Discussion of Issues - VEAC D - complete.pdf · issues and proposals submitted to VEAC for consideration in preparing the Discussion Paper for the Investigation. THE SUBMISSIONS The

Discussion of Issues

D

Part D explores theissues emerging fromthe material in Part Cand raised throughcommunity input to theinvestigation processes.This part of theDiscussion Paper coverschapters 18 and 19.

290 River Red Gum Forests Investigation > 2006

18 Views from the Community

This chapter provides a summary of the majorissues and proposals submitted to VEAC forconsideration in preparing the Discussion Paper for the Investigation.

THE SUBMISSIONS

The submission process is one of the key methods forVEAC to seek community views on issues and values.VEAC received more than 500 submissions following thepublication of the Notice of Investigation indicating thestrong public association with, and interest in, river redgum public lands and their future. Submissions werereceived from a wide variety of locations, particularlyfrom the local community within the study area but alsofrom Melbourne and further afield. Nearly 50 percent ofsubmissions came from within or near the study area.Appendix 3 lists the submissions received.

Many of the submissions were from people who live orhave lived in the area, people who work or have workedin the forests, people who have camped in the forestsregularly since they were young, and also people whoare infrequent visitors to the region but still feel it isspecial. Submissions were contributed by communitygroups, businesses, scientists, consultants, propertyowners and recreational users. The varied backgroundsand interests of contributors resulted in the coverage ofa wide range of topics including interest in particularsites or areas, recreational activities and industries.Many submissions called for an increase in the size ofthe conservation reserve system while many othersproposed that the present industries such as timberharvesting, grazing, apiculture and tourism bemaintained at a similar level to today.

The number and nature of submissions illustrate theenthusiasm and passion people have for the study area.The submissions contained not only proposals for publicland, but also a large amount of valuable and usefulinformation to assist VEAC in carrying out itsInvestigation.

In addition to this phase, VEAC has also received inputfrom the Community Reference Group (Figure 18.1) ithas established specifically for this Investigation (seeAppendix 2 for membership of the Group), from otherGovernment and semi-government agencies (Victorian,interstate and Commonwealth) and from meetings withrepresentative interest groups.

THE ISSUES

Below is a summary of the major issues raised in theinitial consultation process for the Investigation. Thischapter focuses on the major and more general issuesand does not endeavour to cover issues relevant only torestricted areas or raised only infrequently. Whereappropriate, comments have also been made on theissues raised in the context of the broader backgroundoutlined in earlier chapters of this report. Thesecomments do not attempt to resolve issues—but are

intended to help clarify related matters or theapproaches VEAC will need to consider in developing aposition on an issue in future stages of the Investigation.

Different stakeholders often maintain strongly divergentviews on the importance of different issues and the timethat should be devoted to them. At this early stage ofthe Investigation, VEAC will give fair and balancedconsideration to all matters raised by stakeholders.

INVESTIGATION PROCESS

Many submissions discussed VEAC’s role and the processfor undertaking the Investigation, specifically theapproach, scope and information sources that Counciluses in developing recommendations. The consultationprocess itself was also raised, and a number ofcontributors were concerned that their submissions may not be fully considered or that the information,experience and views held by contributors would not be fully utilised.

Public consultation is a central part of VEAC’sinvestigations. Council has given, and will continue togive, thorough and equal consideration to all groups and people who have an interest in the Investigation.The methods used to inform and consult differentgroups will be regularly reviewed for their effectivenessas the Investigation proceeds.

There are three submission periods throughout thecourse of the Investigation and a number of additionalopportunities during which the public can discuss issueswith the Council. As the Investigation progresses, VEACwill hold widely-publicised public forums throughout thestudy area and meet with stakeholders. Following eachstage of the Investigation, a newsletter will bedistributed to all contacts on VEAC’s register of interest.There are currently approximately 8,000 groups andindividuals on the register of interest for the River RedGum Forest Investigation.

INDIGENOUS ISSUES

A large proportion of contributors felt that Indigenouscommunities should be partners in joint management ofany new or expanded parks and reserves. Aconsiderable percentage of these submissions specifiedBarmah forest and Gunbower Island as areas where thistype of management should be established.

Figure 18.1 Members of the Community ReferenceGroup at a meeting in Echuca.

291Discussion Paper

Many people felt that the Yorta Yorta people, inparticular, should have responsibility for—and a muchgreater role in the management of—public land withwhich they have a strong and long association. Thisincreased responsibility and management was proposedas a means to acknowledge and strengthen the specialrelationship that many Indigenous people have with theirtraditional lands, given that for many people thisrelationship has generally been poorly recognised andsupported within the broader community. Somecontributors called for greater consultation andinvolvement in decision-making with Traditional Ownerswhile others would like to see more opportunities forIndigenous employment as guides or rangers inprotected areas or on other public land.

Full consideration of Indigenous issues associated withpublic land in the study area by VEAC is required underthe Terms of Reference of the Investigation, particularlyIndigenous involvement in public land management andthe Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement.VEAC has retained a specialist consultant to seek inputfrom Indigenous groups and individuals with interest inthe Investigation.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

As part of its Terms of Reference, VEAC is required toassess appropriate access for commercial venturesincluding timber extraction, grazing, apiaries and otherresource-based industries. These matters were widelyaddressed in a large number of submissions.

Timber

Views on timber harvesting ranged along a continuumfrom abolishing all harvesting and firewood collection insome or all areas, to developing plantations on privateland, to allowing environmental thinning, through tocontinuing with the present regimes. There was

substantial support for retaining timber harvesting bothwithin the study area in general and at specific locations(such as Barmah State Forest, Gunbower State Forest,and Nyah State Forest among other areas). Theseproposals generally put the position that the majorbenefit of timber harvesting was the economic andsocial advantages brought to small towns andsurrounding communities. These submissions also raisedthe issue of the contribution to skill levels from themanufacture of high-end products such as fine furniture,and the cultural heritage of this industry. Many of thesesubmissions were also of the view that the forests asthey exist today have not been harmed by 150 years ofharvesting and may actually have been ‘enhanced’.

Many of those opposed to timber harvesting in river redgum forests saw an incompatibility between biodiversityconservation and such practices. Some also argued thatit was inconsistent to spend significant resources onenvironmental water to improve the health of the riverred gums if many of these trees were subsequentlyharvested.

Numerous submissions that came from the study areasaw continued access for firewood collection asimportant, especially in rural towns with no opportunityto substitute cheaper natural gas for heating andcooking.

The utilisation of river red gum forests on public land fortimber extraction is a complex subject outlined in moredetail in chapter 14. Current patterns of forest use havebeen shaped by past extraction practices and watermanagement strategies. Future productivity of theforests is dependent on a wide range of variable factorsincluding climate change. Further consideration of the complex social, economic and environmental issuessurrounding timber extraction will be given in chapter 19.


Grazing

Public land grazing by domestic stock was a major issueand prompted numerous proposals across a broadspectrum of views. Many submissions wanted to seestock grazing retained, particularly in the Barmah andGunbower areas (although there is currently no grazingin Gunbower, there is provision for agistment). Someargued that public land grazing makes a significantcontribution to the viability of their farms and that publicland is only grazed when sufficient feed is available onthat land. In addition, many maintained that grazing isa positive management regime for conservation in that itreduces fire risk and weeds. Some submissions statedthat fence maintenance on public land on the floodplainwas costly and extremely difficult (due to flood damage)and thus it is difficult to confine stock to certain areas.

In contrast, many other submissions stated that grazingon public land causes significant environmental damagein spreading weeds, increasing erosion, pugging theground, and affecting native animals. Many of thesesubmissions proposed a complete cessation of publicland grazing in particular areas or in the whole studyarea. Some submissions proposed that grazing shouldbe excluded from public land in particularly sensitiveenvironments such as riparian zones, wetlands andcypress-pine sand hills.

Some submissions sought an independent study into therelationship between grazed and ungrazed areas and theextent of pest plants and frequency and intensity ofwildfires. It was argued that such a study could gosome way to resolve the divergence of views describedabove. Grazing on public land presents a challengingcombination of cultural, social, economic andenvironmental priorities which will also be addressedfurther in chapter 19.

Apiculture

A number of submissions proposed that access shouldbe maintained for the apiculture industry, andemphasised the need for a healthy forest to ensure asteady rate of honey production. Also highlighted wasthe need for flooding to ensure forest health. Some feltthat a healthy forest would be best achieved byestablishing a national park that allowed access to thebeekeeping industry. Some submissions stressed theimportance of the knowledge held by apiarists regarding

both the historic and present ecology of the forest. Anumber of submissions also put the position that thebeekeeping industry is vital for agricultural productionthrough pollination of crops and pastures, and thatcontinued access to public land was vital to the viabilityof the industry.

While some submissions asserted that the apiary industrydoes not affect biodiversity and in fact aids biodiversityby increasing pollination, others argued there was aconflict between introduced bees and native flora andfauna. They maintained that there is competition fornectar and also from introduced feral bees competingwith native species, such as birds and mammals, for useof hollows. Resolution of conflicting arguments aboutthe impact of European bees in native forests is difficultdue to the paucity of scientific evidence on bee impactand the logistical difficulty of obtaining that information.

Other Primary Industries

Relatively few submissions were received on otherprimary industries either currently or potentially in thearea such as mining and stone extraction, perhapsbecause of the small scale of these industries in thestudy area. Despite their size, these industries can stillbe important locally - and perhaps more broadly - andwill be fully considered by VEAC as the Investigationproceeds.

