site-type:

• Areas within 300 metres of Middens. • Areas within 150 metres of Shelters (occupied or not). • Areas within 500 metres of Ochre Quarries. • Areas within 150 metres of Stone Quarries. • Areas within 150 metres of Cultural Trees and Other identified significant sites.

The spatial locations of these HCV areas were obtained from records in a variety of registers and databases, and as such the actual location of many of the values may be inadequately accurate. Three particular issues were noted:

• Certain areas were listed as containing several concurrent values, (e.g. Indigenous and Natural), but without any indication where each value was distributed within the area. Whilst all such values may constitute HCV, the management required to maintain or enhance each value may need to differ.


• Recording errors (e.g. transposed coordinates) may have resulted in some sites being in the wrong position.

Accordingly, the location of all HCV areas must be understood to be indicative, and subject to field verification standard operational procedures will require survey and confirmation of any HCV which is mapped as being within or near a planned operation. HCV 6.5 Areas Identified A number of areas were identified as meeting HCV 6 under criterion 6.5. These have been agreed with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania, and have been recorded on Forestry Tasmania’s Special Management Zone (SMZ) system, and will be taken into account during harvest planning. These areas are considered sensitive and confidential and as a consequence are not available for viewing by the public except by permission of Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. HCV 6.5 Management prescriptions Management objectives:

• To alert forest Planners to the presence of Aboriginal Heritage sites consistent with HCV 6.5 that will require site specific management prescriptions to be developed for their management. Note that the absence of HCV 6.5 identified in an area does not preclude these values from existing. Guidelines regarding the management of Aboriginal Heritage need to be followed in all planning.


Forestry Tasmania’s management of Aboriginal heritage starts with its commitment to conserve Aboriginal heritage in Tasmania’s production forests. Aboriginal heritage is protected in Tasmania by the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, which is administered by the state government. In Tasmania’s production forests, Aboriginal heritage is further protected by requirements to search, identify and protect any sites when planning any forest operations regardless of its designation as HCV 6 or otherwise. These requirements are detailed in the Resource guide for managing cultural heritage in wood production forests (FPA 2012). All Aboriginal heritage sites are managed within a buffered reserve area which provides protection from forest operations. These reserved areas are managed along with other Special Management Zones within Forestry Tasmania’s Management Decision Classification system. Forestry Tasmania also provides further protection for Aboriginal heritage through Standard Operating Procedures that protect sites in the event that they are discovered during a forest operation. Monitoring Forestry Tasmania will liaise closely with the Aboriginal community of Tasmania through established relationships and procedures established with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. Forestry Tasmania will appropriately protect new sites as we are made aware of them. Sites discovered during harvest planning or during harvest events will be managed by prescription consistent with appropriate legislation.


7. Plan Review This plan will be formally reviewed every five years, however if new information becomes available in the interim that affects the identification or management of HCV’s this HCV Assessment and Management Plan will be updated accordingly. The formal review process will include stakeholder consultation and stakeholders will be provided a copy of the plan prior to the review for input and comment. The review process will also include findings of internal and external audit processes and findings from monitoring activities.


References Bloomfield, J.A., Nevill, P., Potts, B.M., Vaillancourt, R.E. and Steane, D.A. (2011). Molecular

genetic variation in a widespread forest tree species Eucalyptus obliqua (Myrtaceae) on the island of Tasmania. Australian Journal of Botany 59: 226-237.

Bosch, J.M. and Hewlett, J.D. (1982). A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology 55: 2-23.

Brown, E., Dudley, N., Lindhe, A., Muhataman, D.R., Stewart C. and Synott, T. (eds.) (2013). Common guidance for the identification of High Conservation Values. HCV Resource Network.

DPIPWE (2010). Prioritisation of Threatened Flora and Fauna Recovery Actions for the Tasmanian NRM Regions.

DPIPWE (2014). Distinctiveness of areas for animal species (Unpublished analyses) Elliott, H.J., Bashford, R. and Goodwin, A. (2003). Species composition and growth of

eucalypt regeneration in eastern Tasmania at age 21-22 years after clearfelling. Tasforests 14: 65-76.

FAO and CIFOR (2005). Forests and floods: Drowning in fiction or thriving on facts? Forest Perspectives Series No. 82, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Forest Practices Board (2000). Forest Practices Code. Forest Practices Board, Hobart, Tasmania.

Forest Practices Authority (2012). Resource guide for managing cultural heritage in wood production forests, Forest Practices Authority, Tasmania.

Forest Stewardship Council (2013). High Conservation Values (HCV’s) evaluation framework. Responsible Forest Management Australia Limited, Melbourne, Victoria.

