DSE is proposing to burn a 27 ha area between Lawson Pde/Kalimna Tourist Road and the town this Spring. This burning exercise was originally planned for autumn next year or even the year after. It has been brought forward because the Castlemaine Township Plan for bushfires designates the Junior Secondary College as a safe place, and senior figures in DSE decided that a fuel reduction exercise on the Kalimna side of the College was a necessary part of this plan. In the process, the burn has been changed from category ‘Zone 3: broad area reduced fuel mosaic’, in which only about 65% of the proposed area would actually be burned, to something resembling an Asset Protection burn, in which a much higher proportion will be burned.

The zone in question is part of a pattern, of zones burned in recent years by DSE in an east west band designed to hold up a fire coming from the north side. Those wishing to see how this works will have to do some work going to the DSE website and searching for Fire Operations Plans.

This exercise is sensitive for several reasons. The first is that Spring fires are potentially very damaging to breeding birds, and could interrupt the flowering/seed production of plants. The second is that this particular area is a rich wildflower zone, and is frequently used by field naturalists, bird watchers and ordinary walkers, with and without dogs. The Kalimna Circuit walk occupies a large part of the area to be burnt. Thirdly, the burn zone is adjacent to colonies of the Eltham Copper Butterfly. Fourth, in recent years overgrazing by wallabies forced by drought closer to settlement has prevented regeneration after fire, causing the virtual disappearance of some species from the zone burned by DSE in 1997. And lastly, burns done in Spring could be slow in recovering if, as is predicted, we have a very hot summer.

It will be no news to our readers that land managers are under intense pressure to ‘do something’ to protect communities from lethal fire. In particular political authorities at the highest level have rushed to the judgment that ‘fuel load’ is the major if not the only determinant of fire severity, as witness the Parliamentary enquiry on bushfires [see article below]. In our view, fuel reduction has a part to play in fire protection, but the question of how much, when and where need to be very carefully considered. In particular, excessive removal of vegetation could have the opposite effect to the one intended: a fire driven by hot dry winds could travel much faster through sparser vegetation than through dense vegetation [see the VNPA submission below], and low fuel loads did not prevent or slow down fires in Bendigo in February.

In the present case we are pretty sure the management burn will cause significant ecological damage, which will have to be weighed against the safety gains achieved.

Representatives of FOBIF and Friends of Kalimna Park have met with DSE and Parks Victoria officers charged with conducting this exercise. They appear sensitive to the difficulty of their task. The stakes are high: in the short term, if a fire breaks out in this area, they will cop some blame almost whatever they do, because the only way of preventing bushfire absolutely is to concrete over the whole state. In this case the responsible officers have commissioned flora studies of the area and undertaken to take them into consideration in conducting the burn. Eltham copper butterfly areas will be protected, as will significant vegetation on which the butterfly depends. We intend to watch the recovery period carefully, and to press for protection from overgrazing where possible.

If, on the other hand, management burns contribute to a decline in biodiversity, the potential damage in the long term is serious. The recent dust storms north of our border had a cause much more direct and immediate than climate change: it is decline of vegetation cover as a result of overgrazing and other forms of mismanagement over a very long period of time. Dangerous as it can be, we need the bush: as Judge Stretton put it in the 1940s, ‘forest, soil and water form an inseparable trinity’. Damage the forest, and the other two are at risk—and there’s no need to point out how serious that is.

The NSW Conservation Council noted recently that ‘optimal fire regimes for fuel reduction will generally differ from optimal fire regimes for conserving biodiversity.’ The community needs to make careful decisions about how to deal with the conflict this presents. It can only do this with proper information and good leadership. We are not getting the latter from the State Government, which appears to be ignoring or pre empting the findings of the Royal Commission. In the mean time, we could well bear in mind the message offered by an Age editorialist: ‘Treeless towns won’t be fireproof, just ugly.’ 27/9/2009

Fire and the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission

FOBIF draws attention to two submissions made to the Commission by conservation organizations. These are not designed to argue the point about the matters before the Commission, but contain valuable information on what happened on Black Saturday, and what management issues arise from these events.

