Author Archive

Grose Fires 2006 – forum actions ignored

Friday, March 16th, 2012

In November 2006, two separate bushfires that were allowed to burn out of control for a week as well extensive deliberate backburning, ended up causing some 14,070 hectares of the Blue Mountains National Park to be burnt.

This wiped out a significant area of the Grose Valley and burnt through the iconic Blue Gum Forest in the upper Blue Mountains of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA).

In the mind of Rural Fire Service (RFS) and the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales (NPWS), National Parks and World Heritage do not figure as a natural asset worth protecting from bushfire, but rather as an expendable liability, a ‘fuel’ hazard, when it comes to bushfire fighting.

This massive firestorm has since been branded the ‘Grose Valley Fires of 2006‘.

To learn more about the background to this bushfire read article: >’2006 Grose Valley Fires – any lessons learnt?‘

Pyrocumulous ‘carbon’ smoke cloud

above the firestorm engulfing the Grose Valley 20061123

About a month after the fire, on Tuesday 19th December 2006 there was apparently an ‘Inter-Agency Review‘ which took place at Katoomba behind closed doors by members of bushfire management and operating personnel involved in the fire fighting. Despite requests by this Editor, no minutes or reports of that meeting were ever forthcoming. The meeting was internal and secret.

Immediate local community outrage called for explanations and accountability from the Rural Fire Service (RFS) (the government agency responsible for rural fire fighting throughout the State of New South Wales) in charge of fighting the bushfires and for a review of bushfire management practices with a view to ensuring that the highly valued Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and iconic Blue Gum Forest in particular is protected from bushfire in future. Many members of the local community called for an independent and public review or enquiry.

One local resident wrote in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper:

‘Questioning the RFS’

by Dr Jackie Janosi, Katoomba, 20061204

.
‘To start, this is directed at the upper levels of the RFS and not to the wonderful local volunteers – many of whom are loved and respected friends and colleagues.

To stop the loud community Chinese whispers and restore faith with the local community, could someone please respond with factual answers about the recent Grose Valley fire that are not reinterpreted with a political spin.

How many hectares of bush was burnt by the Grose Valley wildfire and how many was burnt by the RFS mitigation efforts?
How many houses and lives were at risk from the wildfire as versus to the RFS fire?
How many millions of dollars were spent on water bombing the RFS fire?
How many litres of precious water were used to put out the RFS fire?
Is it true that soil-holding rainforest was burnt and that the real reason for the Mt Tomah road block was erosion from the RFS removal of this natural fire-break?
Was local advice and expertise sought and followed or simply ignored?
If mistakes were made, what measures will be taken to ensure that this does not happen again?

I sincerely hope that if mistakes were made then the upper levels of the RFS can show the humility and good future planning that is now required to restore it’s good reputation. I hope that the RFS can show that it is still a community group that cares for the safety of our Blue Mountains residents, is able to respect and respond to our very special local environment and is able to make sound decisions about valuable resources.’

Ed: Her questions were never answered. With the RFS rejecting calls for a public or independent review, there was a general sense amongst many in the local community of a cover up and of gross incompetence going unaccounted for.

One of two ignitions that got out of control

– this one in ‘Lawson’s Long Alley‘, north of Mount Victoria

(Photo: Eric Berry, Rural Fire Service, 2006)

A week later, a front page article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald 20061211 by journalist Gregg Borschmann entitled ‘The ghosts of an enchanted forest demand answers‘ ^http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-ghosts-of-an-enchanted-forest-demand-answers/2006/12/10/1165685553891.html [>Read article]. A second in depth article by Borschmann was also run on page 10 ‘The burning question‘, ^http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-burning-question/2006/12/10/1165685553945.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1, [>Read article – scroll down].

.

Community activists form ‘Grose Fire Group’ in protest

Within days of the Grose Valley Fires finally coming under control, some 143 Blue Mountains concerned residents informally formed the ‘Grose Fire Group’ and collectively funded a full page letter in the local Blue Mountains Gazette 20061206 asking of the RFS a different set of questions:

‘We call on the New South Wales government to:

1. Undertake a thorough, independent review of the Grose Valley fire, involving all stakeholders, with particular attention to the following questions:

Were fire detection and initial suppression timely and adequate?
Were resources adequate, appropriate and supported?
Were the adopted strategies the best available under the circumstances?
Could other strategies of closer containment have offered lower risk to the community, better firefighter safety, higher probabilities of success, lower costs and less impact on the environment?
Was existing knowledge and planning adequately utilised?
Is fire management funded in the most effective way?

2.   Ensure adequate funding is available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of environmental damage.
3.   Pay for more research to improve understanding of fire in the Blue Mountains landscape and methods for fire mitigation and suppression.
4.   Improve training in strategies for controlling fires in large bushland areas.
5.   Improve pre-fire planning to support decision-making during incidents.
6.   Improve systems to ensure that local fire planning and expertise is fully utilised during incidents, and that the protection of the natural and cultural values of World Heritage areas and other bushland are fully considered.’

On 20061220, my letter was published in the Blue Mountains Gazette on page 12:

‘Blue Gum Lessons’

.
‘One of our most precious natural heritage assets, the Blue Gum Forest, has been allowed to be scorched by bushfire. This demands an independent enquiry into current fire fighting practices to ensure such a tragedy is not repeated.

Not a witch hunt, but what is needed is a constructive revision into improving bushfire fighting methods incorporating current research into the issue. The intensity and frequency of bushfires have become more prevalent due to disturbances by man, including climate change.

An enquiry should consider the assets worth saving; not just lives, homes and property but natural assets of the World Heritage Area. Fire fighting methods should seek to protect all these values. It seems back-burning, however well-intentioned, burnt out the Blue Gum. This is unacceptable. What went wrong? The future survival of our forests depends on how we manage fire.’

Blue Gum Forest shortly after the firestorm

(Photo: Nick Moir, Sydney Morning Herald 20061210)

Ed: The above community questions and demands were ignored by the RFS and the New South Wales Government. Many within the ranks of the RFS came to its defence, as the following letters to the Blue Mountains Gazette reveal.

[>Read PDF version]

As letters to the editor continued over the Christmas holiday break, by January 2007, Local Member for the Blue Mountains and Minister for the Environment, Bob Debus MP finally responded by proposing that community members be given an opportunity to discuss their concerns with fire authorities and be encouraged to contribute to the development of revised fire management strategies, policies and procedures which may arise from the routine internal reviews of the 2006-07 fire season, and particularly the Grose Valley fire.

The ‘Grose Valley Fire Forum‘ was scheduled for Saturday 17th February 2007, but it was invitation only. I requested permission to attend, but by was rejected.

The incinerated remains of the Grose Valley

– now devoid of wildlife, also incinerated

.

Grose Valley Fire Forum

The following is an edited account of the official ‘Report on (the) Grose Valley Fire Forum‘, which was arranged and co-ordinated by the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute (BMWHI) and which took place at Blue Mountains Botanic Garden, Mount Tomah on Saturday 17th February 2007. The Report is dated 16 March 2007. ‘The content of this report reflects the Forum discussion and outcomes and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute‘ – BMWHI.

The Grose Valley Fire Forum and report were undertaken by the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute at the request of the NSW Minister for the Environment, the Honourable Bob Debus MP.

Forum Participants

Associate Professor Sandy Booth – Forum Chairman and Facilitator (BMWH Institute)
Professor Ross Bradstock Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, University of Wollongong
Mr Ian Brown BM Conservation Society
Mr Don Cameron BM Conservation Society
Mr Matthew Chambers Environmental Scientist, Blue Mountains City Council (Observer)
Dr Rosalie Chapple Forum Co-Facilitator, BMWH Institute
Mr Bob Conroy Director Central, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC
Ms Carol Cooper Darug and Gundungurra Nations (Observer)
Superintendent Mal Cronstedt Blue Mountains District, Rural Fire Service
Mr Grahame Douglas Acting Chair, BM Regional Advisory Committee
Group Captain John Fitzgerald Blue Mountains District, Rural Fire Service
Mr Shane Fitzsimmons Executive Director Operations, Rural Fire Service (Observer)
Mr Richard Kingswood Area Manager Blue Mountains, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC
Mr Geoff Luscombe Regional Manager Blue Mountains, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC
Dr Brian Marshall President, BM Conservation Society (Observer)
Mr Hugh Paterson BM Conservation Society & NSW Nature Conservation Council
Dr Judy Smith GBMWH Advisory Committee Member
Inspector Jack Tolhurst Blue Mountains District, Rural Fire Service
Mr Haydn Washington GBMWH Advisory Committee Member
Mr Pat Westwood Bushfire Program Coordinator, Nature Conservation Council
Members of the general public were not permitted to attend, including this Editor, who had requested permission to attend

.

List of Acronyms used in this Report

AFAC    Australasian Fire Authorities Control
ARC    Australian Research Council
BFCC    Bush Fire Coordinating Committee
BM    Blue Mountains
BMCC    Blue Mountains City Council
BMWHI Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute
BFMC    Blue Mountains District Bush Fire Management Committee
BMCS    Blue Mountains Conservation Society
CERMB    Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, Faculty of Science, University of Wollongong
CRC    Co-operative Research Centre
DEC NSW    Department of Environment & Conservation
GBMWHA    Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
GIS    Geographic Information System
NCC    NSW Nature Conservation Council
NPWS    NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment & Conservation
RAFT    Remote Area Fire-fighting Team
CRAFT    Catchment Remote Area Fire-fighting Team
RFS    NSW Rural Fire Service

The Grose Valley from Govetts Leap, Blackheath

(Photo by Editor 20061209, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

Forum Agenda

10.00 Welcome to Country – Carol Cooper

Introduction by the Forum Chair -Sandy Booth:

Purpose
Process
Agreements
Outcomes
Reporting

10.10 Introduction and opening statement by each participant without comment

10.30 Presentations (10 mins each) by:

Mal Cronstedt (RFS) – report on agency debrief Dec 19
Richard Kingswood (NPWS) – national parks and fire management
Dr Brian Marshall President, Blue Mountains Conservation Society – local community perspective
Ross Bradstock (Wollongong University) – gaps and priorities in bushfire research for the BM

11.10 Points of Clarification

11.20 Grose Valley Fire Management

Issues not covered in RFS official Section 44 Debrief Report

11.40 Fire Management and the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (WHA) (Ed: the region affected by the fire)

Longer term and landscape scale management issues relating including climate change implications

12.00 Grose Valley Fire Management

.
1.00-2.00 Lunch

Grose Valley Fire Management and the WHA (continued)

Identification of agreed list of actions, with nominated organisations and recommended timeframes

Close & Afternoon Tea (Ed: no specific time set. 5pm?)

Ed: Assuming that the forum concluded at around 5pm, the duration allocated for discussing and devising the ‘Actions’, including each Action’s Goal, Trends, Causes and Conditions, Delegation and Timeframe was just 3 hours, presuming the forum ended at 5pm.

Since there are and remain some 50 listed Actions out of this forum within a 3 hour allocated period (2pm to 5pm), just 3.6 minutes was allowed for discussing and devising the details of each Action. It is highly implausible that this could have been completed at the forum. So the question remains: were many of the Forum’s 50 Actions in fact devised outside the forum either by the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute on its own or in consultation with some of the forum attendees?

In any case none of the Actions has been undertaken. There has been no follow up report on the performance of the Actions.

This Grose Valley Forum of 2007 was just a politically contrived token talk-fest behind closed doors. Its glossy motherhood report was designed to appease critics of the RFS management of this devastating fire.

The forum was not open to the general public, nor was it independent of bushfire management’s selective bias.

The only benefit was that bushfire management would appease the critics of its handling of the fire fighting by producing a report and that most would forget. Well the purpose of this article is, out of respect for the ecology and wildlife of the Grose Valley, to reveal that report and to help ensure people do not forget.

Forum Introduction

In November 2006, fire caused by lightning strikes burnt a significant area of the Grose Valley in the upper Blue Mountains of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA). Like many areas throughout the GBMWHA, the Grose Valley is an area of high natural and cultural value, including the iconic Blue Gum Forest. The two original ignitions were designated as the Burrakorain Fire and the Lawson’s Long Alley Fire, and they came jointly under the jurisdiction of an emergency declaration under Section 44 of the Rural Fires Act.

Community members called on the State Government to undertake a thorough and independent review of the management of this fire, involving all stakeholders. Principal among the issues raised by the concerned residents were backburning, impacts of frequent fires, under-utilisation of local expertise, and economic costs. The community members also called for adequate funding for rehabilitation and environmental restoration works, to conduct more research and training in certain areas of fire management, to improve pre-fire planning
and to develop management systems to better capture and utilise local knowledge.

Local Member for the Blue Mountains and Minister for the Environment, Hon. Bob Debus responded to these concerns by proposing that community members be given an opportunity to discuss their concerns with fire authorities and be encouraged to contribute to the development of revised fire management strategies, policies and procedures which may arise from the routine internal reviews of the 2006-07 fire season, and particularly the Grose Valley fire. The Minister also noted the opportunity for the community to be informed of, and
contribute to, the development of future research projects concerning climate change and fire regimes.

The Minister invited the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute (BMWHI) to organise and chair a forum of representative community members and fire authorities. The Institute is an independent non-profit organisation that supports the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage of the GBMWHA, with a key objective to “support the integration of science, management and policy within and adjoining the GBMWHA properties.

The purpose of the forum was to:

Brief the community on the management of the Grose Valley fire and the framework and context for the management of fire generally within the World Heritage Area
Identify any issues that relate specifically to the management of the Grose Valley fire, and that haven’t already been captured and/or responded to within the s.44 debrief report
Identify longer term and landscape scale issues relating to the management of fire in the Greater Blue Mountains WHA, particularly in this time of climate change
Develop an action plan, which responds to any unresolved issues identified above.

In accordance with the Minister’s brief (Ed: Bob Debus), the following organisations were represented at the forum:

NSW Dept of Environment and Conservation;
NSW Rural Fire Service
Blue Mountains Conservation Society
Nature Conservation Council of NSW
Blue Mountains City Council
NPWS Regional Advisory Committee
GBMWHA Advisory Committee.

In addition to senior representatives of the agencies involved, representatives also came from the principal community-based organisations that had expressed concern and called for a review process. It should be noted that one of the main public calls for a review was made by an informal coalition of residents that was not formally represented at the forum, but a number of these residents were members of those organisations represented.

(Ed: the general public were not permitted to attend, there was no public notice of the forum in advance, and this Editor was specifically excluded from attending.)

.

Forum Process

An open invitation was given to the community organisations to identify the issues of community interest and concern to be discussed at the Forum.

From these issues, a consolidated list of 22 issues (Table 1.2) was prepared by the Institute, and then circulated to all participants prior to the forum. To facilitate the workshop discussions and the detailed consideration of the identified issues, the ‘5R Risk Management Framework‘ was used to group the issues.

Following a Gundungurra and Darug ‘Welcome to Country’ by Carol Cooper, and an introduction by the Forum Chair, self-introductions and personal opening statements were made by each participant without comment. These were followed by a series of briefins on management of the Grose Valley Fire and fire management generally within the World Heritage Area. The Forum began by acknowledging that fire management in the Blue Mountains is close to best practice in many ways.

It was unfortunate that copies of the Section 44 debrief report were not available for the forum as anticipated (Ed: a copy is provided in the ‘Further Reading‘ appendix below).

While this was partly overcome through verbal presentation and comment, it limited the ability to reach consensus on the factual basis of what happened on the fire ground and to move forward productively from this point of consensus. Community representatives expressed their dissatisfaction with this situation, and it must be noted that the forum was therefore not able to engage effectively on specific issues of the control strategies used on the Grose Valley Fires.

After a brief session on points of clarification, the issues presented to the forum were explored in detail by working through a problem orientation process that asked a series of questions about each issue, to reach consensus on the exact nature of the problem. As this work progressed, a series of agreed actions were identified to effectively address key aspects of the issues as these unfolded. It is noted that the issues addressed toward the end of the day were examined in less detail due to time constraints, but warrant further attention (e.g. the issue about remote area fire-fighting teams). The original list of 22 issues was consolidated into 11 goal statements, with 50 associated actions.