Forestry Tasmania (2010). Eucalypt seed and sowing. Native Forest Silviculture Technical Bulletin No. 1, Forestry Tasmania, Hobart.

JANIS (1997). Proposed nationally agreed criteria for the establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system for forests in Australia. Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Subcommittee, Canberra.

Kiernan, K. (2002). Forest Sinkhole Manual . Forest Practices Board, Hobart, Tasmania. Knight, R.I. (2012). Analysis of comprehensiveness of existing conservation reserves and

proposed additions to the Tasmanian forest reserves system. Report to the Independent Verification Group for the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement, Natural Resource Planning, Hobart, Tasmania.

Knight, R.I. (2014). Biodiversity data, models and indicators for Forestry Tasmania’s Forest Management Unit. A report to Forestry Tasmania, March 2014. Natural Resource Planning, Hobart, Tasmania.

Kuczera, G. (1987). Prediction of water yield reductions following a bushfire in ash-mixed species eucalypt forest. Journal of Hydrology 94: 215-236.

McIntosh, PD (2014). Forest Operations around Sinkholes. Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania.

Nevill, P.G., Bossinger, G. and Ades, P.K. (2010). Phylogeography of the world’s tallest angiosperm, Eucalyptus regnans: evidence for multiple isolated Quaternary refugia. Journal of Biogeography 37: 179-192.


North East Bioregional Network (2006). Linking Landscapes, http://www.northeastbioregionalnetwork.org.au/wldcntry.htm, Accessed 13/12/2013.

Public Land Use Commission (1996). Tasmanian - Commonwealth Regional Forest Agreement background report Part C. Environment and Heritage Report Vol. 1. Tasmanian Public Land Use Commission in conjunction with Commonwealth Forest Taskforce, Hobart.

Public Land Use Commission (1997). Tasmanian - Commonwealth Regional Forest Agreement, final report. Background report Part H. National Estate Report. Tasmanian Public Land Use Commission in conjunction with Commonwealth Forest Taskforce, Hobart.

RFA (1997). Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Roberts, S. (2014a). Forests which provide protection from flooding. Consultant report to Forestry Tasmania. Accessed online 15/11/2014. Available at: http://cdn.forestrytasmania.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/pdf2014/forests_protection_from_flooding_roberts.pdf

Roberts, S. (2014b). The impact of road construction, timber harvesting and regeneration burning on water quality in Canaways Creek, Tyenna. Technical Report 02/2014. Research and Development Branch, Forestry Tasmania, Hobart.

Roberts, S., Read, S., McLarin, M. and Adams, P. (2012). Predicting the water-use of Eucalyptus nitens plantations in Tasmania using a Forest Estate Model. Forest and Wood Products Australia Limited, Melbourne, Australia.

Stone, M.G. (1998). Forest-type mapping by photo-interpretation: A multi-purpose base for Tasmania's forest management. Tasforests 10: 15-32.

Watson, F.G.R., Vertessy, R.A. and Grayson, R.B. (1999). Large-scale modelling of forest hydrological processes and their long-term effect on water yield. Hydrological Processes 13: 689-700.

Webb, A.A. (2012). Can timber and water resources be sustainably co-developed in south-eastern New South Wales, Australia? Environment Development and Sustainability 14: 233-252.


Appendix 1. Acronyms AHT Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania BoM Bureau of Meteorology DEM Digital elevation model DoE Department of Environment DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment CAR Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative CRA Comprehensive Regional Assessment ENGO Environmental Non-Government Organisation EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation FMU Forest Management Unit FPA Forest Practices Authority FPC Forest Practices Code FPP Forest Practices Plan FPPF Future Potential Production Forest FRL Future Reserve Land FSC Forest Stewardship Council FT Forestry Tasmania GIS Geographic Information System HCV High Conservation Value IAHC Interim Aboriginal Heritage Council IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia JANIS Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement implementation Subcommittee LCP system Landscape Context Planning system MDC Management Decision Classification system MRT Mineral Resources Tasmania NRP Natural Resource Planning NC Nature Conservation PPP Project Prioritisation Protocol PTPZ Permanent Timber Production Zone REM Regional Ecosystem Model RFA Regional Forest Agreement RVE Rare, Vulnerable or Endangered SCS Scientific Certification Systems SMZ Special Management Zone TFA Tasmanian Forests Agreement TNE Tasmanian National Estate


Appendix 2. FSC Australia Directory of Information Sources consulted

FSC-Australia resource code

Resource/tool title Consulted and used Consulted and not used

Why not used

Aust-001 An assessment of endemism and species richness patterns in the Australian Anura

* Superseded by Regional Ecosystem Model (REM)

