The Tasman Highway, Tasmania – now just like everywhere else

It could be New South Wales, western Victoria, West Australia’s wheatbelt,

or New Zealand’s Canterbury Plains (in drought), or even North America’s mid-west

(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

“It will get worse before it gets better...Saturday, Sunday are going to be pretty extreme days once again.  Temperatures will be at least in the low 40s.”

.

~ sound byte by Fairfax Media, Journalist Tim Young using a provocative sound byte from Dr Chris Ryan, Australian Bureau of Metereology at a media conference on Friday 6th February 2009.

.

Amongst the tragedies of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires –  the catastrophic loss of 173 lives, many more people injured and traumatised, the massive loss of livestock and property, unmeasured fauna killed, and bushfire history repeating itself – was the excited media (and Victorian Premier John Brumby personally) dramatising on State television, newspapers and radio about an impending extreme bushfire risk.

Gippsland was already two weeks into a series of bushfires that were known to have been lit by arsonists – the Bunyip Bushfire and the Delburn Bushfire and these dominated the headlines.  The media focus on the bushfires were about ‘scoops’ and sensational journalism.  It had grown into a media infatuation.   Every new bushfire story attracted headline news.  To a dormant arsonist, such messages would have been a red rag to a bull.

Record temperatures publicised with emphasis like never before

…on Friday 6th February 2009

.

Victoria was in a severe long drought (like the 1983 Ash Wednesday Bushfires) with tinder dry bushland and extreme hot windy and dry weather conditions that the Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) had acknowledged as causing the forecast bushfire risk index for the coming weekend to fly off the scale.

Yet while the media and the Premier were effectively scaremongering, the CFA publicly stated that it was prepared for the weekend of 7th and 8th February 2009.  This public confidence misleadingly lulled Victorians into a false sense of security and confidence in bushfire management business as usual, and contributed to the tragedy of long horrific day’s journey into night that unfolds.

The following media articles dated the morning of Saturday 7th February 2009 are reproduced here, the first a full double page spread in Fairfax’s ‘The Age’ newspaper on pages 4 and 5:

.

‘The sun rises on our ‘worst day in history’

[Source: ‘The sun rises on our ‘worst day in history‘, by Ben Doherty and Erdem Koch, The Age (morning newspaper),  20090207, ^http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-sun-rises-on-our-worst-day-in-history-20090206-7zzf.html]

Grape grower Lou Bennett with some of his crop scorched in the recent hot weather.

He estimates about 30% of his crop has failed, burnt dry by the sun.

(Photo: Glenn Milne)

.

Today is likely to be among the hottest on record in Victoria, and the effects of the heatwave are adding up across the state.

The weather bureau tells Lou Bennett it’s 44 degrees (Celsius). But he trusts better his own thermometer, rigged up on the back verandah. It says 52.

It doesn’t really matter anyway, whatever the number, the sun feels oppressively, infernally hot, and he’ll be out in it.

Warnings from the Premier about today’s heatwave being “the worst day in the state’s history” don’t carry much weight with growers around Red Cliffs, near Mildura in Victoria’s north-west corner. There’s been plenty of tough ones already.

“Out on the farm it’s pretty hot, but whatever it is we’re out there in it,” Mr Bennett said.  “Sometimes you’re lucky and you’re in the air-conditioned tractor, but most of the time you’re on the shovel or the motorbike.”

Straitened times have forced Mr Bennett to let his farmhands go. “Now I’ve got my kids coming out in 40-degree heat after school to help.”

By Mr Bennett’s count, today will be the 12th straight over 40 degrees at his place. It has sapped the life from his plants. He lost two complete hectares in one scorching morning, as well as about 30 per cent of his crop overall.

“It’s not just me, it’s everybody. It’s my neighbours, my friends. Your family suffers.”

Farmers across Victoria are suffering similarly. Growers in the Goulburn Valley are writing off crops of pears, apricots and apples ruined by sunburn.

In shearing sheds across the state, sheep have been passing out, overcome by the heat and the heavy fleece they’re carrying (a good rouseabout carries a bottle of water in hot weather to revive them).

Today is set to be the worst of the lot. Across the state, blistering temperatures are predicted, up to 46 degrees in the Mallee, while Melbourne will reach 44.

Northerly winds, gusting up to gale force at 100 km/h, will run across the state, with the potential to fan bushfires across tracts of tinder-dry land.