The VNPA/ACF/WS Submission.

This is a joint effort by the Victorian National Parks Association, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society. You can get it by going to www.vnpa.org.au and clicking on Reports. 

It is a careful review of what exactly happened in February this year. The following points are of interest:

• Most fires started on private land.

• The area burnt across Victoria comprised state forests (43 per cent), timber

plantations (5 per cent), private land (29 per cent) and National Parks (23 per        cent).

• Fires that started on private or leased land on 7 February were uncontrollable by

the time they arrived at the boundaries of National Parks (e.g. Kinglake and Yarra

Ranges).

• Fires that started within parks and protected areas (e.g. Wilson’s Promontory and Mt Riddell in Yarra Ranges National Park) were mostly contained within National Parks; the exception being the fire in the Bunyip State Park.

• The condition of vegetation plays a significant role in the intensity and spread of fire (i.e. there is evidence fire spreads more readily in modified and disturbed

vegetation. The report notes that older, undisturbed forest patches resisted the fire better than logged, thinned stands).

• The number of extreme fire danger days already exceeds those predicted to occur

      in 2050.

• The probability of previous prescribed burns slowing a head fire significantly

     decreases with increasing Forest Fire Danger Index.

• On 7 February many areas of forest that had been treated with prescribed burns

      were still severely burnt because of the extreme conditions.

The IUCN/WCPA submission.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature/World Commission on Protected Areas submission is to do with fire history and management issues more generally.

Worth noting:

“Prescribed burning is exactly what the term says – it is the application of low intensity fire to an area under a planned, prescribed or defined set of weather conditions, for a prescribed or defined outcomes (fuel reduction and / or ecological purposes). If the outcome is for fuel reduction then the prescriptions include a defined level of fuel removal, which is generally in the order of  25% to 50% of the fuel load existing. From experience, even where well determined weather conditions are defined for a burning program confusion often prevails as to whether a burn is to remove a percentage of the fuel by weight only or a defined percentage of the fuel over a defined percentage of the proposed burn area, or a fuel reduction from some presumably high level e.g. 20 tonnes per hectare to a defined low level generally being in the order of 8 to 10 tonnes per hectare.

“The science behind prescribed burning is sound but it is the repetitive, frequent application of  prescribed burning to any one area during the cooler months of the year, that leads to the continual (and polarised) debate over the use of prescribed burning.  All too often the weather conditions and the planned outcomes of the burning are not determined and stated even in part, prior to a burn and hence burning programs are generally implemented on so called ‘experience’.   Unfortunately this ‘experience’ has all to often, resulted in excessive crown scorch of trees due to fire intensities well in excess of those appropriate to prescribed burning (500 to 2500 kilowatts per metre);  damage to habitats and excessive removal of ground cover resulting in soil instability and even fire escapes that have become wildfires themselves. A high percentage (15 – 20%) each year of all bushfires in the south eastern States are a result of poorly planned and implemented prescribed burns and other ‘planned burns’.

“As a result of the all-to-often failure to define the weather conditions required to achieve acceptable prescribed fire intensities, not only does crown scorch of the overstorey trees occur but excessive amounts of fuel are removed with exposure of the soils to erosion from any subsequent storm events that may follow the burning. This issue is particularly important in the mountain water catchments of the Brindabella Ranges (Canberra water supply); the natural areas including national parks and other protected areas around Melbourne, (Melbourne water supply) and the Alps catchments of the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Snowy Rivers (Alps National Parks).