Aust-002 Bioregions under-represented in the National Reserve System

* Superseded by REM

Aust-007 National Reserve System IBRA region protection level

* Superseded by REM

Aust-003 Endemism in the Australian Flora * Superseded by REM

Aust-004 Assessing endemism at multiple spatial scales, with an example from the Australian vascular flora

* Superseded by REM

Aust-005 Biodiversity Assessment 2002 * Superseded by REM

Aust-006 Comprehensive Regional Assessments by State

* Superseded by REM

Aust-Ind-001 National Native Title data layers Aust-Ind-002 Representative Aboriginal/Torres

Strait Islander Representative Areas

Aust-Spp-1 Atlas of Australian Living Resources - Location Species Records

* Superseded by REM

DIG-001 Species and Communities of National Environmental Significance - Downloadable Grids

* Superseded by REM

DIG-002 Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA), Regions (current version 6.1) and Subregions

* IBRA Version 5 used

DIG-003 Register of the National Estate spatial database

*

DIG-004 Australian Land Disturbance database

DIG-005 Commonwealth Heritage List spatial database

*

Gen-001 Discover Information Digitally (DIG) Gen-002 EPBC Act listed threatened species * Superseded by

REM Gen-003 Australian Natural Heritage

Assessment Tool * Superseded by

REM IBRA-001 Australia's bioregions * IBRA-002 Protection levels of bioregions,

subregions and under-represented bioregions

* Superseded by REM

Tas-001 Tasmanian threatened vegetation * Tas-002 Natural Values Atlas * Tas-003 RFA National Estate report * Tas-004 Tasveg * Tas-005 Forest Practices Code 2000 * Tas-006 National Estate indicative areas -

extensive natural values *

Tas-007 National Estate indicative areas -old growth values

* Superseded by REM

Tas-008 National Estate indicative areas -principal characteristics of forest vegetation classes and wetlands

* Superseded by REM

Tas-009 Forest Practices Authority forest botany manuals

* Superseded by REM

Tas-CRA-1 Tasmanian National Estate aesthetic values

*


FSC-Australia resource code

Resource/tool title Consulted and used Consulted and not used

Why not used

Tas-CRA-10 Tasmanian National Estate disjunct

flora *

Tas-CRA-11 Tasmanian National Estate flora species at the limit of their range

*

Tas-CRA-12 Tasmanian National Estate primitive and relictual flora

*

Tas-CRA-13 Tasmanian National Estate flora species and community richness

*

Tas-CRA-14 Tasmanian National Estate flora type localities

*

Tas-CRA-15 Tasmanian National Estate high quality wilderness areas

*

Tas-CRA-16 Tasmanian National Estate undisturbed catchments

*

Tas-CRA-17 Tasmanian National Estate refugia from present processes

*

Tas-CRA-18 Tasmanian National Estate remnant vegetation

* Superseded by REM

Tas-CRA-19 Tasmanian National Estate vegetation succession sites

* Superseded by REM

Tas-CRA-2 Tasmanian National Estate fauna centres of endemism

* Superseded by REM

Tas-CRA-20 Environment reports from the Tasmanian CRA

*

Tas-CRA-3 Tasmanian National Estate disjunct fauna

* Superseded by REM

Tas-CRA-4 Tasmanian National Estate key fauna habitat

* Superseded by REM

Tas-CRA-5 Tasmanian National Estate fauna species range limits

* Superseded by REM

Tas-CRA-6 Tasmanian National Estate primitive and relictual fauna

*

Tas-CRA-7 Tasmanian National Estate fauna species richness

*

Tas-CRA-8 Tasmanian National Estate fauna type localities

*

Tas-CRA-9 Tasmanian National Estate flora centres of endemism

*

Tas-Gen-001 Regional Ecosystem Model for Biodiversity

*

Tas-Ind-001 Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index * Superseded by Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Register

Tas-Ind-002 Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre offices

Tas-Ind-003 Tasmanian Aboriginal Land & Sea Corporation


Appendix 3. Other Information Sources consulted Data resource Consulted and

used Consulted and

not used Why not used

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania * Birds Australia - Important Bird Areas map * Centres of high flood risk (BoM/DPIPWE) * CFEV Catchments (DPIPWE) * Domestic water outtake points * FPA Historic Points dataset * FT Historic Lines dataset * FT: PI database * FT: roads database * Geology (soil substrates) (MRT) * Harvest Records 2009-2013 (FT) * Independent Verification Group Report – Appendix 7 –Polygons and their size for the ENGO 572,000 ha proposed reserves.

*

Independent Verification Group Report 5A (2012) * Superseded by the Independent Verification Group Report – Appendix 7 – Polygons and their size for the ENGO 572,000 ha proposed reserves.