All sorts of records are being broken. Twelve straight days over 40 in the Mallee smashes the previous state record of nine days. By tonight, Melbourne will have gone 34 days without rain, the third worst dry spell on record.

The heat has also pushed the state’s morgue to its capacity. The Victorian coroner took in 50 bodies a day during last week’s heatwave — more than three times the average rate.

State coroner Jennifer Coate said yesterday that her office had to arrange for hospitals and funeral directors to store the bodies of people whose deaths required further investigation.

Imposing a statewide total fire ban for today, the CFA said the whole state was at extreme risk.

.

Premier John Brumby (on the Friday prior) warned that conditions were comparable to 1983’s deadly Ash Wednesday.

.

“It’s just as bad a day as you can imagine and on top of that the state is just tinder-dry,” he said. “People need to exercise real common sense … If you don’t need to go out, don’t go out, it’s a seriously bad day.  If you don’t need to travel, don’t travel. Don’t go on the roads. If you don’t need to use the public transport system, don’t use it. If you can stay at home, stay at home.”

.

V/Line has told people not to travel to Gippsland unless they have to, warning that the Bunyip bushfire would likely disturb coach and train travel.

The Premier urged people to look after the elderly, infirm and vulnerable.

“Ring them … it’s going to be a terrible day for anyone who is ill or who is old,” he said.

Yesterday, the Federal Government issued a directive to nursing homes, requiring them to monitor 170,000 residents across the country. Nursing homes in Victoria and South Australia face spot checks and audits of their air-conditioning systems, following complaints.

Water Minister Tim Holding excused Victorians from their water saving for a day, saying people needed, above all else, to keep cool.

Water consumption peaked at 283 litres per person in Melbourne last Friday, when the temperature hit 45. The average for this summer has been 172 litres per person per day.

Power outages, which wreaked havoc across the state last week, are again a real possibility, with power companies urging people to prepare to do without electricity.

The peak of the extreme heat is likely to push the state’s power capabilities to their limit, while the afternoon change could bring winds that will bring down trees across power lines.

Victoria is preparing for the worst. Sport is being cancelled.

Two and four-legged competitors are heading for the shade. Cricket matches are being moved or called off, while the Classic Dog Show, which was to feature 1200 of Victoria’s most pampered and prize-adorned pups, has been cancelled.

Racing at Caulfield, including the Group 1 Orr Stakes, has been put back to Sunday. The only horses racing today will be at the non-TAB picnic meeting at Buchan in East Gippsland.

But punters with an itch to unload can still have a wager.

Online bookmakers are laying bets on just how hot it will be in Melbourne today.

However, no one’s betting against Lou Bennett summoning the courage to brave the heat, regardless of what the mercury tells him.

“You can’t stay inside, mate, you’ve got to get outside and get it done, because no one else is going to do it for you,” he says.

.
‘Town in fury over bush arsonist’

[Source: ‘Town in fury over bush arsonist’, by Chris Johnston, The Age, p.5, 20090207, ^ http://www.theage.com.au/national/town-in-fury-over-bush-arsonist-20090206-7zzj.html]

Most unnerving of all for Boolarra residents, is that whoever lit the fires may well be one of their own.

At the peak of the devastating Boolarra bushfires eight days ago it was, according to a local, like “a war zone without bullets”. Helicopters in the sky, panic in the streets. Sirens and explosions. The burnt-out shells where houses once stood.

The fires are now contained, but today’s extreme hot and windy conditions — tipped to be the worst in the state’s history — will be terrifying in this pretty village in Gippsland’s foothills.

It could all go up again. But they know that. They are ready. The firefighters have been working towards this day all week.
The deeper problem is something that no one really knows how to handle. The fires were deliberately lit and the close-knit community of 600 is seething. There are whispers of revenge and vigilantes, of bush justice. No one can believe anyone would do such a thing.

The talk is about how whoever did this must be a “sick bastard” and how they should be strapped to a tree in the next firefront and left to burn to “see how they like it”. Someone said that if caught, they would need police protection because the town wants blood.

“People and families here are scared and angry,” said Rob Herni, who grows tree ferns and chairs the local community development group. “And I don’t think there’s any reason for them not to be. Lives have been put at risk, homes destroyed, livelihoods gone.  Plenty of people would want an hour or two with the culprits, I can tell you. Normally sane people threatening all kinds of things.”

