Summer reading: brace yourself

With grass growth pretty prolific around our region, it might be worth a look back at the 2009 Black Saturday Redesdale fire.

chewton 2 1 14 079 (590x800)As far as we know, Robert Kenny’s Gardens of Fire: an investigative memoir, [UWA Publishing 2013] is the first detailed account of this fire by a householder directly involved. Kenny unsuccessfully tried to defend his house in Racecourse Road, and lost virtually everything he had. His description of his efforts to fight the fire alone makes gripping and sobering reading. He thought he was prepared, with buckets of water, plenty of tanks, a fire pump and appropriate clothing. The fire ran through grassland to his house, and his efforts at defence were defeated when his pump collapsed and embers entered the building ceiling. Kenny is hard on himself: he refers to ‘people from the city, like myself. Who, let’s be frank, had no idea’, and recalls a conversation with a local farmer when he bought his property: ‘I never forget the son of the previous owner of the property, my guide when I first moved in, looking out over parched paddocks where there was virtually no grass, and responding to my statement that there was nothing to burn with: it’ll burn, don’t worry about that.’ Continue reading

Posted in Fire Management, News | Comments Off on Summer reading: brace yourself

Forget about VCE results: here’s the DEPI report

DEPI has produced a report on its fuel management activity for 2012-13: Reducing Victoria’s bushfire risk on public land. The relevant sections can be found here and here.

The report offers a four part scale of achievement:

–‘fully achieved’

–‘achieved to the best extent possible’

–‘not achieved but is a manageable risk’

–‘not achieved’, and

–N/A (insufficient information to tell)

The Department gives itself full marks for area burned, and ‘achieved to the best extent possible’ for its efforts to reduce bushfire risk to human life and assets.

Mount Alexander 2012: weed growth after a 2009 'reduction burn'. DEPI is too confident in its assessment of the ecological results of its burning program.

Mount Alexander 2012: weed growth after a 2009 ‘reduction burn’. DEPI is too confident in its assessment of the ecological results of its burning program.

 

On ecological resilience (the second major aim of the Code of Practice), the rating offered is ‘The outcome/activity has not been achieved but is a manageable risk (review process for management and/or data collection for further improvement).’ We’re not sure exactly what this means (is ecological resilience a ‘manageable risk’?) but from where we’re standing that looks a very generous mark.

Continue reading

Posted in Fire Management, News | Comments Off on Forget about VCE results: here’s the DEPI report

FOBIF gets a gong

Over a hundred representatives of local volunteer organisations gathered at the Castlemaine Market Building in December as part of international volunteer day. Volunteers ranging widely in age and field of from Castlemaine Secondary students to visitors to care accommodation

Lyn Amaterstein accepting a volunteering certificate on behalf of FOBIF from Bendigo MHR Lisa Chesters

Lyn Amaterstein accepting a volunteering certificate on behalf of FOBIF from Bendigo MHR Lisa Chesters

were acknowledged for their contribution to community life. Lyn Amaterstein accepted an acknowledgement certificate on behalf of FOBIF.

Posted in News | Comments Off on FOBIF gets a gong

Bushfire ‘risk landscape’ forum in Castlemaine

This forum–focussing on the West Central district–was held in Castlemaine on December 11 for a disappointing attendance of only 8 community members, outnumbered by DEPI officers. The West Central district covers the area from Geelong to north of Bendigo, and from west Melbourne to Avoca.

 

The forum appears to be part of an effort by DEPI to communicate its efforts to get a more precise understanding of the effects of fire on the community and the environment.

Wewak track, Castlemaine Diggings NHP: draft environmental scan contradicts itself on the matter of the 'fire dependence' of our forests.

Wewak track, Castlemaine Diggings NHP: the draft environmental scan contradicts itself on the matter of the ‘fire dependence’ of our forests.

 

The information tabled at the meeting seemed heavily dependent on computer modelling. Questions were asked at the forum about ‘ground truthing’ of this modelling, and community representatives present were unconvinced by the answers.

 

Participants at the forum were presented with a draft environmental scan of the area which outlined the challenges and complexities of fire management. This document confirmed what we have often commented on: that DEPI confronts serious contradictory demands in its fire program. One example: winery owners prefer spring burning to autumn burning, because of the risk of smoke taint to grapes. Ecologists and apiarists dislike spring fire because it interrupts flowering and breeding processes. Unfortunately DEPI too often resorts to glib phrases like ‘trade offs’ to explain its activities, which more often than not sacrifice the environment for economic activity. Conservation organisations have consistently hammered the idea that we should aim for a better result for everyone—for example, by more detailed management of much smaller burns.