Indicative Strategic Harvest schedule (FT) * Irrigation outtake points * LiDAR derived slope mapping (FT) * Linking Landscapes (North East Bioregional Network 2006)

* Superseded by the Independent Verification Group Report – Appendix 7 – Polygons and their size for the ENGO 572,000 ha proposed reserves.

LIST: roads database * National Heritage List * State 25 m DEM (DPIPWE) * TasLUCas model of North Esk Catchment * Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Register * Tasmanian Geoconservation Database *


Appendix 4. Glossary Adaptive management A management system that accrues and responds to

information over time to inform decision making and improve future management

Affected Stakeholder •Those who live in, manage or own neighbouring property

within close proximity of our operations, •Residents who live along roads that may be directly affected by our harvest or haulage operations, •Local councils, and •Other persons, groups, or organisations who have identified themselves to Forestry Tasmania as potentially affected by our operations

Age class Group or stand of trees of a similar age. Aggregated retention A form of variable retention harvesting in which patches of

intact forest are retained either as islands or edge aggregates.

alpha-cypermethrin Insecticide sold under the trade name of Dominex. Primarily

used to protect plantations from damage by weevils or older larvae and adults of the leaf beetle.

Arisings Wood products produced additional to targeted products

when harvesting an area (e.g. target is sawlogs and pulpwood is arisings).

Artificial sowing The dispersal of seed across an area by hand, vehicle or

aircraft Auditing A systematic and documented verification process of

objectively obtaining and evaluating evidence to determine whether an organisation’s management system conforms with forest management performance criteria and requirements of the standards, and which takes account of the likelihood of failure to detect breaches, and for communication of the results of this process to management.

Australian Forestry Standard The Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) is the forest

management standard for the Australian Forest Certification Scheme (AFCS), which certifies extensive areas of native forests and plantations across Australia. It provides consumers with assurance that forest and wood products are from sustainably managed forests. The AFS is endorsed by the international Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).


Biodiversity The diversity of all life forms, including species diversity,

genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity. Biodiversity can be assessed at a variety of levels; for example, harvesting area, catchment, landscape, national, global.

Biofuel An energy source based on organisms and their products such as wood and plant matter.

Biomass 1.Material of biological origin (plant and other).

2.Organic material located both above-ground and below-ground, and both living and dead—for example, trees, grasses, litter, roots and soil organic matter (for purposes of carbon accounting).

Broadcast sowing The spreading of seed over a wide area in a single operation Browsing A herbivore feeding on leaves and shoots of a woody plant Bushfire/wildfire Unplanned vegetation fire, which burns out of control. Cable harvesting A hauling system employing winches, blocks and cablesused

to recover felled trees, typically used on steeper slopes. Carbon cycle/global carbon cycle The geochemical cycle of carbon between the

atmosphere, ocean and biosphere Carbon stock The absolute quantity of carbon held within a pool at a

specified time. Carbon storage capacity The potential amount of carbon a forest may store in the

absence of disturbance Carbon pool A system having the capacity to accumulate or release

carbon. Examples of carbon pools are forest biomass, wood products, soils, and the atmosphere.

CAR Reserve system The area under any of the following categories of land

tenure – Formal Reserves including dedicated reserves, Informal Reserves and other areas on Public land which have CAR values protected by prescription, and parts of Private Forest Estate where CAR values are protected under secure management by agreement with private landholders. The reserve system is based on principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness.

Category 1 & 3 sawlog High quality eucalypt sawlog. Eucalypt sawlogs from mature

and over-mature forest are termed ‘category 1 sawlogs’ and


those from regrowth and plantation forests are termed ‘category 3 sawlogs’.

Category 2 sawlog Second-grade eucalypt sawlog as specified in the Forestry Regulations 2009 Schedule 1 Part 2.

Category 4 sawlog First-grade sawlog from special species timbers such as

blackwood, myrtle, sassafras, celery top pine, Huon pine and leatherwood.

Category 8 log Eucalypt log with a quality below category two specifications

as specified in the Forestry Regulations 2009 Schedule 1 Part 2.

Certification The voluntary process by which planning, procedures,

systems and performance of on-the-ground forestry operations are certified, following an audit, by a qualified and independent third party as meeting a predetermined standard. Forest operations found to meet or exceed the given standard are issued a certificate (hence certified).

Chain of custody A process of verifying the origin and supply of wood or timber product through the supply chain to a point of market.

Chronosequence Sites in a forest of similar attributes but differing in age and

stage of succession. Clearfelling The removal of all trees on a harvesting area in a single

operation, and the subsequent regeneration of an even-aged stand by sowing or planting. A canopy opening of 4-6 times mature tree height may be considered the lower limit for clearfelling. In the tall wet eucalypt forests of Tasmania, the minimum clearfell size is about 5 ha. In practice, most clearfelled production areas in Tasmania range between 50 to 100 ha, although some area are as small as 10 ha.