The fires reached a peak last Friday. That was when they were coming on three fronts, the power was out and the drinking water was contaminated.
Thirty houses, 82 sheds, nine cars and a pig farm were destroyed in 6500 hectares around Boolarra, Mirboo North, Darlimurla and Yinnar, all in the Strzelecki Ranges south of Morwell. That no one died either fighting it or caught in it is seen by the community as a miracle.

Police yesterday announced a new taskforce to investigate the fires and said the driver of a dark silver or grey Toyota Hilux single-cab utility could be the firebug after such a vehicle was seen at the ignition points.  Two men were questioned last week but released. The Age believes they were apprehended at the Boolarra CFA staging ground last Thursday, but were not CFA members. A $100,000 reward has been posted.

Boolarra CFA captain Todd Birkbeck believes he knows how it played out. His pager went off at 7.30am last Wednesday; a fire had been lit in the forested hills behind the Boolarra goldfish farm. It was put out but lit again later that day. The next day, he said, another was lit near a track off Creamery Road, near Yinnar, and another at Lyrebird Walk, near Mirboo North.

“By last Thursday night the three had joined up,” he said. “That was the problem. There was no lightning. Fires don’t light up on their own.”

His wife, Michelle, said she and most others were anxious, paranoid and on edge. She heard a motorcycle out in the trees one night, when the fires were out, and feared the worst. It was someone checking fences.

“It’s surreal,” she said. “Nervy. Everyone’s jumping at shadows. You could be talking to them, you don’t know. You see a stranger and you wonder. It’s horrible.”
Mr Herni said he was paranoid about having to drive some mower fuel home to Boolarra from Yinnar today. “Does that make me an arsonist?” he asked. “In the eyes of others?”

The most difficult thing for people to understand is that the arsonist may well be one of their own.  Forensic psychologist Rebekah Doley, Australia’s only criminal profiler of bushfire arsonists, said most lived within 10 kilometres of the scene.

“They have knowledge of the landscape and they know where to set the fire best to achieve what they want,” she said.

The culprit was likely to be a male loner with a dysfunctional background who lit the fires to exert power over a community in which he felt powerless.
“They need to assert themselves in some way and fire is a very universally powerful tool to do that so it’s about the experience of the fire rather than setting the fire itself,” she said.

She said serial arsonists were common and the Boolarra firebug could strike again.

“They have to demonstrate they still have the power even if they know police are on their tail.”

She said a serial arsonist was someone with a “deep-seated, long-term interest in fire” who used it as coping tool to relieve emotional tension.
A recent Australian Institute of Criminology report into bushfires said they cost the country $1.6 billion a year and half — about “20,000 to 30,0000” — were deliberately lit.
All this is unthinkable to the people of Boolarra. It has happened to them before — and in the towns nearby like Churchill — but it never makes sense. They live in the trees here, in a village, a hidden valley. Why would someone destroy that, why tear the community apart? With fire, of all things.

“I don’t have any of the answers,” said Rob Herni. “All I know is that people are scared. There’s a lot of fear, real fear. Where are they going to light a fire next? And when?”

.

Read Reports by the Australian Institute of Criminology

 (Each 150kb)

[1]   >The Cost of Bushfires (AIC, 20041123).pdf

[2]  >Firefighter Arson Pt1  (AIC 20050607).pdf

[3]   >Firefighter Arson Pt 2 (AIC 20050621).pdf

.

---

.

Editor:  Early Afternoon of  Saturday 7th February 2009 – the reports start coming in…

.

‘Fire crews retreat as strong winds fuel flames’

[Source:  ‘Fire crews retreat as strong winds fuel flames’, by Robyn Grace, AAP, 20090207, ^http://www.theage.com.au/national/fire-crews-retreat-as-strong-winds-fuel-flames-20090207-806a.html]

.

The Country Fire Authority has issued a number of urgent threat messages as fire activity increases throughout the state.

Ground attack firefighters were earlier forced to retreat from a bushfire burning through the Bunyip State Forest east of Melbourne after the blaze broke containment lines.

Emergency authorities were forced to pull their ground crews out of the fire ground in the Bunyip State Forest, near Pakenham, this morning because of the escalating risk as forecast strong winds began blowing through the area.

Authorities have warned power supplies may be at risk as bushfires near power lines.

Officials also warned people to stay away from the forest area after recreational four-wheel drivers and trail bikers were spotted heading into the state parkland.

“We put road closures in place because unfortunately we’ve had people who’ve tried to go out into the bush early this morning,” incident controller David Nugent said.