 

The evidence is piling up that the crude target of burning five per cent of public land every year [no matter how much land is burned in bushfires] is environmentally damaging and does not improve public safety. For that reason any process that contributes to a clearer understanding of the issues is good.

 

There were, however, a few unsettling blips in the info presented at the forum. A map on page 11 of the draft environmental scan shows that forests in the Mount Alexander region are ‘fire dependent’. This is NOT the case—as the text of the same document points out on page 9. Further, the scan appears to blandly accept the continuing development of housing in dangerous areas (page 20). This is not a simple matter, and the draft tells us that ‘new land use criteria will be developed as a result of the Bushfires Royal Commission.’ In our opinion these criteria are already overdue.

 

The forum was part of a process leading to the planned release of a new strategic bushfire plan by June 30 2014.

 

Posted in Fire Management, News | Comments Off on Bushfire ‘risk landscape’ forum in Castlemaine

Ecology last?

The Castlemaine Forum was given a summary of the bushfire risk profile developed by DEPI in cooperation with various research bodies. The profile is a working document rather than a set of conclusions, and is about risk to human life and assets: no way has yet been developed in this system of assessing risk to the environment in current burning practices [p 7]. 

According to DEPI computer modelling, risk to people and property has been reduced by 40% since 2002 by a combination of major bushfires [mainly] and controlled burning. The report adds:

Continue reading

Posted in Fire Management, News | Comments Off on Ecology last?

Quotable quote

From DEPI’s Risk profiles report, page 30:

‘Fuel reduction is much more effective in some areas than others in reducing overall bushfire risk [to life and safety].’

This common sense observation is yet another dig at the five per cent policy, which involves burning everywhere, regardless of the value to human safety.

Posted in Fire Management | Comments Off on Quotable quote

Moss guide published

moss-pic-for-webFOBIF’s publication, A field guide to the mosses of south eastern Australia, has been published. If you wish to place an order this form has all the details and includes a sample page.

Posted in News | Comments Off on Moss guide published

Common sense hammers at the door–again

The Victorian Commissioner for the environment, Kate Auty, has released her State of the Environment Report for 2013. It can be found online here.

 

A brief summary of the Report’s findings can be found in the Age of November 29.

 

On fire protection Professor Auty calls for the abandonment of the five per cent target. In doing so she echoes the view of the Royal Commission Implementation Monitor and just about everyone else who has looked closely at this program. She also fires a shot at the updated Code of Practice:

 

‘A 5% target is an unfortunate compromise that may not provide a significant increase in asset protection. At the same time it will result in a high rate of burning that will be detrimental to many Victorian ecosystems.

‘This problem is compounded by the revised management zones in the Code of Practice. Previously, the Code of Practice differentiated between zones where burning was carried out for asset protection and where it was justified primarily on ecological grounds, The management outcomes for these zones have now been reclassified to effectively give primacy to asset protection in order to meet the 5% target.

 

‘The target of yearly burning on 5% of all public land statewide is too blunt an instrument. A preferable option, echoed by the VBRC implementation monitor, is that government develops clearly articulated planned burning objectives for asset protection and ecological management. Furthermore, annual targets for these need to be based on sound evidence and clearly separated at the local scale. Any statewide target would be the sum of these regional targets and not vice versa.’ [Our emphasis].

 

To your average reader all this sounds like common sense. Further, Professor Auty hits the nail on the head on the question of safety: if the aim of fuel reduction is public safety, it’s logical to assume that it would mostly take place around settlements, not in the middle of nowhere. Such exercises are expensive and difficult, however, and there’s the rub: the thing about the five per cent program is that it looks as if you’re achieving a huge amount, with relatively little outlay. The Commissioner instead points out that

 

‘A fully realised risk-based fire management strategy may require planned burning for fuel reduction near settlements, including risk reduction on farmland. This is often unpopular and expensive. Fire suppression strategies, including burning, are considerably more expensive when carried out in populated areas and it is important that appropriate resourcing is addressed.

‘Overcoming resistance to this will require a substantial public information campaign illustrating the damaging effects of some burning programs and realistic assessments of risk reduction under the current system.’

 

Parliament must respond to the Report within twelve months.