Code of conduct Principles, values, standards, or rules of behaviour that

guide the decisions, procedures and systems of an organization.

Code of practice A set of objectives, outcomes, goals or operating procedures

designed to control or govern activities. (e.g. Forest Practices Code, Forest Safety Code).

Cohort A group of subjects (eg. trees, animals) that have shared a

particular event together during a particular time span Commercial stand An area of forest (native or plantation) that contains

commercial timber.


Commercial timber Timber that can be sold. Community 1.Biological: a naturally occurring group of species inhabiting

a particular area and interacting with each other, especially through biological relationships, relatively independently of other communities.

2.Human: a group of people associated with a particular place.

Corrective action Actions taken to improve processes in order to reduce

exposure to risk and minimise undesirable situations. Coupe For harvesting, the forest is subdivided into discrete areas

called coupes. Cross Laminated Timber Panels produced by gluing together boards in layers where

the grain direction alternates by 90 degrees from one layer to the next.

Cultural heritage The legacy of physical artefacts and intangible attributes of a

group or society that are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations.

Cut over Cleared of valuable timber. Declared weed A plant species that has been declared a weed under the

Weed Management Act 1999 (Tas) Districts/Regions Geographic areas of PTPZ land forests used for the purposes

of operational management. Disturbance A variation from the normal or expected path of events. Ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism

communities and their non-living environment, interacting as a functional unit.

Environmental constraint An environmental factor that will limit forest harvesting for

timber extraction Environmental Management A framework for the systematic management of an System organisation’s environmental obligations, risks and

objectives. Exotic pests Insects, plant diseases, weeds, nematodes and other

organisms that are not native to the particular area in which they are found that cause undesirable damage.


Exotic species A species that is not native to the particular area in which it is found.

Fire management plan A document to provide guidance on reducing the occurrence

of, and minimising the impact of bushfires thereby reducing the threat to life, property and the environment.

Forest An area incorporating all living and non-living components,

that is dominated by trees having usually a single stem and a mature (or potentially mature) stand height exceeding 2 metres and with existing or potential crown cover of overstorey strata about equal to or greater than 20%. This includes native forests and plantations, regardless of age. It is also sufficiently broad to encompass areas of trees that are sometimes described as woodlands.

Forest activity assessment The mechanism by which proposed activities on PTPZ land

that are not covered by a Forest Practices Plan are assessed. This process ensures that natural and cultural values, stakeholder values and operational values can be assessed and any potential impacts of the activity that compromise these values can be mitigated or avoided. It also ensures that any proposed activities that occur on PTPZ land meet legislated requirements.

Forest estate model A representation of the growth and natural dynamics of a

pre-defined area of forest; often used to simulate the effects of harvesting and silviculture on the long-term wood supply from the forest.

Forest life cycle The changing stages in the development of a forest over

time. Forest management A system of practices for conservation, stewardship and

productive use of forest land, aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological, economic and social functions and objectives of the forest.

Forest management plan A long term, documented plan for a forest area that

contains defined management goals, objectives and outcomes, which are monitored and periodically reviewed, and that expressly includes the management of forest. Plans can take many forms, and depending on the scale of the management area can be a collection of plans, documents or other instruments. An effective Forest Management Plan is a requirement of the FSC and AFS certification schemes.

Forest management system A framework for the systematic management of an

organisation’s forest management related obligations, risks and objectives.


Forest operations A process, method or series of actions, especially of a

practical or mechanical nature within a forest related to its management or use for the production of forest products, including but not limited to road construction, timber harvesting and extraction, thinning, site preparation and/or prescribed burning.

Forest Practices Code A code established under the Forest Practices Act 1985

which prescribes the manner in which forest practices must be conducted in order to provide reasonable protection to the environment.

Forest practices plan A plan for forest operations, specified in Section 18 of the

Forest Practices Act 1985. Forest Practices Officer A person appointed under Sections 38 and 39 of the Forest

Practices Act, 1985 (Tas) Forest Practices System The system established pursuant to the objective set out in

Schedule 7 to the Forest Practices Act 1985 (Tas). The Forest Practices System is administered by the Forest Practices Authority.

Forest product Wood and non-wood material derived from a forest Formal reserve A reserve equivalent to the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Protected Area Management Categories I, II, III, IV or VI as defined by the World Commission on Protected Areas (http://www.iucn.org). The status of formal reserves is secure, in that revocation requires approval of the Tasmanian Parliament.

