Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

FOBIF’s May walk will tackle the Tarilta creek valley from the Sawpit Track end, the starting point being  about a 30 minute drive from Castlemaine.

This is the less travelled end of the valley: there’ll be steep ascents and descents, uneven ground, possible wet creek crossings, fallen logs to traverse, and some annoying gorse to negotiate–but, of course, it’ll all be worth it. About 7kms. See the walks page for more general details.  More info: Bernard Slattery 0499 624 160

A project is under way to install new visitor information points along the Goldfields Track.

The project involves 4 visitor hubs, 8 trail headboards, and up to 100 interpretive signs along the 200+ kilometre length of the track between Ballarat and Bendigo. Consultants are currently working on the design of the project with Goldfields Track inc and Djandak, the  commercial arm of Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation.

If you’re a bit unnerved by the idea of ‘100 interpretive signs’ along the track (that would be a sign about every 2 kilometres!), so are we. However, we are assured first, that this number might be ‘only’ 75, and second, that the signs might be simple QR codes on posts. By applying a phone to the Code, visitors would be able to read off info about natural and cultural features of the point in question.

Think authorities can’t go a bit bonkers with unnecessary signs? Think again. Of course, we don’t think the present project will make this sort of mistake.

The potential value of this project is obvious, and the Djandak involvement in the project should ensure some balance is restored to the interpretation of our bushlands, too often weighted to a glorification, or sentimentalisation of gold fever.

FOBIF is watching this project with great interest. 

First, we don’t want a proliferation of signs to disturb the serenity of those parts of the Diggings park most notable for their feeling of abandonment and isolation. Parts of our bushland are already cluttered with unnecessary or out of date signs, a clutter which definitely does not add to the ‘natural’ experience.

FOBIF walkers taking a rest, Sebastopol Gully: parts of the Diggings park would be spoiled by an excess of signage.

Second, we believe that any serious explanation of the goldfields landscape should include information about the destructive effects of the gold rush. Any visitor to our region must be struck by the number of eroded waterways and clearly degraded land. Any signage offering information about the region must include an explanation as to how this happened, and a sober account of what happens when rampant pursuit of wealth overrides all other concerns.

Brown’s Gully near the Goldfields Track crossing: the innumerable degraded streams in our region are part of the price we have paid for gold. Explanations of these landscape features should be provided in the relevant places.

The consultants’ approaches to these questions seem constructive. One question about the project is still not clear to us, however: the role of Parks Victoria. The Goldfields Track traverses significant parks in this region, and Parks Victoria is supposed to have a major role in community education on the value of these lands. In recent years, Parks seems to be more interested in tourism than in education. We’ll see what constructive input PV might have in this project.

DELWP completed its management burn at Kemp’s Track in the Fryers Nature Conservation reserve in the last week of March. It was one of four significant department fires in this region.

We had a look at the site on April 11. It’s hard to get an overall sense of a 260 hectare site, in which the impact of fire varied from very severe to very mild, with some areas untouched.

We have two distinct impressions of the fire zone, however:

First, that, as is common in these cases, large trees have been felled as a result of the fire. This is not supposed to happen.

Unusually large habitat trees felled as a result of the Kemps Track burn. One of these is a Swamp Gum, unusual in this region.

Large trees victims of the burn. The very big Yellow Box in the centre may survive.

Second, areas which we supposed to be low fuel zones—for example, grassy riparian zones—were burned. We don’t see the point of this.

Mossy creekline burned in the fire. We were curious about its fate–see our March 28 post. This area did not need ‘fuel reduction’.

What is the Department’s view of these two questions? According to the Code, it should be publicly available.

So: what was the exact fire coverage at Kemp’s track? And what ecological positives and negatives were achieved in the exercise?

The Code of Practice requires that

‘Monitoring programs will also focus on:

• mapping the extent and severity of bushfires and planned burns‘ [paragraph 212] [FOBIF emphasis]

It also requires that

‘The Department will make publicly accessible information about:

• the performance of its bushfire management actions, and the status of achievements of strategies and objectives
• information gained from monitoring and evaluation activities’ [Paragraph 222]

Therefore it should be possible to get an exact idea of how the exercise fulfilled one of the two major aims of fire management exercises:

• ‘To maintain or improve the resilience of natural ecosystems and their ability to deliver services such as biodiversity, water, carbon storage and forest products.’

Unfortunately the Code doesn’t specify precisely what ‘publicly accessible’ means—and, in practice, it doesn’t seem to mean much at all. It should mean: the ‘information should be published on DELWP websites.’

FOBIF will make enquiries to the Department, and report on the results.