Posted in News | Comments Off on Common sense hammers at the door–again

Fire: what the research is saying…and not saying–yet

FOBIF has just received the Box-Ironbark Experimental Mosaic Burning Project_Newsletter 5, on research conducted in the Heathcote-Rushworth forest. The newsletter documents important features of forest structure, like the presence of large trees, and the quality of ground cover. It’s a brief and interesting document. Its interest lies, however, in what it doesn’t say, rather than what it does.

The newsletter points out something we all know: that box ironbark forests are highly  modified by past practices, and that ‘important structural features’ like large trees, and deep leaf litter are ‘exceedingly rare.’ The research documents this in painstaking detail.

So: it’s ‘important to know how planned burns may further alter forest structure, and what effect they may have on already limited forest resources.’ Work is under way to ‘compare pre and post fire data’ , and the results will be detailed in future newsletters.

We can’t offer comments on the forests over at Heathcote-Graytown, but here are a few comments on the matters raised by the Project:

–Almost every prescribed burn we’ve examined in our area has destroyed some of the ‘exceedingly rare’ large trees in the relevant zone.

–Deep leaf litter is a problem: for ecologists it’s an important feature of forest health. For fire managers, it’s just fuel.

The moral of this seems to be that fuel reduction burns are definitely bad for forest structure, unless they’re done in very small patches, with painstaking attention to detail [impossible under the present regime, where managers are compelled to burn large areas to get up to the five per cent].

One further point: the researchers might want to compare their findings with past Departmental burn plans. These are supposed to record the effects of prescribed burns on the very things the researchers are looking at [see page 40 of the 2006 Code of Practice, for example. The 1995 Code is a bit vaguer, it also requires monitoring and research into particular burns]. They might find this material hard to find, however: we’ve never succeeded in getting access to it.

 

Posted in Fire Management | 1 Comment

How well is ‘fuel reduction’ working?

It’s been a good Spring for weeds, and one of those doing best around our district is Wild Oats, which is flourishing on roadsides and street reserves, along Forest Creek, and in some bush areas.

Poverty Gully water race, November 12: patches of  highly flammable exotic grasses have sprung up in the 2012 fuel reduction zone.

Poverty Gully water race, November 12: patches of highly flammable exotic grasses have sprung up in the 2012 fuel reduction zone.

Interestingly, wild oats has sprung up abundantly in parts of the fuel reduction zone burned in Poverty Gully by DEPI last spring. The weed is also rampant along Forest Creek, burned by DSE in 2011. This illustrates one of the complexities of the use of fire to reduce fuel: it’s not always easy to say what will come up after the fire—although clues can be found by looking at what’s there before you burn.

And here’s a question: have the fuel reduction burns actually increased fuel? Weeds like wild oats carry about six times the fuel load of native grasses like Kangaroo and Wallaby Grass—so any increase in their extent will automatically increase the fire danger.

Wild oats can be controlled by targeted use of management fire: but there’s an important matter of timing involved. Fire has to be used before the grass sets its seed—that is, in late winter. If an area is burned after that, seed in the soil causes the grass to extend its range significantly.

This point illustrates the difficulty faced by DEPI. Already, the number of days the Department can burn is limited; on top of that, if burns are too indiscriminate serious damage can be done to the seeding and breeding patterns of native flora and fauna.

It would be too easy to blame the Department entirely for the proliferation of dangerous weeds like wild oats, because they’re all over areas which haven’t been burned, like township land. But two things are clear.

First, if DEPI didn’t have to spend a lot of time burning remote areas of bushland, it could put more resources into the careful, detailed management of fire prone vegetation close to settlement—including use of methods other than fire, like slashing.

Second: DEPI is theoretically obliged by its Code of Practice and Royal Commission directive to publish the results of its burn operations, both in fuel reduction and ecological effect. It does not do this. By refusing to release details of its burn plans, and of its monitoring of burns, DEPI gives the impression that it has something to hide. If it was more transparent about its operations, people like us might be a bit less critical of them.

We’re getting tired of Government officials boasting about how much land they’ve burned: what we want to know is: has this burning made us safer?

Flammable Widl Oats, Forest Creek track, November 2013. This area was burned in 2011. DEPI's Code says that 'the achievement of the burn aims will be monitored and reported.' If they were, we would have a better idea of how the Department rates its reduction burns.

Flammable Widl Oats, Forest Creek track, November 2013. This area was burned in 2011. DEPI’s Code says that ‘the achievement of the burn aims will be monitored and reported.’ If they were, we would have a better idea of how the Department rates its reduction burns.

 

Posted in Fire Management, News | Comments Off on How well is ‘fuel reduction’ working?