“Almost all prescribed burning programs are stated in planning documents to be for ‘fuel reduction purposes to provide protection for life and property’.  This in itself is incorrect as fuel reduction does not provide ‘protection for life and property’ but if correctly and effectively implemented does reduce the ground litter loads from a high level to a lower level and in so doing reduces the fire intensity of a bushfire that  may subsequently burn through an area during the summer months. The reduced fuel loads contribute to lower wildfire intensities which in turn, provide a greater opportunity for fire fighting personnel to suppress a subsequent bushfire but as history shows and as has been recorded – prescribed burning does not stop a very high to extreme intensity bushfire, as experienced in the disastrous 2003 bushfires that burnt across large tracts of mountainous country in Victoria, NSW, and the ACT and the 2009 wildfires in Victoria.

“Protection of life and property from the impacts of all wildfires (high intensity fires) therefore cannot be guaranteed through the implementation of prescribed burning, and to assert that it does would be grossly negligent by anyone who states that this can be achieved.  The immediate post-fire call by many from the public including several researchers and academics, to do more prescribe burning, is therefore ill-considered, and inappropriate.  If such was to be considered, the extent (area and locations) of past and recent prescribed burns would need to be quantified such that the appropriateness and possible benefits of any additional prescribed burning could be ascertained.  The question to those calling for more burning is: more than what, more where, more when and how to achieve it?” 27/9/2009

A series of ‘strategic conversations’ was held by DSE at Big Hill in August to present to the community the idea of ‘landscape mosaic burns’. Community representatives’ responses to the idea have ranged from concerns centred mainly around safety to those about environmental health. Somewhere in the middle have been such people as beekeepers, who have looked for reassurance that burns over a large area do not affect honey production. 

What are landscape mosaic burns? 

First, the idea is vague. In particular, a ‘landscape’, on current working definitions, might be five thousand hectares—or it might be as little as a thousand ha. Even this smaller area is big, however, compared to what we have been used to in this region: this year’s Wewak track burn, for example, was relatively large for this area, and it was only 241 ha.  

A 5000 ha burn would cover most of the Diggings Park (which is only 7000 ha), and is clearly out of the question. DSE officers at Big Hill acknowledged this. Even a 1000 ha burn, however would present serious problems in managing the different environments which would be covered in such an area. 

Second, these burns are not an entirely new idea. In the current DSE Fire Protection Plan, a Zone 3 management burn is described as a ‘broad area reduced fuel mosaic.’ In this zone the burn is uneven, and 35% of the named area is not burned at all. A management burn of the new type will also burn only a proportion of the area in question: somewhere between 30% and 80% has been mentioned. This is much more flexible than the 65% which is presently aimed at in Zone 3 burns, but the upper figure is one which gives some cause for concern, for reasons explained below.  

Third, Landscape Mosaic Burns will ‘usually take several years to complete.’ We are obviously dealing with a very complicated exercise here, which could not be completed in the limited time available each year for management burns. The number of days each year when the bush is dry enough for a burn to be possible and not so dry that it could be dangerous is strictly limited. If the Landscape burns take place over a number of years, it’s not really clear how they differ from the current Zone 3 burns. 

Fourth, the intervals between such burns in the same area will vary, depending on the monitored fuel loads and vegetation recovery: burn intervals could be as short as ten or as long as fifty years—the same as for Zone 3.   

And lastly, the Landscape burns are separate from current Fire Operations Plans, and superimposed upon them. This makes the situation even more confusing.  

*********

The stated intentions of such a burning practice are both ecological enhancement and reduction of severe wildfire risk. It is at this stage hard not to be cynical about this dual objective: the first objective looks like it’s there to soften the second, especially in the light of pressure to drastically increase targets for management burns. Putting aside this cynicism for the moment, we are still entitled to ask, in what way is this new system better than the zoning which has been used by DSE for years? How is a ‘landscape mosaic burn’ better than a ‘broad area reduced fuel mosaic’?  

In any case, the ecological objective is the one in which we have a particular interest. A literature review produced by the Arthur Rylah institute, and produced in our newsletter in 2006, recommends an extremely cautious approach to the use of fire for ecological management, in the light of our limited knowledge of box ironbark ecosystems. Burning over a very wide area is extremely ambitious, if one considers the range of ecosystems and sensitivities to fire in, for example, the Castlemaine Diggings NHP.  

