How Native Forest and Native Reforestation in the Woomerra Creek Catchment became mis-classified as “Plantation” - a Strzelecki microcosm.

In 1885 and 1986 large areas of the Agnes and Franklin catchments were logged. In response, the Mt. Best Concerned Residents submitted two reserve proposals, one for the Gunyah area and one for the Woomera Creek area.

Mt. Best Concerned Residents reserve proposal for Woomera Creek

In December 1987, the Mt. Best Concerned Residents submitted a reserve proposal to the Department, called ‘On the Future of the Regrowth Forest on the Southern Face of the Mount Fatigue-Woomerra Creek Ridge’. The submission called for a flora and fauna reserve of approximately 750 hectares south of Devil’s Pinch Road at Mt. Fatigue, the banning of aerial 1080 baiting throughout the region and the cessation of strip-clearing for regeneration;

The submission emphasized the value of the regrowth forest of the Woomerra Creek area with its potential for succession, the presence of rainforest plants in the gullies, the diversity of understorey flora and its value to the fauna of the area—wallabies, wombats, echidnas, lyrebirds and platypuses. The submission was critical of the removal of understorey and mature trees by Departmental reafforestation activities and subsequent reduction in habitat in nearby areas and was endeavouring to prevent the same happening in the Woomera Creek block. The submission also cited the potential to cause soil erosion and siltation of creeks, rivers, and ultimately Corner Inlet, where seagrass beds would be threatened.

A long campaign to have this area designated a reserve was initiated by the Mt. Best Concerned Residents. They were opposed to any reforestation in the catchment, arguing that the area supported mature forest, rainforest gullies, and naturally occurring regrowth on previously disturbed or abandoned areas.

Mt. Fatigue Reforestation Plan

In 1989 the Department countered the Mt. Best Concerned Residents reserve proposal with the ‘Mt. Fatigue Reforestation Plan’ in which it expressed its desire to reforest 210 hectares of the same area by clearing and replanting.

The plan included a hand coloured map of the same area which the Mt. Best Concerned Residents wished to have made a reserve

Areas that were logged and regenerated in 1954 and in 1986 appear as Orange. Previous reforestation appears as Blue. Red indicates Mt Fatigue reserve, Green indicates forested areas

Brown indicates “formerly partially cleared land”, Yellow indicates “formerly totally cleared land” adding up to a total of 745 ha.

The Brown and the Yellow give little indication as to the current state of the vegetation in those areas. However, within the text of the plan itself, the department identifies the whole area (which in this reference totals 716 ha.) as native vegetation at various stages of maturity. None of the area was classified as plantation and none was identified as presently being in a cleared state.

At two public meetings, the Department outlined this plan and the tapes from these meetings provide further evidence that reforestation is native forest restoration and that any future wood harvesting is to be at least 80 years away and subject to public opinion at that time.

The Department’s most pertinent quotations from the plan and the meetings are as follows:

From The Plan:

‘The specifications of this plan are specific to the Woomerra Creek catchment but are also part of the overall native forest reforestation plan for the Yarram region’.

In the plan, the Department describes reforestation as ‘native forest reforestation’.

‘Reforestation particularly in the Mt. Fatigue area involves conversion of the present understorey scrub species to the natural eucalypt dominated forest which existed prior to the land first being cleared for farming’. (p.1)

[It is] ‘Department policy to reforest areas only with trees that are native to the site.’

From The Tapes of meetings

“Mt. Fatigue Reforestation Plan - it definitely means that”

“to restore it to its original condition”

“matching species that naturally occur there”

“we’ve collected seed from the trees that are native to the area”

“as close as we can get it to what was originally there”

“the debate about whether its logged” is ‘80 years down the track if that’s a problem then”.. “probably once we ‘ve all passed on”. “Current department policy is to run these forests on a 100 year plus rotations”

Extended transcripts appear at the end of this document

The Mt. Best Concerned Residents reserve proposal was denied

The Department’s reforestation plan went ahead in 1990. They cleared and ‘reforested’ ridges.

The area is part of the Strzelecki State Forest which was leased to Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP) in 1998. HVP had the task of mapping its own plantations.

The map below is scanned from a HVP map, showing the same Woomera Creek area. Brown signifies “Hardwood Plantation”. HVP do not recognise these brown areas as Native Forest.

The brown areas within the Woomera Creek block are shown in the next map as BLACK, overlaid onto the department’s 1989 map.

This map shows that the regenerated native forest logging coupes and reforestation from 1954 and 1986 are now classified as plantation, as well areas formerly identified as Native Forest. All the areas of native forest logging and reforestation referred to in the Mt Fatigue Reforestation Plan and carried out in 1990 have lost their native forest status and are now classified as plantation. The principles behind the Reforestation scheme as expressed by the department as recently as 1989 have been broken. The regenerated logging coupes from 1986 have been classified as plantation while the ones from 1954 have not, illustrating the fact that HVP’s mapping is based largely on aerial photographs which give rough indications of forest age, and the false idea that all stands of young ash must be plantation.