Forwarder A wheeled or tracked heavy vehicle that carries logs from

where the trees were felled to the roadside Fuel load The total amount of combustible material in a defined area. Fuel reduction burn A fire of low intensity carried out under closely controlled

conditions to reduce the quantity of accumulated dead fuel from the forest floor, without damaging standing timber. Also called low intensity prescribed burn.

Future Potential Land designated under the Forestry (Rebuilding the Forest

Industry) Production Forest Act 2014 (Tas) consisting of 398,490 hectares in 243 lots,

managed by the Crown Lands Minister and the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment at least until April 2020.


Future Reserve Land Future Reserve Land is land was described in Column 2 of Schedule 1 in the now repealed Tasmanian Forest Agreement Act 2013.It was to be made into formal reserves over time.

Gazetted reserve An area of land excluded from production forestry that has

been officially proclaimed by an Act of parliament and published in the Government Gazette.

Genetic composition The genetic characteristics of an individual or group of

individuals Genotype An individual’s genetic makeup Geodiversity The variety of natural inorganic materials and their natural

forms that constitutes the Earth Geomorphology The study of the evolution and configuration of landforms Giant tree A tree that is 85 m tall (or taller) and/or 280 cubic metres in

volume (or greater). Group selection A silvicultural system in which groups (small patches or

stands) of trees are harvested, allowing for subsequent regeneration and leading to a forest comprising patches of differently aged trees.

Habitat The environment where a plant, animal or ecological

community normally lives or occurs. Hardlam® Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) manufactured from

Tasmanian hardwood. Hardwood Timber from broad-leaved flowering trees (botanical group

Angiospermae), irrespective of physical hardness. Includes eucalypts, wattles and most rainforest species.

Harvesting 1.As part of forest management, cutting (felling) of trees to

produce wood products.

2.Collection (gathering) of non-wood forest products. High Conservation Value Forests that possess one or more High Conservation Value

attributes: Forests HCV attributes are described in the FSC Australia HCV

evaluation framework. IBRA Bioregion The Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia

(IBRA) divides the Australian continent into 85 bioregions. Tasmania is divided into eight bioregions that are described


in the report titled Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (1995).

Identified Stakeholder Any person, group or organisation that may be directly

affected by or interested in the operations of Forestry Tasmania.

Informal reserve Reserve on public land protected through an administrative

instrument (as opposed to legislation) by a public agency. Initiated engagement Contact with a stakeholder initially made by Forestry

Tasmania. Interested Stakeholder •Persons, groups, or organisations that are interested in our

operations but are not directly affected by them •These may include but are not limited to groups such as

o Industry organisations o Environmental non-government

organisations o Community organisations o Scientific community

Interrogation (data) Assess or analyse information to extract a useful meaning. Inventory The systematic collection of data and information for

assessment or analysis to assist management. ISO 14001 The international standard for an Environmental

Management System. It formalises methods for reviewing, reporting, documenting, monitoring and training in environmental management practices.

Laminated Veneer Lumber An engineered wood product consisting of multiple layers of

thinly cut wood glued together to form a larger piece Landscape context planning A planning approach for harvesting operations that system incorporates the principles of landscape ecology, used to

maintain habitat connectivity across the landscape and heterogeneity in forest age class structure, with particular emphasis on maintaining mature forest habitat.

Landscape scale/level A scale suitable (large enough) to be used for the sustainable management of biodiversity and geodiversity.

LiDAR LiDAR stands for Light Detection And Ranging. A technology

that uses laser (light) pulses from (most commonly) an aircraft to collect information on terrain and vegetation features (such as tree height), based on the return time of pulses back to the sensor.

and


Local industry A group of companies within a geographic region. Log supply obligations 1. Statutory A level of log supply as defined in government

legislation

2. Contractual A level of log supply as defined in a legal contract

Management Decision The Management Decision Classification (MDC) system Classification (MDC) is the way in which Forestry Tasmania zones the land it

manages in order to optimise management and balance the competing demands on the forest estate. Zoning enables areas with particular values to be identified and appropriate management prescriptions put in place to ensure protection, maintenance and enhancement of these values. All areas are zoned into either production, protection or conditional primary zones that indicate their overall availability for wood production.

Mature forest Forest containing a majority of trees more than 110 years

old.

Merchantable wood The part of a tree’s stem with monetary value as a saleable product; usually refers to veneer, sawlog and pulpwood.

Mineral earth Ground clear of organic matter Monitoring The periodic and systematic measurement and assessment

of a value, attribute or indicator. Native forest Forest consisting of tree species that are native to Tasmania,

other than plantations. Native forests include mature, regrowth forests and regeneration forests.