The main body of this report presents the goals and actions along with documentation of the discussion that took place on the day. It utilises the structured approach to systematically work through the issues, and identify the actions required to bring about more sustainable bushfire management for the Blue Mountains. Within a week of the Forum, the Institute circulated a copy of the forum proceedings to all participants for comment and clarification. The Institute also sought identification of responsibilities for the 50 Actions identified by the Fire Forum.

It is strongly recommended that implementation of the Action Plan be reviewed annually by the representative organisations, to assess progress and effectiveness of actions. It is proposed that the BMWH Institute co-ordinate this review process in partnership with the Nature Conservation Council, with a workshop held after the 2007/08 fire season, to re-address the issues and their progress. (Ed: This was never done)

.

Forum Overview

A big challenge in bushfire management is how to better integrate valid community interests with those of fire management agencies. Over recent years, the public has come to demand and expect a greater say in decision-making processes that impact upon their local environment. The Grose Valley Fire Forum represents a step forward in this process of better integrating community knowledge and interests into local natural resource management.

The Forum also illustrated that the Blue Mountains community is both a great supporter of fire authorities, and of the role of volunteer firefighters for the outstanding effort that they are prepared to undertake on behalf of the community.

The concerns and questions addressed at the forum included:

Identifying weaknesses and gaps in fire management plans and processes

How well are plans being implemented and what are the barriers to implementation e.g. financial, institutional, political?
How should fire authorities and land managers respond to climate change impacts?

Integrating scientific knowledge into fire management plans

How can bushfire management policy allow for the incomplete knowledge of complex ecological systems?
What roles should science and other research play in decision processes, given the uncertainty arising from incomplete understanding of ecosystem dynamics and insufficient scientific information?

The role of fire as an ecological process

How do we resolve the conflict between rapid fire suppression to reduce risk versus the fire-dependency of the ecosystem?
What does it take to more effectively mitigate against the risk?

Concern that fire control strategies do not compromise the significant natural and cultural heritage values of the Greater Blue Mountains region.

How can bushfire management policy better account for protection of World Heritage values?
How adaptive is bushfire management and policy to the specific circumstances of the Blue Mountains?

.
The Forum recommended actions in relation to:

Better interpretation of ecological data into decision-making and practical fire-fighting procedures
Improvements in bushfire risk management planning
Better translation of legislated objectives for protection of natural and cultural values into operational guidelines
Improved information flow between fire authorities and the community during and after major fires, including more transparency and public involvement in the review processes
Increasing funding for fire-related research, planning, risk mitigation, and post-fire ecological rehabilitation
Enhancing the preparedness, detection and rapid fire response capacity of fire authorities in response to fire ignitions
Modelling the effects of different control strategies and suppression.

The Forum acknowledged the increasing and serious challenges arising from risks associated with liabilities and litigation. These trends are of principal concern to fire management agencies and the fire fighters themselves, and many in the general community share these concerns.

Bushfire management is a cultural phenomenon, inextricably bound up between nature and culture. It involves the interaction of multiple, complex systems, including:

organisational/institutional behaviour and decision-making
fire fighting strategies and technologies
science, research and ecosystem behaviour
variable fire behaviour and weather, including climate change
politics; and
personal values and attitudes.

The complexity is increasing, especially with climate change, along with pressure for bushfire management to be more adaptive and responsive to the needs of the present and the future.
Facilitating the necessary changes in the behaviour of any of these systems is highly challenging for both government and the community. These systems often have severe constraints including limited resources, threats of litigation, and limited data on which sound decisions can be confidently made. Where these systems are not continuing to learn and adapt, is where attention is needed, not on individual accountabilities. Sound decision-making at the time of a fire event is crucial and the process by which these decisions are made requires careful
analysis. The system should be able to support open reflection after a fire, without blame or litigation. This is where a process of scientific analysis should come into its own: what the fire did, what was done to control it, what worked, what didn’t, why or why not, and what can be done to make things better. How can the system be changed and improved to make success more likely?

Research and adaptive management are essential in helping to address both current challenges and the issues arising from climate change. But alone, these will not bring about the required changes as neither of these domains explicitly addresses the overall policy process or the political realm in which bushfire management happens. Conflict and uncertainty are becoming increasingly common, as evidenced by the Four Corners Program “Firestorm” broadcast on Monday 12th March. The program featured the 2004 Canberra Bushfires and also
raised the Grose Valley fire and resulting Fire Forum.

To overcome the key problems identified by the Grose Valley Fire Forum and achieve real and lasting triple bottom line outcomes, change and innovation need to take place in the realm of governance. This is particularly the case in the areas of science, policy and decision-making.

The Grose Valley Fire Forum has brought fire management agencies and interested representatives of the community together in a spirit of co-operation to consider issues critical to the management of bushfires. Driven by the high conservation values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, the implications of the issues raised at this Forum have obvious relevance to other regions and states. Protecting people as well as the environment should not be mutually exclusive. Our efforts to address this challenge in the Blue Mountains will increasingly come in for close scrutiny.

Notwithstanding the existing mechanisms of review and community consultation surrounding bushfire management, the Institute recommends to the Minister that the issues and actions identified herein by the Grose Valley Fire Forum warrant special consideration and support.

Properly pursued with senior political and agency commitment and support, they offer key insights and potential pathways for the continued adaptive development and implementation of state of the art fire fighting for which NSW, and in particular, the Blue Mountains are justifiably renowned.

.

Issues of Community Interest and Concern

.

A. Research, information and analysis

1. Commitment in fire management to conservation of natural and cultural values of World Heritage Area as well as human life and property.
2. Understanding and consideration (including on-ground knowledge) both by those involved in pre-fire planning and those required to make operational decisions during fire events -of the WH values for which the GBMWHA was inscribed on the world heritage list, and of other values, such as geodiversity, cultural values and beauty, which have the potential to be nominated for World Heritage listing in the future.
3. Biodiversity impacts of frequent fires in Grose Valley for last 40 years, including impacts of the recent fire on World Heritage values.
4. The ecological basis for fire policy (knowledge base for response of local biota to fire regimes) e.g. biodiversity loss associated both with high fire frequency and intensity, and with fire exclusion.
5. Translation of NPWS Blue Mountains Fire Management Plan (e.g. risks to natural heritage particularly World Heritage values) to S.52 operational plans during Grose Valley fire.
6. Effectiveness of review processes in generating real improvements for the future; current debriefing process performed by BFMCs [i.e. BFCC Policy 2/2006].
7. Assessment of community values – protection of property versus protection of the natural environment.
8. Implications of climate change for increased fire frequency and intensity.
9. Adequate funds for fire suppression versus inadequate funds for research, planning and fire mitigation.

.
B. Risk modification

10. Effectiveness of current risk strategies in managing fire regimes for biodiversity and community/asset protection (e.g. upper Grose Valley).
11. Implications of climate change for risk modification (e.g. fuel reduction).

.

C. Readiness

12. Skills in implementing fire control strategies for large bushland areas e.g. back-burning.
13. Ecological sustainability of current responses to fire (both suppression & bushfire risk management) e.g. knowledge and skill of plant operators in sensitive environments (environmental damage from machine work e.g. bulldozer lines).
14. Community understanding of control strategies used.
15. RAFT capacity (e.g. for night-time work).
16. Efficiency of fire detection technologies.

.

D. Response

17. Back-burn control strategy from “Northern Strategic Line” and Bell’s Line of Road in large bushland area: overriding consideration for asset protection versus lack of consideration and recognition of impacts on ecological values.
18. Application of planning, guidelines, procedures & local information & expertise during fire suppression.
19. Rapid containment of lightning strike or arson fires.
20. Aerial attack efficiency and effectiveness.
21. Media – inaccurate and misleading use of language and presentation of information.

.

E. Recovery

22. Funding for post-fire assessment, strategy review and ecological restoration including addressing activation of weed seed banks.

.

Problem Orientation Process

(Problem Solving Methodology applied by the BMWHI to the Forum)

1. Clarify goals in relation to the issue

What goals or ends do we want?
Are people’s values clear? (there may be an over-riding goal and then more specific goals to operationalise the over-riding goal)

2. Describe trends

Looking back at the history of the issue, what are the key trends?
Have events moved toward or away from the specified goals? Describe both past and current trends.

3. Analyse causes and conditions

What factors, relationships, and conditions created these trends, including the complex interplay of factors that affected prior decisions? (e.g. environmental, social, political factors) i.e. what explanations are there for the trends?
What management activities have affected the trends?
What are the conflicts about different approaches to address the issue?

4. Projection of developments (e.g. if no action is taken to address the issue)

Based on trends and conditions, what is likely to happen in the future (e.g. if nothing is done differently).
If past trends continue, what can we expect?
Is the likely future the one that will achieve the goals?
What future possible developments are there (e.g. politically, environmentally e.g. how will climate change affect the problem)?

5. Decide on any Actions to address the problem

If trends are not moving toward the goal, then a problem exists and actions need to be considered.
What other policies, institutional structures, and procedures might move toward the goal?
What research, analysis, or public education may be needed?

* Adapted from Clark, T.W. 2002. “The Policy Process: a practical guide for natural resource professionals.” Yale University Press. U.S.

Vast hectares of the Blue Mountains’ native vegetation was either left to burn uncontrolled

or else deliberately burned by the RFS and NPWS

.

Action Plan

~ a consolidated list of goals and actions [organisations delegated for executing ‘Actions’ are shown in brackets […]

1. Protection of Natural and Cultural Values

GOAL:

To protect natural and cultural heritage values, consistent with the protection of human life and property, by ensuring that bushfire management strategies:

• take a risk management approach toward protection of these values
• improve access to and interpretation of natural and cultural heritage values when deciding on fire suppression strategies and tactics
• ensure that these natural and cultural heritage guidelines for fire management are integrated throughout the entire planning framework for short, medium and long-term bushfire management and operational strategies.

ACTIONS:

1. Data collected within the “Managing ecosystem change in the GBMWHA” project, including the new GIS, to be effectively interpreted into decision-making and practical fire-fighting terms. [Responsibility for action: BMWHI & CERMB – ARC Linkage project, NPWS, BMCC, BMCS]

2. Monitor impacts of fires on Aboriginal cultural heritage values, and undertake opportunistic mapping of these values post-fire. Translate findings into decision-making and practical fire fighting terms. As a priority, undertake an opportunistic survey of Aboriginal cultural heritage post-Grose fire. [Aboriginal communities, BMWHI, NPWS]

3. Greater effort in general to be made in translating and interpreting research and other relevant information on the protection of ecological and cultural values to better inform decision-making and into practical fire-fighting terms wherever required. [CERMB, BMWHI, NPWS, BMCC, BMCS]

4. Consider further developments in environmental risk management planning by the BFCC for inclusion in the Bush Fire Risk Management Plan model template. [BFMC]

5. Effectively integrate the strategic hazard reduction plan being developed by BMCC, into the risk management plan and the operations plans. [BMCC, BFMC]

6. Translate the NPWS Fire Management Strategies objectives for protection of natural and cultural values into operational guidelines across the entire planning framework at all levels, using a risk management approach. [NPWS, BFMC]

7. Continue to identify the best mix of treatments i.e. prevention, mitigation, suppression and recovery, to achieve both fire management and land management objectives. [NPWS, RFS, BFMC]

8. Review risk management and operational plans to include relevant reserve fire management plan information, including aspects of mitigation and appropriate fire management guidelines from the RFS Environmental Code [BFMC].

9. Develop a single map-based approach for interagency use that depicts all relevant information in a user-friendly way and enables optimal use and consideration of this information under operational conditions. [NPWS, RFS, BMCC, BFCC, BFMC, BMCS]

10. Provide the outcomes of this forum to the BFCC for consideration in developing and reviewing policies and procedures such as for the Bush Fire Risk Management Policy and Bush Fire Risk Management Plan Model template. [NPWS, RFS]

11. Develop a quantitative framework for risk management: undertake research to evaluate the effectiveness of current strategies to inform the resources and strategies required to achieve integrated life, property, cultural and natural value protection outcomes. The research should identify what is the return on current ‘investment’ and the results then linked back to budgeting systems [BMWHI].

12. Undertake and improve community liaison and surveys to better capture community values within fire management plans [BFMC].

.

2. The Role of Fire as an ‘Ecological Process’

GOAL:

(2?) To better understand the role of fire as an ecological process, including the long-term ecological effects of fire regimes on fauna and flora, as a basis for identifying fire regimes that sustain the ecology both locally and across the landscape.

ACTIONS:

13. Undertake a research project using the Grose Valley fire as a case study, to ascertain and explore the opportunities to improve fire management for protection of ecological impacts [NPWS, BMCC, CERMB, BMWHI].

14. Development of a threat abatement plan for the ecological consequences of high frequency fires. [DEC]

15. Use the Blue Mountains as a case study for modelling different control strategies and suppression (e.g. analysis of suppression operations) utilising historical raw data for retrospective mapping. [RBradstock/CERMB]

16. Source external funds for priority research and investigation projects [NPWS, RFS, BMCC].

17. Undertake ecological research into the impacts of fire regimes including intervals between fires, ensuring an appropriate focus on large-scale transformation [NPWS, BMCC, CERMB, BMWHI].

18. Undertake the necessary ground-truthing investigations to ascertain whether ecological predictions are being played out. That is, are observed trends in ecosystems matching the predictions from the models? Other research and investigation priorities include:
a. Threatened species and communities, including mapping of successional processes (e.g. woodland to heathland shifts and changes to hanging swamp boundaries) and wet sclerophyll forest (e.g. Blue Gum Forest, E. oreades) and warm temperate rainforest regeneration;
b. Species composition and structure comparison of those areas burnt in 2002;

c. Species composition and structure comparison of those fires burnt with high frequency;
d. Document / map / audit weed plumes that have occurred after past fires, and similarly for the weed plumes that will already be occurring after the 2006 Grose Valley fire;
e. Build upon current research results to further elucidate how the Grose Valley responded to the ‘94 fire. [CERMB, NPWS, BMCC & BMWHI via ARC Linkage Grant]

19. Initiate appropriate involvement of the broader community in research and particularly Aboriginal people for Aboriginal cultural heritage research, in all relevant research projects. [BMWHI, NPWS, BMCC]

20. Develop mechanisms to effectively and promptly communicate research outcomes to agencies, fire-fighters and communities, and for application of these to risk management planning and human resource planning and assessment during fires. [BFMC]

.

3. Review Processes and Public Communication

GOAL:

To ensure effectiveness of fire review and debriefing processes and their communication to the public by:

Communicating to the community the results of interagency review processesincluding an analysis of fire strategies and environmental impacts within major debriefs and review
Enabling greater community participation in major fire debriefs and fire reviews.

ACTIONS:

21 Urgent distribution of the section 44 debrief report to all participants in the forum. [RFS]

22 Greater provision for earlier feedback to and from the community after a major fire, regarding fire control strategies, prior to release of formal report. Also address what the barriers are to increasing community knowledge and what approaches are most effective. [RFS, BFMC]

23 Request the Coordinating Committee to revisit the s44 debrief policy and procedures and/or other appropriate mechanisms to develop an appropriate means for getting feedback from the community via a system that enables issues to be raised and feedback to be provided. The development of a policy and procedural framework for Incident Controllers may assist here. [NCC/NPWS, BMCS]

24 Undertake promotion and community education programs to familiarise the community with the framework that exists for debriefing processes and the arising information flows and decision-making processes. Incorporate this into existing Firewise program. [BFMC, RFS]

25 Encourage a culture of openness, learning and evidence-based decision-making, including understanding by volunteer fire fighters that criticism is of the process not of the implementer. [All organisations represented at forum]

26. Continue to undertake interpretation / education / media and fire-related Discovery activities. [NPWS]

.

4. Climate Change and Risk Mitigation

GOAL:

To prepare for the more extreme conditions associated with climate change, by addressing the policy and management implications for control strategies and landscape management.

