Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

The management burn planned for tomorrow in Kalimna Park has been cancelled. The Friends of Kalimna Park today received a note from DELWP as follows:

‘Fuel moistures have indicated that this burn would not achieve our burn objectives meaning burning will not go ahead this weekend and may not go ahead at all this Autumn.’

The railway dam is one of the most picturesque spots in the Fryers forest. It’s always good to catch a glimpse of it as you pass by in the train. DELWP has laid out a pleasant 4k walk [the ‘Junction walk’] on the east side of it, clearly signposted and interpreted at regular intervals with informative boards.

Railway dam: face this way to turn your back on the rubbish dump.

Train travellers passing the dam now, however, will have a view not just of the dam, but of a pile of rubbish near the tracks. And walkers in the area will see an even bigger pile in a nearby gully.

DELWP notes on the Junction walk make this suggestion: ‘after your walk, why not have a picnic by the dam to take in the beautiful surrounds’. Good idea…Just avert your eyes as you go past the dumps.

Dumping is a plague which seems to get worse. It will be interesting to see what the Mount Alexander shire review on the matter comes up with. In the mean time, FOBIF has written to Parks Victoria suggesting that non essential tracks in Kalimna Park which have become favourite places for dumpers be closed off.

View from the train as it approaches the railway dam. This is the smaller of the two dumps.

We’re not lacking in water reports. FOBIF’s collection includes [among others] the 2004 White Paper, the 2003 and 2013 North Central Catchment Strategy, the 2009 Northern Region Sustainable water strategy, and the State’s 2013 Waterway management strategy—all reasonably hefty documents around 200 pages, replete with graphs and tables. And that’s not counting the documentation for the Murray Darling Basin…

Have they had any effect? The latest to appear, the Water for Victoria discussion paper, has a stream condition map [see below] which shows the terrible state our rivers are in: and it’s not very different from a stream condition map published in the 2004 White Paper. Have all the efforts in the intervening years been in vain? Well, you could argue, as the discussion paper does, that ‘the good news is that successive condition assessments  of major rivers show the deterioration in river condition has been controlled. This is encouraging given the third assessment period [2004-10] coincided with the Millennium Drought.’

Percentage of stream length in good or excellent condition, 2013: Victoria’s waterways are not in great shape, and seem to have deteriorated since the 2004 White Paper.

So: all the effort put in by landcare groups, enlightened farmers and government programs hasn’t been wasted.

You can find the discussion paper here, and have your say on water matters, if you want to influence the final version of the policy, due to appear towards the middle of the year. We’ve noted a few interesting questions arising from the paper in the post below

The public consultation is open till May 13. The website allows you to make a submission, or just toss in an idea: and you can read the many interesting contributions which are already being made to the discussion.

One of the problems with Government policy papers is that they tend to be relentlessly positive, to want to be friends with everyone: ‘We will manage water to support a healthy environment, a prosperous economy and thriving communities, now and into the future.’

This isn’t going to be easy: the paper tells us that we can expect a long term increase in temperature, reduced rainfall and runoff and decreased groundwater recharge, and an increased frequency of drought. It also tells us Victoria’s population is likely to double to 10 million by 2051. How can more people be kept prosperous and thriving on less water?

Average rainfall change during the winter months of the year [April-October inclusive] 1986-2015

Apart from proposing increasing use of the desal plant, the paper tends to make optimistic—even grandiose— gestures in the direction of efficiency and cleverness: for example, we’re told that ‘‘Victoria’s water sector will help transform Victoria’s cities and towns into the most resilient and liveable in the world.’ A visitor to Melbourne’s vast and expanding sprawl will wonder when this transformation is going to start.

In the meantime, less grandiose solutions to the water problem aren’t approached with great urgency in this paper.

For example, the 2004 White Paper proposed a water recycling target of 20% by 2010. This current discussion paper reveals that currently 2% of ‘water for taken for consumptive purposes’ is recycled: and it makes only vague gestures at improving this figure.