Natural sowing The sowing of seed across an area through dispersal by

natural means such as wind, insects and animals. Natural vegetation Plants and other flora established without human

intervention. Neighbour A person located or living adjacent or nearby Non conformance Non-fulfilment of specified requirements. Non-production land Areas of the PTPZ land that are not within the CAR reserve

system, but which are not designated for wood production due to various constraints (e.g. too steep, inaccessible, non commercial stands, non forest).


Old growth forest Ecologically mature forest where the effects of disturbances are now negligible.

Oriented Strand Board An engineered wood product consisting of thin, elongated

flakes of wood laying in different directions and glued together under pressure to produce a single large piece of wood

Overstorey 1.The uppermost layer of foliage in a forest.

2.Trees occupying the uppermost layer in a forest of more than one layer (storey).

Partial harvesting Harvesting systems which include the retention of some

trees, for example, seed tree, shelterwood, thinning and variable retention.

Peeler log Logs that are suitable for rotary peeling to produce veneer.

The veneer produced from rotary peeling is generally used for structural grade plywood, whereas veneer produced by slicing high quality logs is furniture grade (e.g. for table tops).

Permanent Timber This is a new land classification, established under the Production Zone land Forest Management Act 2013. It replaces the term State

forest, defined in the Forestry Act 1920 that was repealed in 2013.

Pest Insects, plant diseases, weeds, nematodes and other

organisms that cause damage to crops. Pesticide A chemical (including herbicides, fungicides and insecticides)

used to control biological damage agents. PIRI The Pesticide Ratings Index. A software based tool

developed by CSIRO. The tool allows users to select the best product for their circumstances by rating pesticides in terms of their relative risk to the environment.

Planned burn Fire started in accordance with a fire management plan or

planned burning program, such as fuel-reduction burning. Plantation Stands of trees of either exotic or native species, created by

the regular planting, sowing or control of cuttings, seedlings, seed or coppice.

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 micrometres in diameter PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometres in diameter


Policy A statement of intent. Potential sawlog retention Management of multi-aged forest (typically highland dry

eucalypt forest) which encourages growth of retained trees by removing competition and initiating a new crop of seedlings.

Prescription limits on or requirements to be achieved when carrying out

a task. Often related to achieving an objective. Production forest Forest zoned for commercial harvesting. Processor 1. A wheeled or tracked heavy vehicle with an articulated

arm and grapple used for mechanically felling, debarking and delimbing trees

2. An individual or company that takes logs and turns them

into higher value secondary products Productive forest Forest suitable for the commercial extraction of forest

products Provenance 1. The place of origin of a plant or animal.

2. A set of individuals of a plant or animal species that originate from a particular location.

Pruning The removal of branches from the trunk of a tree Public forest Includes forest in World Heritage Areas, National Parks,

Formal and informal Reserves and Permanent Timber Production Zone land.

Pulpwood Logs below sawlog quality but suitable for manufacturing

pulp, paper and panel products. Rainforest Forest dominated by tree species such as myrtle, sassafras,

celery-top pine and leatherwood, in which eucalypts comprise less than 5% of the crown cover. Rainforest generally occurs in areas with high rainfall.

Reforestation Where forest is re-grown on logged or cleared land. May

involve silviculturally regenerating forest and/or establishing plantations.

Refugia Small isolated pockets representing once more widely

spread environmental conditions.


Regeneration New trees arising naturally or with human assistance after harvesting, fire or other causes have removed all or some of the overstorey.

Regrowth forest The plants, particularly trees of similar age, that grow in an

area following disturbance. Forests create different fauna and flora habitats as they grow and develop. Each stage of forest growth, including regrowth, provides a suite of conservation values. A range of forest growth stages is essential to maintain the full set of values that they provide.

Remedial action/treatment An action to rectify, restore or improve something that is

below an expected standard. Reserve/reservation An area of land formally or informally set-aside for specified

conservation purposes. Formal reserves are dedicated under the Nature Conservation Act 2002. Informal reserves on PTPZ land include wildlife habitat strips and other areas where harvesting activities are specifically excluded by management zoning.

Residue The remaining parts of a tree, log or lumber following the

extraction of the primary product Risk assessment The objective qualitative and quantitative determination of

risk related to a specific situation and a recognised hazard. Rotation The period between forest establishment and its harvesting. Seed tree retention A method of silviculture where trees are left standing in a

harvested area for the purpose of providing seed for regeneration.

Seed orchard A stand of trees managed to produce seed Seedlot A collection of seeds that may be from a single tree or many

trees Selective logging This is harvesting that targets a small proportion of the

stand for specific products which are removed as single trees or small groups of trees. All other growing stock is retained for potential harvest in subsequent cycles.