Tarilta resident Rob Simons sent The Conversation article to local fire managers asking they consider it before undertaking the upcoming Helge Track burn. The reply he got is remarkable, in that it completely ignores the argument of the article:

‘Thanks for sending the below link to the article.

‘While there are differing views on planned burning, fire is a natural part of Victoria’s environment.

‘Victorian government legislation requires the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to reduce the risk of damaging bushfires and to protect human life.

‘As described in the Forest Act 1958, The Chief Fire Officer, on behalf of the Secretary to DELWP, is required to carry out proper and sufficient work in State forests, national parks and on protected public land for the immediate prevention and suppression of fire and the planned prevention of fire.

‘Bushfire risk is linked to the distribution and accumulation of fuels if left untreated. DELWP, the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and stakeholders have developed strategic bushfire management plans using science, simulation tools, and local knowledge to manage this risk. These plans inform bushfire risk reduction targets and locations in the landscape where planned burns are conducted. (Bushfire Management Strategies for each region can be found on the DELWP website)

‘Through the Loddon Mallee Region Strategic Bushfire Management Plan, the Helge Track planned burn unit has been identified as an important location for burning to be applied to reduce the impact of bushfire on the community.

‘To meet its statutory requirements, DELWP intends to complete this planned burn when weather and fuel conditions are suitable.

‘While DELWP planned burns do not totally eliminate the risk and potential impacts of bushfires, they are a key part of an integrated bushfire risk management strategy to protect life, property and the environment including community education and awareness, ensuring access for firefighters and equipment and fast response to bushfires.

‘I hope the information is of assistance.’

No, the information is not of assistance. Everything in it is already well known to anyone who’s taken an interest in fire management. Worse, the letter makes no effort to deal with the matters in the Conversation article.

For the purposes of this discussion, FOBIF is not interested in taking sides in the argument. Up to now we have concentrated on trying to ensure that DELWP does what it says it will: observe the controls in its protocols, keep fires cool, look after old growth trees.

But what we’d like to see is a genuine engagement of the fire managers with the other side of that argument. That argument has been carefully put together by reputable scientists on the basis of detailed research.

Doesn’t it deserve a consideration?

Given the spate of gold exploration licences being sought, and granted, in this region, we’d like to remind readers of a fun document which appeared as the pandemic was gathering pace, and may not have gotten the attention it deserved.

It’s the Victorian Auditor General’s report on mine and quarry rehabilitation, tabled in August 2020. You can find it here. Like all such reports, it’s not easy reading, but it’s worth a crack, and the one page summary at the start won’t stretch your brain.

All prospective miners are required to pay the state upfront an amount of money adequate for restoring the land after the mine or quarry has been exhausted.

A common sight in our region. The Castlemaine Diggings Heritage Action Plan (2005) put it nicely: this landscape ‘demonstrates the severe environmental impact that can result from inadequate environmental constraint.’ Are we facing a repeat performance?

Are they doing this? The report’s conclusions are succinct:

‘The Department of Jobs Precincts and Regions (DJPR) is not effectively regulating operators’ compliance with their rehabilitation responsibilities. This exposes the state to significant financial risk because some sites have been poorly rehabilitated or not treated at all. If not addressed, these sites also present risks to Victorians and the environment.[FOBIF emphasis]

‘Systemic regulatory failures encompass:

• using outdated cost estimates
• not periodically reviewing bonds for their sufficiency—including a four-year bond review ‘moratorium’ for which there is no documentary evidence that it was duly authorised
• failure to assure that site rehabilitation had actually occurred before returning bonds
• approving inadequately specified rehabilitation plans
• lack of enforcement activities.

‘Further, while some changes to address conflicts of interest were made following Parliament’s Independent Inquiry into the EPA in 2016, Earth Resources Regulation (ERR)—the primary mining regulator—still resides within DJPR, which seeks to foster and develop the mining industry.’ (FOBIF emphases).

The disturbing part of this is the revelation that the regulator and the promoter of mining are in the same department. This kind of compromise, where the regulator is too close to the industry it’s regulating, is all too common. Does the casino industry come to mind?

The upshot of this is that extensive areas of Victoria are being degraded by mining with little prospect of rehabilitation—unless the tax payer stumps up millions for the work ($361 million and counting, so far).

The DJPR, in its acknowledgement of the Auditor General’s report, accepted that change is necessary, recognising that

‘transformational improvement in site rehabilitation is required to protect public safety, land, infrastructure and the environment, in order to avoid any repeat of past problems associated with abandoned and legacy sites.’

We’re not sure how the transformational improvement is going. Watch this space.