Preface

This brief article is a condensed account of the story of the Victorian Forests Commission’s Landscape Management Group that was established within the Forest Environment and Recreation Branch (FEAR Branch). The purpose of this article is to chronologically document the development, achievements and contributions made by the Group. Some brief anecdotes and observations are also made. References to the many publications, and contributing authors are brief and only serve to demonstrate some of the key developments and professional interests of the innovative Group. As with other items on this website, the authors welcome comments, and suggested amendments.

The Story

As has been discussed elsewhere on this website, by the 1960s in south-eastern Australia, economic activity had rebounded following the traumas associated with World War Two. In many parts of society optimism was in the air. It was also a time of increasing social change. Immigration, for example, was reshaping the social order, and major attitudinal changes were emerging across many areas of society.

As Australia continued to urbanise, a modern environmental movement had also begun to emerge, as was the case in many other parts of the world. Meanwhile, the term ‘gross domestic well-being’ was joining ‘gross domestic product’ in the popular lexicon.

Government across Australia was, arguably, becoming more challenging, as were the tasks faced by State and federal bureaucracies. And this of course was true for the FCV.

Parts of the Commission’s traditional activities, from road and track building and maintenance to timber harvesting, alpine resort and campground management, and negotiations with power authorities about grid location and management were, increasingly, becoming subject to community comment.

Again, as described elsewhere, 1970 was to see the formation of a small, Melbourne-based Recreation Branch within the FCV. Within a year the Branch’s role was widened considerably and it became the Forest Environment and Recreation Branch.

Within a few years, three of the seven FCV field divisions had specialised ‘recreation officers’ attached to them, and many field districts were devoting increasing resources to establishing and maintaining recreational infra-structure, and in attempting to better interact with their local, and with the wider community.

During this time, independent of the FCV, Melbourne University, and a few other organisations were starting to undertake landscape assessments (for example, of the Southern Mornington Peninsula in 1974); and wider considerations of ‘visual management’ were being tentatively discussed.

Winty Calder (wife of the FCV’s Stuart Calder) was one of these early, published academics, along with others including George Seddon.

Similarly, recreation planning reports, prepared by a variety of people and agencies, were emerging (e.g., for Lake Mountain, for coastal walking tracks; and sometimes in conjunction with scenic quality studies (Lorne 1975 by Mills L)).

Landscape Architecture, and Visual Management Systems

In the early 1970s the Commission’s new FEAR Branch had set out to establish visual guidelines for a variety of forest practices. It soon became evident however, that deficiencies in the appropriate skills needed to establish consistent and adequate guidelines were impeding the task. This led to an examination of several scenic assessment procedures developed in the northern hemisphere.

In 1975, Stuart Calder, who was by then the 2IC of the new FEAR Branch, was sent by the FCV to the UK and the United States to examine related environmental and recreational trends. On his return, his recommendations were to see, among other initiatives, the appointment, by the FCV, of three US trained landscape architects; each with newly emerging broad-based expertise in the management of visual landscapes. ¹

This initiative was, in turn, to see Victoria develop and implement Australia’s first, forest-focussed ‘Visual Management System’.

Stuart Calder was impressed by the United States Forests Service (USFS) approach to Visual Resource Management, citing a number of major attributes including that it was systematic, tested, proven and, most importantly, already in operation across a broad and diverse spectrum of USFS landscapes and waters, not just forest landscapes.

In the US, as at the outset in Victoria, a Visual Management System was seen by some as significant in that it enabled relevant parties to gain confidence that the management of the visual impacts on the landscape was preferable to, for example, the scaling back, or even closure of the timber harvesting industry.

Having managed visual landscapes for in excess of ten years, the USFS had published guidelines and field handbooks to illustrate the applications, and related management requirements. This made the understanding and application of the system repeatable, elsewhere in the world.

Stuart also recognised a significant similarity between the USFS and the FCV, both in terms of the scale of the geographic land base, the related activities, and perhaps most significantly, the similarity of the agencies management structures, with a head office of specialist and support staff, and extensive networks of regional and district operations.

On his return from overseas Stuart, set out the case for the initial recruitment of U.S. trained Landscape Architects viz:

‘ ... The main objective will be to provide a thrust to landscape management in all our activities, but in particular with timber harvesting operations and plantation layout and design. Emphasis will be on making foresters more sensitive to the opportunities and constraints relating to landscape, rather than too much emphasis on how to accomplish particular tasks...’ (Stuart added that the latter would not be overlooked however!)

Community awareness of the importance of landscape and visual management was to gain further momentum over the next year or so as a Victorian Lower House Standing Committee prepared a paper on ‘Land Use Pressures on Scenic Amenities within the Dandenong Ranges and at Mount Macedon’ (1975). Concurrently, detailed Landscape Assessments of three proposed electricity authority transmission line routes were underway, and the Victorian National Trust published a report on the importance of ‘Landscape Planning and Conservation’ in north-east Victorian (1977).

Among other related initiatives, then student Rob Saunders completed a master’s thesis exploring ‘Recreation Motivation and Conflict’. (Rob was subsequently to become an important member of the FEAR Branch).

