Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

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.

As we’ve reported (see our posts, with maps, here, here and here), DELWP is planning to create Strategic Fuel Breaks (SFB) in our region over the next two years. Castlemaine households have been recently letterboxed about this program. Note that the works as originally proposed have been held up by approvals problems. Initial works will be re-instating previous fire-breaks and concentrating on woody weeds: these are the works shown on the letter to households.

Grevillea dryophylla, Walmer forest. Enviro groups have been engaged in detailed conversations with DELWP in an effort to see that rare and vulnerable species are not damaged by the fuel breaks project.

Several local enviro groups have been in consultation with DELWP over the implementation of this program, with the focus being on protection of biodiversity values. Castlemaine Field naturalists, FOBIF, Castlemaine Landcare, Muckleford Landcare, Golden point Landcare,Friends of Kalimna Park and several individual community members have engaged in a detailed set of meetings on the project, including onsite meetings to look at the challenges involved.

The letter below to the SFB implementation team was drafted by Euan Moore, Castlemaine Field Naturalists Vice President, on behalf of the local groups involved.

***********

First, I would like to thank you and your team for your patience and time working with our community group here in Castlemaine. We do appreciate your efforts.

So that we can avoid misunderstandings in future, this letter summarises what our community group believes is the way the Strategic Fuel Break (SFB) program will be implemented. Please let us know if we have misunderstood what your team said.

1 The SFBs to be implemented in the 2021/22 year are:

1. Daltons Rd,
2. Woodbrook Rd,
3. Youngmans Track,
4. Chewton-Fryerstown Rd & Wattle Gully,
5. Around the Loddon Prison,
6. Forest Creek / Leanganook Track,
7. Kalimna Park adjacent to houses, etc.

2 The other SFBs (Fryers Ridge, Irishtown Track, Porcupine Ridge, Muckleford Forest, etc.) may be constructed in 2022/23 or later.

Continue reading →

Readers will remember that FOBIF’s major concern is that mulching of high value roadsides will be catastrophic both from a biodiversity and amenity point of view. Further, we are curious about the relationship between the SFB program and the Fire Operations plan which governs DELWP’s fuel reduction program.

In her response to Euan’s letter, Justine Leahy, senior leader of the SFB project team, has offered the following responses:

1. On environmentalists’ concerns about mulching roadsides,

‘Areas proposed for mulching depend on the species present, and height and density of understory growth. As a general rule, mulching would not be required where shrubs are less than 1m tall or very sparse, however all woody weeds will be mulched and some native species such as Cassinia sifton are particularly flammable so may be mulched even if less than 1 m high.’

‘The depth of mulching from the road will be less than 20 m for Walmer SF, Fryers Range, Muckleford SF. Where mulching is proposed in areas of high biodiversity value, and where shrub height and density trigger the need for mulching, it will be less than 5 – 8 m from the road verge.’

2. On the connection of the fuel breaks program with the fire operations plan:

‘Strategic Fuel Breaks are a key action of DELWP’s Advanced Forest and Fire Management strategy. The locations and treatment options for proposed SFBs were raised by the same operational staff who undertake planned burning and other nonburn fuel treatments as part of the Joint Fuel Management Program. Though they are presented separately on the Joint Fuel Management Plan SFBs will complement the burning and nonburn fuel treatments (as presented together here). Given the cyclic nature of the burning program, at some point SFBs will be utilised as pre-prepared burn boundaries that will not require any additional treatment. The ongoing management of SFBs will become the responsibility of the land manager, so the locations and treatments chosen are those with the greatest benefit for fire prevention and response.’

FOBIF accepts the clarification of the relation between the SFB and the control burn program at face value. On mulching, however, we are VERY concerned that Fryers Ridge road verges will be mulched for 5-8 metres on both sides. Consultations this year may –we hope–bring some improvements on this plan. In any case, we believe funding problems may cause delays in implementing the project.