In order to approach this dimension of the task, fire operatives have sought advice from Deakin University. We will look with great interest at whatever advice the University offers. In addition, DSE monitors its own burns, and among other things uses ‘indicator species’ as a guide to recovery from fire.  

FOBIF’s concerns around management burns have mainly centred on the vagueness of this research basis. So far as we know, the research is not available to the public, which makes it hard to know how credible or useful it is. What is at stake is not just aesthetics: it is important to manage the bush so as to maximise its health at a time of great climatic stress. If burning too frequently contributes to declines in forest health, we will have been in the position of having ‘destroyed it in order to save it.’

Moreover, even the first objective, reducing fire risk, may not be achieved in this system. As Phil Ingamells points out in the article printed below, ‘well-intentioned prescribed burns can actually turn some relatively fire-resistant forest types into drier, shrubby forests, making them more fire- prone.’

We look forward to a discussion of this whole matter in the second half of the Royal Commission’s deliberations in the coming months. In the mean time, DSE has floated the idea of a landscape burn in the Heathcote Graytown area. For more information, go to

 http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/82811E605B271B01CA2576070081F248/$File/LMB+discussion+paper_2009.pdf

 for a DSE discussion paper on the subject.

We could lose more than we gain if we surrender to knee-jerk targets for fuel-reduction burning across Victoria.

Management burns have the capacity to significantly reduce fuel loads.

They are a critical part of bushfire management, and contrary to some claims, the conservation movement has supported strategic fuel reduction across the state for many years now, including within National Parks.

But management burns are just one tool in the fire prevention armory, and like most tools they have their limits.

Wrongly applied, they can be quite harmful.

Max Rheese and the Victorian Lands Alliance is calling for a tripling of current burn targets to the 385,000ha recommended by last year's parliamentary inquiry.

But that figure was not based on any credible scientific evidence, and certainly not on the limited research the report actually referred to.

Indeed, the current target of 130,000ha per year, so far as we know, is also not derived from any clear scientific analysis.

And oddly, this broad hectare target is meant to be achieved regardless of the extent of wildfire.

Whether there is no bushfire in a given year, or whether we get another Black Saturday across half the state, we are still meant to achieve a figure of 130,000ha of additional burn.

It's a bit like deciding to pump 100,000 litres of water into a dam each year, regardless of how full the dam is.

Even one of the strongest protagonists for larger fuel reduction targets, Peter Attiwill, makes it clear in his textbook, Ecology, used by students throughout Australia, that we must take wildfire into account when planning control burns.

He says "a prescribed fire regime to manage the accumulated fuel loads and to manage biodiversity demands knowledge both of fire behaviour and of the life histories of plants and animals".

And this is the most difficult part of the problem.

The bush isn't just fuel, it's where our 600 million-year-old evolutionary heritage of something like 100,000 native species hangs out.

If we are not careful, we could lose it.

The Victorian community may choose to decide that we have no other options for fire safety, and that it is worth sacrificing our heritage.

But if we are to make that decision, it should be a well-considered one - weighing up all our knowledge, and looking at all of our management and planning options.

It's a difficult call though. Ecologists are telling us that frequently repeated fire is likely to have more impact on biodiversity than the occasional fierce fire, but we need a lot more information.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment has established "tolerable fire intervals" for different vegetation types.

However, that only accounts for a relatively small number of plants, for which we have a fair knowledge of recovery periods.

We don't yet take into account the recovery capacity of our many birds and animals, let alone the tens of thousands of different insects and other remarkable native species that hold our ecosystems together.

And well-intentioned prescribed burns can actually turn some relatively fire-resistant forest types into drier, shrubby forests, making them more fire- prone.

We are at risk of setting up a very extensive and quite dicey experiment in ecosystem management in Victoria, without sufficient scientific basis and little or no monitoring.