ACTIONS:

27. Research priorities include:

Investigate efficacy of current risk mitigation in the Blue Mountains. [NPWS, CERMB]
Climate change impacts on hanging swamps.
Build understanding of underlying shifts in environmental conditions and their effects on fire occurrence and fire behaviour.
Implications of climate change for fire behaviour and invasive species. [CERMB, BMWHI & ARC Linkage project]
Investigate plant dispersal in relation to climate change, quantifying ecological processes and habitat requirements critical to species persistence and their ability to move to new habitats given climate change. [CERMB, BMWHI & ARC Linkage project]

28. The results of this Forum should be used to advocate and lead improved dialogue and action to address the key issues pertaining to climate change and start to influence policy change. [NCC, BMWHI, CERMB, BMCS, NPWS, RFS, BMCC]

29. Investigate opportunities for increased resourcing for risk mitigation and for bushfire behaviour research. [NPWS, RFS, CERMB, BMWHI]

30. Enhance the preparedness, detection and rapid fire response capacity of fire authorities in response to fire ignitions. [Fire authorities]

31. Deliver a presentation about this forum, at the May 2007 conference of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW on bushfire and climate change. [DEC, BMWHI, NCC; 31 May-1 June 2007]

.

5. Resourcing and Investment

GOAL:

Increase the availability of resources for fire-related research, planning and fire mitigation.

ACTIONS:

32. Formally approach the Environmental Trust to consider the allocation of Environmental Trust funds for use in fire related research including investigation of fire impacts. [NPWS]

33. Raise the needs and investigate the opportunities for increased commitment to rehabilitation following fire with the Catchment Management Authorities. [BFMC]

34. Allocation of additional resources for the BFMC to implement the recommendations in this document, particularly for actions resulting in strengthening risk management objectives. [BFMC members]

.

6. Risk Management Strategies for Multiple Outcomes

.

GOAL:

To develop effective fire risk management strategies for mitigation and suppression in large bushland areas through:

Evidence-based plans and strategies;
Ensuring that fire fighters in wilderness and other remote areas have adequate support and training for safe and effective implementation of fire control strategies.

.

ACTIONS:

35. Address the issue of risk management planning, including investigating use of corridors for hazard reductions as part of an integrated approach that allows for ecological considerations. [Land managers/NPWS]

36. Seek more funding for community involvement in Local Government Area fire management (i.e. liaison officer position for community engagement prior to release of plan), which will assist administration/enforcement of regulatory processes. [BMCC]

37. Workshops held to provide further information regarding fire suppression in remote/wilderness areas, and BFMC to list potential contractors that could be eligible for such ecologically sound, operational training in fire control strategies for remote/wilderness areas including back-burning and bulldozer lines. [BFMC, NPWS]

.

7. RAFT Capacity

GOAL:

To improve RAFT (Remote Area Firefigfting Team) capacity to deal effectively with most remote ignitions.

ACTIONS:

38. Facilitate and support more RFS people to participate in RAFT [RFS]

39. Review and combine NPWS and RFS RAFT policy and procedures, including consideration for nighttime RAFT deployment [NPWS, RFS].
40. Address pre-deployment capacity in context of return on investment i.e. economically model across landscape to see how it meets needs and model against suppression costs [NPWS, RFS].

.

8. Fire Detection Technologies

GOAL:

To explore the potential of emerging technologies for higher efficiency in fire detection.

ACTIONS:

41. Consider the new technologies where appropriate and consider the benefits of Blue Mountains piloting new technologies for broad-scale remote surveillance, and evaluate cost effectiveness. [BF Coordinating Committee and NPWS]

.

9. Aerial Attack

GOAL:

Continue to optimise effectiveness of aerial attack strategies and operations.

ACTIONS:

42. Practically strengthen record keeping during operations to assist analysis by identifying a system that is capable of catching data in real-time. [DBFMA, BFCC]

43. Identify and use some simple decision rules for aircraft deployment to maximise aircraft cost-effectiveness. [BFMC]

.

10. Role of the Media

GOAL:

To have better processes in place to ensure accurate presentation of fire incident information through the media.

ACTIONS:

44. Work with the tourism industry to develop their risk management strategy. [BFMC]

45. Before/during a fire, convey explanations of what control strategies and why, to inform community. [BFMC]

46. Undertake pre-season briefs to journalists; discourage use of sensitised language (e.g. National Parks destroyed, trashed, destruction and horror, fire hell etc). [District Committee, RFS, NPWS, BFMC]

47. Engage local media in communicating exactly which areas are out of bounds, so they people don’t stop coming to remaining open areas. [BFMC]

11. Post Fire Recovery

GOAL:

To adequately fund ecological restoration after a large wildfire.

ACTIONS:

48. Approach the Environmental Trust regarding the establishment of a delineated fund (possibly from Trust Funds) to support ecological restoration which could be needed for several years post-fire and ensure initiative is appropriately linked to Section 44 state level response and also the SCA for post fire ecological funding to protect catchment values. [NPWS]

49. Ensure a strategic approach to site rehabilitation e.g. by placing an emphasis on rehabilitation of weedy sites that are a threat to natural values downstream. [Land managers]

50. NPWS to consider establishing a new dedicated staff position to coordinate and manage volunteers undertaking rehabilitation projects and activities within the Blue Mountains region of DEC. [NPWS]

.

This Forum was a Farce

None of these 50 Actions has been acted upon nor implemented since 2007; now five years ago.

The entire forum process was a farce from the outset. It only served to allow those responsible to escape accountability and responsibility for incompetence and mass bush arson without reputational blemish.

RFS Incident Controller, Mal Cronstedt, relocated himself back to West Australia (Fire & Emergency Services Authority), where he was from. NPWS Blue Mountains Manager, Richard Kindswood, went on extended leave. RFS Commissioner, Phil Koperberg, was seconded by the NSW Labor Party to become Minister for Blue Mountains (i.e. promoted). Bob Debus was seconded by the Federal Labor Party to become Federal Member for Macquarie (i.e. promoted). Blue Mountains Councillor Chris van der Kley stayed on as Chair of the Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee.

Blue Mountains Bushfire Fighting practice, strategy, management, culture remains ‘RFS Business-as-usual’ status and similarly ill-equipped for the next bushfire catastrophe.

No lessons were learnt. More tragically, no lessons want to be learnt.

RFS: …’we know what we are doing and how dare anyone criticise us and our hard working bushfire fighting volunteers!

How it all started.

..as a small ignition ten days prior.

.

Tags: 5R Risk Management Framework, Aerial Attack, Blue Gum Forest, Blue Mountains, Blue Mountains City Council, Blue Mountains District Bush Fire Management Committee, Blue Mountains National Park, Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, Bob Debus, Bush Fire Coordinating Committee, Climate Change and Risk Mitigation, Fire Detection Technologies, Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, Grose Fire Group, Grose Valley, Grose Valley Fire, Grose Valley Fire Forum, Grose Valley Fires 2006, Inter-Agency Review, Lawson's Long Alley, Mal Cronstedt, Mt Tomah Forum, Phil Koperberg, Post Fire Recovery, Protection of Natural and Cultural Values, RAFT Capacity, Resourcing and Investment, Review Processes and Public Communication, RFS, RFS Section 44 Report, Risk Management Strategies for Multiple Outcomes, Role of the Media, Rural Fire Service, The Role of Fire as an 'Ecological Process'
Posted in Blue Mountains (AU), Threats from Bushfire | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

‘Hazard Reduction’ premise at risk

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

This article by the Editor was first published as a letter entitled ‘Premises at Risk’ in the Blue Mountains Gazette 20051116.

Flogging the bush for housing, undefendable in the event of a bushfire

Stuarts Road, Katoomba – a house has since been approved by Council and subsequently built on this site, killing the wildlife habitat in the process.

(Photo by Editor 20070922, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

Part and parcel of choosing to live in the Blue Mountains is that, by being on ridgelines surrounded by Eucalypt forests, many properties are inherently exposed to bushfire threat. Whether bushfires be caused by lightning (rarely), accidentally by people, RFS-prescribed, or by arson (usually); bushfire risk management is a community responsibility – not just the lot of Rural Fire Service volunteers.

The arson threat aside,

“residents, land owners and land managers of the Blue Mountains need to accept that they are in a bushfire prone area and their properties may be subject to ember attack when threatened by bushfire.”

[Blue Mountains Conservation Society Bushfire Policy].

.
To dispel a rural myth, not all native habitats recover from bushfire. Certain species exist only in ecosystems that are never burnt. Post-bushfire regrowth often sporns dominant species like Eucalypt and Acacia, whereas original biodiversity may take centuries to recover. Bushfire is often a precursor to infestations of grass and weeds, and if followed by intense
rain, also a catalyst for eroding irreplaceable native soils.

The antique premise ‘hazard reduction’ has become spin for pre-emptive burning that is prone to escaping out of control and so itself a hazard.

Slashing and bulldozing under the premise of ‘Asset Protection Zone’ is also proving ineffective against ember attack and wildfire. But like arson, the Hazard Reduction and APZ theories contribute to the net loss of important habitat.

Proven effective and sustainable is early detection & response to spot fires.

Most artificial fires start on developed land, so this is where control measures should be focused – maintenance of gardens and guttering, retrofitting houses with materials and defences to resist fire, planting fire-retardant hedging around houses and implementing countermeasures recommended by Australian Standard 3959.

The future of sustainable bushfire risk management starts by preventing houses being built where they cannot be safely protected from bushfires.

Effective ‘hazard reduction’ is investigating and catching the arsonists.

Tags: Blue Mountains, bushfire prone land, hazard reduction, prescribed burning, RFS, Rural Fire Service
Posted in Blue Mountains (AU), Threats from Bushfire | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Selfish greed kills Faulconbridge Tree

Friday, March 9th, 2012

The tree is gone. The developers have got their way.

18th January 2012

^http://savethetree.org/

.

The Faulconbridge Tree

– stood before humans, killed by them

(Photo by Editor 20111226, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge, then click again to enlarge again)

.

They May Rail at this Life

.
They may rail at this life — from the hour I began it
I found it a life full of kindness and bliss;
And, until they can show me some happier planet,
More social and bright, I’ll content me with this.
As long as the world has such lips and such eyes
As before me this moment enraptured I see,
They may say what they will of their orbs in the skies,
But this earth is the planet for you, love, and me.

In Mercury’s star, where each moment can bring them
New sunshine and wit from the fountain on high,
Though the nymphs may have livelier poets to sing them,
They’ve none, even there, more enamour’d than I.
And, as long as this harp can be waken’d to love,
And that eye its divine inspiration shall be,
They may talk as they will of their Edens above,
But this earth is the planet for you, love, and me.

In that star of the west, by whose shadowy splendour,
At twilight so often we’ve roam’d through the dew,
There are maidens, perhaps, who have bosoms as tender,
And look, in their twilights, as lovely as you.
But though they were even more bright than the queen
Of that Isle they inhabit in heaven’s blue sea,
As I never those fair young celestials have seen,
Why — this earth is the planet for you, love, and me.

As for those chilly orbs on the verge of creation,
Where sunshine and smiles must be equally rare,
Did they want a supply of cold hearts for that station,
Heaven knows we have plenty on earth we could spare,
Oh! think what a world we should have of it here,
If the haters of peace, of affection and glee,
Were to fly up to Saturn’s comfortless sphere,
And leave earth to such spirits as you, love, and me.

~ Thomas Moore

.

A brief history on the fight to save the forest elder

August 1985

This native Scribbly Gum tree was listed on the Blue Mountains Council’s Register of Significant Trees.
.

2010

A Development Application for two dwellings was submitted to council. This development would require the removal of the “Significant Tree”
.

2010

Numerous residents submitted objections to the Development Application

June 2011

Consent to develop refused by Blue Mountains City Council (unanimous)
.
The owners appealed against the decision.
.

September 2011

The case was heard by The Land & Environment Court. Specialists gave conflicting reports on the health and viability of the tree. [Ed: The tree is labelled by the NSW Land and Environment Court as “The Hybrid” – a form of half caste tree]. In the interim findings, the Acting Senior Commissioner agreed that the tree could be removed. A final ruling on the case will be made after the applicants have submitted a complying landscape plan.

October 2011 onwards

Local residents decided to attempt to save the tree. We are not against development of the site. However we feel that the current proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. Ideally we would like to reach a compromise where the tree can be retained.

January 2012

The tree is killed. [Ed: What is the bet the developers have the two dwellings up for sale in a year’s time, confirming it was all about land grab profiteering from the bush?]

[Source: ^http://savethetree.org/savetree/History.html]

.

The tree’s fate determined by ‘Darkside Ecologists’

The Court Case: ‘Barrett and ors v Blue Mountains City Council‘ (Decided 13 October 2011)

‘The Hybrid‘ – findings:

.

Paragraph 20:

“..Dr Daniel McDonald, an ecologist and Mr Frederick Janes, an arborist provided evidence for the applicant.”

Paragraph 42:

” The 2008 (Picus Sonic Tomograph) test that there was a considerable percentage of internal decay and recommended that the tree be removed if the site was to be developed. The 2010 test concluded that there is very little sound wood remaining in the base of the tree due to the large percentage of decay in the lower truck area. Also, it was noted that (the) tree has many defects from decay to the base in at least two of the three main trunk of the tree; one which is being supported by an adjoining tree.

The report also described the tree as being mature to over mature and requiring susbstantial remedial care and only being suitable for retention in teh short term. the recommendation of the 2010 report was the tree be removed (Ed: ‘killed’) and replaced with another long living Eucalypt species.”

Council’s representative ecologist, arborist and landscape designer, Ms Susan Hobley, did not concur with the findings of both Tomograph tests.

Paragraph 45:

“In her opinion (Ms Hobley), the tree is a healthy, mature specimen of very large dimensions. It has a full crown with no signs of major dieback. Its structural condition is considered good for such a large old tree, and in the context of this site; it still has primary lateral branches and the branch losses that have occurred, in terms of secondary and tertiary branches; are typical of the attrition that occurs dues to intra-canopy competition associated with tree growth and development.

Its major branch unions appear healthy and structurally sound. While one branch is interacting with a nearby tree, the situation needs to be monitored but the failure zone for this branch is the low use landscape zone of the nature strip.

Ms Hobley states that old trees of this genus typically contain large cavities and this does not mean they are likely to fall over and die in the near future. Ms Hobley is also of the opinion that it may be possible for a dwelling to be constructed outside the area of the canopy or even under the canopy, subject to specific engineering requirements to protect the root system and monitoring of the condition of the Hybrid.”

>Read the judgment

.

Post-Mortum Evidence

Based on the decision of the Acting Senior Commissioner of the NSW Land and Environment Court, G. T. Brown, the tree was condemned and consequently killed on 18th January 2012.

The following photo below of the trunk of the tree shows that less than 10% decay had occurred in the tree. The tree otherwise shows no signed of decay and is healthy and could have lived for many more decades. This contradicts the ecologist Dr Daniel McDonald’s view that the tree had ” considerable percentage of internal decay”.

Chainsaw Post Mortum

Normal internal decay but less than 10%, meaning the tree was in fact healthy and had many years of growth left in it

Ed: The defending ecologist, Ms Hobley was right. This Scribbly Gum was indeed healthy and structurally sound. Small internal cavities as detected by the tomograph, are completely normal characteristic of this genus. The tree need not have been killed.

The opinion by the developer’s ecologist and arborist were wrong, exaggerated and clearly biased in favour of the wishes of the developer to kill the tree in order that the developer may present a case for safety to the Court and so build the two dwellings they want. This case is a classic recurring example of darkside ecologists, whose prefession one would assume is to respect and conserve ecology, instead being used for the dark destructive cause of development.

There more money to be made from Darkside Ecology, since developers have the money to develop and so paying biased ecologists and arborists to condemn trees as unsafe, decayed and diseased is such a minor cost in the overall cost of the development. ‘Darkside ecologists‘ typically also dismiss the value of rare and treatened native vegetation situated on a bushland site, justifying the presence of other rare and threatened examples of that same vegetation nearby. Such a dismissive attitude fails to respect the cumulative impacts of destruction one site at a time, one tree at a time.

Farewell, for we did our best to save you

.