“We have got some closures in place in areas like Bunyip State Park. We had people go out there this morning, which is really disappointing to us. It’s not a very good idea to be out in the bush today, particularly around the fire area where we are trying to do our work on the fire.”

More than 100 firefighters are desperately working to contain the fire in Bunyip State Park as it nears a number of small townships.

The fire broke through containment lines about 3am today and crews now fear the worst as the humidity drops and winds reach predicted levels.

Victorians were yesterday told to brace for its worst day in history with 44-degree heat, gale-force winds and tinder-dry conditions fuelling the fire threat.

“Everything is going according to predictions unfortunately,” Department of Sustainability and Environment state duty officer Stuart Ord told Sky News about 8am.

Firefighters worked in shifts overnight to try to contain the fire near Pakenham in Melbourne’s east.

After the blaze broke control lines overnight, DSE crews were forced to retreat because of the escalating risk and difficult terrain.

Mr Nugent said the change in tactics meant only aircraft crews were deployed to waterbomb the 165-hectare blaze in an effort to limit its potential, before weather conditions took a forecast turn for the worse.

The communities of Labertouche, Jindivick West and Tonimbuk are now on high alert as winds push the blaze in a south-easterly direction.

The fire is spotting in multiple areas.  The Country Fire Authority said the fire was not currently posing a threat but activity had increased and it had the potential to impact on towns directly.

Residents have been warned to expect increased smoke and embers within the next two hours.  They have also been told to be prepared to activate their bushfire survival plans if necessary.

Mr Ord said flames were 10 metres tall in some parts of the fire.  Dry lightning in other parts of the state were also a concern, he said.

DSE incident controller David Nugent said fire crews had worked tirelessly in an effort to minimise the anticipated spread of the fire.

“Our bulldozer operators have worked non-stop to build control lines around the fire edge and this effort has been greatly enhanced by the work of firefighting aircraft,” Mr Nugent said.

Firefighting aircraft included the Elvis Erikson aircrane, fixed-wing aircraft dropping retardant on the perimeter of the fire and two medium water-bombing helicopters.

Mr Nugent said the power easements supplying Melbourne and other parts of Victoria remained a key issue.

Melbourne Water has released extra water into the Taraoo aqueduct to fight the expected fires.

CFA spokesman Paul Little said a forecast change in wind direction later today could mean the fire front grows from one or two kilometres to several kilometres in width, creating more challenges for fire crews trying to contain the blaze and protect assets.

“Right now, we’ve got crews strategically placed around Labertouche and other areas ready to respond,” Mr Little said.  “But what happens later … we’ll have to wait and see.  If the wind changes direction, we’ll have a small firefront grow into a massive firefront and that won’t be good.’‘

The rest of south-east Australia is also gearing up for a horror weekend of extreme heat and bushfires.

In Adelaide, the temperature is expected to peak at 41 on Saturday with the mercury in some South Australian country areas tipped to go even higher.

Tomorrow, temperatures are likely to top 47 degrees in parts of NSW.

The CFA advises:

• Tourists are advised to avoid the following areas: Bunyip State Park, Kurth Kiln Regional Park, Tarago Forest and surrounding areas.
• Road closures currently in place: Intersection of Beenak Road and Launching Place Road, intersection of Princes Freeway and Tynong North Road, intersection of Princes Freeway and Bunyip Road, and intersection of Forest Road and Labertouche North Road.
• Emergency relief centres are located at: Warragul Leisure Centre.

For information on fires in Victoria and general fire safety advice, contact the Victorian Bushfire Information Line on 1800 240 667. Callers who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech/communication impairment may call textphone/ telewriter on 1800 122 969. Information is also available at www.dse.vic.gov.au/fires.’.

.

‘Death toll may reach more than 40: police’

[Source: ‘Death toll may reach more than 40: police’,  20090207, AAP, ^http://www.theage.com.au/national/death-toll-may-reach-more-than-40-police-20090207-80ao.html]

“Email your photos to scoop@theage.com.au”

.

Fourteen people have been killed in the savage bushfires which set Victoria ablaze today.  Victoria police confirmed the deaths tonight and said they fear the figure may be more than 40.

At least 100 homes have been destroyed as nine major blazes burnt out of control across Victoria in the worst fire conditions in the state’s history.

Deputy police commissioner Kieran Walshe said all the deaths were in a massive blaze northwest of Melbourne – six at Kinglake, four at nearby Wandong, three at Strathewen and one in Clonbinane.