This is something we would never tolerate in our hospitals, nor would we tolerate it from our engineers or bridge-builders.

With climate change clearly upon us, and more frequent fires predicted, land managers in 30 years' time will be desperate for data from long-term scientific monitoring.

Whatever fire regimes we may decide on, we must also set up comprehensive monitoring programs now.

Then, hopefully, we might be able to make informed judgments on the effectiveness of different fuel reduction programs.

Also, we might then understand what we need to do to protect our natural heritage.

On June 19 FOBIF representatives met with David Major, Ranger in Charge of the Castlemaine Diggings NHP, and did a short tour with him of recent works in the Park.

We wanted to express our concern over the way track ‘upgrades’ had taken place in the Stephens Track and Poverty Gully areas. In addition we were shocked at the bulldozer gouging of a dam at the old Caledonian mine site on Stephens track, the extension of Stephens St, Campbell’s Creek. The dam has been significantly and pointlessly enlarged, and huge amounts of rock and clay dumped onto vegetation in the process.

This is not the first time we have had problems with ‘upgrades’ of one sort or another in the Park. In 2004 we protested against roadworks in the same area which in our view were excessive and crudely executed.

In both cases we have made clear that we are not opposed to reasonable access tracks, especially where fire control is the rationale behind the works. Our problem is that workers, if not properly supervised, seem inclined to take out large swathes of the bush additional to what is needed for the works in question. Bulldozer turning circles are a particular problem.

We believe that the bush in the area is fragile, and needs all the help it can get. It does not need to be brutally bashed in the name of efficiency.

In particular, we are concerned that one of the Park’s own guidelines is clearly not being observed. This reads: ‘All roadworks (within parks and reserves) must be supervised by Parks Victoria staff.’ 

This clearly did not happen with the private contractor involved in the recent works.

As a consequence we have the ridiculous situation that work supposedly done to protect the bush and people has environmentally degrading results: erosion, increased traffic short cutting through the bush, and intrusion on sensitive areas, like the red spider orchid areas affected in 2004. 

David Major acknowledged that there were problems in the implementation of the recent works, in particular with the dam site. He undertook to have this repaired, though it is hard to see how the damage can be undone.

If there is a moral in this incident, it is that it’s important to keep an eye on what is being done in the park. Careless or sloppy work can only be controlled if local people show that they care how things are done. Another depressing lesson is that you have to keep at it: we thought after discussions with the Park in 2004 that we would not have this problem again.

Council’s Planning Department has asked Council to approve a process of community consultation on rules (“Planning Controls”) for new housing being built near bushland.

During the next 1-2 months the Department plans to have sessions where residents can tell Council representatives their views. FOBIF doesn’t know whether the form of consultation will be guided by the individual residents, or if a questionnaire will be used.

Background

These sessions come towards the end of the Council’s Urban Forest Interface Study (UFIS), a series of meetings between representatives of Council, DSE, CFA, FOBIF, Castlemaine Action and landowners. Council set up the study in response to a recommendation from the C24 Planning Panel in 2005.

The Panel endorsed the concerns expressed by FOBIF about how rezoning land near bush for housing might affect flora and fauna on the one hand, and the risk to residents from wildfire on the other. As a result the Shire’s Planning Scheme (i.e. the State Government-approved planning rules) says Council must do an Urban Forest Interface Study before it can rezone land near Castlemaine bush for housing.

Issues

The effects of more housing near bush include:
1. risk to more residents from bushfires,
2. residents who have belatedly discovered this risk pressuring authorities to clear bush near to them,
3. spread of environment weeds through garden escapes and dumped garden waste,
4. more bush being “neatened” (i.e. destroyed) by residents,
5. more cats and dogs killing or harming wildlife,
6. more trail bike tracks destroying plants and increasing erosion.

The effects of more housing in bush include:
1. complete destruction of bush for houses, drives, sheds, gardens, etc.
2. partial destruction of bush surrounding houses to comply with CFA requirements,
3. effects 1 to 6 above.