Tags: arborists, Blue Mountains, Blue Mountains City Council, Chainsaw Post Mortum, Darkside ecologists, ecologists, Faulconbridge Tree, forest elder, Land & Environment Court, Picus Sonic Tomograph, savethetree.org
Posted in Blue Mountains (AU), Threats from Darkside Ecologists, Threats from Development | 1 Comment »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Blue Mountains Significant Tree Register a lie

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

One of the few remaining clusters of mature Blue Mountains Ash (Eucalytus oreades)

endemic to the Upper Blue Mountains

[They are listed on BMCC’s Significant Tree Register

..including the dozen or so killed to widen the highway]

.

What a steaming crock Blue Mountains Council’s (BMCC) Significant Tree Register is!

The 73 listed trees or listed tree communities on BMCC’s register listed as ‘significant‘ means exactly what? ‘BMCC significant’ is a lying euphemism for ‘big‘ and ‘expendable‘, confirmed by the fact that every time anyone wants to kill one of the listed trees, they can.

The ‘Register‘ should be renamed a ‘Remnant‘, reflecting the reducing remnancy of the Blue Mountains forests under the control of BMCC.

And many trees on the Register are indeed exotic, if not weeds. For instance, listed tree #3 is an exotic Rhododendron, #18 is an exotic cherry tree, #28 is a Radiata Pine – a listed environmental weed in another department of BMCC.

BMCC’s Significant Tree Register?

BMCC’s Significant Tree Register dates back to 1988, probably because of Australia’s bicentennial heritage goodwill of that year, and the likelihood of BMCC getting grant recognition for its register. That would have been a purely political froth event of no substance nor perpetuity.

‘This Development Control Plan has been prepared pursuant to Council’s resolution of 17th November, 1987 and was adopted on 21st June, 1988. The Plan encompasses the Register of Significant Trees, established in 1984. (BMCC File 7717C-4)…This Development Control Plan is to apply to all land within the boundaries of the City of the Blue Mountains.’

.

Objectives of Significant Tree Register

.
The purpose of this Development Control Plan is to:

(a) identify and protect those trees listed on the Register;

(b) promote greater public awareness of the existence of the Register, and the individual items listed;

(c) ensure existing and, importantly, prospective land owners, are made aware of the Significant Trees which may be located on their property; and

(d) ensure correct on-going care and maintenance of those trees listed, through the recommendations included with the significant tree register.’

What disingenuous lying crap!

(a) None of the listed trees is afforded any legal protection. Worse, BMCC does not raise a finger to expend effort or cost to challenge anyone wishing to kill any of the listed trees.

(b) Since 1988, BMCC has done diddly squat to promote any public awareness of either its register or any of its listed trees. Yet, BMCC certainly has killed a few of them. The last time a tree was added to the register was 1991, reflecting the three year extent of Council’s interest, memory and planning,

(d) I challenge BMCC to present any record of any “on-going care and maintenance of those trees listed”. Obviously this object clause was drafted by a naive external consultant.

.

Listed Trees – Cases in Point

#5 Blue Mountains Ash

(Eucalyptus oreades)
(Opposite 252 Old Bathurst Rd. Katoomba Opposite Lot 2 DP707, listed 6.5.84, since chainsawed)

.

#29 Smooth Barked Apple, Red Gum

(Angophora costata)

(Opposite 363 Great Western Highway, Bullaburra, opposite Lot 173, DP13407, Listed 17.7.85,

condemned by the Roads & Traffic Authority in September 2008 to widen the highway into a 4 laned Trucking Expressway)

.

New South Wales Government sentence imposed upon this Angophora:

“The Angophora (Sydney red gum) tree: the large tree is situated to the east of Boronia Road.

To retain the Angophora tree the highway would have to be widened either towards the railway line or the private properties. In both cases, land would have to be acquired, either from RailCorp or private land owners. The tree’s overhanging branches would have to be trimmed and there would be construction activities around the tree.

Arborist advice is that the consequent loss of tree roots and the pruning would instigate the decline of the tree. Angophora are highly sensitive to construction impacts such as changes to draining patterns and soil compaction. For road construction and safety reasons the tree will have to be removed.”

[Source: ‘Great Western Highway Upgrade – Community Update September 2008, ‘Bullaburra East – Ridge Street, Lawson to Genevieve Road Bullaburra, by Roads and Traffic Authority]

.

Ed: Well, humans can find ways of justifying anything when it suits them – ecological destruction, genocide, wars, anything. Governments and road making organisations like the RTA are collectives of people with mandates that are self-serving.

The RTA (since rebranded) does not have to widen the highway through Bullaburra. It is only doing so to encourage greater truck and car traffic and so that such road traffic can flow faster. Bigger and more roads is the mandate for this road maker. The tradition of slowing down through local towns and villages has been dismissed. Utilitarian convenience is supplanting local rights and values. Other options have been deliberately ignored such as upgrading rail freight logistics and public transport (the rail runs adjacent to and follows the same route as this highway). Land acquistion is an easy process for the RTA. It’s management is just choosing not to take this option because it sees no value in the tree nor in Bullaburra’s amenity.

The tree’s overhanging branches would not have to be trimmed and construction activities could be well away from the tree, if the RTA management so choosed.

The RTA’s standard justification “safety reasons” had to be the clincher. the RTA relies on the ‘safety justification’ as its fallback to get its way, because it has convinced that no-one can reasonably challenge such a justification. That the M4 Motorway with its six lanes has become one of the most deadly RTA roads in New South Wales does not seem to trouble the RTA sufficiently to invest in making the M4 safer. The RTA is hypocritical about road safety.

The value of encouraging faster and bigger trucks and more cars to race through Bullaburra at 80+kph is more important to it than conserving some tree. That this particular tree has been dated by a specialist arborist as being older than300 years and so would have stood when the Three Explorers first crossed the Blue Mountains in 1813, is dismissed as worthless by the RTA and the New South Wales Government. Labor and Liberal are no different in this world view of ‘progress’. Bullaburra is set to be transformed into a Blaxland with bigger trucks racing through it. Bullaburra will become even more divided that what it is now.

If this tree were a war cemetery, there is no question that the cemetery value would be respected and a trucking expressway would not be carved through it.

Les Wielinga

NSW Roads and Traffic Authority Chief (2006-2012)

Executioner of Bullaburra’s Angophora

and Strategic Planner of the Trucking Expressway juggernaut through the Blue Mountains

.

#33 Scribbly Gum

(Eucalyptus sclerophylla/Eucalyptus piperita hybrid)

(Cnr St Georges Cres. & Adeline St. Faulconbridge, Lot 5 DP8526 , Listed 24.8.85,

condemned in Sep 2011 for selfish dual occupancy housing development)

.

Blue Mountains Council arborist has condemned the tree as having ‘extensive decay’.

Trial by Ordeal?

Local residents protesting to save the tree, believe this native Scribbly Gum to be quite healthy and that the arborist’s so-called ‘decay‘ is in fact a natural fungus. The residents believe that Council’s arborist’s assessment has incorrectly condemned the tree and that only after the tree trunk is chainsawed will the proof of the tree’s health be revealed.

It will be akin to being a Medieval Trial by Ordeal imposed on those suspected of being a witch. An example is where a priest would demand a suspect to place his hand in the boiling water. If after three days, God had not healed his wounds, the suspect was guilty of the crime.

In the case of this Scribbly Gum, if after chainsawing it, the trunk shows no signs of internal decay, then it can be confirmed as having being healthy, but by then it will be dead.

The Council’s assessment:

“It should also be noted that the significant tree has been assessed as not being viable for retention in any case as the result of extensive decay throughout the trunk. This matter is discussed in more detail in the body of the report.”

[Source: Blue Mountain Council, Business Paper, Using Land for Living Item 20, Ordinary Meeting, 20110628, Development Application No. X/443/2010 for a detached dual occupancyconsisting of a singe storey dwelling and a two storey dwelling on Lot 5 SEC. 2 DP 8526, 47 St Georges Crescent, Faulconbridge, File No: F06738 – X/443/2010 – 11/85977, Clause 44, p.214]

.

#61 Blue Mountains Ash
(Eucalyptus oreades – once was a ridgetop forest)
(Railway Reserve opposite Katoomba Hospital, Listed 6.11.89,

half the trees chainsawed in 2008 to widen the highway into a Trucking Expressway.

What’s left is a token coppice so that the RTA can claim on paper that it respected the ‘significant’ status.)

.

Relevance and future of the Significant Tree Register

In November 2011, Blue Mountains Councillor Janet Mays presented a Notice of Motion to Council:

“That the Council receives a report detailing the role and relevance of Council’s Significant Tree Register, including the cost of both managing and maintaining that Register.”

Background

The recent decision by the Land & Environment Court, to uphold an appeal by the applicants at 47 St Georges Crescent, Faulconbridge, includes permission to remove a tree that is listed on Council’s Significant Tree Register that decision brings into question the relevance of this Register.

The report should outline the role and relevance of the Register in providing decision-making capability to Council’s Planning Officers. The role and relevance of the Register should then be considered in terms of benefits and cost of maintaining this Register. Dependant on the benefits and the costs, the future utility of the Register should also be discussed.”

[Source: Blue Mountains Council, Business Paper, Notices of Motion, Item 26, Ordinary Meeting, 20111122, Subject: Council’s Significant Tree Register, File No: F06745 – 11/178956, p.173]

Ed: Meanwhile, anthropocentric prejudice sees the National Trust of Australia (an organisation supposedly committed to promoting and conserving Australia’s indigenous, natural and historic heritage) recognise people as ‘National Living Treasures’. No thought is given to Australian native trees, many which have stood longer than any colonist set foot on Australian soil. Surely, a 300+ year old native tree has more claim to being a national living treasure.

On 4 March 2012, two days ago, we hear that Queensland mining magnate Clive Palmer has been named a National Living Treasure. Palmer has made is fortune exploiting Australia’s landscape for his personal gain. Clearly, Australian Governments continued to be dominated by 20th Century Baby Boomer exploitative world views.

.

Tags: Angophora, Blue Mountains, Blue Mountains Ash, Blue Mountains Council, Blue Mountains Significant Tree Register, Bullaburra, Eucalyptus oreades, Great Western Highway, National Living Treasure, Scribbly Gum
Posted in Blue Mountains (AU), Threats from Development, Threats from Greenwashing, Threats from Road Making | 2 Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Dozer Rights

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Some wee satire….

Dozer Rights

We are built to do a job

We do that job well

We clear unwanted rubbish,

debris, obstacles, clear roads, bushes, pesky trees,

in some god forsaken places – people and their homes

It’s not our fault we’re gaudy yellow

Can’t miss us that way!

We often work solo

in the middle of nowhere

And we go all day

We work hard! ..努力加油 “loh lik gah yau!“

But we’re persecuted

Many hate us

They don’t understand

It’s not our fault

We’re just following orders

It’s a dozers lot

We have rights too.

A bulldozer flattens out coastal sand dunes to make way for Donald Trump’s golf course

Aberdeenshire, Scotland

Dozer clearing the way

Dozers in Rosella Waters, doing it for permaculture in the Atherton Rainforest

(The Permaculture Research Institute on the USA)

…they wouldn’t let us back home

Smoko

Dozers helping out for new housing in Brazil

Dozers helping out in Sumatra for pulp wood

Dozers helping out for Palm Oil

Dozer respect for riparian habitat

Dozers having a wee afternoon doze

23 year old International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie

— about to be crushed by an Israeli bulldozer 20030317

Greg Schnabel, 28, from Chicago, said the protesters were in the house of Dr. Samir Masri.

“Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop,” he said. “She waved for the bulldozer to stop and waved. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. We yelled ‘stop, stop,’ and the bulldozer didn’t stop at all. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her.”
-from Ha’aretz

^http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/03/17/15838231.php

See, they just don’t understand

.

Postcript:

We added the Israeli human tragedy to this article afterwards.

We were shocked and consider this event of 2003 murderously barbaric, and so not to be forgotten to history.

We include it to convey a message of comparison to readers that the unacceptable horror inflicted by humans on non-humans is comparable to the unacceptable horror humans continue to inflict upon themselves.

When one reflects about ‘humanity’ one considers the status well below ‘ecology’. Such distinguishing sadistic human motives are not part of non-human ecology.

.

What is CRIME?

Clearly current definitions of crime – its prevention, policing and presecution are inadequate…human and non-human.

It is when the human injustice hits home, that when compared with non-human injustice one starts to realise that injustice should not be selective.

.

Read About the ‘International Solidarity Movement‘

^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Solidarity_Movement

.

Tags: bulldozer, deforestation, dozer rights, land clearing
Posted in Threats from Deforestation | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

‘Hazard Reduction’ arson now pathological

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

The following article is a reproduction of that by James Woodford of RealDirt.com.au dated 20080908 and entitled ‘Hazard Reduction Burning: ecological or pathological?‘

It was initially published in the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) newspaper at the time,^http://www.realdirt.com.au/2008/09/08/hazard-reduction-burning-ecological-or-pathological-smhreal-dirt-exclusive/].

Broadscale State-sanctioned arson to West Australia’s wild Kimberley

Habitat Editor’s preliminary comment:

What is revealing about the following article is more the defensive comments contributed by members of bushfire management (in red) – reflecting the entrenched beliefs and practices of their ‘bushphobic cult‘ is being challenged and so they unleash sanctimonious vitriol to anyone who dares criticise.

The euphemism ‘Hazard Reduction‘ has become a bushfire management cult.

It has evolved as a consequence of generations of fire fighters denied proper and appropriate reasources by successive Liberal-Labor governments to fight bushfires when they occur. Fighting bushfires requires instantaneous detection technology and standby effective suppression technology. Instead Australian governments at all levels deliver urban firetrucks and hollow promises. The rest is left to fit and willing resident volunteers. It is politicians again sending ouir sons to fight their war.

Since government pollies have always denied bush fire fighting the ability to effectively detect and respond to ignitions, bushfire management’s response strategy has descended into the defeatist arsonist ‘burn the bush before it burns‘. Australian bushfire fighting has become an arson disgrace.

Such defeatism ignores the fact that native vegetation is the innocent victim of fire. Instead the cult belief demonising Australia’s natural ecological asset as ‘fuel’, a ‘hazard’, a liability. It is a similar simplistic attitude that early colonists had toward wildlife, considering them as ‘vermin’ and ‘game’. Hazard Reduction has been euphemistically rebranded ‘prescribed burning’ by the so-called ‘fire ecologists’. It remains arson no less.

The scale and frequency of hazard reduction has exponentially increased so that what was once a buffer of cleared land around specific houses is now broadscale incineration including remote aerial incendaries setting fire to vast regions of forest and bushland many kilometres from houses. The so-called ‘cool burns’ often reach into the tree canopies and cause the same irreparable tree damage as intense wildfires. Many hazard reductions escape and get out of control – such as the 2011 Perth Hills experience that destroyed 68 houses.

Then when a wildfire does occur, standard bushfire management practrice invariably leaves to burn until/unless houses are directly threatened. Remote wildfire has become default hazard reduction. And so, every year thousands of hectares of native vegetation understorey is destroyed and the dependent fauna are driven closer to exinction. Hazard Reduction is Australia’s worst ecological crime.

The quoted article:

Start of Article:…’It’s spring, and soon we’ll start to get sensationalist stories predicting a horrendous bushfire season ahead. They will carry attacks on agencies for not doing enough to reduce fuel loads in forests close to homes, for unless those living on the urban fringe see their skies filled with smoke in winter they panic about losing their homes in January.

Fighting fires with fear is a depressing annual event and easy sport on slow news days. Usually the debate fails to ask two crucial questions: does hazard reduction really do anything to save homes, and what’s the cost to native plants and animals caught in burn-offs?

A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know.

What we do know is a lot of precious wild places are set on fire, in large part to keep happy those householders whose kitchen windows look out on gum trees. Clarke says it is reasonable for land management agencies to try to limit the negative effects of large fires, but we need to be confident our fire prevention methods work. And just as importantly, we need to be sure
they do not lead to irreversible damage to native wildlife and habitat. He argues we need to show some humility, and writes: “The capacity of management agencies to control widespread wildfires ignited by multiple lightning strikes in drought conditions on days of extreme fire danger is going to be similar to their capacity to control cyclones.” In other words, sometimes we can do zip.

Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown.

The sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can get on with the job of working out whether there is anything we can do to manage fires better. We need to know whether hazard reduction can be done without sending our wildlife down a path of firestick extinctions.

An annual burn conducted each year on Montague Island, near Narooma on the NSW far South Coast, highlights the absurdity of the current public policy free-for-all, much of which is extraordinarily primitive. In 2001 park rangers burnt a patch of the devastating weed kikuyu on the island. The following night a southerly blew up, the fire reignited and a few penguins were incinerated. It was a stuff-up that caused a media outcry: because cute penguins were burnt, the National Parks and Wildlife Service was also charcoaled. Every year since there has been a deliberate burn on Montague, part of a program to return the island to native vegetation. Each one has been a circus – with teams of staff, vets, the RSPCA, ambulances, boats and helicopters – all because no one wants any more dead penguins.

Meanwhile every year on the mainland, park rangers and state forests staff fly in helicopters tossing out incendiary devices over wilderness forests, the way the UN tosses out food packages. Thousands of hectares are burnt, perhaps unnecessarily, too often, and worse, thousands of animals that are not penguins (so do not matter) are roasted. All to make people feel safe.

Does the burning protect nearby towns? On even a moderately bad day, probably not. Does it make people feel better? Yes.

Clarke’s paper calls for the massive burn-offs to be scrutinised much more closely. “In this age of global warming, governments and the public need to be engaged in a more sophisticated discussion about the complexities of coping with fire in Australian landscapes,” he writes. He wants ecological data about burns collected as routinely as rainfall data is gathered by the agricultural industry. Without it, hazard reduction burning is flying scientifically blind and poses a dangerous threat to wildlife. “To attempt to operate without proper data on the effect of bushfires should be as unthinkable as a farmer planting a crop without reference to the rain gauge,” he writes.

In the coming decades, native plants and animals will face enough problems – most significantly from human-induced climate chaos – without having to dodge armies of public servants armed with lighters. Guesswork and winter smoke are not enough to protect our towns and assets now, and the risk of bushfires increases with the rise in carbon dioxide.’

..end of article.

.

Article comments:

Ian MacDougall (20080909):

“The theme of this piece is the saving of wildlife that might be destroyed by hazard reduction burning. But the trouble is that Australian plant species divide into two broad groups: the pyrophytes or ‘fire plants’ and the pyrophobes, or ‘fire loathing plants’. There can be little argument about it: much of the Australian bush has incorporated fire into its life cycle, with eucalypts, acacias and many undergrowth plants loaded with volatile oils. All that is needed to convert them into incendiary bombs is a hot summer’s day. Even the old ‘banksia man’ with his beard of dried flower parts surrounding the seeds ready to go is designed by nature to catch fire, though his tree is not.

I regularly drive through the Warrumbungle Park. There is nothing so pathetic as the signs they have up everywhere warning people that gathering firewood is forbidden. Nor do they control burn there. So every few years the whole park goes up like a bomb and damn near everything gets burnt to smithereens.

This continent was ‘firestick farmed’ by the Aborigines, arguably back to 110,000 years ago. The animals and plant species survived their cool burns.

We need to adopt that practice, which was lost when the country was fenced and farmed, and preventing bush fires became the name of the (futile) game.

I recommend ‘Australian Rainforests: Islands of Green in a Land of Fire’, by DMJS Bowman for those looking for further information.”

Adam 20090909:

“James, read your piece in the Herald. I live on the edge of the bush in the Blue Mountains, and I disagree with you.

Having seen fire, there’s no doubt in my mind that backburning makes a difference, but the worse the fire is, the harder to contain it. To extend the analogy you quote….we can’t control cyclones but its still worth owning an umbrella for lesser storms. If you believe that no animals or trees should die in the name of housing insurance, I think that is a different question.”

john p (20080909):

“Great article – now brace for the inevitable backlash from the pro fire lobby.”

Jeremy (20080910):

“As an enthusiastic CFU (Community Fire Unit) member in Sydney, I read your SMH article with interest – but then recalled my recent visit to the Garma Festival in NE Arnhemland.
There much was made of the controlled burns being increasingly managed by indigenous rangers on the basis of their traditions, but also increasingly funded as carbon offsets by international polluters like Conoco because the controlled burns were so much less polluting than uncontrolled ones – which would in time occur anyway.
How does that fit in with your thesis?”

Robert Morse 20080911:

“Talk about a sensationalist story. Yes there probably is no scientific data, but there is anecdotal evidence. Hazard reduction is only part of a holistic approach to protecting the community. They can reduce the intensity of a bushfire and allow the firefighters or residents to defend their homes.

This is also true for the environment, some plants can withstand a low intensity fire but would be destroyed in a high intensity wildfire. As for the wildlife, you just have to stand at the edge of a hazard reduction to see the multitude of creatures fleeing the burn. Do they all get out? I don’t know, but I’ve seen more dead and injured animals after a bushfire than a hazard reduction.

One thing most people don’t take into account is that the bush has evolved to burn at a particular time of year, usually when it’s hot and dry. But, of course, hazard reduction burning are done in the cooler months. It is reason to think that this must effect the plants and alter their community, but so does any fire or even lack of fire. After decades of natural fires and hazard reductions (mosty done with little regard to the environment, unlike what is done now), I still can look out on thousands of hectares of World Heritage bushland full of animals.

Do land managers and fire agencies always get the hazard reductions right? No, but it is used as a learning experience to be able to do it better next time.”

Henk Hagedoorn (20080914):

“More and more scientific evidence is surfacing showing that fire is not good for the environment as a whole including vegetation and in particular the soil biota. Even a so called cool burn devastates the top 25mm of all life slowing the future uptake of carbon into the soil.

Just look at the release of CO2 by reduction burning (any burning) and the subsequent inability of the burned area to capture CO2 for the next 10 years or so. We know far too little to make a statement that “burning is ok” while science could ultimately show that it is NOT.

Most of our decisions to burn or not to burn are based on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Just not good enough. A very good article. there must be more of these to get people thinking.”

Ross Constable (20080915):

“Good article James, interesting how you skillfully worked the Penguins into it.
The two questions the article was based on are only part of the this very complex issue. Others might be: Where do we get the biggest fire mitigation (protection) bang for the taxpayers buck? Do we need to focus mitigation more towards the “points of risk” (lives & assets), or towards the hazard (fuels).

The problem here is the politically perceived, remote fuel hazards being burned repeatedly at the expense of our biodiversity and water catchments, while the points of risk and their surrounds remain the primary part of the hazard.

How effective are low intensity, autumn, hazard reduction (HR) burns?

Here is my rock sold, gold guarantee regarding the effectiveness of a dry eucalypt forest fuel based HR burn:
A HR will completely protect an asset if:

The wildfire that threatens the asset via the HR occurs across flat ground, under exactly the same environmental conditions as the HR burn.
The HR is unbroken (no ground fuel gaps)
The wildfire occurs within 14 days of the HR.

This is a bold guarantee… or is it? Think about it.”

S. Ridd (20080915):

“Dear James, I regularly skim the Opinion & Letters sections of the Herald because I value reader input. It was refreshing to read your article on hazard reduction, and encouraging because I support your stated views; the sensationalist predictions of bushfire Armageddon, the bush morphed into threatening fuel loads, and questioning the post-War II practice of hazard reduction.

Thank you for investigating and publicising research on this issue. So often the research is not made public and little reference is made to research by those hell bent on perpetuating the bushphobic culture of hazard reduction.

The key problem is no one is measuring the environmental impact of hazard reduction, certainly not in the Blue Mountains where I live. As you state: “the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown”. Another key problem is the lack of investment in resources to detect and respond to ignitions promptly.

Another problem, more cultural defence, is the kneejerk reaction by those who fail to suppressed bushfires quickly, to say see we told you so, so give us millions to hazard reduce more of what bush we’ve got left and there will be no bush to burn – so problem solved! This is a scorched earth simplistic approach, that as you contend creates “a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks.”

You refer to Montague Island. The Grose Valley Fires of 2006 was a defector hazard reduction of 14070 hectares of important conservation bushland including so-called protected World Heritage.

Ian MacDougall’s response [9 Sep 08] would have merit if we had similar large tracts of quality habitat across NSW that existed pre 1788, not the 25% of forested NSW that we now have. The Aboriginal firestick justification is reserved for a pre-1788 dreamtime.

Adam’s input [9 Sep 08] contends “backburning makes a difference” but his argument is to destroy the natural asset we should be protecting. The argument is flawed because it admits current bushfire fighting methods are so bad that we cannot adequately detect and suppress bushfires in 2008.”

Christine 20080916:

“Your article on Fire was read with great interest. We have lived in the ‘bush’ for 20 years, are active members of a wildlife care group and my husband is an active member of the local bush fire brigade. We have seen so-called ‘controlled’ burns get out of control (causing the tragic death of a local in one instance), and have often wondered if these burns are really doing any good at all, for either the bush or the wildlife. Thanks for bringing this subject to the forefront and stimulating debate. It will be interesting to see the results of further research, especially by Prof. Michael Clarke.

An interesting book to read on how Australia’s landscape has been drastically altered, not just by white settlement, but by earlier Aboriginal settlers burning off, is “Back from the Brink” by Peter Andrews.”

Ross Constable (20080916):

“S. Ridd, your point regarding our fire authorities ability (or lack of it) to quickly detect and respond to fire, especially remote area fires is the key to fire suppression in this country. The recent Bushfire CRC Project A3.1 aerial suppression research, Pollack H. N. 2003, looks at this very issue. In summary, the research has found that the rapid deployment of aircraft and ground crews to a fire will have a high probability of suppression success even when high fuel loads and fire danger indexes exist. The cost of this type of approach is not big, especially when one considers the enormous costs associated with suppression of large fires, not to mention the life and property costs.

For further info on this research see: http://www.bushfirecrc.com.au’

Greg (20080919):

Indigenous burning practices have been around in a range of global climate scenarios over south-east NSW for at least 6,000 years up until European intervention about 200 years ago. These Indigenous burning practices put frequent small burns into areas that were inhabited, and allowed large ‘natural’ fires on an average of every 20 years into uninhabited areas. The small frequently burned areas contained the runs of large ‘natural’ fires.

Biodiversity 200 years ago was much higher than it is today. In a global warming world I think we can learn a lot from the Indigenous burning practices to apply in contemporary fire management.

Mick (20090919):

“James, You may have bitten off more than you can chew with this story!

Fire management in Australia is a very complex issue and aside from the common view that fire is a natural part of the Australian environment we are managing it in a unatural world. We have built our homes next to our fire prone ecosystems and should a fire start by lightning – the fire is suppressed – in itself an unatural act.

I agree that more information is better than less when we’re managing the impacts of prescribed fire on the environment – for respondants to suggest however that low intensity fire has a greater impact on the environment than high intensity fire is a generalisation and does not consider frequency, ‘patchiness’ and vegetation community or forest type.

Further assertions by respondants that we should increasingly rely on emergency response and suppression of wildfires rather than also using land management approaches is niave and does not recognise the full range of fire management tools available for managing risk (such as established road networks, rapid response resources, suitable infrastructure for detection, prescribed burning, manual hazard reduction, development and planning controls etc) and balancing ecological outcomes with those for protecting life and property.

Lets get the real dirt on this issue and tone down the tears!”

Phil (20081025):

“I note that neither Michael Clarke’s original paper or your article say that prescribed burning doesn’t stop bushfires; all they say is that we don’t know how well it works. As a fire manager & researcher I couldn’t agree more.

Its not enough to say that it worked a couple of times in Jarrah forest or American Ponderosa Pine, we need to know how often and under what conditions it will work in Sydney heathland, Cumberland Woodland or montane Candlebark/Ribbon Gum forest. As you say, we need to know the effects of this artificially frequent fire regime on wildlife, but we don’t. We are also in no position to make the sweeping claim that “the Aborigines did it”, as if all of the indigenous nations used fire in the same way in all environments and communities from the desert to the alpine area. The traditions and evidence say that they didn’t and don’t.

The reality is that for such an influential force that we wield, we know far too little to say whether we are helping things or making them worse.

Good on you for putting the heat on! Keep it up, we need the pressure on us to get some real answers.”

John Blunden (20081123):

“Thanks for you article. I agree the problem facing the forest burners is more mental than physical. they are sick puppies. to use the indigenous people and how they treated the environment seems a total insult. one thing I know for sure about the indigenous people is that they didn’t bomb it from helicopters with hi intensity incendaries. what have we adopted from these people except a few place names, nothing, not their lore their dance their hunting and gathering, housing, their connection to mother earth. i have read reports about the koori people and what we call burning off. they certainly don’t describe a gang of double bogan rednecks going rat with diesel. nothing enjoys being burnt. especially something as sensitive as the forest and all it contains. i sometimes get a kick out of the lies, things like cool burn controlled burn hazard reduction blah blar. mostly i think there scared little men waging genocide on plants and animals, who grope around for reasons to justify their sick behavior.”

Blue Mts Firefighter (20100815):

“There are some unbelievably ignorant or just plain naive posters on here. You obviously have no idea how difficult it is for us to get a hazard reduction burn approved because of the need to plan in cooperation with National Parks and Wildlife, the local council, and others, mostly to protect the environment. We don’t have a problem with protecting the environment, except that the bureaucratic process takes far, far too long.

In one of our most vulnerable areas in the Blue Mountains (Weemala) the process took 6 six years. It was a hazard reduction in an area where the fire typically jumps the Great Western Highway and the lower Blue Mountains then turns to sh*t.

Do you really believe we don’t care about the flora and fauna? You are fools if you do. Of course we care. We also care about people and their homes.
And believe it or not if your hopelessly unprepared house, roof and walls overgrown with natives, gutters full of leaves, garden full of long dry grass (yes they do exist – all over the place) happens to catch fire, we will do our damndest to save it even if you are an idiot.“

Simon (20101023):

“I have been involved in the bushfire services for 13 years and can say that when hazard reduction burning is done correctly and in a strategic manner it makes a major difference during summer. I have been involved with many large scale fires where the only way they have been controlled is because they have burnt into low fuel areas.
Western Australia through DEC has always been heavily involved in bushfire mitigation efforts and it shows in the reduced frequency of large scale bushfires.

Argue all you want about terrain etc but the reality it is the strategic large scale burns that DEC conduct protects WA from similar large scale bushfires that you see on the East Coast.
We have to remove ourselves from the European thinking that fire is bad and realise that since Australia started drying out 100,000′s of years ago we have had fires, the difference is we have stopped them for the past 100 years, now we have excessive fuel loads that damage the eco system when they burn due to the high intensity fires they produce.”

Macca (20120102):

“What a great article back in 2008, i notice that most people relate their experience to NSW or Victoria, i moved from wollongong to Mackay in queensland and if you want to see the results of HR burning completed over 100 years come to central queensland and check out the dust bowl that is now queensland , creeks full of mud , and only surviving animal .. kangaroos ..well done queensland .. im moving to New Zealand … bye”

Defeatist Policy: ‘Burn it before it burns, bugger the wildlife’!

.

Tags: hazard reduction, prescribed burning
Posted in Threats from Bushfire | 1 Comment »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Hot ashes for trees?

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

Click above icon to play Pink Floyd’s ‘Wish You Were Here’

..first turn speakers on, then while playing scroll slowly through this article…

..So, so you think you can tell

Heaven from Hell?

Blue skies from pain?

Can you tell a green field

From a cold steel rail?

A smile from a veil?

Do you think you can tell?

Did they get you to trade

Your heroes for ghosts?

Hot ashes for trees?

Hot air for a cool breeze?

Cold comfortable change?

Did you exchange

A walk on part in the war

For a lead role in a cage? …

(Lyrics extract from Pink Floyd’s legendary song ‘Wish You Were Here‘ off their 1975 album of the same name)

These photos, as you scroll through them, are of Tasmania’s wild old growth forest heritage, which is currently being destroyed in 2012, driven by the Premier Lara Giddings Labor Government of Tasmania.

Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard,

who on 7th August 2011 personally promised the protection of Tasmania’s old growth forests.