TOURISM

The tourism industry was an important consideration inmany submissions. For many of the towns in andaround the study area, tourism contributes substantiallyto their economies and is vital to the livelihood of manylocal business owners. Some submissions wanted toensure that tourism in their area was maintained atcurrent levels, while others would like to see tourismdeveloped further in an “eco-friendly” manner. Therewas a mix of views on whether the development of, saya new national park, would be beneficial or detrimentalto the tourism industry. Some submissions suggestedthat the creation of a new park would remove (forexample) hunters and some other user groups andwould therefore be bad for tourism; others suggestedthat a new park would attract more visitors andtherefore be good for tourism. VEAC has responded tothis need for further information on the economic valueof environmental protection by commissioning a socio-economic research study to shed light on some of theseissues.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Numerous submissions included proposals to improvethe conservation of biodiversity. These proposalsincluded measures to protect flora and fauna particularlythreatened species and communities and habitats suchas wetlands and Moira grass plains, and specific habitatelements e.g. hollow-bearing trees. Generally,protection was sought through additions orenlargements to the conservation reserve system.Numerous specific areas were identified in this context,and many contributors passionately advocated nationalpark status for Barmah State Park and State Forest. Anumber pointed out that reserve system additions shouldfollow the comprehensive, adequate and representative

293Discussion Paper

(CAR) reserve system criteria and should link to thesystem of reserves and management priorities in NewSouth Wales and South Australia.

Some contributors sought improvements in biodiversityconservation through changes to management practices.Timber harvesting and grazing were commonly regardedas the greatest threats to biodiversity conservation andsome contributors recommended they be phased out orended immediately. Many also sought improved watermanagement for biodiversity conservation (see below).Pest plant and animal control was seen as an importantissue in many submissions from all sides of thebiodiversity debate. These submissions emphasised thenecessity for adequate resourcing of control programson public land.

While very few submissions were opposed to protectionof biodiversity values, many put the view strongly thatbiodiversity conservation was compatible with some,most, or all other activities as currently practised or withminor modification. These submissions argued in favourof minimal change or what was termed a multiple-useapproach. Achieving a balanced use of resources acrossVictoria, including biodiversity conservation, is one ofVEACs founding principles and emerges as one of themajor themes in chapter 19.

WATER ISSUES AND THE HEALTH OFTHE FORESTS AND FLOODPLAINS

Many submissions raised issues regarding water andparticularly how this related to the health of the river redgum forests and other ecosystems along the length ofthe River Murray and the other rivers in the study area.Virtually all water-related submissions supportedenhanced environmental river flows to improve thehealth of the forests along the rivers and on the

floodplains. The lack of regular flooding in some areaswas seen as a major issue while in other areas excessflooding or flooding at the wrong time of the year wereseen as the major problems.

Some submissions argued that water was such anoverriding issue that worrying about things such astimber harvesting and grazing was a waste of time if thewater issues were not resolved. Many contributorsargued that 75 percent of the river red gum trees alongthe River Murray are dead or nearly dead while othersargued that this figure is simply not correct and that theforests are very healthy. A recent study (Brett Lane &Associates Pty Ltd 2005) showed that in 2004 about 75percent of the trees on the sampled sites were dead,nearly dead or stressed (i.e. in decline). All the Victoriansites sampled in this research were downstream of SwanHill and also off the main watercourses. It is regrettablethat these results were commonly and incorrectlyreported in the media as applying to all river red gums inthe River Murray catchment. However, the survey resultsconfirm and document a major problem with tree healthin the lower reaches of the River Murray in Victoria.

In previous investigations, the Land Conservation Council(LCC) did not investigate environmental watermanagement in detail. VEAC recognises that this is animportant issue for the health of the river red gumforests and will give the matter full consideration.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES

Many submissions emphasised the effects of any changein land category, and particularly changes that led to thecessation of current activities, on the local community.Some submissions asserted that any new national parkwould reduce employment in timber and grazingindustries while others maintained that new parks wouldbring economic benefits through increased tourism.


A popular proposal was that a comprehensiveassessment be undertaken and published regarding thepositive and negative impacts of VEAC’srecommendations on the social and economic attributesof the study area.

VEAC recognises that the social and economicimplications of possible changes are extremely importantand need detailed consideration. Accordingly, chapter 8profiles the existing socio-economic characteristics of thelocal government statistical areas associated with thestudy area. VEAC will commission a study into theimportance of existing activities for both the DraftProposals Paper and Final Report.

RECREATIONAL ACCESS

A large number of submissions emphasised that much ofthe study area is popular for a wide range of recreationalactivities. These include camping, horse riding, bushwalking, fishing, boating, birdwatching and other naturestudy, 4WD and general car touring, trail bike riding,dog walking, and hunting. Many submissions urgedVEAC to maintain access for one or more or all of theseactivities, or strongly supported the principle of multiple-use land categories more generally.

Camping is an increasingly popular leisure interest inmany parts of the study area. Several submissionsdiscussed camping and many do not want to see furtherrestrictions - particularly those perceived to be imposedby national park status. Many submissions expressedthe view that any alteration to the existing public landuse category may result in heavily restricted use or poormanagement regimes. Camping was seen largely as afamily-based activity undertaken by locals and othertourists who understand the need for sustainable forest

use, and thus behave accordingly. In addition, somesubmissions sought an education campaign for campersto minimise environmental damage. Rather than haveany areas closed off to recreational users, those whoregularly visit the study area would prefer to be betterinformed about sustainable use.

Several contributors also called for the continuation ofaccess for horse riding, particularly in the Gunbower andBarmah areas. Riders would like to continue using thepublic tracks that are already available to them in allpublic land use categories, and some would like to seeimproved maintenance of these tracks.

A number of submissions proposed more control atpublic land access points on the basis that heavy useleads to wetland degradation, erosion and increasedillegal activities. In addition, some sought greater

295Discussion Paper

control of recreational use of public land, such asimproved management of camping areas and stricterpenalties for the improper use of four wheel drives, andto reduce erosion from ski and wake-board boats.

It is clear that the study area is greatly valued forrecreational use and that this use has significantlyincreased in many areas over the last decade. VEAC willincorporate both the region’s popularity and the need toeffectively manage increased pressures resulting fromthis popularity into its recommendations.

LAND MANAGEMENT

Land management was widely addressed in submissions.Fire, community education and funding issues wereconsidered important, as were appropriate jointarrangements with interstate bodies, an increase in localinvolvement in land management, pest plant and animalprograms, and the suggestion to undertake moreresearch to evaluate a greater range of managementoptions.

Fire Management

A significant number of submissions argued that anycreation of new parks would greatly increase the fuelload within the park as a result of poor managementpractices including a lack of fuel reduction (by burning,cutting or grazing). Conversely a small number did notwant to see any more fuel reduction burns taking place,especially in river red gum forests. Some submissionssimply called for the appropriate fire regimes to beapplied in the relevant areas.

Although there were a significant number ofsubmissions linking wildfire frequency and national parkstatus, no strong evidence was provided to support this

position. DSE has clear responsibility for fire relatedmatters across all public land whether it is in state forestor in a national or other park or reserve.

Education Programs

A number of contributors mentioned the developmentof community education programs to inform locals andvisitors of the best ways to contribute to the protectionand management of the forests, reserves and parks. Itwas felt that with a greater knowledge of the area andthe environment in general, people would have moreinsight into environmentally sensitive practices whenvisiting river red gum forests.

Funding for Public Land Management

Current land management was widely criticised for alack of funding and the consequent failure to producepositive outcomes in particular areas. A number ofcontributors wanted sufficient funding to be madeavailable to ensure adequate ongoing management ofpublic land and implementation of VEAC’srecommendations.

It is important to note that VEAC does not recommendfunding for the implementation of its recommendations.This is a function of Government and its State Budgetprocesses. However, in previous investigations, VEAC hasstressed the need for adequate funding to cover thecosts of any additional management requirements.

SUMMARY

An extremely wide range of viewpoints regarding themost appropriate uses of public land was presented inthe submissions. VEAC will take all these views—as wellas those in submissions to this Discussion Paper—intofull consideration when developing its Draft Proposals.


19 Emerging themes

This Discussion Paper describes the values,resources, uses and categories of public land in thestudy area, as well as summarising communityviews and exploring key themes and issues. Thischapter explores the major themes and issuesemerging in submissions and identified during theresearch and consultation undertaken for thedevelopment of this Discussion Paper. VEAC is keento receive submissions that add to, clarify, correct,and comment on these things. Ultimately,however, the next stage of the Investigation -leading up to the Draft Proposals Paper – will beprimarily focused on developing a suitable patternof public land use for the study area. This chapteris intended to promote discussion and encouragecontributions on appropriate public land use withinthe study area.

Previous chapters have described the environmental,social and economic setting of the study area and thecurrent uses of public land in relation to Victoria’s publicland use category system. Chapter 18 summarised theviews of the community as presented to VEAC duringthe first public consultation period for the Investigation.This chapter discusses in greater detail the key publicland themes and issues that seem to be emerging fromthe consultation and research. These are broadlygrouped as follows: efficiency and effectiveness ofenvironmental water flows; resource utilisation includingboth timber harvesting and grazing and models of publicland management (including indigenous managementmodels, biodiversity protection, fire management long-term planning for population growth and climatechange). The purpose of chapter 18 and this chapter isto promote discussion on issues and emerging themes.References are not generally cited in this discussion.Where relevant, the chapters in previous parts of theDiscussion Paper which provide detailed referencedinformation on a topic are cross-referenced.

EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OFENVIRONMENTAL WATER FLOWS

Water is central to this Investigation. It underpins alluses of public land within the study area as well as manyland use activities on surrounding private land.However, the requirements of different water users anduses can be in conflict. Agriculture, recreation andtourism require predictable, stable and secure watersupply regimes. In contrast, the environment requiresseasonal and yearly irregularities, particularly in theextent of flooding and temperature variations.Regulation of the River Murray system and the resultingchanges to its natural flood regime have caused majordamage to the river red gum forests and their associatedecosystems across the study area. Put simply, withoutmore water in the right seasons, the river red gumforests as we now know them are likely to reduce,further degrade and in places disappear entirely.

Historically, the requirements of irrigation and otheroffstream uses have taken precedence over the more

intangible and non-economic outcomes of water for theenvironment. Today, this imbalance is changing with arange of strategies and programs being implemented,including the contribution of significant volumes ofwater from the irrigation industry, to addressenvironmental outcomes (see chapter 15).

VEAC’s scope to make recommendations on watermanagement issues is limited. Although many stateshave rights to utilise the River Murray and its waters,legal jurisdiction of the river falls to NSW. The entireMurray catchment is managed by a complex set of cross-jurisdictional institutional arrangements, involving theMurray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) as well as theQueensland, New South Wales, South Australia,Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealthgovernments.

Two major water-related issues are central to this VEACInvestigation. The first is the volume of water andtiming of its delivery for environmental outcomes andthe second is how such water allocations are to bedelivered across public land.

Water Requirements for Environmental Outcomes

Understanding the different water requirements andtheir timing across the study area is crucial for sustainingthe river red gum forests. Chapter 15 describes thearrangements for achieving an average of 500 GL/yearof recovered water after 5 years under the First StepDecision of the Living Murray Initiative. This water isintended for the six significant ecological asset sitesalong the River Murray. Other sites and areas withnature conservation values within the study area receiveless consideration when determining environmentalwater allocations. Against this background some groupsbelieve that an additional 1500 GL/year of water over 10years (making a total of 2000 GL/year) is a more realisticamount to ensure the viability of the river red gumforests and their associated ecosystems.

The proposal for 2000 GL/year of water is not withoutits limitations. To date, there has been limited researchconducted into the optimal amount of water required tosupport the forests and their associated ecosystemsalong the entire river system and variations across thestudy area. Current water allocations for environmentaloutcomes may not therefore reflect the necessaryamounts of water. It is possible that improvements inirrigation practices could increase water available for theenvironment; however, this would require a concertedeffort and active management.

Water requirements for environmental outcomes are alsorelated to the range and/or scale of the managed floodsand the timing of those floods. For example, a floodthat mimics a natural one-in-ten-year flood, with itsextensive floodplain coverage, requires a greater volumeof water over a longer time than a smaller eight-in-ten-year flood. Further, the timing of these managed floodsshould ideally coincide with naturally-occurring floodingpatterns, typically in late winter to early spring.However, this timing would in many cases compete withthe water requirements of irrigators who require highwater flows during late spring, summer and earlyautumn.

297Discussion Paper

Water requirements to achieve successful environmentaloutcomes are also influenced by the diversity of thephysical characteristics of the river system itself. By wayof illustration, the Barmah Choke acts as a physicalconstraint, limiting the volume of water able to flowthrough the Choke. Once the capacity of the Choke isreached the water is forced down alternative routes suchas the Edwards River or over the immediate river flatsforming the wetland systems. Any large scaleenvironmental flow event downstream of the BarmahChoke (or major irrigation use) is therefore dependenton either a massive amount of water coming down theriver or alternatively is dependent on sufficient additionalwater flows coming down the Goulburn River.

Water allocation accounting systems also influence theamount of water available for environmental outcomes.Water flows for environmental outcomes, once allocatedand used, are regarded on paper as “used” water;however, once it flows out of the forests and returns tothe river it becomes available for reuse by “secondary”downstream users. Hence the environment is not thesole user of this water allocation even though on paperthe water assigned to it is seen as being “consumed”and lost from the system. It is estimated that 80% of environmental flows into the Barmah Forest arereturned to the river system. While irrigation and otheruses may also return a component of their allocation to groundwater and drains and ultimately, the river, the proportion is likely to be reduced by the distancefrom the river. Work is currently being undertaken todevelop more sophisticated models to simulate thismovement of water flows. Acknowledging the capacityfor “double” uses of this environmental water couldresult in greater effectiveness for the environment thanis currently the case.

Efficient and Effective Delivery of Water forEnvironmental Outcomes

With such intense competition for water it is crucial thatwater allocated to the environment is delivered in anefficient and effective manner to achieve the bestenvironmental outcome for the minimum amount ofwater. This also holds for water allocated to irrigationand other offstream uses.

Currently, decisions on how water is delivered to theenvironment are made using best available informationand the volumes of water available, at a particular pointin time. This often results in decisions on the delivery ofenvironmental flow being made on the run. Thisdecision process reflects the unpredictability of rainfalland floods and the limited ability of environmental flowmanagers to use available water within the currentwater management arrangements. It also reflects therelative infancy, especially on such a broad scale, ofenvironmental flows as a management tool. To someextent these concerns are being addressed by agenciessuch as Department of Sustainability and Environment,Catchment Management Authorities and the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, who are undertaking variousresearch, monitoring and evaluation activities for eachenvironmental flow event. To maintain publicconfidence, the information on which decisions arebased, and the process by which decisions are made,need to be open, transparent and readily available.

The ability to deliver water for environmental outcomesis also affected by the existing water infrastructure, aninfrastructure that is relatively inflexible due to itsoriginal purpose of providing flood mitigation servicesand water for irrigation. For example, the infrastructuresupporting river regulation is extensive and highly capitalintensive in its construction. However environmentalflows may be more effectively delivered through smallscale, less capital intensive structures and moreinterchangeable structures.

Chapter 15 discusses the factors influencing how watercan be delivered for environmental outcomes. Onefactor of significance is the operating rules and protocolsassociated with the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement forwater management across the River Murray basin.These operating rules and protocols have evolved fromthe original arrangement with its focus on waterallocation for irrigators and other offstream users.Today, these arrangements have been modified to betterserve environmental interests but it has been suggestedthat these still restrict the ability of environmental flowmanagers to deliver water in the most efficient andeffective way into areas needing environmental flows.

Currently, the ability to efficiently and effectively deliverwater for the environment is strongly influenced by thewater flow patterns required to meet the demands ofother water users. For example, the natural wetlandsystems associated with Barmah are adapted to latewinter early spring flood patterns. However, irrigatorsrequire relatively high river flows during late springthrough to early autumn. Where these irrigation flowsare in the system and there are rains the water flowsreach the Barmah Choke and are forced out onto thewetland areas. In this regard, irrigator demands make itdifficult to deliver and manage environmental flows in


an efficient and effective way to achieve environmentaloutcomes. There are many who believe that thismismatch between demands of irrigation and otheroffstream uses and the environment will need to beseriously addressed if the river red gum forests are to besustained into the future.

Future Considerations

Environmental outcomes on public land would appear torequire an integrated approach by water managers andnatural resource managers. Given the current system,this will need high levels of intervention, some which willbe energy and resource intensive, e.g. the use ofpumping as a water delivery method. With the currentconcerns around energy consumption and greenhousegas emission there may be questions concerning thefeasibility of some methods for delivering environmentalflows.

A further consideration is that climate change willcompound the current situation and may ultimatelycontribute to the decline of the river red gum forestsand associated ecosystems in the future. Climatechange is predicted to decrease the amount of wateravailable for economic and community uses, placingconsiderable pressure on water allocation systems tomaintain adequate water for environmental flows. This issue is raised in the Victorian Government’s WhitePaper on Water which states that if the absolute amountof the water volume decreases due to climate change,both the environment and consumptive users will bereduced in the same proportions. Further, where there is increasing competition amongst users for an everdecreasing quantity of water, public accountabilityregarding when, where and how environmental flowsare to be allocated across the entire River Murray systemrelative to other users is vital.

RESOURCE UTILISATION ON PUBLIC LAND

It was noted in chapter 18 that the community hasexpressed a lot of interest in resource utilisation frompublic land. In particular, a wide range of views were put to VEAC about timber harvesting and domesticstock grazing in the river red gum forests of the study area.

Forest Management and Wood Products

Forest practices have changed greatly since theuncontrolled cutting of the early 1900s when about190,000 sleepers per year were harvested. Forestmanagement was focused primarily on wood production until at least the 1970s. The structure of theforest today is a product of these past practices, ratherthan current uses. Timber harvesting, and particularly itseffects on the natural environment, has been acontroversial issue in many public land debates inVictoria and around the world. The following discussionis divided into the major themes of this issue, drawingsignificantly on background information about forestmanagement and wood products in chapter 14, and therelevant threats to biodiversity specifically in chapter 5.

Sustainability and monitoring

Silvicultural sustainability (harvesting trees at or belowthe rate at which they are replaced by the growth ofretained trees and regrowth) and ecological sustainabilityare fundamental to public confidence in timberharvesting on public land. However, sustainability canbe difficult and expensive to determine. In addition,river red gum forests are generally uneven-aged andsensitive to unpredictable changes in flooding regime—additional difficulties compared to most other foresttypes. Accordingly, the sustainability of river red gumforestry is currently based on the professional judgementof forest managers and resource estimates thatacknowledge the inadequacy of the data on which theyare based. Ideally, sustainability would be based on aclearly-documented formal process of explicit, ongoing,transparent monitoring and auditing, the results ofwhich would be continuously used to revise and improvethe data and analysis on which harvest volumes arebased and the actual volumes harvested.

