Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

A regular offender in the matter of promoting tough guy destructive driving is The Age Drive section. Its edition of last Saturday [April 13] featured an extensive review of the Suzuki Gladiator, complete with pics of mud being spattered, and a car conquering an impossible slope.

A strange feature of SUV ads is that in an increasingly urbanised society, they try to flatter the viewer as an intrepid adventurer raring to go out and tear up the world. A chink in the armour of this adventurer was inadvertently  revealed in the Age’s account of the Gladiator.

Generally favourable, the review noted that ‘the front seats… are a bit flat and the cushion lacks under thigh support…’

Our readers will not have failed to note the heroic names attached to most off road vehicles: Wrangler, Gladiator, Ranger, X Trail, etc…We did not previously know, however, that the heroes who thrash these vehicles over our long suffering soil were so sensitive in their  under thighs. Toughen up, Fellas!

The ecological thinnings trial was conducted about 15 years ago in four locations in the box ironbark region. Locally the thinnings plot is in the Diggings Park along Morgans Track, between the Chewton-Fryerstown Road and the White Gum Track.

The principle behind the trial is as follows: devastation of the forests following the gold rush led to the destruction of most large trees, and regeneration of dense stands of saplings. The original woodland structure of reasonably widely spaced large trees was thus replaced by what we mostly have now: forests dominated by relatively spindly trees. These forests are naturally thinning themselves, with the gradual death of weaker trees, but the process is taking a long time. The thinnings trial is designed to hasten the process, by taking out relatively weak trees, thus allowing the better trees to grow more robustly, and thus creating a healthier woodland structure.

Section of the thinning trial near Morgan’s Track…

The project had a biodiversity aim: that is, it was intended to produce a better environmental outcome, not just straighter trees.

FOBIF did not oppose the trials, though we thought it was just as well to let nature do the thinning over time, and we were sceptical of the capacity of managers to maintain a credible monitoring program over a long enough period of time to show how effective the program was going to be.

Well, so far, so good, as far as the monitoring is concerned. A recent paper by researchers from Parks Victoria, DELWP and the Arthur Rylah Institute has given an account of the story so far in the thinnings plots. The conclusion of the paper is that tree growth in the plots is significantly higher than in adjacent control areas:

‘Three thinning treatments, differing in their density and pattern of retained trees, were compared with controls to determine the most effective approach for restoring these systems and increasing the rate of recovery for biodiversity benefits. The thinning treatments applied different retention levels of stems, one which reflected conventional silvicultural practice and two designed to reflect a patchy forest structure. The response of tree diameter growth to thinning treatments, for multiple tree species, was examined approximately a decade after thinning. All three thinning treatments increased tree growth-rates similarly (0.32–0.57 cm/yr), compared with the controls (0.2–0.27 cm/yr). These data suggest that the choice of thinning treatment may not be critical for accelerating tree growth, and land managers can focus more strongly on the treatment that provides the best overall outcomes for biodiversity.’

…nearby section of unthinned bushland. The principle behind the project is that thinning produces a more natural and biodiversity rich woodland structure.

There’s a long time to go, of course: in a drying climate, and with poor soils, growth rates are slow.

The paper is jointly written by Geoff Brown, Andrew Murphy, Ben Fanson and Arn Tolsma. Unfortunately it’s not available online.

The Victorian Environment Assessment Council has released a summary of responses to its draft recommendations on the Central West forests. The summary can be found here.

The consultation is an interesting example of a public body sounding out opinion as part of its decision making process. In addition to a widely representative reference group, and direct communication with landholders with an interest in the areas in question, VEAC conducted drop in sessions in the region, and invited submissions:

‘In total, 2698 written submissions on the draft proposals paper were received. Approximately 24 percent were from Melbourne, 20 per cent from in or near the investigation area, 19 per cent from other parts of rural and regional Victoria, and 3 per cent from interstate;34 per cent were submitted with no location information. 137 submissions were from organisations and the remainder were from individuals.’

There were 1500 identical [ie, pro forma] submissions. Of these, 919 opposed the creation of a Wombat National Park, and 618 were pro forma submissions prepared by the Victorian National Parks Association. These supported the draft recommendations plus the creation of a national park in the Mount Cole area. The individual submissions reveal a wide variety of often contradictory views, which the council will have to account for in its final recommendations. Some of the submissions showed a degree of cynicism about the Council’s independence, but as far as we can tell, the process has been pretty transparent. Given our own cynicism about aspects of the Victorian Government’s ‘engage Victoria’ process, we were interested in VEAC’s comment on the way it considered the public’s views:

‘Because submitters do not constitute a representative sample of the population, recommendations are not based on the number of times a comment or viewpoint was submitted; rather, it was what was in the submissions that counted.’

The final report will be delivered to the Minister in June.

BirdLife International has identified areas of conservation importance around the world as Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). This includes KBAs right here in our region. Our KBAs were designated especially for their importance for two special birds, Diamond Firetail and Swift Parrot, and cover both public and private land.

The three KBAs in the Mount Alexander Shire are Clydesdale-Strangways, Sandon-Strathlea and Muckleford-Newstead.

Sandon State forest: Sandon is one of the key biodiversity areas in our region, along with Clydesdale-Strangways and Muckleford Newstead.