Click photo to enlarge

Tasmania’s disappearing wildlife wish Julia was here

[Photo by Editor Sept 2011]

Click photo to enlarge

Follow the Tree Sit Protest defending Tasmania’s native forests

^http://observertree.org/

.

Tags: The Observer Tree
Posted in Tasmania (AU), Tasmanian Devils, Threats from Bushfire, Threats from Deforestation, Threats to Wild Tasmania | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Shree Minerals invasion into the fragile Tarkine

Monday, February 27th, 2012

This article is by Scott Jordan, Campaign Coordinator Tarkine National Coalition, initially entitled ‘Shree Minerals’ Impact Statement documentation critically non-compliant‘ dated 20120222..

Shree Minerals – foreign miners pillaging Tasmania’s precious Tarkine wilderness

(Photo courtesy of Tarkine National Coalition, click photo to enlarge)

.
Tarkine National Coalition has described the Shree Minerals’ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Nelson Bay River open cut iron ore mine as a mismatch of omissions, flawed assumptions and misrepresentations.

Key data on endangered orchids is missing,

and projections on impacts on Tasmanian Devil and Spotted-tailed Quoll

are based on flawed and fanciful data.

Spotted-tailed Quoll

The EIS produced by the company as part of the Commonwealth environmental assessments has failed to produce a report relating to endangered and critically endangered orchid populations in the vicinity of the proposed open cut mine. The soil borne Mychorizza fungus is highly succeptible to changes in hydrology, and is essential to the germination of the area’s native orchids which cannot exist without Mychorizza. Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke included this report as a requirement in the project’s EIS guidelines issued in June 2011.

Australia’s Minister for Environment

Tony Burke

“Shree Minerals have decided that undertaking the necessary work on the proposal is likely to uncover some inconvenient truths, and so instead of producing scientific reports they are asking us to suspend common sense and accept that a 220 metre deep hole extending 1km long will have no impact on hydrology.” said Tarkine National Coalition spokesperson Scott Jordan.

Utter devastation

A magnetite mine at nearby Savage River

“It’s a ridiculous notion when you consider that the mine depth will be some 170 metres below the level of the adjacent Nelson Bay River.”

TNC has also questioned the company’s motives in the clear contradictions and misrepresentations in the data relating to projections of Tasmanian devil roadkill from mine related traffic. The company has used a January-February traffic surveys as a current traffic baseline which skews the data due to the higher level of tourist, campers and shackowner during the traditional summer holiday season.

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (Tasmania) (DIER) data indicates that there is a doubling of vehicles on these road sections between October and January.

The company also asserted an assumed level of mine related traffic that is substantially lower than their own expert produced Traffic Impact Assessment.

The roadkill assumptions were made on an additional 82 vehicles per day in year one, and 34 vehicles per day in years 2-10, while the figures the Traffic Impact Assessment specify 122 vehicles per day in year one, and 89 vehicles per day in ongoing years.

“When you apply the expert Traffic Impact Assessment data and the DIER’s data for current road use, the increase in traffic is 329% in year one and 240% in years 2-10 which contradicts the company’s flawed projections of 89% and 34%”.

“This increase of traffic will, on the company’s formulae, result in up to 32 devil deaths per year, not the 3 per year in presented in the EIS.”
“Shree Minerals either is too incompetent to understand it’s own expert reports, or they have set out to deliberately mislead the Commonwealth and State environmental assessors.”
“Either way, they are unfit to be trusted with a Pilbara style iron ore mine in stronghold of threatened species like the Tarkine.”

The public comment period closed on Monday, and the company now has to compile public comments received and submit them with the EIS to the Commonwealth.

.
.

Discovery of Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease in the Tarkine

Media Release 20120224

.
Tarkine National Coalition has described the discovery of Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) at Mt Lindsay in the Tarkine as a tragedy.

“The Tarkine has been for a number of years the last bastion of disease free devils, and news that the disease has been found in the south eastern zone of the Tarkine is devastating news”, said Tarkine National Coalition spokesperson Scott Jordan.

“It is now urgent that the federal and state governments step up and take immediate action to prevent any factors that may exacerbate or accelerate the transmission of this disease to the remaining healthy populations in the Tarkine”.

“The decisions made today will have a critical impact on the survival of the Devil in the wild. Delay is no longer an option – today is the day for action.”

“They should start by reinstating the Emergency National Heritage Listing and placing an immediate halt on all mineral exploration activity in the Tarkine to allow EPBC assessments.”

NOTE: EPBC stands for Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

.

Proposed Mine Site Plan (Direct Shipping Ore) with flows to enter tributaries of Nelson River

(Source: Shree Minerals EIS, 2011)

“The Nelson Bay Iron Ore Project (ELs 41/2004 & 54/2008) covers the Nelson Bay Magnetite deposit with Inferred Mineral Resources reported to Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) guidelines. Drilling will look to enlarge the deposit and improve the quality of the resource, currently standing at 6.8 Million tonnes @ 38.2% magnetite at a 20% magnetite cut off. In addition exploration work will look follow up recent drilling of near surface iron oxide mineralisation in an attempt delineate direct shipping ore. Exploration of additional magnetic targets will also be undertaken.”

[Source: Shree Minerals website, ^http://www.shreeminerals.com/shreemin/scripts/page.asp?mid=16&pageid=27]

.

The Irreversible Ecological Damage of Long Wall Mining

‘Impacts of Longwall Coal Mining on The Environment‘ >Read Report (700kb)

[Source: Total Environment Centre, NSW, 2007, ^http://www.tec.org.au/component/docman/doc_view/201-longwall-rep07]

Mining Experience in New South Wales – Waratah Rivulet

[Source: ^http://riverssos.org.au/mining-in-nsw/waratah-rivulet/]

The image belows show the shocking damage caused by longwall coal mining to the Waratah Rivulet, which flows into Woronora Dam.

Longwalls have run parallel to and directly under this once pristine waterway in the Woronora Catchment Special Area. You risk an $11,000 fine if you set foot in the Catchment without permission, yet coal companies can cause irreparable damage like this and get away with it.

Waratah Rivulet is a third order stream that is located just to the west of Helensburgh and feeds into the Woronora Dam from the south. Along with its tributaries, it makes up about 29% of the Dam catchment. The Dam provides both the Sutherland Shire and Helensburgh with drinking water. The Rivulet is within the Sydney Catchment Authority managed Woronora Special Area there is no public access without the permission of the SCA. Trespassers are liable to an $11,000 fine.

Longwall Mining under Waratah Rivulet

Metropolitan Colliery operates under the Woronora Special Area. Excel Coal operated it until October 2006 when Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal mining corporation, purchased it. The method of coal extraction is longwall mining. Recent underground operations have taken place and still are taking place directly below the Waratah Rivulet and its catchment area.

In 2005 the NSW Scientific Committee declared longwall mining to be a key threatening process (read report below). The Waratah Rivulet was listed in the declaration along with several other rivers and creeks as being damaged by mining. No threat abatement plan was ever completed.

In September 2006, conservation groups were informed that serious damage to the Waratah Rivulet had taken place. Photographs were provided and an inspection was organised through the Sydney Catchment Authority (SCA) to take place on the 24th of November. On November 23rd, the Total Environment Centre met with Peabody Energy at the mining company’s request. They had heard of our forthcoming inspection and wanted to tell us about their operation and future mining plans. Through a PowerPoint presentation they told us we would be shocked by what we would see and that water had drained from the Rivulet but was reappearing further downstream closer to the dam.

The inspection took place on the 24th of November and was attended by officers from the SCA and the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), the Total Environment Centre, Colong Foundation, Rivers SOS and two independent experts on upland swamps and sandstone geology. We walked the length of the Rivulet that flows over the longwall panels. Although, similar waterways in the area are flowing healthily, the riverbed was completely dry for much of its length. It had suffered some of the worst cracking we had ever seen as a result of longwall mining. The SCA officers indicated that at one series of pools, water levels had dropped about 3m. We were also told there is anecdotal evidence suggesting the Rivulet has ceased to pass over places never previously known to have stopped flowing.

It appeared that the whole watercourse had tilted to the east as a result of the subsidence and upsidence. Rock ledges that were once flat now sloped. Iron oxide pollution stains were also present. The SCA also told us that they did not know whether water flows were returning further downstream. There was also evidence of failed attempts at remediation with a distinctly different coloured sand having washed out of cracks and now sitting on the dry river bed or in pools.

Also undermined was Flat Rock Swamp at the southernmost extremity of the longwall panels. It is believed to be the main source of water recharge for the Waratah Rivulet. It is highly likely that the swamp has also been damaged and is sitting on a tilt.

TEC has applied under Freedom of Information legislation to the SCA for documents that refer to the damage to the Waratah Rivulet.

During the meeting with Peabody on 23rd November, the company stated its intentions sometime in 2007 to submit a 3A application under the EP&A Act 1974 (NSW) to mine a further 27 longwall panels that will run under the Rivulet and finish under the Woronora Dam storage area.

This is very alarming given the damage that has already occurred to a catchment that provides the Sutherland Shire & Helensburgh with 29% of their drinking water. The dry bed of Waratah Rivulet above the mining area and the stain of iron oxide pollution may be seen clearly through Google Earth.

.

The Bigger Picture

In 2005 Rivers SOS, a coalition of 30 groups, formed with the aim of campaigning for the NSW Government to mandate a safety zone of at least 1km around rivers and creeks threatened by mining in NSW.

The peak environment groups of NSW endorse this position and it forms part of their election policy document.

.

Longwall Mining under or close to Rivers and Streams:

Seven major rivers and numerous creeks in NSW have been permanently damaged by mining operations which have been allowed to go too close to, or under, riverbeds. Some rivers are used as channels for saline and acid wastewater pumped out from mines. Many more are under threat. The Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, is continuing to approve operations with the Department of Planning and DEC also involved in the process, as are a range of agencies (EPA, Fisheries, DIPNR, SCA, etc.) on an Interagency Review Committee. This group gives recommendations concerning underground mine plans to Ian Macdonald, but has no further say in his final decision. A document recently obtained under FOI by Rivers SOS shows that an independent consultant to the Interagency Committee recommended that mining come no closer than 350m to the Cataract River, yet the Minister approved mining to come within 60m.

The damage involves multiple cracking of river bedrock, ranging from hairline cracks to cracks up to several centimetres wide, causing water loss and pollution as ecotoxic chemicals are leached from the fractured rocks.

.

Aquifers may often be breached.

Satisfactory remediation is not possible. In addition, rockfalls along mined river gorges are frequent. The high price of coal and the royalties gained from expanding mines are making it all too tempting for the Government to compromise the integrity of our water catchments and sacrifice natural heritage.

.

Longwall Mining in the Catchments

Longwall coal mining is taking place across the catchment areas south of Sydney and is also proposed in the Wyong catchment. Of particular concern is BHP-B’s huge Dendrobium mine which is undermining the Avon and Cordeaux catchments, part of Sydney’s water supply.

A story in the Sydney Morning Herald in January 2005 stated that the SCA were developing a policy for longwall coal mining within the catchments that would be ready by the middle of that year. This policy is yet to materialise.

The SMP approvals process invariably promises remediation and further monitoring. But damage to rivers continues and applications to mine areapproved with little or no significant conditions placed upon the licence.

Remediation involves grouting some cracks but cannot cover all of the cracks, many of which go undetected, in areas where the riverbed is sandy for example.

Sometimes the grout simply washes out of the crack, as is the case in the Waratah Rivulet.

The SCA was established as a result of the 1998 Sydney water crisis. Justice Peter McClellan, who led the subsequent inquiry, determined that a separate catchment management authority with teeth should be created because, as he said “someone should wake up in the morning owning the issue” of adequate management.

An audit of the SCA and the catchments in 1999 found multiple problems including understaffing, the need to interact with so many State agencies, and enormous pressure from developers. Developers in the catchments include mining companies. In spite of government policies such as SEPP 58, stating that development in catchments should have only a “neutral or beneficial effect” on water quality, longwall coal mining in the catchments have been, and are being, approved by the NSW government.

Overidden by the Mining Act 1992, the SCA appears powerless to halt the damage to Sydney’s water supply.

.

Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining – key threatening process listing

[Source: ‘Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining – key threatening process listing’, Dr Lesley Hughes, ChairpersonScientific Committee, Proposed Gazettal date: 15/07/05, Exhibition period: 15/07/05 – 09/09/05on Department of Environment (NSW) website,^http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/LongwallMiningKtp.htm]

NSW Scientific Committee – final determination

The Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act, has made a Final Determination to list Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining as a KEY THREATENING PROCESS in Schedule 3 of the Act. Listing of key threatening processes is provided for by Part 2 of the Act.

The Scientific Committee has found that:

1. Longwall mining occurs in the Northern, Southern and Western Coalfields of NSW. The Northern Coalfields are centred on the Newcastle-Hunter region. The Southern Coalfield lies principally beneath the Woronora, Nepean and Georges River catchments approximately 80-120 km SSW of Sydney. Coalmines in the Western Coalfield occur along the western margin of the Sydney Basin. Virtually all coal mining in the Southern and Western Coalfields is underground mining.

2. Longwall mining involves removing a panel of coal by working a face of up to 300 m in width and up to two km long. Longwall panels are laid side by side with coal pillars, referred to as “chain pillars” separating the adjacent panels. Chain pillars generally vary in width from 20-50 m wide (Holla and Barclay 2000). The roof of the working face is temporarily held up by supports that are repositioned as the mine face advances (Karaman et al. 2001). The roof immediately above the coal seam then collapses into the void (also known as the goaf) and a collapse zone is formed above the extracted area. This zone is highly fractured and permeable and normally extends above the seam to a height of five times the extracted seam thickness (typical extracted seam thickness is approximately 2-3.5 m) (ACARP 2002). Above the collapse zone is a fractured zone where the permeability is increased to a lesser extent than in the collapse zone. The fractured zone extends to a height above the seam of approximately 20 times the seam thickness, though in weaker strata this can be as high as 30 times the seam thickness (ACARP 2002). Above this level, the surface strata will crack as a result of bending strains, with the cracks varying in size according to the level of strain, thickness of the overlying rock stratum and frequency of natural joints or planes of weakness in the strata (Holla and Barclay 2000).

3. The principal surface impact of underground coal mining is subsidence (lowering of the surface above areas that are mined) (Booth et al. 1998, Holla and Barclay 2000). The total subsidence of a surface point consists of two components, active and residual. Active subsidence, which forms 90 to 95% of the total subsidence in most cases, follows the advance of the working face and usually occurs immediately. Residual subsidence is time-dependent and is due to readjustment and compaction within the goaf (Holla and Barclay 2000). Trough-shaped subsidence profiles associated with longwall mining develop tilt between adjacent points that have subsided different amounts.

Maximum ground tilts are developed above the edges of the area of extraction and may be cumulative if more than one seam is worked up to a common boundary. The surface area affected by ground movement is greater than the area worked in the seam (Bell et al. 2000). In the NSW Southern Coalfield, horizontal displacements can extend for more than one kilometre from mine workings (and in extreme cases in excess of three km) (ACARP 2002, 2003), although at these distances, the horizontal movements have little associated tilt or strain. Subsidence at a surface point is due not only to mining in the panel directly below the point, but also to mining in the adjacent panels. It is not uncommon for mining in each panel to take a year or so and therefore a point on the surface may continue to experience residual subsidence for several years (Holla and Barclay 2000).

4. The degree of subsidence resulting from a particular mining activity depends on a number of site specific factors. Factors that affect subsidence include the design of the mine, the thickness of the coal seam being extracted, the width of the chain pillars, the ratio of the depth of overburden to the longwall panel width and the nature of the overlying strata; sandstones are known to subside less than other substrates such as shales. Subsidence is also dependent on topography, being more evident in hilly terrain than in flat or gently undulating areas (Elsworth and Liu 1995, Holla 1997, Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001). The extent and width of surface cracking over and within the vicinity of the mined goaf will also decrease with an increased depth of mining (Elsworth and Liu 1995).

5. Longwall mining can accelerate the natural process of ‘valley bulging’ (ACARP 2001, 2002). This phenomenon is indicated by an irregular upward spike in an otherwise smooth subsidence profile, generally co-inciding with the base of the valley. The spike represents a reduced amount of subsidence, known as ‘upsidence’, in the base and sides of the valley and is generally coupled with the horizontal closure of the valley sides (ACARP 2001, 2002). In most cases, the upsidence effects extend outside the valley and include the immediate cliff lines and ground beyond them (ACARP 2002).