In other parts of Victoria, sustainable yield calculationshave been based on analysis of data such as theStatewide Forest Resource Inventory (SFRI, see chapter14 Forest Management and Wood Products), but suchanalysis has not been completed for the river red gumforests. In recent years the state government hasundertaken a number of initiatives intended to improveboth the sustainability and the public accountability ofwood product harvesting∗. However, the emphasis hasmostly been at the statewide level or in the coastal andmountain forests of eastern Victoria where much largervolumes of timber are harvested than elsewhere.

Some of these initiatives have direct application to riverred gum forests, but specific issues arise relating to thenature of these forests and the industries using them.The relevant Estimates of Sawlog Resources are based oninadequate data, for example, and there are noestimates of the resource availability of the otherproducts that make up the overwhelming bulk of woodvolume harvested. Although considerable data havebeen collected for the Continuous Forest Inventory, SFRIand other programs (see chapter 14 Forest Managementand Wood Products) these data have not been fullyutilised or backed up with ongoing sampling.Environmental Protection Authority auditing is atransparent process but is restricted to auditingcompliance with the Code of Forest Practice for TimberHarvesting. It is not the function of the audit process toassess the Code itself, but there is a question aboutwhether the prescriptions contained in the Code(developed more for clear-felling in mountain andcoastal forests) are applicable to selectively-harvestedriver red gum forests. Although audit findings aredocumented and reported to the public, the processdoes not provide for penalties to be imposed forbreaches, nor is there a requirement to report on anyremedial actions that are undertaken in response torecommendations of the audit.

* including, under the ‘Our Forests, Our Future’ Program,Monitoring Annual Harvesting Performance, and Estimates ofSawlog Resources; but also Environment Protection Authority(EPA) auditing, the Sustainability Charter, State of the ForestsReporting, the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, andEnvironmental Management Systems

299Discussion Paper

Issues associated with silvicultural sustainability also relateto assessments of the ecological sustainability of woodproduct harvesting. Ecological sustainability includes themaintenance of ecosystems, their components and theservices they provide. Hence, silvicultural sustainability—harvesting trees at or below the replacement rate—isnecessary for achieving ecological sustainability. Foreststructure is an integral component of ecologicalsustainability in river red gum forests harvested fortimber. This involves maintaining a range of tree ageclasses and leaving some trees to die naturally. In somecases, the current forest may require greater structuraldiversity and accomplishing this may involve re-assessingthe volume of timber harvested. There is little systematicmonitoring and assessment of the short and long-termeffects of timber harvesting on plant and animal species,communities and their habitats to determine whether ornot operations are ecologically sustainable.

Confidence in sustainability is a significant issue forVEAC as, when developing its draft proposals, Councilwill be seeking to ensure that the implications of variousoptions for wood product availability have a reliable basis.

Silvicultural Treatment

One of the fundamental tenets of forest management inthe study area (as in many other places) is that largertrees can be more rapidly produced from artificially ornaturally dense regrowth by removing competing trees(i.e. thinning) so that the retained trees grow largermore quickly. The resultant larger trees, it is reasoned,provide timber production and biodiversity benefits.However, a number of concerns have been raised aboutthis management and these are considered below.

Although there have been no published studies in riverred gum, all thinning experiments in other eucalyptspecies have shown that releasing trees fromcompetition leads to increased growth on the remainingstems. Observations that trees in dense regrowth arefrequently much smaller than trees of similar age inmore open stands, provides some anecdotal support forthis in river red gum forests. It is unclear whetherconfounding factors—such as the tendency for cut redgums to coppice, leaving the roots to continue tocompete with retained trees for moisture andnutrients—have an impact on the silvicultural utility ofthinning in practice.

While a seemingly minor detail, the size of the trees cutin thinning operations may also be relevant in river redgum forests. In recent decades with the absence ofcheap labour and significant reductions in staffemployed to do such works, this cutting is now nearly alldone as part of firewood harvesting operations (bycommercial cutters or contractors to generate wood fordomestic permit collection areas). The rationale for thisapproach is that firewood can be produced fromrelatively small trees (compared to those preferred orrequired for sawlogs or sleepers, for example) and thethinning treatment can be achieved through firewoodharvesting. However, in nearly all stands requiringthinning, the highest priority trees for removal—that is,the smallest trees—are too small to harvest for firewood(or any other product) and so are not cut. Furthermore,of those trees that are large enough to supply firewood,the largest trees are more economically attractive as a

source of firewood. That is, thinning through harvestingfor firewood may lead to the harvesting of the largerrather than smaller small trees with the result that in thelonger term fewer trees grow on into the larger sizeclasses. The same problem can also operate at the coupeselection level: ecologically, the highest priority areas forthinning are those with the greatest density of smallstems. However, these areas may have few or no stemssuitable even as firewood and so are left untreated.

As with the silvicultural benefits, the presumedecological benefits remain unsubstantiated and may be doubtful if larger small trees are cut. The issue ofthinning highlights the number of complex andsometimes competing goals that must be met inmanaging river red gum forests. For example, whilehabitat objectives and prescriptions would lead toretention of crooked, hollow, low-branching trees,silvicultural objectives would favour retention of straight,solid, high-branching trees.

Finally, thinning does not automatically produce morelarge old trees—it causes small trees to grow faster. If the retained trees are subsequently harvested forsawlogs or sleepers before they reach ecological maturity,the biodiversity benefits may not be fully realised.

Maximising the Value of Harvested Wood

Chapter 14 discusses the major products sourced frompublic forests in the study area: sawn timbers forfurniture, bridges and wharves, building features andconstruction, sleepers, landscaping, and fence posts;lower grade logs, thinning residues and off-cuts forfirewood; and by-products for garden wood chips andsawdust. Many operators take pride in their ability togenerate a product from virtually all of the wood takenfrom the forest.

While the range of products possible from small logsand offcuts is more limited, virtually all products can bemade from large logs. Larger logs are generally a morecost-effective source for most uses, even small productssuch as firewood, as they have less handling time perunit volume of product generated and leave less waste.Of course, there is also ‘competition’ for large treesbecause of the values that they provide when leftstanding in the forest (habitat, landscape etc). A treethat is currently feasible as a sleeper log still has thepotential, if left for a further 10–20 years, to become amore valuable sawlog tree.

For logs of all sizes—but especially the rarer and in-demand large logs—there are clear advantages inextracting the maximum value from the wood harvested,and value adding has become a major objective in manyindustries (especially the timber industry) in recentdecades. In the river red gum industry, value adding isexemplified in kiln drying of large timbers and theproduction of furniture, which is sold at a considerablyhigher price than other products. In general, thebenefits of value adding flow to local communitiesthrough direct and indirect local employment. That is,value-added products are generally more labourintensive and thus create more jobs than non-value-added products such as sleepers. Increased employmentleads to many social advantages especially for smalltowns (see chapter 8). The higher price of value-added


goods equates to greater economic value, which againcan be especially important to relatively small regionaleconomies. Value-adding can also be seen as benefitingnature conservation in that fewer trees—especially thelarge trees—are removed for the same level ofemployment and economic value.

However, the advantages of value adding do notnecessarily bring about a shift in the industry to morevalue-added products. Firstly, a higher commercial valuefor a product does not necessarily mean higherprofitability. For example, fine furniture is clearly ahigher value product than, say, sleepers but it also costsconsiderably more to produce. If the difference in thecost of production is so great that sleepers are moreprofitable, the incentive for businesses may be to shiftfrom the higher to the lower value product rather thanthe other way around, all other things being equal.

Secondly, repositioning a business to produce greatervolumes of value-added products usually requiressignificant capital investment and identification of newmarkets. Value-added products need to be marketedand developed carefully to ensure that they have a long-term future. Some businesses may use more profitablelower value product to fund such capital investment.The significant costs are only likely to be borne if timbersupply can be guaranteed in the medium to long term.

Thirdly, some businesses are likely to be reluctant toabandon lower-value products altogether, preferring tomaintain a certain level of diversity to protect againstshort-term fluctuations in particular product markets.Successful sawmills require a range of order mix to gainthe maximum value from a log and each log has to belooked at on its individual merits to see how the mostcommercial value can be gained from it.

Finally, economic factors may confound shifts to highervalue products—for example, if many operators shiftedto a high value product, the increased supply may lower

prices, while the reverse could apply to the lower value,now less available, products from which they haveshifted. The combination of these factors may act as animpediment to the industry moving to a greaterproportion of value-added products, even though thereis widespread support for the concept.

Market demand may also shift the trend away fromvalue-added products. Two decades ago, Victoria’sTimber Industry Strategy raised the concern thatextending residual wood harvesting for firewood wouldgenerate its own momentum and become the forcedriving timber harvesting in localised areas to a‘firewood-driven’ industry, rather than the moredesirable (from a value-added point of view) ‘sawlog-driven’ industry. This has eventuated in the MilduraForest Management Area where no sawlogs or sleepersare currently produced from public land but where thereis pressure for it to re-commence in order to continue tosupply firewood. The potential for change (includingthrough processes such as this Investigation) furthercomplicates the planning difficulties facing businesses inthe timber industry.

Firewood and sleepers

Firewood is favoured by many people, locally and inMelbourne, for household heating and sometimescooking because it can be comparatively economical(especially for people with no access to mains gas), itmay be expensive to change to an alternative heatingsystem and because open fires offer a unique ambience.Firewood is also sought for some commercial uses suchas to power paddle steamers. In addition, a considerableamount of firewood is consumed in recreationalcampfires (see ‘Recreation and Tourism’ in this chapter).