Shelterwood A silvicultural system of securing natural tree regeneration under a partially harvested overstorey, which is subsequently removed by successive harvests to allow seedlings and young regeneration to occupy the site.

Significant Biodiversity values Natural values considered as significant as defined by the

Australian Forestry Standard.


Silvicultural system All the manipulations (eg. harvesting, regeneration, thinning) carried out during the lifetime of forest stands or trees to achieve the management objectives of the landowner.

Slash Material left on the ground after harvesting operations

including tree heads, shrubs and other non-merchantable woody material

Skidder A wheeled heavy vehicle used to drag logs from where a

tree was felled to a roadside collection point Snig track A track along which logs are pulled from the felling point to

a nearby landing. Softwood Timber of coniferous or cone-bearing trees (in the botanical

group Gymnospermae), irrespective of physical hardness. Includes radiata pine.

Spatial conservation database A set a databases in which spatial information is stored that

is used to provide conservation related information. (e.g. cultural heritage, threatened species, geo-conservation)

Special species timber Tasmanian native forest timbers, which primarily includes

blackwood, myrtle, celery-top pine, sassafras, Huon pine and silver wattle.

Special values Tangible or intangible features or characterises that have

elevated importance or usefulness. Stakeholder Any person, group or organisation that is directly affected by

or interested in the operations of Forestry Tasmania. Stakeholder engagement The process by which an organisation provides information

to and seeks input people who may be affected or interested in its actions in order to inform and inform planning and decision making.

Standard operating procedure A formalised set of instructions to carry out a regular task State forest Land managed by Forestry Tasmania under the Forestry Act

1920, which was repealed in 2013. Statement of corporate intent An outline of objectives, major activities and targets to be

achieved by a business Sustainable forest 1. A set of objectives, activities and outcomes consistent management with maintaining or improving the forest's ecological

integrity and contributing to people's wellbeing now and in the future.


2. The practice of stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in such a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity and vitality, and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions at local, national and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.

Sustainable yield The level of commercial timber (or product mix) that can be

maintained under a given management regime, without reducing the long-term productive capacity of the forest.

Tasmanian Reserve Estate The Tasmanian Reserve Estate extends over land, inland

waters, estuaries and marine areas. It includes gazetted (formal) and administrative (informal) reserves on public land, reserves on private land, and marine protected areas. A spatial representation and statistics of Tasmania’s Reserve Estate are provided on DPIPWE’s website.

Thinning A silvicultural treatment to overstocked regrowth or

plantation stands to release potential sawlogs from competition. There is no intention to induce regeneration.

Threatened In Tasmania, the term threatened, whether applied to

species or ecosystems, is an umbrella term used to encompass rare, vulnerable or endangered species or ecosystems. These terms have precise meanings. For threatened species definitions refer to the ‘Guidelines for eligibility for listing under the Threatened Species Act 1995’

With respect to threatened communities the following definitions apply: • Endangered – depletion approaching 90% or more

of pre-1750 extent; • Vulnerable – depletion approaching 70% or more of

the pre-1750 extent; and • Rare – not significantly depleted but of limited

extent (and see below).

A rare ecosystem is defined in JANIS (1997) as “one where the geographic distribution involves a total range of generally less than 10 000 ha, a total area of generally less than 1000 ha or patch sizes of generally less than 100 ha, where such patches do not aggregate to significant areas”.

Three-year wood Companies harvesting more than 100,000 tonnes per production plan annum must lodge a three-year Practices plan annually


to the Forest Authority. The Plan outlines proposed operations, and is finalised after consultation with local government. Forestry Tasmania’s plan is also made publically available on its website.

Understorey That part of forest vegetation growing below the forest

canopy Values Tangible or intangible features or characterises that have

some importance or usefulness. Variable retention A harvest system where structural elements or biological

legacies (eg., old trees, stags, logs, treeferns) from the harvested stand are retained for the new stand to achieve various ecological objectives. The system typically requires the majority of the felled area to be within one tree height of forest that is retained for at least a full rotation.

Veneer log A log for producing veneer, by slicing, for panel products.

Visual amenity Positive element or elements that contribute to an aesthetically pleasing view

Volatilisation The process of changing a substance in solid or liquid form into a vapour or gas.

Watershed The area or region drained by a stream or river.

Weed A plant considered undesirable in a particular situation .

Windrow Forest debris placed into an elongated heap.

Woodchipping Producing small pieces of wood from pulpwood logs. This is the first stage of processing pulpwood into paper and fibreboard.

High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan€¦ · Forestry Tasmania High Conservation...

Documents

Transcript of High Conservation Values Assessment and Management Plan€¦ · Forestry Tasmania High Conservation...