Woomera Creek is a microcosm.

The same situations applied across the whole of the Strzelecki State Forest:

- The foresters representing the department expressed a low opinion of the naturally occurring regrowth on previously disturbed or abandoned areas because it was developing into a forest type more akin to rainforest, and wished to establish even aged stands of Mountain Ash instead. The department was emphatic that this was to restore the forest to its original state, and that reforested areas were to be viewed as native forest, not plantations, and whether or not reforested areas were to be for conservation or harvesting was open to be decided long after we all are dead. The department always over-emphasized the idea that some areas were formerly cleared. The department’s maps also had the tendency to indicate all repurchased land as having been more cleared than it really was.

- The South Gippsland public on the other hand, while acknowledging the value of Mountain Ash to the timber industry, had no problem with the way the bush was regenerating of its own accord and felt that these areas deserved to be left alone to do so. Locals had no problem with reforestation on areas that were presently cleared, but not on areas that were already regenerating naturally. Whether or not an area was formerly cleared was seen as ancient history and irrelevant.

- The leasing of the bulk of the Strzelecki State Forest in 1998 led to plantation mapping which re-classified all young stands of Ash as plantation, including natural regrowth, assisted regrowth after logging, and reforestation. About 7000 ha. Of native forest suddenly became “plantation”. With HVP’s purchase of Amcor’s Strzelecki leaseholds in 2002 the same re-classification was applied to a further 4000 ha. of young ash.

Problems associated with the mapping, the definitions, the flouting of regulations, the intent of the reforestation scheme, the failure to factor in the regenerated native forest logging coupes, the fact that not all the area was cleared farmland, make necessary to be flexible and to rethink the attitude that these areas are solely for the timber industry.

Its best if we act on all these unresolved issues now, or they will continue to haunt us all.

Extra transcripts from tapes of 1989 meetings

Tape 1: 28 November 1989, Foster

Department Staff Present Ian Hemphill, Bob McKinnon and Ross Pridgin

They refer to a map of the 750 hectares which shows 4 native forest logging coupes, 2 from 1954 and 2 from 1986. It also shows a 15 ha. patch of reforestation.

Mr. Hemphill says he’d like meeting to avoid talking about logging and concentrate on reforestation, because any logging is ‘80 years down the track if that’s a problem then’

He says that concern has been expressed as to whether they are putting in plantation species. He says they are matching species that naturally occur there.

Mr. Pridgin: ‘that will now be a decision to be made quite a time down the track when further reviews are made, probably once we ‘ve all passed on, as to whether this will be part of the production forest or not’.

“Whether that option is taken up or not is up to the future. And that’s been the same thing with every area in the Strzeleckis that we have bought back or resumed after people have walked off, and reforested’.

Tape 2 26/1/90 Mt. Best

Departmental staff present: Ken King(Regional Officer Yarram, now Head of Forest Service, Melbourne) and his staff, Ian Hemphill (Forest Production Planner; became Zone Manager VPC and HVP), Les Leunig (Land Protection Officer, Foster), Tony Willott,(Bio protection planner and filling in for Ian Leversha)& Regional Fire Protection Officer. Chair Alan from Alberton Shire

Ian Hemphill speaking. “I stress from the outset that its the Mt. Fatigue Reforestation Plan. That’s not a sleight of hand or a card trick sort of thing, it definitely means that. We are separating the issues into um... the first steps in any management of this area is to restore it to its original condition, then the debate about whether its logged or not can be taken up at a future date”.

‘If we reforest these areas it could be something like 40 -80 years before any action is likely to be taken on those areas in terms of decisions on logging. I say 40 because there are some older growth forests in here , but we’ve found with the 1939 ash regrowth that its got to be at least 40 years old before its really runs into its prime suitability for utilization. If you cut it much earlier than that then you are not doing the timber justice... ....Current department policy is to run these forests on a 100 year plus rotations....

“The issue of whether we’re talking about plantation species. In the plan you’ll read that the seed for these plants, the plants have already been produced at the Department’s nursery at Won Wron. The seed was collected last year in these areas just to the north. So seed collection’s not really an issue in this area, except to say that we’ve collected seed from the trees that are native to the area. The mixtures of planting won’t be just a complete sweep of Mountain Ash. Quite obviously, these northern aspects naturally grow messmate and blue gum and ridge tops of blue gum, those who know the drive up to the scenic reserve, notice there’s messmate on the right hand side up there. Those sites will be planted to Mess mate. The site’s southern aspects those will be the only ones planted to Mountain Ash. In other words, the actual mixture is close as we can get it to what was originally there will be replanted.”

Home