A potentially positive aspect of firewood use is that, ifproduced sustainably and used efficiently (see discussionof ‘Climate Change’ in this chapter), it may generatefewer greenhouse emissions than most alternatives.However, firewood harvesting greatly reduces theamount of fallen timber (coarse wood debris) in red gumforests, upon which many species depend. Firewoodcombustion is also a major source of fine particleemissions in woodsmoke, often exceeding air qualitythresholds in main towns and cities and contributing tohealth problems such as asthma. In some particularlyaffected areas (e.g. Launceston, see chapter 14),successful programs are in place to accelerate theconversion from wood heaters to other forms of heatingand to educate those still with woodheaters about howto reduce woodsmoke (see chapter 14). Woodsmokepollution is likely to be a much smaller problem in ruralareas and smaller, more dispersed towns. Theseproblems may negate some of the benefits of woodproducts such as lower greenhouse gas emissions (see‘Sustainability and Monitoring’ above).

The level of firewood consumption and woodsmokeemissions is influenced by the type and dryness offirewood and the efficiency of heater and house design(see chapter 14). Firewood consumption is expected todecrease as the efficiency of these designs continues toimprove, the natural gas network expands, the price offirewood increases and as wood heaters and stoves aregradually replaced or upgraded as old appliances wearout.

301Discussion Paper

The long-term trend of decreasing firewood demand islikely to continue, although the rate of decline maydecrease. The implications of rising oil prices fordomestic heating in rural areas is also unknown.

The effects on pricing of measures to maintaincommercial firewood production at or near current levelswhen the demand is declining is unclear. It is alsounclear how any changes to firewood production fromVictorian red gum public lands—which supply around 20percent of total Victorian firewood use and aconsiderably higher percentage locally in the studyarea—would influence the overall market. Potential forchange may be limited to approaches such as assistingthe early establishment of a supply from plantations.

The issues arising from the production and use ofsleepers for railways are similar to those in firewoodproduction and use. For example, red gum sleeperproduction and use is—in many contexts—less expensivein the short-term than concrete sleepers and wouldgenerally be expected to produce lower greenhouse gasemissions than concrete sleepers if produced sustainably.Red gum sleeper production is a ‘traditional’ industry,which is likely to experience reduced long-term demandas improvements in concrete sleeper design occur, withall new lines currently being built with concrete sleepers.In addition, red gum sleepers are largely derived fromsources other than Victorian public land (much comesfrom NSW public and private land—see chapter 14). Inthe short term however demand may remain high, andthere may be an ongoing demand for specialisedproducts e.g. larger section sleepers which havetraditionally been sourced from Victorian logs.

Domestic Stock Grazing on Public Land

Domestic stock grazing on public land (see chapter 13)engenders considerable debate. Grazing on public landoccurs along the length of the River Red Gum Forestsstudy area and is authorised and managed in threeways: Crown land licences (over 1600 licences, 65percent of which are less than 10 ha in area), agistmentpermits (Barmah forest and, until recently, parts ofGunbower forest) and commercial contracts. The keyissue for this Investigation about public land grazing iswhether the benefits of grazing on public land outweighthe costs associated with the environmental andmanagement impacts of cattle grazing.

Grazing on public land has a long tradition. Practicesthat have evolved over time, including the annual Barmahmuster, mean that grazing is seen as an important partof the heritage of the area. Grazing also enables privatelandholders to develop farm management plans that aremore flexible and responsive to seasonal variationsthrough the use of external feed sources. In doing so,landholders are able to supplement their incomes overand above those derived solely from on-farm practices.It is also argued that cattle grazing has benefits forpublic land managers, by providing an extra level ofvigilance on public land that limited managementresources may not otherwise provide for, such asreporting weed outbreaks or damage to fencing orirrigation regulators. Grazing is also thought by some tocontrol weeds, including Paterson’s curse, and reducefuel loads and hence reduce the risk of wildfire.

However, others have raised a number of concernsabout the use of public land for cattle grazing—particularly in environmentally sensitive locations such aswater frontages and riverine forests and floodplains.Intensive grazing has been identified as a major cause ofbiodiversity loss through selective loss of the mostpalatable plant species, loss of vegetation structure andimpacts on habitat values, particularly in riparianlandscapes. Studies have shown that such grazingreduces the capacity of riparian zone vegetation to actas a nutrient filter, by compacting the soil and increasingerosion, and therefore allowing greater sediment inputinto waterways. Environmental health of waterfrontages and downstream water quality have beenfound to improve when cattle are excluded from riparianzones. In contrast, low intensity grazing (usually withsheep) for short time periods is beneficial for some non-riparian vegetation communities, such as grasslandswhere it may serve as a surrogate for displaced nativeherbivores (see chapter 5).

Although domestic stock grazing is said to reduce weedinfestations, livestock can introduce weeds in their dungand, following severe soil disturbance and reduction ofnative vegetation cover by heavy grazing, weed speciesare often able to re-colonise rapidly and out-competenative species. Thus when grazing is initially removed,an obvious flourish of weeds may give the impressionthat grazing reduces weeds, but some argue that it ismore likely that the weeds—particularly annuals—havealways been present but simply become more visible.

Livestock grazing is viewed by some as a managementtool for reducing fuel load and providing protectionagainst wildfires. There is little information about whichfuel types contribute to wildfire fuel loads in theseriverine environments. In alpine and sub-alpine areas,cattle may reduce some of the fine fuels, but do not eatthe most flammable fuel types (Williams et al. in press).The Alpine Grazing Taskforce found that fire severity inthe 2003 alpine fires was not determined by whether anarea had been grazed or not (Alpine Grazing Taskforce2005). While the alpine research demonstrates thatgrazing cannot be assumed to reduce fuel load, specificresearch is required in the very different ecosystems ofthe riverine forests to provide evidence to support orrefute a hypothesis about grazing reducing wildfire fuelloads. Currently there is no available scientific evidenceeither way.


Effective management and protection of areas wheregrazing is excluded (e.g. sensitive ecological sites,Indigenous sites of significance and reference areas) isdependent on adequate fencing. Fences on thefloodplain are often damaged by floodwaters and coarsewoody debris that is transported by floods. This mayrequire labour-intensive repairs or expensive repair bills,and breaches of the fence allow livestock into prohibitedareas. In addition to the damage to the protectedassets, breaches allowing livestock into non-grazingareas mean that the integrity of the “non-grazed” site isviolated, limiting the ability to assess the impacts ofgrazing. However, fenced Aboriginal archaeological andcultural sites in Barmah forest demonstrate the potentialfor successful fencing on the floodplain.

Improved administrative processes for public landgrazing have the potential to improve consistency andaccountability. For example, currently the length oftenure can vary significantly, valuations are conductedusing different methodologies and, in some places, theadministrative instrument licensing grazing is not thecorrect one.

Given the range of environmental concerns, public landgrazing arrangements have been questioned by somegroups and individuals, particularly where conservation is a primary objective of the public land use category(e.g. Barmah State Park, Goulburn River Heritage RiverArea, River Murray Reserve, Ramsar wetlands). Publicagistment costs (around $14.10 per head (steer) for thesix month summer term at Barmah forest) are wellbelow the commercial market price of $100 to $200 perhead or higher for six months, although the higher costof management for stock owners may need to beconsidered in this pricing comparison. This situationprovides graziers with access to public land for grazingwith a competitive advantage over those grazierswithout access to public land for grazing. Licence feesare charged per area of land and do not appear to fullycost the use of the public land resource. There are alsocosts to the broader Victorian community formaintaining access to public land for grazing includingadministration, monitoring, compliance as well as on-ground works.

In addition to these direct economic issues, there areequity issues relating to allocation of licences. Whilepublic land water frontages and unused roads areusually licensed to the adjoining land owner, as it is notfeasible to license this public land to anyone else, accessto many state forest areas is usually a result of anhistorical implied right or default allocation. Allocationof agistment permits may be by a tender process orexclusively assigned to membership of an organisation(e.g. Barmah and Yielima forests graziers’ associations).

Consideration of the cultural, historical and economicbenefits of public land grazing requires carefulconsideration against the environmental and economiccosts to those public lands and to the public purse. ThisInvestigation signals the first stage of an ongoingconsultation process to establish current communitydemands and expectations in relation to these issues.

PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Many issues have been raised by the community inrelation to the management of public land. Theseinclude specific matters such as recreational access,resource allocation, fire management, biodiversityprotection, administration (including communityparticipation) and impacts from and on neighbouringland-holders. In the broadest sense, these issues relateto the ability of public land management agencies tomeet community expectations about how public landshould be managed. Embedded within theseexpectations is a wide spectrum of interests that need tobe balanced: economic, political, social, historical andenvironmental. In some cases community concerns arebased upon particular circumstances or events, whileothers represent overall unease or dissatisfaction withcurrent arrangements that may or may not be based onfactual information.

The adequacy of resourcing for public land managementis a particular concern for many people. Given that thearea of public land managed does not increase ordecrease as a result of changes to the land category,these concerns can be categorised as (i) an overallimpression that resourcing is inadequate across thewhole public land estate; (ii) that the resources allocatedfor each park or reserve do not meet communityexpectations; or (iii) as a disagreement with the landcategory assigned.

The community’s ability to participate meaningfully inland management decision-making has been raised asan important issue. In part, this issue arises becausemultiple agencies have different land managementarrangements and objectives for public landmanagement across the state, as well as differentconsultation and engagement processes. Public landmanagers may need to demonstrate a willingness toinform and engage public land users prior to decision-making and implementation, and to provide greatertransparency and accountability in their planningprocesses. There is, however, also an obligation onpublic land users to inform themselves about theirresponsibilities and obligations for the places they visit

303Discussion Paper

and the activities undertaken.