6. Mining subsidence is frequently associated with cracking of valley floors and creeklines and with subsequent effects on surface and groundwater hydrology (Booth et al. 1998, Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001, 2002, 2003). Subsidence-induced cracks occurring beneath a stream or other surface water body may result in the loss of water to near-surface groundwater flows.

If the water body is located in an area where the coal seam is less than approximately 100-120 m below the surface, longwall mining can cause the water body to lose flow permanently. If the coal seam is deeper than approximately 150 m, the water loss may be temporary unless the area is affected by severe geological disturbances such as strong faulting. In the majority of cases, surface waters lost to the sub-surface re-emerge downstream. The ability of the water body to recover is dependent on the width of the crack, the surface gradient, the substrate composition and the presence of organic matter. An already-reduced flow rate due to drought conditions or an upstream dam or weir will increase the impact of water loss through cracking. The potential for closure of surface cracks is improved at sites with a low surface gradient although even temporary cracking, leading to loss of flow, may have long-term effects on ecological function in localised areas. The steeper the gradient, the more likely that any solids transported by water flow will be moved downstream allowing the void to remain open and the potential loss of flows to the subsurface to continue.

A lack of thick alluvium in the streambed may also prolong stream dewatering (by at least 13 years, in one case study in West Virginia, Gill 2000).

Impacts on the flows of ephemeral creeks are likely to be greater than those on permanent creeks (Holla and Barclay 2000). Cracking and subsequent water loss can result in permanent changes to riparian community structure and composition.

7. Subsidence can also cause decreased stability of slopes and escarpments, contamination of groundwater by acid drainage, increased sedimentation, bank instability and loss, creation or alteration of riffle and pool sequences, changes to flood behaviour, increased rates of erosion with associated turbidity impacts, and deterioration of water quality due to a reduction in dissolved oxygen and to increased salinity, iron oxides, manganese, and electrical conductivity (Booth et al. 1998, Booth and Bertsch 1999, Sidle et al. 2000, DLWC 2001, Gill 2000, Stout 2003). Displacement of flows may occur where water from mine workings is discharged at a point or seepage zone remote from the stream, and in some cases, into a completely different catchment. Where subsidence cracks allow surface water to mix with subsurface water, the resulting mixture may have altered chemical properties. The occurrence of iron precipitate and iron-oxidising bacteria is particularly evident in rivers where surface cracking has occurred. These bacteria commonly occur in Hawkesbury Sandstone areas, where seepage through the rock is often rich in iron compounds (Jones and Clark 1991) and are able to grow in water lacking dissolved oxygen. Where the bacteria grow as thick mats they reduce interstitial habitat, clog streams and reduce available food (DIPNR 2003). Loss of native plants and animals may occur directly via iron toxicity, or indirectly via smothering. Long-term studies in the United States indicate that reductions in diversity and abundance of aquatic invertebrates occur in streams in the vicinity of longwall mining and these effects may still be evident 12 years after mining (Stout 2003, 2004).

8. The extraction of coal and the subsequent cracking of strata surrounding the goaf may liberate methane, carbon dioxide and other gases. Most of the gas is removed by the ventilation system of the mine but some gas remains within the goaf areas. Gases tend to diffuse upwards through any cracks occurring in the strata and be emitted from the surface (ACARP 2001). Gas emissions can result in localised plant death as anaerobic conditions are created within the soil (Everett et al. 1998).

9. Subsidence due to longwall mining can destabilise cliff-lines and increase the probability of localised rockfalls and cliff collapse (Holla and Barclay 2000, ACARP 2001, 2002). This has occurred in the Western Coalfield and in some areas of the Southern Coalfield (ACARP 2001). These rockfalls have generally occurred within months of the cliffline being undermined but in some cases up to 18 years after surface cracking first became visible following mining (ACARP 2001). Changes to cliff-line topography may result in an alteration to the environment of overhangs and blowouts. These changes may result in the loss of roosts for bats and nest sites for cliff-nesting birds.

10. Damage to some creek systems in the Hunter Valley has been associated with subsidence due to longwall mining. Affected creeks include Eui Creek, Wambo Creek, Bowmans Creek, Fishery Creek and Black Creek (Dept of Sustainable Natural Resources 2003, in lit.). Damage has occurred as a result of loss of stability, with consequent release of sediment into the downstream environment, loss of stream flow, death of fringing vegetation, and release of iron rich and occasionally highly acidic leachate. In the Southern Coalfields substantial surface cracking has occurred in watercourses within the Upper Nepean, Avon, Cordeaux, Cataract, Bargo, Georges and Woronora catchments, including Flying Fox Creek, Wongawilli Creek, Native Dog Creek and Waratah Rivulet. The usual sequence of events has been subsidence-induced cracking within the streambed, followed by significant dewatering of permanent pools and in some cases complete absence of surface flow.

11. The most widely publicised subsidence event in the Southern Coalfields was the cracking of the Cataract riverbed downstream of the Broughtons Pass Weir to the confluence of the Nepean River. Mining in the vicinity began in 1988 with five longwall panels having faces of 110 m that were widened in 1992 to 155 m. In 1994, the river downstream of the longwall mining operations dried up (ACARP 2001, 2002). Water that re-emerged downstream was notably deoxygenated and heavily contaminated with iron deposits; no aquatic life was found in these areas (Everett et al. 1998). In 1998, a Mining Wardens Court Hearing concluded that 80% of the drying of the Cataract River was due to longwall mining operations, with the balance attributed to reduced flows regulated by Sydney Water. Reduction of the surface river flow was accompanied by release of gas, fish kills, iron bacteria mats, and deterioration of water quality and instream habitat. Periodic drying of the river has continued, with cessation of flow recorded on over 20 occasions between June 1999 and October 2002 (DIPNR 2003). At one site, the ‘Bubble Pool”, localised water loss up to 4 ML/day has been recorded (DIPNR 2003).

Piezometers indicated that there was an unusually high permeability in the sandstone, indicating widespread bedrock fracturing (DIPNR 2003). High gas emissions within and around areas of dead vegetation on the banks of the river have been observed and it is likely that this dieback is related to the generation of anoxic conditions in the soil as the migrating gas is oxidised (Everett et al. 1998). An attempt to rectify the cracking by grouting of the most severe crack in 1999 was only partially successful (AWT 2000). In 2001, water in the Cataract River was still highly coloured, flammable gas was still being released and flow losses of about 50% (3-3.5 ML/day) still occurring (DLWC 2001). Environmental flow releases of 1.75 ML/day in the Cataract River released from Broughtons Pass Weir were not considered enough to keep the river flowing or to maintain acceptable water quality (DIPNR 2003).

12. Subsidence associated with longwall mining has contributed to adverse effects (see below) on upland swamps. These effects have been examined in most detail on the Woronora Plateau (e.g. Young 1982, Gibbins 2003, Sydney Catchment Authority, in lit.), although functionally similar swamps exist in the Blue Mountains and on Newnes Plateau and are likely to be affected by the same processes. These swamps occur in the headwaters of the Woronora River and O’Hares Creek, both major tributaries of the Georges River, as well as major tributaries of the Nepean River, including the Cataract and Cordeaux Rivers. The swamps are exceptionally species rich with up to 70 plant species in 15 m2 (Keith and Myerscough 1993) and are habitats of particular conservation significance for their biota. The swamps occur on sandstone in valleys with slopes usually less than ten degrees in areas of shallow, impervious substrate formed by either the bedrock or clay horizons (Young and Young 1988). The low gradient, low discharge streams cannot effectively flush sediment so they lack continuous open channels and water is held in a perched water table. The swamps act as water filters, releasing water slowly to downstream creek systems thus acting to regulate water quality and flows from the upper catchment areas (Young and Young 1988).

13. Upland swamps on the Woronora Plateau are characterised by ti-tree thicket, cyperoid heath, sedgeland, restioid heath and Banksia thicket with the primary floristic variation being related to soil moisture and fertility (Young 1986, Keith and Myerscough 1993). Related swamp systems occur in the upper Blue Mountains including the Blue Mountains Sedge Swamps (also known as hanging swamps) which occur on steep valley sides below an outcropping claystone substratum and the Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamps and Coxs River Swamps which are also hydrologically dependent on the continuance of specific topographic and geological conditions (Keith and Benson 1988, Benson and Keith 1990). The swamps are subject to recurring drying and wetting, fires, erosion and partial flushing of the sediments (Young 1982, Keith 1991). The conversion of perched water table flows into subsurface flows through voids, as a result of mining-induced subsidence may significantly affect the water balance of upland swamps (eg Young and Wray 2000). The scale of this impact is currently unknown, however, changes in vegetation may not occur immediately. Over time, areas of altered hydrological regime may experience a modification to the vegetation community present, with species being favoured that prefer the new conditions. The timeframe of these changes is likely to be long-term. While subsidence may be detected and monitored within months of a mining operation, displacement of susceptible species by those suited to altered conditions is likely to extend over years to decades as the vegetation equilibrates to the new hydrological regime (Keith 1991, NPWS 2001). These impacts will be exacerbated in periods of low flow. Mine subsidence may be followed by severe and rapid erosion where warping of the swamp surface results in altered flows and surface cracking creates nick-points (Young 1982). Fire regimes may also be altered, as dried peaty soils become oxidised and potentially flammable (Sydney Catchment Authority, in lit.) (Kodela et al. 2001).

14. The upland swamps of the Woronora Plateau and the hanging swamps of the Blue Mountains provide habitat for a range of fauna including birds, reptiles and frogs. Reliance of fauna on the swamps increases during low rainfall periods. A range of threatened fauna including the Blue Mountains Water Skink, Eulamprus leuraensis, the Giant Dragonfly, Petalura gigantea, the Giant Burrowing Frog, Heleioporus australiacus, the Red-crowned Toadlet, Pseudophryne australis, the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus and Littlejohn’s Tree Frog, Litoria littlejohni, are known to use the swamps as habitat. Of these species, the frogs are likely to suffer the greatest impacts as a result of hydrological change in the swamps because of their reliance on the water within these areas either as foraging or breeding habitat. Plant species such as Persoonia acerosa, Pultenaea glabra, P. aristata and Acacia baueri ssp. aspera are often recorded in close proximity to the swamps.

Cliffline species such as Epacris hamiltonii and Apatophyllum constablei that rely on surface or subsurface water may also be affected by hydrological impacts on upland swamps, as well as accelerated cliff collapse associated with longwall mining.

15. Flora and fauna may also be affected by activities associated with longwall mining in addition to the direct impacts of subsidence. These activities include clearing of native vegetation and removal of bush rock for surface facilities such as roads and coal wash emplacement and discharge of mine water into swamps and streams. Weed invasion, erosion and siltation may occur following vegetation clearing or enrichment by mine water. Clearing of native vegetation, Bushrock removal, Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses and Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams and their floodplains and wetlands are listed as Key Threatening Processes under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).

The following threatened species and ecological communities are known to occur in areas affected by subsidence due to longwall mining and their habitats are likely to be altered by subsidence and mining-associated activities:

Endangered Species

Epacris hamiltonii a shrub
Eulamprus leuraensis Blue Mountains Water Skink
Hoplocephalus bungaroides Broad-headed Snake
Isoodon obesulus Southern Brown Bandicoot
Petalura gigantea Giant Dragonfly

.

Vulnerable species

Acacia baueri subsp. aspera
Apatophyllum constablei
Boronia deanei
Cercartetus nanus Eastern Pygmy Possum
Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens
Grevillea longifolia
Heleioporus australiacus Giant Burrowing Frog
Ixobrychus flavicollis Black Bittern
Leucopogon exolasius
Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn’s Tree Frog
Melaleuca deanei
Mixophyes balbus Stuttering Frog
Myotis adversus Large-footed Myotis
Persoonia acerosa
Potorous tridactylus Long-nosed Potoroo
Pseudophryne australis Red-crowned Toadlet
Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying Fox
Pterostylis pulchella
Pultenaea aristata
Pultenaea glabra
Tetratheca juncea
Varanus rosenbergi Rosenberg’s Goanna

.

Endangered Ecological Communities

Genowlan Point Allocasuarina nana Heathland
Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamp in the Sydney Basin Bioregion
O’Hares Creek Shale Forest
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest

Species and populations of species not currently listed as threatened but that may become so as a result of habitat alteration following subsidence due to longwall mining include:

Acacia ptychoclada
Almaleea incurvata
Darwinia grandiflora
Dillwynia stipulifera
Epacris coricea
Grevillea acanthifolia subsp. acanthifolia
Hydromys chrysogaster Water rat
Lomandra fluviatilis
Olearia quercifolia
Pseudanthus pimelioides

16. Mitigation measures to repair cracking creek beds have had only limited success and are still considered experimental (ACARP 2002). Cracks less than 10 mm wide may eventually reseal without active intervention provided there is a clay fraction in the soil and at least some water flow is maintained.

Cracks 10-50 mm wide may be sealed with a grouting compound or bentonite.

Cracks wider than 50 mm require concrete (ACARP 2002). Pattern grouting in the vicinity of Marhnyes Hole in the Georges River has been successful at restoring surface flows and reducing pool drainage following fracturing of the riverbed (International Environmental Consultants 2004). Grouting of cracks also appears to have been relatively effective in Wambo Creek in the Hunter Valley. Installation of a grout curtain in the Cataract River, however, has been only partially successful and it was concluded in 2002, after rehabilitation measures had taken place, that the environment flows released from Broughtons Pass Weir by the Sydney Catchment Authority were insufficient to keep the Cataract River flowing or to maintain acceptable water quality (DIPNR 2003). Mitigation measures themselves may have additional environmental impacts due to disturbance from access tracks, the siting of drilling rigs, removal of riparian vegetation, and unintended release of the grouting material into the water. Furthermore, even measures that are successful in terms of restoring flows involve temporary rerouting of surface flows while mitigation is carried out (generally for 2-3 weeks at each grouting site). Planning for remediation measures may also be hampered by the lack of predictability of some impacts, and difficulties gaining access to remote areas where remedial works are needed. The long-term success of mitigation measures such as grouting is not yet known. It is possible that any ongoing subsidence after grouting may reopen cracks or create new ones.

Further, it is not yet known whether the clay substance bentonite, which is often added to the cement in the grouting mix, is sufficiently stable to prevent shrinkage. Grouting under upland and hanging swamps that have no definite channel is probably not feasible.

17. Empirical methods have been developed from large data sets to predict conventional subsidence effects (ACARP 2001, 2002, 2003). In general, these models have proved more accurate when predicting the potential degree of subsidence in flat or gently undulating terrain than in steep topography (ACARP 2003). A major issue identified in the ACARP (2001, 2002) reports was the lack of knowledge about horizontal stresses in geological strata, particularly those associated with river valleys. These horizontal stresses appear to play a major role in the magnitude and extent of surface subsidence impacts. The cumulative impacts of multiple panels also appear to have been poorly monitored. The general trend in the mining industry in recent years toward increased panel widths (from 200 up to 300 m), which allows greater economies in the overall costs of extraction, means that future impacts will tend to be greater than those in the past (ACARP 2001, 2002).

18. In view of the above the Scientific Committee is of the opinion that Alteration of habitat following subsidence due to longwall mining adversely affects two or more threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become threatened.

.

References

ACARP (2001) ‘Impacts of Mine Subsidence on the Strata & Hydrology of River Valleys – Management Guidelines for Undermining Cliffs, Gorges and River Systems’. Australian Coal Association Research Program Final Report C8005 Stage 1, March 2001.

ACARP (2002) ‘Impacts of Mine Subsidence on the Strata & Hydrology of River Valleys – Management Guidelines for Undermining Cliffs, Gorges and River Systems’. Australian Coal Association Research Program Final Report C9067 Stage 2, June 2002.

ACARP (2003) ‘Review of Industry Subsidence Data in Relation to the Influence of Overburden Lithology on Subsidence and an Initial Assessment of a Sub-Surface Fracturing Model for Groundwater Analysis’. Australian Coal Association Research Program Final Report C10023, September 2003.