In May 1977, the FCV issued a media release, announcing the establishment of the Landscape Management Program for Victoria’s forests. FCV Chairman Dr. Frank Moulds said that the FCV:

‘ ... regarded forest landscape as a State resource requiring the same management expertise as the allied resources of soil and water...’ The ‘Landscape Management’ train was starting to leave the Station.

An Emerging Profession

By 1979 three US born landscape architects were well established within the FCV, pioneering the future of visual management across Victoria’ seven million hectares of forest and woodlands and, arguably in time, across the country, at least Forest Service-wise.

Related training of agency staff was advancing, visual resource mapping of Victoria’s forests was underway, and a series of landmark studies and reports had been produced. Critical among these reports was a published article ‘Visual Resource Management of Victoria’s Forests: A New Concept for Australia’ (Williamson and Calder – 1979).

Dennis Williamson (the youngest of the US trained team) soon went on to author ‘Scenic Perceptions of Australian Landscapes: Research Needs in a New Frontier’, and within FCV, a study of ‘Public Perceptions of Forest Scenic Quality in Bright’, which was co-authored with John Chalmers.

Concurrently, Melbourne University was continuing its endeavours within the fields of visual and landscape assessment. In 1979 it added a two-year Master of Landscape Architecture to its program, an initiative understood to be the first of its kind in Australia.

The University also, during that year, published work focussed on the Upper Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges, suggesting procedures for Landscape Assessment and Management; and a separate research publication on the Assessment of Visual/Aesthetic Landscape Qualities.

Further, a minor thesis from the University’s Master of Urban Planning facility investigated the management of Victoria’s visual landscape resources within the government legal and administrative structure.

A few private consultants had also started developing Landscape Assessment expertise (including Gerner, Sanderson, Faggetter and Cheesman), some of their early reports done in association with Melbourne University.

In time, the University’s Centre for Environmental Studies was to conduct further investigations, and reports were prepared including a ‘Landscape Principles Study, Upper Yarra Valley, and Dandenong Ranges’ (See Brown, Itami and King).

As mentioned above, natural area recreational planning was concurrently also evolving, both in Australia and the in the US, a wholistic and systematic assessment and outcomes-based approach being the aim.

In 1979 in the US, George Stankey and Roger Clark published their internationally significant report ‘The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework of Planning, Management and Research’. (George Stankey was to subsequently spend several months in Australia, working with Parks, and Forest agency staff).

In pioneering this dual focus on visual management, and the planning and management of the multiple uses of the State forests, including the provision of recreational amenities, FEAR Branch was moving the FCV into challenging new territory.

In time, other State agencies within Victoria, and planning and management agencies in other States and Territories, were to seek the assistance of, and collaboration with the FCV in these endeavours.

From Broadscale to Site Design

As the brief of the new Group expanded, involvements were to include:

• Powerlines
• Ski Resorts
• The Alpine Walking Track
• Timber harvesting and associated roading activity
• Public lands managed by Committees of Management, such as foreshores
• Campgrounds
• Quarries
• Rail-trails
• Telecommunication towers with the advent of mobile phones

Organisational involvements of the Group were to see interactions with a range of organisations including:

• Victoria’s Garden State Committee
• The Australian Forestry Council, and its Standing Committee of Forestry
• Victoria’s National Trust
• Universities
• Landscape architectural private practice groups and their emerging Institute, and
• Increasingly, other forest/parks agencies around Australia

Over the ensuring few years (1979 – 86), much was achieved, as the US trained landscape architects, foresters, and recreation planners got to work. Reports prepared for example covered a broad geographical spread including the Macedon Ranges, Exotic Plantations, the Ovens Valley - Mount Buffalo region, the Blue Range, the Tanjil River Catchment, and North-east Victoria more generally.

These hallmark reports not only addressed the operational requirements of the FCV, but most significantly assessed and explored critical issues such as scenic beauty assessments, visual absorption capability, and perceptions of forest scenic quality.

In time, Richard Hammond, Ken Keefe, and Dennis Williamson, the US trained Landscape Architects, worked with FCV staff including Karl Rumba, John Chalmers, Rob Saunders, Mike Leonard, and landscape student Scott Murray.

Meanwhile, related IT developments were occurring, including the advent of computer generated ‘seen area’ mapping, with related techniques being developed and implemented across the FCV.

Ken Keefe’s ‘Guide for Using Viewit’ (1980) was to become the go-to document for many.

By 1980, the FCV had developed a significant draft report describing, for the first time, Landscape Character Types for Victora, and associated Frames of Reference for Scenic Quality Classification. After further review, the work was published in 1984.

One of the most important tasks, and ultimate successes of the Group over the years was to provide both formal and informal training to FCV staff, from Head Office to field officers. Changing the perception of landscape and its management required changing established attitudes and practices, both within the FCV and in the wider community. Formal training courses, publications, lectures, and contacts with officers at the Creswick School of Forestry, Melbourne University and Land Management Agencies in Victoria and across the country were important. Critically too was the one-on-one contact with forest officers, planners, and operations officers at the project level; essential to the successful application of landscape management, and the Branch’s ideals and objectives. Sometimes changes were dramatic and at other times subtle, but in time attitudes changed and the awareness of the importance of the visual aspects of land management became evident in practice.