Some of the land the Study is focusing on has bush on it. All of the land is near bush - some public, some private.

FOBIF has been asking for a Rural Conservation Zone in these areas to protect the flora and fauna. DSE has broadly supported this approach and if the Council believes there is community support, it will also probably support this position.

FOBIF has also been arguing for wider buffer areas between new housing and the bush. The fires of February 7th, especially in Bendigo, illustrate the need for this.

The CSIRO’s climate predictions (made in 2007) indicate Very Extreme and Catastrophic fire danger days may become more common. Very Extreme Fire Weather is where the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) is greater than 75 and would include the fire weather on Ash Wednesday, the Avoca to Maryborough fire and the February 2009 fires. Bendigo currently experiences Very Extreme Fire Weather days around once every 11 years but with a high level of global warming (1deg C rise by 2020), the CSIRO estimate these days may occur every 6-7 years by 2020.

Controversy

One view put at UFIS meetings is that there shouldn’t be more control over how people use their land. If Council adopted this view, how could natural ecosystems be protected, and how could residents in new areas be protected from wildfire?

Another view put at the UFIS meetings is that this process (which may restrict developers) is the result of us having a National Heritage Park. But do people who love the bush only want to protect it if it is in a Park? And do people only care about minimizing the risk to residents from a bushfire in a Park?

What You Can Do

1. Watch the local papers or the Council website for details of the community consultation within the next two months.

2. If you haven’t heard anything and would like some information, ring the Council (5471 1700) and ask the Planning Dept. for details, or to be put on the mailing list.

3. Come to a consultation session and give your views on issues arising from rezoning land near bush for housing. The UFIS has been focusing on Castlemaine, and it’s important that Castlemaine’s residents, especially those living near bush, give their views. However Council is likely to eventually base its policy for other areas in the Shire on the results of this study in Castlemaine. So it’s also useful for residents from other areas to be heard. The Tarran Valley proposal at Maldon is an example of a housing estate where 22 hectare of bush (used by threatened species) would be completely or partially destroyed, and where residents would live with an unacceptable risk from fire.


State of Environment Report
The Victorian Commissioner for Environment and Sustainability released his State of the Environment report in December 2008. It makes sobering reading.

On inland waterways, the report says, ’The last assessment of river health in 2004 found that only one fifth of major rivers and tributaries in Victoria were in good or excellent condition. By 1994, more than a third of naturally occurring wetland area had been lost. Twenty-one fish species, 11 frog species and 29 species of water birds are currently considered threatened.’

‘Under climate change, streamflow is projected to decrease by up to 50% across much of Victoria by 2070. The present degraded state of many inland waters increases the challenge of mitigating the environmental impacts associated with climate
change.’

‘Lack of flooding threatens the existence of tens of thousands of hectares of River Red Gum Forests.’

The report can be found at www.ces.vic.gov.au

 Bendigo Forest Management Plan

This plan was released in November 2008, after a period of consultation. 

State forests account for 5.8% of  Victoria, and 32.2% of  public land (compared to 40.7% for conservation parks). Under this Plan, forests are divided into three zones: General Management (the vast majority of the forests), Special Management and Special Protection. These latter are small pockets in which exploitative activities are relatively restricted.

The Plan expresses a kind of ‘wise use’ vision of forest use, with many very praiseworthy objectives around habitat conservation, particularly related to the retention of old trees. The devil, as with many of these documents, is in the implementation. For example, the chapter on fire supports ‘adaptive management research’, and cites DSE’s Guidelines and Procedures for Ecological Burning (2003) as its guide. FOBIF has substantial anecdotal evidence that this document is regarded with some cynicism by those responsible for management burns. We suspect that fuel reduction is the all consuming aim of these burns, and that the ecology comes further down the list of concerns.

In any case, there is a wider question of the role of management plans, both in state forests and National Parks. How seriously are they taken by staff forced by budget restrictions to choose between important options, necessarily sacrificing some for others?