AWT (2000) ‘Investigation of the impact of bed cracking on water quality in the Cataract River.’ Prepared for the Dept. of Land and Water Conservation Sydney South Coast Region. AWT Report no. 2000/0366.

Bell FG, Stacey TR, Genske DD (2000) Mining subsidence and its effect on the environment: some differing examples. Environmental Geology 40, 135-152.

Benson DH, Keith DA (1990) The natural vegetation of the Wallerawang 1:100,000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2, 305-335.

Booth CJ, Bertsch LP (1999) Groundwater geochemistry in shallow aquifers above longwall mines in Illinois, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 7, 561-575.

Booth CJ, Spande ED, Pattee CT, Miller JD, Bertsch LP (1998) Positive and negative impacts of longwall mine subsidence on a sandstone aquifer.

Environmental Geology 34, 223-233.

DIPNR (2003) ‘Hydrological and water quality assessment of the Cataract River; June 1999 to October 2002: Implications for the management of longwall coal mining.’ NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Wollongong.

DLWC (2001) ‘Submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Proposed Dendrobium Underground Coal Mine Project by BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd, Wollongong, Wingecarribee & Wollondilly Local Government Areas’. Department of Land and Water Conservation, July 2001.

Elsworth D, Liu J (1995) Topographic influence of longwall mining on ground-water supplies. Ground Water 33, 786-793.

Everett M, Ross T, Hunt G (eds) (1998) ‘Final Report of the Cataract River Taskforce. A report to the Upper Nepean Catchment Management Committee of the studies of water loss in the lower Cataract River during the period 1993 to 1997.’ Cataract River Taskforce, Picton.

Gibbins L (2003) A geophysical investigation of two upland swamps, Woronora Plateau, NSW, Australia. Honours Thesis, Macquarie University.

Gill DR (2000) Hydrogeologic analysis of streamflow in relation to undergraound mining in northern West Virginia. MSc thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Holla L (1997) Ground movement due to longwall mining in high relief areas in New South Wales, Australia. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 34, 775-787.

Holla L, Barclay E (2000) ‘Mine subsidence in the Southern Coalfield, NSW, Australia’. Mineral Resources of NSW, Sydney.

International Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd (2004) ‘Pattern grouting remediation activities: Review of Environmental Effects Georges River Pools 5-22. May, 2004’.

Jones DC, Clark NR (eds) (1991) Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet 9030, NSW. Geological Survey, NSW Department of Minerals and Energy.

Karaman A, Carpenter PJ, Booth CJ (2001) Type-curve analysis of water-level changes induced by a longwall mine. Environmental Geology 40, 897-901.

Keith DA (1991) Coexistence and species diversity in upland swamp vegetation. PhD thesis. University of Sydney.

Keith DA (1994) Floristics, structure and diversity of natural vegetation in the O’Hares Creek catchment, south of Sydney. Cunninghamia 3, 543-594.

Keith DA, Benson DH (1988) The natural vegetation of the Katoomba 1:100,000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2, 107-143.

Kodela PG, Sainty GR, Bravo FJ, James TA (2001) ‘Wingecarribee Swamp flora survey and related management issues.’ Sydney Catchment Authority, New South Wales.

Keith DA, Myerscough PJ (1983) Floristics and soil relations of upland swamp vegetation near Sydney. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 325-344.

NPWS (2001) ‘NPWS Primary Submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Dendrobium Coal Project’. National Parks and Wildlife Service, July 2001.

Sidle RC, Kamil I, Sharma A, Yamashita S (2000) Stream response to subsidence from underground coal mining in central Utah. Environmental Geology 39, 279-291.

Stout BM III (2003) ‘Impact of longwall mining on headwater streams in northern West Virginia’. Final Report, June 2003 for the West Virginia Water Research Institute.

Stout BM III (2004) ‘Do headwater streams recover from longwall mining impacts in northern West Virginia’. Final Report, August 2004 for the West Virginia Water Research Institute.

Young ARM (1982) Upland swamps (dells) on the Woronora Plateau, N.S.W. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong.

Young ARM (1986) The geomorphic development of upland dells (upland swamps) on the Woronora Plateau, NSW, Australia. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N.F. Bd 30, Heft 3,312-327.

Young RW, Wray RAL (2000) The geomorphology of sandstones in the Sydney Region. In McNally GH and Franklin BJ eds Sandstone City – Sydney’s Dimension Stone and other Sandstone Geomaterials. Proceedings of a symposium held on 7th July 2000, 15th Australian Geological Convention, University of

Technology Sydney. Monograph No. 5, Geological Society of Australia, Springwood, NSW. Pp 55-73.

Young RW, Young ARM (1988) ‘Altogether barren, peculiarly romantic’: the sandstone lands around Sydney. Australian Geographer 19, 9-25.

.

Tags: Emergency National Heritage Listing, Nelson Bay Iron Ore Project, Nelson Bay Magnetite, Nelson Bay River, Shree Minerals, spotted-tailed quoll, tarkine, Tasmanian Devil, Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease, Tony Burke
Posted in Tasmania (AU), Tasmanian Devils, Threats from Mining, Threats to Wild Tasmania | No Comments »

Add this post to Del.icio.us - Digg

Habitat Topics

Welcome to Habitat Country
"We're coming to you from the custodial lands of the Hairygowogulator and Tarantulawollygong, and pay respects to uncle and grandaddy elders past, present and emerging from their burrows. So wise to keep a distance out bush."

Recommended Links

Action Bioscience

Activists Rights

African Wild Dog Conservancy

African Wildlife Foundation

Amazon Rainforest

Ancient Forest Alliance

Animal Defenders International

Animal Info. on Endangered Animals

Animal Justice Party

Antarctic Ocean Alliance

Arid Lands Environment Centre

ARKive (endangered species)

Australia World Heritage List (UNESCO)

Australia's Threatened Species

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Fauna.com

Australian Geographic

Australian Native Plant Society

Australian Paper Watch

Australian Platypus Conservancy

Australian Registry of Wildlife Health

Australian Seabird Rescue

Australian Stable Population Party

Australian Student Environment Network

Australian Wildlife Carers Network

Australian Wildlife Conservancy

Australians for Animals

Badger Protection League

Badger Trust

Badger Watch and Rescue

Bagheera (Endangered species)

Ballaarat Wildlife Park

Biodiversity International

Birdlife Australia

Birdlife International

Birdwatch Ireland

Blue Marine Foundation

Blue Mountains Bird Observers

Blue Mountains Birding

Blue Mountains Conservation Society

Blue Mountains Wildplant Rescue Service

Bob Irwin Wildlife Fund

Bookend Trust

Born Free Foundation

Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation

Botanical Gardens Conservation International

Buffalo Field Campaign

Buffalo Field Campaign blog

Bush Heritage Australia

Bush Warriors

Butterfly Conservation

Cairns and Far North Environment Centre

California Gray Whale Coalition

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Cat Action Treasury

Cave Hill Conservation Campaign

Center for Earth Jurisprudence

Center for Plant Conservation

Chipstop

CITES

Coalition Against Duck Shooting

Code Green Tasmania

Colong Foundation for Wilderness

Conservation Council ACT Region

Conservation Council of South Australia

Conservation Council of Western Australia

Conservation Evidence

Conservation International

Convention on Biodiversity

Cool Forests

CREO (recent extinctions)

Cruelty Free Shop (The)

CSIRO Publishing

Cybec Foundation

David Suzuki Foundation

Defenders for Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife (savewolves)

Devils in Danger

Eaglehawk Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre

Earth Justice

Earthcare St Kilda Inc.

Earthwatch Institute Australia

Earthways

Earthways Foundation

ECO

Eco Ranger

Ecology Project International

Ecos Magazine

EDGE of Existence Programme

EnAct International

Endangered Species Link

Endangered Wildlife Trust

Environment East Gippsland

Environment Institute ANZ

Environment Tasmania

Environment Victoria

Environmental Defenders Offices

Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Law Foundation

Environs Kimberley

Essex Badger Protection Group

Ethical Paper

Eurobodalla Regional Botanic Gardens

F.A.M.E.

Fauna & Flora International

Film Makers for Conservation

Florentine Protection Society Inc.

Forest and Bird

Forest Media

Forest Network

Forest Peoples Programme

Forest Policy Research

Forest Protection Portal

Forest Rescue

Foundation for Critical Thinking

Foundation for National Parks and Wildlife

Foundation for Rabbit-Free Australia

Four Paws International

Friends of Five Forests

Friends of Narrabeen Lagoon Catchment

Friends of the Box-Ironbark Forests

Friends of the Earth (UK)

Friends of the Earth Australia

Gilbert's Potoroo Action Group

Ginninderra Catchment Group

Global Raptor Information Network

Global Trees Campaign

Goongerah Environment Centre

Great Barrier Reef Blog

Green Belt Movement

Greenpeace Australia

Gunns 20 Case

Habitat Destruction

Habitat Network

Hancock Watch

Hawk Mountain Sanctuary

Healesville Sanctuary

Help for Wildlife

Herts and Middlesex Badger Group

Humane Society International

Huon Valley Environment Centre

Iberia Nature

Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association

Inland Rivers Network

Institute of Wildlife Research

International Anti Poaching Foundation

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Intl Community of Ecopsychology

Intl Union for Conservation of Nature

Invasive Species Council

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Kakapo Recovery

Kanuguba

Keep the Habitat

Kew Gardens

Keystone Conservation

Kimberley (Save the Kimberley)

Kimberley Wildlife Carers and Associates

Kimberley Wildlife Rescue

Lake Pedder Restoration Committee

Lawyers for Forests

Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Linnean Society of London

Markets for change

Mass Extinctions

Melbourne Water Catchment Network

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Molonglo Catchment Group

Moon Bears (Korea)

My Environment

National Birds of Prey Trust

National Geographic

National Geographic Network

National Geographic Wild

National Institute for Amazonian Research

National Parks Association of NSW

National Parks Conservation Assoc.

Native Forest Action

Native Forest Network

Native Forests

Natural Edge Project

Natural History Museum

Natural Resources Defense Council

Nature

Nature and Society Forum

Nature Conservation Council of NSW

Nature Conservation Trust

Nature's Crusaders

Naturschutzbund Deutschland

Nepenthes (defending rainforest)

North East Forests Alliance

NZ Birds

NZ Ecological Restoration Network

NZ Ecological Society

NZ Native Forests Restoration Trust

NZ Trust for Conservation

Observer Tree

Orangutan Foundation International

Otway Ranges Environment Network

Our Common Ground (Tasmania)

Photos and Feathers

Preserve Our Islands

Primate Info Net

Purves Environmental Fund

Queensland Conservation Council

Quercus

Race Against Extinction

Rainforest Action Network

Rainforest Rescue

Rainforests (mongabay global website)

RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands

Raptor & Wildlife Refuge of Tasmania Inc.

Rhino Resource Center

Rising Tide Australia

Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Sahara Conservation Fund

Save America's Forests

Save Biogems

Save Ralph's Bay Inc.

Save the Badger

Save the Blue Tier

Save the Cassowary

Save the Kimberley

Save the Koala

Save the South Sister

Save the Tasmanian Devil Program

Saving Rhinos

Saving Species

Sea Shepherd

Sierra Club

Sierra Forest Legacy

Six Degrees

Smithsonian Museum (Natural History)

Society for Conservation Biology

Society of Wildlife Artists

South East Forest Rescue

South East Region Conservation Alliance

Southern ACT Catchment Group

Still Wild Still Threatened

Strait 4 Devils

Sussex Wildlife Trust

Ta Ann

Taiga Rescue Network

Tarkine National Coalition

Taronga Conservation Society Australia

Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc.

Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill Inc.

Terra Nature

The Central Highlands Alliance

The Change Agency

The Forest Activist Network

The Forest History Society

The Kerulos Center

The Kimberley Toadbusters

The Last Stand

The Last Tree

The Monkey Sanctuary

The Nature Conservancy

The Rainforest Information Centre

The Wild Foundation

The Wilderness Society

THINKK

Tigers in Crisis

Total Environment Centre

TRAFFIC (wildlife trade)

Tree Council (Ireland)

Tree Council (UK)

Tree Project

Trees for Life

Trees Not Gunns

Trust for Nature

UN Environment Programme

UN FAO on Global Forests

UNESCO World Heritage

University of Ulster (Natural Science)

Vegan Society (The)

Victorian Rainforest Network

Voiceless

Vulturejam

W.I.R.E.S.

Water S.O.S. Tasmania

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists

Western Alliance for Nature

Western Wolves

Wielangta Forest

Wild Futures

Wilderness Truths

Wildlife Art Society of Australasia

Wildlife Australia

Wildlife Conservation Society

Wildlife Mismanagement

Wildlife New Zealand

Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia

Wildlife Trust of South and West Wales

Wildlife Victoria

Wildscreen

Wolli Creek Protection Society

Wolves and Humans Foundation

Wombat Awareness Organisation Ltd

Woodland Trust

World Commission on Protected Areas

World Database on Protected Areas

World Land Trust

World Rainforest Movement

World Society for the Protection of Animals

World Wildlife Fund

WWF New Zealand

The Habitat Advocate

Author Archive

Grose Fires 2006 – forum actions ignored

‘Questioning the RFS’

Ed: Her questions were never answered. With the RFS rejecting calls for a public or independent review, there was a general sense amongst many in the local community of a cover up and of gross incompetence going unaccounted for.

.

Community activists form ‘Grose Fire Group’ in protest

‘Blue Gum Lessons’

Ed: The above community questions and demands were ignored by the RFS and the New South Wales Government. Many within the ranks of the RFS came to its defence, as the following letters to the Blue Mountains Gazette reveal.

.

Grose Valley Fire Forum

Forum Participants

.

List of Acronyms used in this Report

.

Forum Agenda

Ed: Assuming that the forum concluded at around 5pm, the duration allocated for discussing and devising the ‘Actions’, including each Action’s Goal, Trends, Causes and Conditions, Delegation and Timeframe was just 3 hours, presuming the forum ended at 5pm.

In any case none of the Actions has been undertaken. There has been no follow up report on the performance of the Actions.

This Grose Valley Forum of 2007 was just a politically contrived token talk-fest behind closed doors. Its glossy motherhood report was designed to appease critics of the RFS management of this devastating fire.

The forum was not open to the general public, nor was it independent of bushfire management’s selective bias.

Forum Introduction

(Ed: the general public were not permitted to attend, there was no public notice of the forum in advance, and this Editor was specifically excluded from attending.)

.

Forum Process

.

Forum Overview

.

Issues of Community Interest and Concern

.

A. Research, information and analysis

. B. Risk modification

.

C. Readiness

.

D. Response

.

E. Recovery

.

Problem Orientation Process

1. Clarify goals in relation to the issue

2. Describe trends

3. Analyse causes and conditions

4. Projection of developments (e.g. if no action is taken to address the issue)

5. Decide on any Actions to address the problem

.

Action Plan

1. Protection of Natural and Cultural Values

.

2. The Role of Fire as an ‘Ecological Process’

.

3. Review Processes and Public Communication

.

4. Climate Change and Risk Mitigation

.

5. Resourcing and Investment

.

6. Risk Management Strategies for Multiple Outcomes

.

.

.

7. RAFT Capacity

.

8. Fire Detection Technologies

.

9. Aerial Attack

.

10. Role of the Media

11. Post Fire Recovery

.

This Forum was a Farce

None of these 50 Actions has been acted upon nor implemented since 2007; now five years ago.

The entire forum process was a farce from the outset. It only served to allow those responsible to escape accountability and responsibility for incompetence and mass bush arson without reputational blemish.

Blue Mountains Bushfire Fighting practice, strategy, management, culture remains ‘RFS Business-as-usual’ status and similarly ill-equipped for the next bushfire catastrophe.

No lessons were learnt. More tragically, no lessons want to be learnt.

RFS: …’we know what we are doing and how dare anyone criticise us and our hard working bushfire fighting volunteers!

.

Further Reading

‘The Cradle of Conservation’

.

‘Hazard Reduction’ premise at risk

.
B. Risk modification