Birdlife’s Easter health check takes an annual snapshot of the threat and conservation actions of the areas that matter most to birds. BirdLife compares results between KBAs across Australia and around the globe. The results are extremely valuable, especially for identifying species decline and targeting conservation work.

BirdLife is looking for local people to complete a 2019 Easter health check for each KBA. To help, Connecting Country is running a workshop on Friday 12 April 2019 in Newstead.   Greg Turner from BirdLife Victoria will talk through the process for our part of the Bendigo Box Ironbark area. Geoff Nevill from the Muckleford Forest Friends Group will also talk about his group’s work in the region.

This annual check is all about assessing habitat and its threats. Anyone with an interest in landscape restoration is most welcome to come along and get involved, whether you’re a beginner or an experienced birdwatcher. Come  to this workshop to learn how you can participate in the Easter Health Check: 

• Learn about the KBA’s in the Mount Alexander Shire.
• Find out about KBA Easter Health Check – what it is and how to do it.
• Meet other people working with KBAs.

Where: Newstead Community Centre Mechanics Hall, 9 Lyons St, Newstead VIC, on Friday 12 April 2019: 9.00 to 11.30 am. It’s free, with morning tea and refreshments provided.

To book, click here. If you have any questions, please contact Ivan Carter at Connecting Country on (03) 5472 1594 or ivan@connectingcountry.org.au.

The Commissioner for the environment has released the five yearly State of the Environment report for Victoria. The summary report can be found here.

Even the summary report is not easy reading, but it’s fair to say that in most categories Victoria gets only a ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ for environmental management.

Here are three representative passages from the report. First, on water: given the drastic events along the Darling river this year, the following is a dire warning:

‘Metrics and thresholds currently do not exist to promptly determine when the condition of Victoria’s water resources and waterway health for reasons related to flow has deteriorated to such an extent that urgent action is required.’

Second, on fire, readers won’t be surprised to see this:

‘Biodiversity impacts from planned fires and bushfires at regional and statewide scales are currently unclear. An approach to monitor biodiversity responses (flora and fauna) to fire at multiple scales (regional and statewide) is missing.’

And lastly, on land management, in view of the current forest survey, we offer the following:

‘Various investment programs across multiple land management units have created different, inconsistent data sources and terminologies for reporting on the state of biodiversity, land and forest assets in Victoria. Data is inadequate to answer many of the critical questions about biodiversity science in Victoria. Victoria’s biodiversity science and data capability are undermined by a lack of coordination and a strategic approach to investing in the critical research that will enable an ecosystems approach to decision making and policy interventions…

‘There is only a basic understanding of the effect of land use and land-use change on soil and land in Victoria.’

Cairn Curran reservoir, March 27. The reservoir is currently at 35% capacity, compared to 64% this time last year. The environment commissioner has noted that we currently don’t know when or how poor water flow might impact on waterway health and water resources.

FOBIF has made a reluctant submission to the current government consultation on forest management. Our reluctance is based on two concerns:

1. These consultations increasingly look like popularity polls, along the lines of the Herald Sun’s daily polls on subjects like, ‘Are the young people of today irresponsible?’ In any case, being voluntary, they’re not necessarily a reflection of the community’s views.
2. The questions in this consultation are either patronising or they try to force respondents into expressing preferences they may not want to express: for example, they ask respondents to ‘prioritise’ ‘conserving plants and animals’ and ‘providing jobs’. This is the old ‘jobs versus the environment’ hoax, and we don’t accept it.

Nevertheless, we had a go. Here is the substance of our submission. The questions are the ones provided by the consultation, and are in italics:

1 How can we protect and improve our forests for all Victorians?

By properly resourcing forest managers, and having them well advised by good research.

2 What benefits do you want future generations to gain or enjoy from Victoria’s forests?

Victorians should be able to benefit from the role of our forests in catchment protection and water supply; they should also be able to enjoy the beauty and biodiversity of our forests. Governments should vigorously pursue plantation timber, to obviate the need to log our native forests.

Continue reading →

FOBIF has made a late submission to the Bushfire Management consultation [see our previous post], after our representatives attended ‘drop in’ consultations in Castlemaine and Bendigo this month. The substance of our submission is set out below:

1. The poor quality of the maps supplied for this process, both online and in the hard copies available at the ‘drop in’ sessions, was such that we are unable to comment in detail on the three options offered in this consultation.
2. We are quite unclear as to the manner in which DELWP will make up its mind about the three options offered. Discussions with your representatives did not clear up this matter:
3. It’s obvious—we hope—that DELWP could not be running a crude popularity poll, particularly since online consultations like this are not necessarily representative of the public as a whole.
4. In any case, we do not see that this consultation will add much to the dozens of such consultations which have taken place over the years. We ourselves have attended innumerable meetings and submitted dozens of submissions on the subject of the many fire operations plans developed since the 1990s. We do hope that this consultation will not take place in isolation from those previous efforts.
5. In the light of the above, we submit that DELWP should take heed of the findings of the Royal Commission Implementation Monitor, and conduct a carefully conceived risk reduction strategy, not dominated by preconceived notions involving scorched earth strategies.
6. In the light of this, it seems to us that some combination of options B and C might be an appropriate approach to take.

However, as we have repeatedly emphasised over the last 20 years, everything depends on the detail of the implementation:

Continue reading →