From our point of view, it is reasonably important, in any case, that the public be aware of these plans: constructive public scrutiny is an important force in good public land management.

The Plan is definitely worth a look, and if you can get a copy, we recommend you do so. It’s available from DSE, and on the net in PDF format at www.dse.vic.gov.au

Input to the Bendigo FMP

A summary of submissions to the consultation process is available with the plan itself, and they are as interesting as the final document: they provide a clear insight into the range of community attitudes which DSE had to bear in mind in creating the final Plan.

For interest, we quote two submission summaries here:

Item 148: ‘Those agitating for all forests to be declared Parks or Reserves would best be advised to devote their attention to responsible stewardship of the existing Parks and Reserves. An independent audit reviewing management, preservation and health of all represented species and their impact on neighbours and the immediate and wider community is well overdue.’ 

Item 149: ‘Consolidate the Upper Loddon Catchment Forest and Mt Franklin Reserve and the Castlemaine Diggings NHP into a national park that would capture the imagination of Victoria. Provides a petition of 320 signatures stating ‘A petition that the Upper Loddon Catchment forests be declared a national park and world biosphere reserve.’

Both of these submissions were received noncommittally by the Plan writers. Maybe both have some merit.

FOBIF and the Bendigo FMP

FOBIF made a submission to the consultation process in 2007. It can be viewed here.

We made suggestions under four headings.

First, we suggested the enlargement of a Special Management Zone in the Fryers Ranges to protect old trees. This was accepted. We also urged that DSE be more proactive in explaining its approach to conservation matters. This was greeted by a vague generalization about community engagement. It is a source of frustration to us that DSE and Parks Victoria are both subjected to a range of attacks—some of them from us, others much less well informed—and their usual response is to lie low or to respond in bureaucratese. We can probably expect this to continue.

Second, we urged a much more rigorous approach to researching the effects of management burns, and specific requirement that all operatives involved in these burns ‘take account of the results of monitoring of previous burns in the relevant area.’ This also was responded to with generalities.

Third, we requested greater protection in the Muckleford Forest for threatened species. This was rejected on the grounds that the species in question are already protected in the Muckleford Flora reserve.

And fourth, we suggested greater protection for three heritage sites in the Fryers Forest. These suggestions were accepted. 

Draft Northern Victoria Water Strategy

The State Government’s draft Sustainable Water Strategy for the Northern Region has proposed a number of actions including new regulation of farm dams to meet the problems of declining inflows over the next 50 years.

The report highlights that a continuation of conditions experienced over the past 12 years would mean a 70 per cent reduction in Loddon and Campaspe inflows and a 48 per cent reduction for the Goulburn.

The problem is made clear in a table on page 40 which compares the long term average inflows into Victoria’s share of the Murray system with the inflows since 1997. Average inflows from 1891 to 1996 were 7,478 gigalitres per year. Inflows since 1997 have averaged 4,184 gigalitres per year—a drop of 44%.

The Draft also highlights the proliferation of farm and peri urban amenity dams and the effect on storage inflows.

A study of one Eppalock catchment in the report shows that 31 per cent of inflows were captured in farm dams.

Of these inflows, 90 per cent accounting for 1435ML were in unlicensed dams.

Page 164 of the Draft has two startling aerial photos of the Mt Ida sub catchment. One, taken in 1982, shows the area as a rural setting. It is possible to make out about a dozen dams. The second, taken in 2008 shows the area as a peri urban setting. The number of dams has more than doubled. There are serious questions here about who has rights to water, and what for. It is particularly interesting that the National Party local member, Damien Drum, has expressed concern about dam construction. It is a far cry from National Party views in the past, which held that private landowners had unchallengable rights to harvest water from their land.

The draft was developed with regional water authorities, catchment management authorities, local government, industry groups, the Victorian Farmers Federation, Environment Victoria and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

It may be found at the Mount Alexander Shire offices, or in PDF format at www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/programs/sws/northern