Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Australia’s State of the Environment report 2021 was belatedly released last week. The report’s grim findings have been widely publicised, and we won’t repeat what will be already widely known. It’s worth pointing out, however, that the report is peppered with words and phrases emphasising the need for ‘greater community awareness’, to ‘rethink’, ‘redesign’, ‘be more conscious’, ‘to build better, greener, more resilient’. This is in line with virtually every other Enviro report we’ve seen: the need to change the way we live is pretty basic. Maybe that’s why such reports are political dynamite.  Everyone wants a better environment. How many want the changes necessary to bring that about?

An example of ‘disregard’ for environmental values? Gazanias for sale: ‘Gazania (Gazania linearis) is regarded as an environmental weed in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia and as an emerging or potential environmental weed in parts of Western Australia and New South Wales. This species invades coastal habitats, as well as grasslands and open woodlands in inland areas. It can severely alter the vegetation structure in plant communities by replacing and suppressing native plants.’ –Lucid Central.

Coincidentally, the North Central Catchment Management Authority has released its Regional Catchment strategy 2021-27. This document contains the following blunt statement: ‘A general lack of understanding or regard for legislation designed to protect biodiversity, as well as cultural heritage,  has been identified as a concern across the region’(our emphasis).

How can this ‘general lack of understanding or regard’ be changed? This strategy underlines the importance of engagement with ‘Rural landholders, associated community-based NRM groups, volunteers and the broader community…government, non-government, industry and research organisations’ (our emphasis), but isn’t very specific about how this engagement might happen.

On this one, we have a modest idea: more Park Rangers circulating in our protected areas, engaging face to face with holiday makers and travellers, cheerfully and passionately promoting the values of biodiversity? Oh, that would cost money…Maybe a reduction in the number of moronic TV campaigns promoting silly and destructive attitudes to the environment? That would be cheap.

Here are a few details from the SOE report, relevant to our own region:

1. Paying attention to good on ground management matters.

If you ever wonder whether Landcare is worth the effort, or if weed and feral animal control matters, check this table:

2. Amazing news—it’s getting dryer!

‘Infrastructure Australia’s 2019 audit found that the reduction in average winter rainfall in south-western Australia has caused a 50% reduction in urban run-off over the past 50 years, leading to declining streamflows across the southern and south-eastern regions.’

3. Urban design matters, and so does the greening of our towns and cities

‘Because of the increasing ratio of building area to land area on lots, the space for trees, plants and outdoor recreation at both the front and rear of dwellings has declined. This change in urban form is not only changing the physical form and character of existing and greenfield neighbourhoods, but the ability to manage heat, improve walkability and thereby the livability or our urban environments. It is also reducing the extent of urban biodiversity by decreasing tree canopy cover and garden space… Research has found that private sector residential development in the past 20 years has less tree cover than in previous decades…

‘… To manage urban heat and increase our safety and wellbeing, we will be looking to re-establish more natural environments within our urban environment, empower Indigenous peoples and their knowledge, create new programs of tree planting, reintroduce biodiversity, renaturalise our waterways and use biomaterials to construct our built environment. This must occur concurrent with our reduction in energy consumption and as we reconnect our green and blue urban infrastructure into a quality network for people and urban biodiversity.’

4. Guess what: offsets may not be such a great idea…

‘The growing dependency on offsets to protect matters of national environmental significance from the impacts of development is risky, given the lack of demonstrated successful outcomes, and inadequate monitoring and oversight.’ [FOBIF emphasis]

5. Settling people in fire prone environments has big consequences

‘In a post-pandemic digital era, modern settlement patterns are likely to proliferate across rural and regional Australia as more people are less tied to working in large cities … Managing a more distributed network of people with exacerbated fire weather across whole landscapes is likely to have significant negative consequences for vulnerable biodiversity and ecosystems, with flow-on impacts to natural capital and diminished resilience of local communities. Local communities will need to revisit the objectives of their fire management strategies to balance the potential human impacts with natural capital values they wish to maintain.’

