Parks Victoria would like to thank you for your contribution to the Castlemaine Digging National Heritage Park Project. As you indicated that you would like to be kept informed of the project you will find an update below. You also have the opportunity to comment on the draft actions generated as part of the project.
Comments are encouraged until 25 May 2017, by reply email.
Community engagement
Your comments (provided during either the on-line survey or the site walk over) helped shaped the draft Heritage Landscape Management Framework Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park.
There were 265 responses to the on-line survey and 12 community participate in the site walk overs.
The Online survey sought information on visitation to the park and the values shared by visitors:
Comparing the reasons for visiting to the frequency of visiting revealed that those who visit for walking or hiking are the most frequent visitors, followed by those who enjoy nature, birdwatching, and cycling, mountain biking. Those who visit a few times in the year are primarily those who visit to go camping and to have a picnic or a barbeque. Prospectors predominantly visit a few times a year. Other reasons for visiting the park was to visit historic sites or features.
Visitors favourite places included Garfield Wheel, Eureka Reef, Spring Gully and Sailors Gully (Vaughan Springs),
A key purpose of the online survey was to understand the importance of CDNHP to visitors. Looking at five implied values aesthetic, historic, scientific, social, spiritual - Historic values were the most commonly mentioned, followed by scientific/natural values and aesthetic values. A place for prospecting was also an important value or activity associated with the park.
Management issues and activities were also considered in the survey. High priority overall was given to: tackling vandalism; reducing weeds; and addressing fire risk. The next highest priority actions were: information to help me find specific sites; better standard of access tracks; and restoration of specific structures. Other suggested management activities were: improved signage; interactive and digital interpretation; reducing weeds; and preventing disturbance from prospecting.
Site walk overs were an opportunity to discuss a range of issues and explore ideas more deeply:
Discussions referenced the multi-layered landscape and a timeline of pre-gold rush Jaara landscape followed by the gold rush period and the post-gold era recovery. There were also references to tranquillity in the forest, bird-life, native flora and the importance of low-key atmospheric sites requiring sensitive management. The diversity and range of sites was noted by some participants.
Benign neglect versus arrested decay of the remaining historic structures was a big discussion point. As there are many ruined structures across the park, it was considered important to prioritise sites and structures based on their heritage significance and visitor/interpretive potential.
In terms of how to interpret the Park, the following views were repeatedly discussed:
o Sites need to be clearly interpreted using a variety of methods otherwise over-signage will become an issue. There was an on-going discussion about the use of signs in the Park. There was some support for an introductory/information panel at key sites, but the over-use of interpretive panels was not generally supported.
o Illustrative maps were discussed as one way of visualising sites, linking remains, mounds and other features together to form a coherent story.
o Other methods could include: web sites, phone apps, coded posts, geo-caching as well as audio opportunities.
o Use of historic photographs where possible.
o Sites could be connected to the Goldfields Track by loop walks. Other walks could be done in a similar fashion as the park is very fragmented.
o Guided walks to the more sensitive sites.
o Important to utilise local community knowledge and their potential to be engaged in future interpretation.
Directions proposed in draft report
Analysis led to the development of key entry points into the landscape from where a network or constellation of sites and landscapes could be accessed. This was based on existing access and visitor facilities as well as opportunities for future use and the potential for site and other forms of interpretation. The hubs of the three identified constellations are:
Northern constellation: Garfield /Forest Creek
Central constellation: Spring Gully Eureka
Southern constellation: Vaughan Springs Irishtown
The gold-mining landscapes in each of the three constellation areas have been categorised according to their level of access and use. This dictates the level of action within each landscape including conservation management actions, the type of trail to be developed or maintained and the accompanying on-site interpretation where appropriate and other interpretive materials. The actions in each of the constellation areas are designed to achieve the following objectives:
1. Heritage: conserve the significant heritage features of the park.
2. Aboriginal connections: recognise and celebrate indigenous connections to the park and the wider landscape.
3. Experiencing: allow visitors to experience the full story of the heritage landscape through a range of sites that introduce the main interpretive themes and stories.
4. Recovering forest: highlight the importance of the recovering forest and contributions that can be made to help improve the habitat and future regeneration of the Box-Ironbark forest.
5. Community: seek ways of involving the local community in shaping the future management and interpretation of the CDNHP.
The draft report is of considerable length and detail. As such, the proposed Action Plan (Table 15) is attached for your consideration and comment.
R M
Manager Regional Delivery
Northern Victoria Region