The interface between public and private land is ofparticular concern for adjoining landholders. Pest plantand animal control as well as water and firemanagement are important issues in this regard andattract considerable funding from government. The landmanagement practices of private landholders alsoimpinge significantly upon public land. For example, inheavily irrigated areas groundwater changes have causedsignificant salinity problems on public land and theseeffects cannot be restricted or controlled by land tenureboundaries.

Cross-Border Administrative Arrangements

The state border between New South Wales (NSW) andVictoria is defined by the high water mark on thesouthern bank of the River Murray as it flowed in the1850s (see chapter 9). In practical terms, the stateborder isolates a portion of NSW land on the southernside of the River Murray when the water level is belowhigh water mark. In other places, meanders havechanged the course of the main river channel andseveral hectares of both NSW and Victoria occur asenclaves within the adjoining state.

Co-ordination of administration for both land and water,while desirable, can be difficult in practice. For example,solid fuel fires are banned under NSW state forestsummer restrictions, including on the southern banks ofthe River Murray which are nominally in NSW. Howeverthese areas are contiguous with state forest and theRiver Murray Reserve within Victoria where no such banis in place. Similarly an angler may be standing on thetop of the southern bank in Victoria catching fish fromthe River Murray in NSW, for which a NSW fishinglicence is required. Agreements have been reachedbetween the responsible departments for each state toshare responsibilities for administering recreationalfishing in the lakes formed by damming of the river. Asa result, NSW fishing rules and regulations apply to LakeMulwala and Victorian fishing rules and regulationsapply to Lake Hume. In 2001, legislation was passed inboth Victoria and NSW providing the NSW WaterwayAuthority and the Victoria Police with the powers toenforce both NSW and Victorian marine safetylegislation on these lakes where the state border isunclear. Boating licence and registrations within eachstate are acknowledged in waters of both states,although some additional safety equipment may berequired in NSW waters.

Coordinated management arrangements—similar tothose adopted for recreational fishing and boating—would seem to be desirable for managers of public landand waters adjoining the state border.

As part of its Terms of Reference, VEAC must take intoconsideration opportunities for a joint managementregime with the New South Wales Government for theMurray River and public land on its floodplains.

Indigenous Involvement in Public LandManagement

The associations of Indigenous communities with thestudy area, developed over thousands of years, areprofound and deeply spiritual. Chapter 6 describes the

special relationship that traditional owners have withCountry and the current levels of Indigenous communityland ownership and management—includingmanagement models—both within Victoria andthroughout Australia.

Indigenous communities have in many places called forthe return of ownership of traditional lands. Return ofland has occurred to varying degrees throughoutAustralia, largely where lease-back arrangements havebeen negotiated through Indigenous Land UseAgreement (ILUA) processes or under specific legislationfor each jurisdiction. These agreements are largelyfocussed on pre-existing national parks or historicreserves. In some places, the lease revenue andenterprise opportunities—predominantly for iconicnational parks—have generated sufficient funding tosupport natural resource and land management. Inother areas that do not have a high visitor or tourismpotential or agricultural opportunities, there is likely tobe insufficient funds to supplement the lease revenueand resource land management. In such cases theremay be limited capacity for Indigenous communities tomanage land in isolation from government, or fromadditional financial support in some form.

Co-management offers the Indigenous community thesupport of government structures and economies ofscale whilst, in some models, including traditionalowners equally in decision-making processes. Indeedtraditional owner groups have a majority on some landmanagement boards or councils. This model of landmanagement tends to provide good outcomes wherelow economic returns are expected, but may lack theappeal of Indigenous owned land or joint management(hand-back, lease-back) for some communities. Holdinga majority on a joint government - traditional ownermanagement body allows Indigenous communities topursue employment strategies and capacity building byaligning the organisation’s structure and service deliveryto Indigenous decision-making processes.

In most joint management examples the land use isclosely prescribed. For example, the land must continueto be managed as a national park, or land will bereturned to Indigenous ownership or the governmentand the lease void if certain conditions are not met.

If Indigenous managed land is to be considered inVictoria, new land tenure arrangements would need tobe established. The existing public land use frameworkprovides for committees of management to beappointed under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978and the Forests Act 1958, but there is no existingprovision under the National Parks Act 1975 for eitherjoint or co-management arrangements. Amendmentsmay also be required to municipal planning schemes,earth and mineral resource provisions.

Progress towards reconciliation and land ownership orland justice has been slower in Victoria than in otherstates with a larger surviving Indigenous community (i.e.South Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland).Recently in Victoria however there has been considerablepublicity over the signing of the Yorta Yorta Co-operative Management Agreement and the ILUA withtraditional owners for parts of the Wimmera region (see


chapter 6).

It does not appear that the government funded YortaYorta Joint Management body established as anintermediary between Government land managementagencies and traditional owners has so far provided aneffective mechanism for consultation andcommunication. This may be because there was nopreviously established dialogue or consultationmechanism between the traditional owners andgovernment regarding land management, and thereforeno existing capacity or established relationships uponwhich to build on the formal agreement.

The challenge for future agreements to be negotiatedbetween government and traditional owners groups is tocreate a framework that can withstand such factors andmove ahead in a positive way. It also appears likely thatthe absence of previous capacity and/or workingrelationships, specifically those designed for landmanagement decision-making, has limited the initialprogress of the Agreement. The expended funding islikely to have supported Indigenous community capacitybuilding, but has not yet generated the outcomesintended under the agreement.

Water has a profound and spiritual value to manyIndigenous groups and beliefs are particularly entwinedwith the Murray River itself. Native title rights to waterhave been granted in some cases, and largely reflectaccess for continuation of traditional practices andcustoms. Some traditional owner groups have expresseda desire for a water allocation for cultural flows, as wellas for economic purposes. This allocation may beutilised to exercise custodial responsibilities for the careof river systems, and would be allocated to eachtraditional owner group for environmental flows or tocreate an economic resource for their people (FarleyConsulting Group 2003). Arguments for compensationfor industry users in relation to such cultural flows areoften countered by arguments for compensation forIndigenous communities over their loss of access towater and their associated traditional values.

Consultation undertaken by other government bodies orprevious studies reflect a consistent message fromtraditional owner groups with an interest in naturalresource management: that Indigenous cultural heritageand spirituality must be incorporated with environmentalvalues in management and decision-making. Theseconcerns could be addressed by increasing therepresentation of Indigenous people in natural resourcemanagement and decision-making processes. Inaddition, cultural heritage management and custodialresponsibilities could be reflected in land managementand be the responsibility of traditional owners inpartnership with government. Reflection andacknowledgment of the cultural significance of manyplaces within the study area—such as dual naming ofstreams or places—and recognition of related dreamingor creation stories, may provide a vehicle forreconciliation.

Greater Indigenous community involvement in publicland and natural resource management assumesIndigenous communities having the capacity to setagendas for, participate in, and implement management

activities and make decisions. Capacity at a general levelmay be broadly described as having responsibility for,authority over, access to and control of resources, orknowledge and skills and capability to perform tasks.

Despite considerable effort to build capacity by bothIndigenous communities and government, there areperceptions that these exercises have had limited successor have failed. Clearly the measure of capacity andsuccess is highly relative and subjective. Indigenouscommunity collective and consensus decision-makingprocesses contrast sharply with rigid governmentplanning and consultation cycles. Greater flexibility isrequired in delivery of capacity building exercises so thatall participants have a role in setting priorities, and theability to modify expectations and outcomes.

Many Indigenous land management models mirror thelevels of empowerment and ownership of decision-making described above. Underlying tenure also plays arole in self-esteem of Indigenous communities.However, some management agreements, despite thelanguage of ‘partnership’ implying equality andmutuality, in reality operate with the Indigenousorganisations essentially being a service provider togovernment.

One specific way of improving Indigenous capacity forinvolvement in natural resource management and publicland management particularly in the long term isthrough recruitment and employment strategies withinwhich Indigenous people work within agenciesresponsible for managing public land, such as ParksVictoria and DSE. Many government agencies havemade progress towards addressing the under-representation of Indigenous people within theirworkforces and have created employment opportunities(i.e. Wur-cum barra: DNRE 2002). There is also progresstowards greater involvement of Indigenous people ingovernment agency boards e.g. Victorian CatchmentManagement Council. Opportunities are also availablefor Indigenous employment in private enterpriseparticularly in the fields of recreation and tourism,teaching natural and cultural heritage, and in forestryenterprises.

Aboriginal people have strongly indicated a desire togain employment on Country. This arrangement enablesthe spiritual connection to their land to be maintained,provides local environmental knowledge as well asenabling individuals to maintain their relationships withfamily and their broader community. Flexibility toprovide on-Country employment is an importantcomponent if these strategies are to be successful andwould desirably include a range of employmentopportunities (e.g. direct on-ground land management,strategic planning, resource use, tourism).

Management Models for Biodiversity Conservation

Many threatening processes have lead to widespreadand continuing declines in biodiversity, from which thestudy area is not exempt (see chapter 5). One of themain approaches to conserving biodiversity in Victoriaand throughout the world is through the protected areanetwork or conservation reserve system (see chapter 10),although there are many additional or complementaryconservation approaches.

305Discussion Paper

Protecting areas for biodiversity conservation has strongsupport from many sectors of the community. However,some argue that it is more cost-effective to managemultiple-use land categories, such as state forest, forconservation than to expand strictly protected parks. Thisdebate depends on many factors, particularlyunderstanding what level of protection, and cost, isacceptable to both local and broader communities.Achieving a balance between environmental protectionand other uses for public land has given rise to thecurrent reserve and public land-use system in Victoriawith its continuum of protection and use from a fewfully protected wilderness areas to broader multi-useforests allowing varying levels of resource extraction andrecreation.