6. Way to go: indigenous solutions

An interesting feature of this report is its heavy emphasis on the need to pay attention to indigenous ways of thinking and managing. It is extremely positive about the increasing engagement of indigenous people in land management, but offers the following sober reality check:

‘Indigenous people are rich in land assets and poor in terms of access to finance and other critical support to manage Country. The Indigenous estate has grown through native title determinations and other means. However, recognition of Indigenous ownership or land-use agreements does not automatically translate to Traditional Custodians accessing, actively managing and realising wellbeing and economic benefits from their lands.’

7. And here’s a provocative claim

‘Historically, planning regulations have put the protection of people first, the protection of assets second and the protection of the environment third. This has downplayed the wellbeing implications of connections between people and the environment, which has particular implications for Indigenous people’s connections to Country.’

‘Species introduced to Australia from other regions and countries can have a crippling effect on economies and further impact the health and wellbeing of local communities. The cost to Australia of managing problem species over the past 50 years is in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. These costs are borne both by the economy and the environment…

Bridal Creeper and Blackberry infestation on the Vaughan to Glenluce water race track, July 2022. Infestation along this stretch of the Loddon has doubled in size in 12 months.

‘There are 2,383 introduced species with at least one occurrence record in the Atlas of Living Australia based on observations up to and including 2020 (Table 9). The actual number of introduced species in Australia is expected to be much higher, because many occurrence datasets are not publicly available due to sensitivities, or are not aggregated in one place. For example, there are known to be more introduced plant species (27,500) in Australia than native species, of which around 2,800 have naturalised . As a general rule, around 10% of those that have naturalised in the wild are thought to become impactful invasive species.’

…From day to day, the signs of spring are popping up everywhere:

Hardenbergia on unpromising ground near the Welsh Village, July 21. In European terms, it’s winter…but it’s looking more and more like spring to us.

And just as heroic: Eucalypts growing out of nothing, on mullock heaps at the slate quarry near the Welsh Village:

Eucalypts finding nourishment in the rocks: to keep your morale up, avoid looking at the feral pines in the background.

Long Walk

A small group rocked up for FOBIF’s July long walk yesterday, undeterred by black clouds, sober weather forecasts and the prospect of an energetic 16 kms trek across hilly terrain. The weather actually delivered everything except snow: squally gusts, slippery tracks, curtains of rain and magnificent but threatening cloud formations—but mostly cool, pleasant walking conditions, with passages of unexpected sunshine.

The stimulating route wound through some of the more obscure corners of the south end of the Diggings Park, including the high ridges north of Sebastopol Creek, slated for burning by DELWP in 2024 or 2025. This is one of the most intriguing and diverse sections of the Park. The walk ended in a stroll along the Loddon from Glenluce to Vaughan Springs. Fungi and mosses were abundant, five species of wattle are already in flower, and among other things there were great shows of Hakea and Common Heath.

The group took a little more than the predicted 6 hours to complete the course—OK, an hour more: that’s what happens when you pause too often to enjoy the scene.

Many thanks to Jeremy Holland for devising a terrifically interesting journey. Next month’s walk is in the Metcalfe NCR: check the program for details.

Short Walk

Eighteen people came along to the 5 km walk led by Frances Cincotta. The loop walk began at the junction of Lower Kangaroo Creek and Upper Kangaroo Creek Tracks in the Fryers Ridge Nature Conservation Reserve. The route was west along Upper Kangaroo Creek Track, north along Bottom Track, north along Fryers Ridge Road, and south-east along an unnamed Telecom Track back to the starting point.

The pace was leisurely giving plenty of opportunity for flora observation and identification. Here Frances with her expert plant knowledge and fungi authority Joy Clusker were continuously helpful. Plants in flower included Ploughshare Wattle, Woolly Wattle, Rough Wattle, Golden Wattle, Bushy Needlewood, Common Correa, Common Heath and Downy Grevillea. Moss, lichens and fungi were abundant. There were plenty of other plants about to flower so the area is well worth another visit in the next few weeks.