Or take ornamental dams. With the explosion of urban fringe development around country towns, the number of these has exploded. The Nationals MP for Northern Victoria, Damian Drum, has estimated that “…In our part of the state as much as 124 billion litres of water a year don’t make it to our creeks and streams because of the explosion in small, mostly unlicensed dams.”

This has been a concern for many years. So what’s the discussion paper say? ‘This discussion paper proposes a review to consider the introduction of a reasonable use limit, in consultation with the community.’ [page 108] That is, let’s talk some more. Consultation is great, of course: but how long should it go on before you actually decide to do something?

We should say right off that this paper’s an advance on the 2013 strategy in that it confronts the question of climate change, something the Coalition government habitually covered up with the gormless phrase, ‘natural climate variability.’

There are some things in it which are disconcerting, however.

One is the role of the desal plant. It’s hard to see how use of this heavy emitter sits with the paper’s stated aim of achieving ‘carbon neutrality’ for the water sector.

Another is confirmation that the Murray Darling basin plan will deliver 2,750 gigalitres of water back into the system as environmental flows. This is maybe half of what scientists say is necessary to keep the system viable: but the paper confirms that more will only be available if it can be delivered ‘with neutral or positive socio-economic effects.’ This is peculiar logic: if the river system dies, or goes into steep decline, wouldn’t that have an extremely negative ‘socio economic effect’?

The discussion paper, packed as it is with charts and diagrams, isn’t an easy read—but it’s hard to find a more important subject to think about–so if you have the time, put in your oar.  FOBIF will be making a short submission to the discussion.

FOBIF has had an answer from DELWP to its February submission to the upcoming Fire Operations Plan. The Department’s letter, from Andrew Koren, regional manager of planned burning, essentially breaks down into the following points:

1. How does the Department’s planning for public land fit with fire prevention works on private land?  ‘Over the next five years as DELWP partner with other fire managers and the community there will be a move to look at fire risk across both public and private lands…in 2016 DELWP and CFA will be working towards start identifying and integrating private land works in high risk areas.’
2. How has the new Risk Landscape policy changed approaches to fire management?  ‘[DELWP] works will continue to be informed by the West Central Risk Landscapes strategic planning. More details can be found at http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/safer-together ‘
3. On FOBIF’s concern about destructive track works: ‘Where possible DELWP try to minimise the impacts of track works on vegetation, soils and other values.’
4. On FOBIF’s concern about large area burns, specifically the Gough’s Range cluster: ‘we are willing to come and meet with you and your group…for a targeted and open discussion.’

We’ll take up the invitation to meet with DELWP over proposed large area burns. On the other questions, readers can make up their own minds as to whether much has changed in fire policy. It seems, however, that implementation of a ‘tenure blind’ policy of fuel management is a fair way off, and that the risk landscapes policy still needs a bit of explanation before it’s clear to the public.

On this last subject, we’ve questioned DELWP about their plans to burn a small reserve in the Chewton Bushlands, surrounded by a large area of private bush. In reply, Ben Matthews, acting regional manager for the West Central Bushfire Risk Landscape project, has stated that ‘Although it may be better risk reduction on private land it could be a long time before we can actually implement any works in these areas.’

In other words, public bushland still bears the brunt of fuel reduction actions, even though a lot of the risk is on private land.

On the subject of destructive track works: we’ll continue to lobby DELWP on the meaning of the phrase ‘where possible.’ We believe that if the Department is really serious about the health of the land it’s responsible for, then it should reconsider the disastrously destructive practices it’s routinely perpetrated in the past.

Click on image to view the whole leaflet.

Harcourt Valley Landcare group and FOBIF are proud to announce the release of the local weed guide. This guide is intended as an introduction to some new and established weeds in the Castlemaine region. It gives a brief description of eight weeds you might see in and around our bush and agricultural areas and helpful links to further reading and websites with more information. Hopefully the guide triggers the treatment of these get away species.