Protecting areas (or in-situ conservation) is the mostcost-effective means of protecting the widest range ofspecies and ecosystems when compared to ex-situconservation measures such as captive breeding (seechapter 10). International studies have found thatcountries with a high proportion of protected areas havea lower proportion of threatened species. Such reservesalso have a significant unknown potential value, in theform of species or processes that might contributegreatly to our future well-being but which have not yetbeen identified.

Contrary to common perceptions, parks benefit from ahigh level of maintenance and management in order toachieve their conservation goals. Many parks requirerehabilitation from past activities and the artificialreplication of natural processes such as flooding, fire andpollination. Animal and plant pests require activemanagement in parks. It is sometimes argued that pestplants and animals are more abundant in conservationreserves than surrounding private land. However, thevast majority of Australia’s plant and animal pests arepests of farmland, pasture and disturbed habitat. Intactnative ecosystems, without disturbance or intrusion byhumans, are strongly resistant to pest invasion, with onlya few possible exceptions. Weed and pest infestation inreserves is often worst on the edge of private land dueto disturbance and dispersal into the park. Pest andweed invasion is generally greatest on public land withthe highest amount of use, particularly use which causeshigh levels of disturbance.

As an example, it is frequently argued that fox numbersare higher in parks than on private land or in state forestbecause recreational hunting is not permitted in parks.There is no evidence, however, that fox numbers arehigher in parks than on private land, and research ineastern Australia has found a correlation with distancefrom private land in that foxes are most abundant inforests that are closest to freehold land and are absentin forests furthest from freehold land (Catling and Burt,1995). Furthermore, recreational hunting alone does notreduce fox populations sufficiently, over a wide enougharea to result in a general population decline (Saunderset al. 1995). Analysis of the results of a fox bounty trialin Victoria indicated that it did not provide for large-scale fox population reduction (DSE 2003c). Increases inmortality (such as those resulting from an increase inhunting) are countered as fewer animals compete forthe same resources and social groups are disrupted,

resulting in an increase in reproductive rates thefollowing season. The absence of hunting may, however,make foxes more visible in parks than on private land,just as it does in urban areas.

Despite the extinction of many mammal and bird speciesin the last two hundred years from radical land usechange, modern conservation methods do appear tohave prevented further extinctions in recent years. Thishas lead some to argue that additional biodiversityconservation is unnecessary. However, a great manyspecies, such as the superb parrot, regent honeyeaterand spotted bowerbird, have continued to decline innumbers and distribution over recent decades and years.The platypus, and many possums and gliders also showreduced reporting rates from a contracted range despiteincreased survey intensity. Many species survive in suchsmall areas and in such low numbers that a singlecatastrophic event (such as a large-scale forest fire) or aslight change in climate, could wipe them out. A greatmany species are so poorly studied that it is difficult totell whether their population is sustainable. Someecosystems and species face such a high risk ofextinction that only the highest level of protection offersthem any chance of survival at all. Protected areascomplement other strategies and form part of theoverall package of biodiversity conservation measures.Reserves alone, however, may not be enough for highlyendangered species, which require a high level ofintervention (as outlined in endangered species recoveryplans).

Fire Management

Fire is an important issue for most people, particularlythose in fire-prone rural communities. The occurrence ofcatastrophic wildfires, while part of the Australianlandscape, can threaten lives, livelihoods and property.Although fire is a natural part of the Australianlandscape, it can also potentially threaten aspects of theenvironment, depending on timing and intensity. Detailsof the occurrence, effects on biodiversity andmanagement of fire within the River Red Gum Forestsstudy area are provided in chapters 4, 5 and 9respectively. There are three issues commonly raisedregarding fire on public land.


Many sections of the community believe that the risk ofwildfire is greater in national parks than on private landand even in state forests. National parks are thought toaccumulate large fuel loads through inadequatemanagement and/or conservation objectives that favour‘letting nature take its course’. Prescribed burning forfuel reduction in parks, however, also comes underattack, due to the perception that prescribed burnsoften escape. Evidence does not support this, however,with only a small proportion of fires originating fromcontrolled burns on public land (see chapter 4).Although some fires are started naturally from lightning,the vast majority of fires are started from humans.Proximity to humans is thus the greatest risk of wildfireeither deliberately or accidentally (through campfires andmachinery). Factors which may increase the risk of firesin some national parks include higher fuel loads thancleared land, less accessible terrain, greater public accessin high use areas and lower reporting rates in low useareas. Factors which may decrease the risk of fires insome national parks are most notably controls oncampfires and machinery, reduced fuel loads throughcontrolled and ecological burning and reduced exposurein some areas to the main cause of fires: humans. Bycomparison, fires in state forest may be increased bybroader public access and machinery, but are also morereadily brought under control by those same factors.

Fire severity is also an important factor in assessing firerisk. While fires are more commonly started near humanhabitation, they are also more rapidly reported andextinguished, making them lower in severity. Fires innational parks which are started by thunderstorms,however, often have multiple points of origin from anumber of lightning strikes, are reported late and aredifficult to access, all of which make them difficult tocontrol. A large fire in a national park, however, mayhave less social or economic impact than a similar fire inan inhabited area. These complexities probably explainwhy there is currently no clear evidence for meaningfuldifferences in fire risk or severity between parks, stateforests and private land. Many fire authorities believethat any potential difference in fire patterns is not aresult of land tenure alone but is due to a combinationof the many factors listed above.

Fuel reduction burns are often argued to beenvironmentally appropriate for river red gum forests.However, there have been few major wildfires withinriver red gum floodplain forests, and those that haveoccurred are typically of limited extent. Fire distributionand frequency over the last 30 to 40 years indicates thatriver red gum forests are not highly prone to wildfire,partly due to their position on a floodplain, althoughthere have been a small number of fires up to 50 ha insize within the region (see chapter 3). Although fireecology has not been studied in detail for river red gumfloodplain forests, these forests seem to responddifferently to fires depending on season, floodcharacteristics both before and after the fire, longer termclimatic conditions (e.g. drought) and fire characteristics(such as intensity, rate of spread and heat). River redgum forest species do not have the typical features offire-dependent flora to promote regeneration after fire,suggesting that fire does not naturally play a major role

in this ecosystem. Increased fuel reduction burns, whichare often requested for public land to protect ruralcommunities, are likely to impact negatively on theseenvironments.

Domestic stock grazing is sometimes suggested as apreferable alternative for reducing fuel loads and fire risk(see the ‘Domestic Stock Grazing on Public Land’ issue,above). However, heavy grazing in the high countryprior to the 1939 fires had little preventative effect(Esplin 2003). Grazing is also unlikely to affect theaccumulation of larger fuels that contribute moretowards fire intensity. The Victorian Bushfire Inquiry,established as a result of the 2002-03 alpine fires,concluded that there is currently no scientific support forthe view that ‘grazing prevents blazing’ in the highcountry and it is reasonable to extend this finding toother forested ecosystems throughout Victoria (Esplin2003).

In the summer of 2004-05, the number of wildfires inNSW riverine forests was substantially less than inVictoria, suggesting that the NSW campfire ban over thesummer fire season has been effective in reducingwildfire occurrence (see chapter 4). Reducing the originsof many fires may be a more effective means ofprotecting both the environment and surroundingcommunities, than reducing fuel loads.

LONGER TERM PLANNING

During its consultation so far in the Investigation, VEAChas heard concerns about the pressures of increasingpopulation and increasing visitation to public land in thestudy area. The impacts of climate change are alsoincreasingly important considerations for public land useplanning.

Recreation and Tourism

The River Red Gum Forests study area is popular withvisitors for many reasons. These include its sunnyclimate, accessible bodies of water bodies andopportunities for isolation and tranquillity in aestheticallyattractive and biologically-rich open forests. The area iswell suited to low cost, unstructured recreation. As aresult, the study area is a major focus for a range ofactivities including camping, fishing, swimming, boating,water skiing, horse riding and four-wheel driving (seechapter 11 for details). In addition, new activities—suchas wake-boarding—have become popular in recentyears, and undoubtedly there are other recreational andtourism opportunities that are currently not extensivelyutilised and have considerable potential for expansion.

The study area is characterised by a long-term trend ofincreasing popularity for recreation, tourism and relateddevelopments both in, and away, from regional towns.This has led to an influx of retirees and so-called ‘tree-changers’, and an expansion of facilities andinfrastructure, particularly accommodation and relatedservice industries. This has, in turn, broughtconsiderable social and economic benefits to thesetowns but, in several places, these developments andrecreational uses are placing pressures on public land,and some activities appear to be close to capacity— forexample, camping on riverbank during holiday periods.

307Discussion Paper

Recreation is one of the major uses of public land. Aspopulation and visitation increase, however, increasinguse can lead to unacceptable negative impacts onnatural, cultural and other recreational values. Forexample, the popularity of both wake-boarding and theSouthern 80 water ski race has increased considerablydespite increased river bank erosion. Similarly, tourismdevelopment along the shores of Lake Mulwala and therelated recreational activities have resulted in strong localopposition to variations in the lake level that could assistin improving environmental water conditions in Barmahforest (see ‘Water and Environmental Flows’, above). Inaddition, intensive camping can result in permanent lossof native ground vegetation through trampling, totalremoval of fallen timber and cutting of live and deadstanding trees for firewood. Other major problemscaused by intensive use include waste management,particularly the difficulty of human waste disposal inareas that flood (see chapter 11 for further examples).These impacts are undesirable in their own right and, ifsevere enough, can reduce the recreational value itselfover considerable areas —particularly when therecreational values people are seeking include ‘peaceand quiet’, isolation or a relatively unconstrainedcamping experience in a natural setting. This problemcan be compounded when activities that are notcompatible occur in close proximity, for example,hunting with firearms near campsites used by families orthose seeking tranquillity.