An Ongoing Commitment

By the early 1980s the FCV was exploring ways to consolidate the Landscape program. By then, Melbourne University’s post-graduate and master’s landscape architecture program was evolving, and the FCV had started offering vacation employment to students undertaking such courses. Before long, Mike Sandford, and Steve Moss would become the first two ‘home-grown’ Landscape Architects to join the FEAR-based team.

The early, and close relationship with Melbourne University was, for example, to result in the publication of ‘A Summary of Scenic Quality Assessment and Visual Resource Management’, co-authored by Dennis Williamson, and Ian Bishop.

Within government, Victoria’s Department of Planning was, in time, to publish ‘Visual Guidelines for Port Phillip Bay’ in the early 1980s, as awareness grew of the impacts of development and change of visual amenity.

While outside government, the development of a ‘Visual Assessment Method for Botany Bay’ was also proposed by the now newly formed Australian Institute of Landscape Architects.

The Arrival of Super Departments

In April 1982, Victoria was to have its first change in State government in 27 years, with the election of the Labor Party, under the leadership of John Cain. The new government was to be a reforming one, with plans for significant change to the way things were done. Again, and as detailed elsewhere on this website, the FCV was to be caught up in the change process, a situation that was to, among other things, impact on the landscape management program.

In August 1983, and following widespread reviews of public land and natural resource managing agencies, the State Forests Department (together with the Lands Department, the Soil Conservation Authority, and much of the Ministry of Conservation – including the National Parks Service and the Fisheries and Wildlife Service) were incorporated into a new Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands (CFL).

Related, concurrent developments included:

• The release of a ‘Forest Recreation Planning Guide’, in 1983, and a subsequent ‘Recreation Facility Manual’ (the latter updating a former FCV Manual);
• A government Inquiry into the timber industry, the subsequent release of a Timber Industry Strategy, and a related Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production. Both these later documents incorporated design, siting, and planning requirements;
• The release of a range of studies, including for the Victorian Coastal Resource Project, the Port Campbell National Park, and for the Wild Dog Creek section of the Otway Ranges. ²

By 1985, CFL’s Landscape and Architectural Group had grown to over 12 staff, while its emphasis had evolved, with a somewhat lesser focus on forest production activities, and a somewhat increased focus on park and public use planning.

Initiatives during those years included:

• Design work that was to see Melbourne’s historic Outer Circle Railway converted to a shared walking and cycling trail
• The conversion of the Lilydale to Warburton rail alignment to, arguably, Australia’s first fully-fledged Rail Trail
• Publication of design guidelines to support a range of recreational, and land use challenges within public lands; a good example being a visual and landscape impact coastal Series (Mary Jeavons),
• A number of CFL Landscape Architects being located within the regions, with support from the Melbourne based team; Orbost, Bairnsdale, Mallacoota, and Mildura being notable locations.

In the years that followed the Landscape Architecture profession continued to evolve, both nationally and internationally, while within government (except perhaps in Western Australia), out-sourcing of specialist skills increasingly became the norm.

Postscript

Stuart Calder was always keen for the FCV to become a leader in sharing the technology and application of landscape appreciation, management and care for the environment in general. The FCV were highly supportive of this aspect of Stuart’s recommendation to the Commission and continued to support Regional and National visual management training seminars and collaboration with universities and other agencies in Melbourne, across Victoria and broader afield.

Under Stuart’s leadership and vision, the FCV did for a period, become the national leader in Australia, nurturing a number of positive changes across the nation, and laying the foundations for the discipline of visual resource management so critical in both public and private realm planning today.

Finally, among other key individuals mentioned above:

• The initial Manager of the FCV’s Landscape Group, Richard Hammond, relocated to Perth in the mid-1980s, and was to fulfill a role as CALM’s principal Landscape Architect for several decades
• Ken Keefe (who as well as a Landscape Architect, was also a trained Forester) returned to the US
• Dennis Williamson established his own LA practice in Melbourne, and continues to be involved in significant projects across Australia
• Steve Moss, who initially replaced Richard as Manager of the Group, worked within CFL and DCE and then, in time, established a practice in Queensland, initially in the Whitsundays. His business is now based in Brisbane, but continues to have a strong regional and parks and reserves focus; and
• Mike Leonard, who was the initial ‘local’ within the Landscape Group, subsequently worked in a variety of aspects of land and resource management in Victoria.

¹ 'It is understood that the Commission’s first request to the State’s Public Service Board to recruit overseas was rejected, the Board believing that such specialist expertise was not required. Several months later, a botched car park development in a forested part of the Dandenong’s, by the then roads board, and a subsequent political controversy, resulted in a ‘phone discussion between the Chairman of the PSB and the Commission’s Chairman. The US specialist recruitment quickly followed'. (A Hodgson, pers comm)

² See the bibliography that will, in time, follows this article.