Thanks to Frances and Mike for planning the walk and Joy, Judy and Philip for sending in photos.

FOBIF has made submission to Forest Fire Management’s burning proposals for 2022-5. The submission is printed below.

Our approach over the years has been to insist that all ‘fuel reduction’ exercises be carefully monitored, and that the results be used to improve future practice. This is in fact DELWP policy, but we’re not convinced that the policy is properly followed.

We have been encouraged by the observation by local fire management last year that ‘ lower intensity burns seem to not generate as much fuel and accumulate fuels slower than burns that are generally burnt hotter. In addition, lower intensity burns generally maintain the Overall Fuel Hazard (OFH) levels under triggers for more years than higher intensity burns.’

Let’s see how that observation translates into practice.

Tarilta valley, south end: we believe that the dense regrowth was caused by DSE’s 2012 ‘reduction burn’. The department believes mild fire is better for fuel reduction. We believe it’s better ecologically…but, of course, only detailed monitoring could confirm these ideas.

The submission runs as follows:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this plan.

We are encouraged by the following observation made by Adrian Parker in correspondence with us last year: ‘[DELWP] have … observed that lower intensity burns seem to not generate as much fuel and accumulate fuels slower than burns that are generally burnt hotter. In addition, lower intensity burns generally maintain the Overall Fuel Hazard (OFH) levels under triggers for more years than higher intensity burns.’

Unfortunately we have observed over the years that many Department burns feature substantial areas of severe fire, including widespread canopy scorch and destruction of large habitat trees. We are hopeful that future exercises will avoid these excesses. We have a large photo file showing that in fact severe Department fire has generated massive fuel regrowth. The fuel reduction objective of the exercise is completely defeated in these cases. We are aware of the difficulties managers face in these exercises: in our opinion a major part of the problem lies in the size of the blocks to be burned. We have expressed our view on this in past letters to the Department.

Continue reading →

The Department of Environment has released its draft fuel management plan for 2022-4 for comment. The plan includes ‘DELWP led fuel reduction and ecological burns, and does not include Traditional Owner burns, CFA led burns and mechanical works.’

The plan can be seen at this link: https://delwp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=23959d4ab7864cd98ffd6de81c81b4dd

The interactive map at the link is pretty mediocre, but it does give an idea of proposed management burns for the next couple of years.

A screenshot from this map shows some of the burns proposed for this region:

–Glenluce-Hunters track, centred at the junction of Irishtown and Hunters track, in the Diggings Park

–Irishtown track: a large area bounded by Irishtown tk, Vaughan-Chewton road, Drummond road, Smutta’s track and Hunters track

–Wewak Track: a very large area between Wewak and Sebastopol tracks

–Tarilta: an area west of Porcupine ridge road, at the north end of the valley.

–Taradale: an area on the Old Drummond road, along Humboldt track.

–Taradale: a substantial area along Salt Water track, adjacent to the recent Bones Gully burn.

— A substantial burn along the Maldon Railway line, one of the region’s prime wildflower areas.

–Two burns in the Walmer State forest.

FOBIF has the usual concerns about these exercises (see, for example, our posts here), here, and here )

And there’s an additional one: we’re curious about the fact that three of them seem to be double zone burns. That is, in one go, the Department is going to burn an area that is half zone two (‘Bushfire moderation’) and half zone three (‘Landscape management’). These zones are in theory supposed to be treated quite differently: Zone 2 is largely fuel reduction; Zone 3 is meant to have significant ecological outcomes.

That theory is going to be severely tested.

We’ll be repeating our concerns in a submission to the Department.  Submissions close on July 11. Address your input to Loddonmallee.plannedburning@delwp.vic.gov.au