At present, there appears to be no long-term overallplanning or clear direction for recreation, tourism andrelated developments, unlike that set out for coastalareas under the Victorian Coastal Strategy, for example.It is probable that with good planning the region couldaccommodate more visitors while providing an improvedvisitor experience with fewer impacts. An associatedadvantage of wider-scale planning is that it often resultsin the compilation of comprehensive information andanalyses covering broad areas. In the River Red GumForests study area, a need for research on current andpredicted visitor use of public land has been identified,as well as an assessment of the capacity and impacts onvarious areas for particular uses. Ideally, such planning

would cover relevant areas in Victoria and New SouthWales as a single region. Broad-scale planning couldmaximise the recreational opportunities and relatedtourism benefits of public land in a sustainable mannerwithout undermining the recreational resource itself,either directly or through the loss of natural or culturalvalues. Such an approach might address issues such asthe long-term trends in various forms of recreation andtourism, the appropriate mix of recreational activitiesacross the region, and the location of various activity ordevelopment nodes.

Strategic planning, which leads to a more structuredapproach to the allocation of areas for particularrecreational uses or development of facilities, maycompromise the relatively unstructured andunconstrained feel of recreation in river red gum forests.However, regardless of changes to public land status, theneed for more planning for and management ofincreasing tourism and recreational use seems inevitableif river red gum forests are to be sustainable in thefuture.

Impact of Climate Change

As detailed in chapter 4 Climate and HydrologicalSystems, climate change is likely to significantly reduceconsistent rainfall patterns, river flows and run-off, andincrease average temperatures and extreme weatherevents. Despite debate about the extent and causes ofclimate change, there is widespread scientific agreementthat climate change is occurring and that these changesare likely to adversely affect a number of naturalresources. Reduced water availability and reliability islikely to directly alter habitats and increase wildfire andpests. Indirectly, reduced water availability is likely todegrade wetlands, stress or kill trees, lower timberyields, and lower nectar yields for apiculture and nectar-feeding native animals. Water managementinfrastructure such as regulators and levees are also likelyto require significant modification. On the other hand,climate change may reduce dryland salinity by loweringthe water tables in some areas, although reduced wateravailability would limit options for salinity management.

Climate change effects within the study area arepredicted to be significant. For example, annual streamflows across the Murray-Darling Basin are predicted todecrease by 1100 to 4000 GL by 2020 (twice as much asthe 500 GL sought in the Living Murray First StepDecision annual environmental flows). Scarcity of water,exacerbated by climate change, is likely to be the mostsignificant challenge facing natural resource managers inthe study area and a number of useful approaches willneed to be considered.

Other things being equal, those values and uses thatinevitably rely more heavily on public land than otherparts of the landscape would generally have high priorityin VEAC’s deliberations, especially where they aresusceptible to climate change. For example, althoughpublic land occupies only around 20 percent of the studyarea, it supports around 60 percent of the remainingnative vegetation—much of it fronting water bodies. As a result, public land is particularly important forbiodiversity conservation, apiculture, wood products, and recreation and tourism. The first two of these in


particular are susceptible to the effects of climatechange and could be under long term threat in thestudy area if greatly diminished on public land. Thesupply of wood products from the study area is alsosusceptible to climate change but—although currentlylargely sourced from public land—is more likely to beable to shift to private land than biodiversityconservation and apiculture.

Even maintaining the status quo for many uses andvalues will require greater capacity and flexibility, solelyto overcome the uncertainty and costs resulting fromclimate change. In order to maintain existing public landtimber production volumes, for example, it may benecessary to increase either the intensity of harvesting(assuming it is currently below the sustainable level) orthe area available for harvesting in order to offset anyeffects of climate change in reducing tree growth andsurvival rates. The key point here is to ensure that theeffects of climate change are factored into anyassessments of the effects of VEAC’s recommendationson the viability of various values and uses.

Under conditions of limited resources to assist a largearray of competing demands, it may be necessary toadopt the triage approach used in medical emergencies.Essentially advanced triage provides for the decision notto provide for some demands in some areas in order tobe more confident those values and uses that arecatered for will endure in the long term. Certainlyplanning for climate change requires that short termbenefits are properly balanced against likely long termbenefits and impacts. In the River Red Gum Forest studyarea, significant ecological assets sites are likely to beallocated water resources in preference to areas withlower conservation values.

Particular attention may need to be given to the longterm security of environmental flows, and especially toexisting and potential arrangements that determine theextent to which shortfalls in water resources—includingas a result of climate change—are borne by other usersof water relative to the environment.

There are a number of specific impacts of climatechange that, once recognised, can be addressed throughspecific measures. For example, plant or animal speciesthat are rare, have a restricted distribution, narrowclimatic tolerances or sensitivity to environmental changecould be targeted for protection in relativelyunfragmented areas of consolidated habitat linking tosecure areas with different climates. In general, greateremphasis could be given to securing ‘biolinks’ thatconnect habitats spanning long continuous climaticgradients.

As well as the consequences of climate change, thehuman-induced causes of climate change may also berelevant factors for consideration. For example, intheory at least, sustainably-produced firewood, timberrailway sleepers and some sawlog products generatefewer greenhouse gases than most alternatives. On theother hand, relying on pumping water as a long-termsolution to sustaining wetlands and riverine forests insome areas will produce additional greenhouse emissions(assuming pumps are powered by fossil fuels).

DEVELOPING DRAFT PROPOSALSVEAC’s public land use planning process under theVictorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001requires the Council to take into account the matterslisted in Section 18 of the VEAC Act, and the additionalmatters listed in the River Red Gum Forests Investigationterms of reference. As part of its Investigation VEACdescribes all relevant values, resources and uses, gathersinformation on present and predictable future needs forresources, uses and services and seeks information andviews from individuals and the community bycomprehensive consultation.

In particular, VEAC is required to quantify the status ofseveral key factors, including biodiversity conservation,timber, minerals, stone, honey, grazing and otherresources, and various recreational uses. Social andeconomic appraisals describe the current situation andexplore the implications of proposals, to inform VEAC’sdevelopment of recommendations. VEAC combinesdata from relevant key sources, including publicsubmissions, and sets broad targets for main public landuses, taking into account major uses, the impacts ofeach use on other values or uses, and theappropriateness of each use in certain land usecategories.

Initial working plans will be developed by combining keyconservation sites, resource areas for timber, minerals,stone, grazing, other resource uses, key recreation areas,and the framework of ‘given’ uses, with land useproposals arising from submissions and otherconsultation. Many areas will fall into place withoutland use category conflict. Other locations where thereare likely areas of competing uses to be resolved arehighlighted, and gaps to be filled by more detailed workare evident. Localised data from submissions and furtherresearch will refine the plan.

Key Factors

Biodiversity conservation is best quantified at astrategic planning scale using ecological vegetation class(EVC) mapping and data analysis. This describes theconservation status of each EVC and its currentrepresentation in protected areas in the context of itspre-1750 extent. Amongst other things, VEAC isrequired under its Act to have regard to the need toconserve and protect biological diversity and the need toprovide for a comprehensive, adequate andrepresentative system of parks and reserves. Possibleprotected areas will be identified from sites ofsignificance (or high conservation value) data, records ofthreatened flora and fauna species, Flora & FaunaGuarantee Action Statement objectives for threatenedspecies, large old tree mapping, biologically intact sites,and data on biological values and other importanthabitat elements. Areas previously identified in FMA PlanSpecial Protection Zones and Special Management Zoneswill contribute to this stage.

Under its Act VEAC is required to have regard to anyexisting or proposed use of the environment or naturalresources, and the potential environmental, social andeconomic consequences of implementing its proposedrecommendations.

309Discussion Paper

Timber resource quality data, location of mills,processing, value-adding and sales outlets, and othertimber resource information—together, serving toidentify key timber resource areas—is obtained from DSEand industry. Existing Forest Management Area plansshow the current forest availability and zoning. As anyproposed land use changes are considered, estimatedfuture yields and associated implications will be assessed.

Mineral resource data from DPI locates existing andpossible mining and processing sites, and any othermineral resource issues.

Stone resource and extraction site data—to the extentthey are relevant to the River Red Gum Forests Studyarea—will be assessed.

Public land grazing is notable for its large number ofsmall licensed areas, as well as Barmah forest grazingunder permit. Relevant information will be considered inthis process.

Apiculture will be addressed through the collation onavailable data on nectar sources.

Recreation represents a spectrum of activities that willall be considered by Council in making itsrecommendations.

Given Uses

A set of given uses provides a partial framework for theworking plan:

• existing national and state parks

• community facilities—recreation reserves, parklands &gardens, schools, other educational institutions, publichalls, education areas, recreation trails and shootingranges

• various services and utilities—roads, railways (if in use),bridges, locks, airports, communications facilities,hospitals, public offices, courts, police stations, gaols,Defence land, other Commonwealth land, surveypoints etc

• water infrastructure for urban and irrigation—weirs,reservoirs and town water towers

• water distribution infrastructure—water supplychannels, pipelines, drains and floodways (unlessdisused and open to alternative uses)

• public land infrastructure—caravan parks, boat ramps,piers and related structures

• public authority freehold land, committed to a rangeof purposes (unless surplus), and

• other ‘given’ uses described in submissions.

As well as the above, VEAC also considers user access,and practicality for land management activities—recreation facilities, fire management, pest plant andanimal control and so on

Documents

Discussion of Issues - VEAC D - complete.pdf · issues and proposals submitted to VEAC for consideration in preparing the Discussion Paper for the Investigation. THE SUBMISSIONS The