Mr Walshe said he believed the Kinglake victims were all in the same car.  He believed arsonists were responsible for some of the nine major fires ripping across the state.

“We suspect a number of the fires have been deliberately lit,” Mr Walshe told reporters.  “This is an absolute tragedy for the state and we believe the figure may even get worse,” Mr Walshe said.  “We base that on the fact we’re only just getting into these areas now … to search buildings and properties these have been very very significant fires … the figure could get into the 40s.’‘

The fire started in East Kilmore, 80km north of Melbourne, and covered a huge area as it pushed 30km east to Kinglake, through the small townships of Wandong, Strathewen and Clonbinane.

Mr Walshe said he could not determine whether the victims were civilians or firefighters. He said identifications could not be carried out until at least Sunday.  One man, aged in his 40s, is in critical condition after suffering burns to 50 per cent of his body when he tried to move stock in the Coleraine area in the state’s west.

More than 3,000 firefighters and many more residents battled major fronts at Horsham, Coleraine, Weerite, Kilmore East, Bunyip, Churchill, Dargo, Murrindindi and Redesdale in all corners of the scorched state as the searing heat in the mid 40s and high winds exceeded authorities’ predictions of the worst fire conditions in the state’s history.

The Kilmore region in the north and several areas of Gippsland in the east were on high alert as an uneasy dusk fell on Saturday night, while the Horsham fire was downgraded early in the evening.

Fifty houses were reportedly lost in the Bendigo area in the Redesdale blaze and up to 30 houses went up in the Kilmore fire which pushed across Whittlesea and into the town of Kinglake, northwest of Melbourne, which one resident said had gone up in flames.

“The whole township is pretty much on fire,” Peter Mitchell told ABC Radio.

“There was was no time to do anything … it came through in minutes.  There’ll be a massive loss of houses … There’ll be a lot of us homeless.  All those who have made it into town will be fine. The others will be sheltering and working on their fire plans, God help them.”

Mr Mitchell said he was with around 200 residents holed up in the local pub and that no fire trucks could get into the town.

Thousands more residents in the region were sheltering wherever they could find cover as they were warned the worst was to come overnight.

A cool change early this evening did not bring any respite but, in fact, was expected to create more volatile conditions.

“It hasn’t helped the firefighters, only presented them with new fronts,” the Country Fire Authority (CFA) spokeswoman said.

The CFA and DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment) warned Victorians to prepare to be hit by fire late tonight and to be especially prepared for ember attack.

“You should assume that as the wind change comes through, that your property could be impacted,” CFA State Coordinator Geoff Conway said.

La Trobe Valley power stations were under threat as a fire on the eastern fringes of the Strzelecki Ranges spread toward the Gippsland coast, threatening towns such as Yarram, Langsbrough and Manns Beach.

“It is pretty well every part of the state except the far northwest,” CFA Deputy Chief Fire Officer John Haynes said.

The Horsham fire burnt 5700 hectares and claimed at least three homes, the town’s golf club and several sheds.

The Bunyip State Park reached 2400 hectares, and one at Kilmore burned 2000 hectares.

CFA deputy chief fire officer John Haynes said it would be about midnight, after the cool change had swept across the state, before fire fighters knew whether they had got on top of the blazes.

Melbourne:  a wealthy growing city, neglecting Regional Victoria

.

“Our guys have been flat out trying to fight the fires and trying to pin them down a bit,” Mr Haynes said.

.

“The fire weather … was extreme and off the scale.”

.

By 6pm, at least one house was destroyed at Coleraine in Victoria’s west, in Melbourne’s southeast three homes were destroyed at Lyndbrook; and north of Melbourne six houses were destroyed at Wandong and one at Whittlesea.  Homes were also lost in Labertouche, near the Bunyip State Park east of Melbourne.

“There will be more to come,” Mr Haynes said.  Julie Venrooy said from Shady Creek, east of Melbourne, said she had been forced to stay on the Princes Highway south of Tonimbuk by police, unable to return to her home.  “I’ve been able to contact my husband once. He’s had ember attack, that was about an hour ago but I don’t know what’s happened since,” Ms Venrooy said.

Victoria Premier John Brumby said one fire threatening his parents’ home in Coleraine was stopped literally on their doorstep.

“I would like to thank DSE, CFA and SES (State Emergency Services) fire fighters and volunteers who have fought tirelessly throughout the day to protect Victorian people and property,” Mr Brumby said.

The fires came as Melbourne reached its hottest ever temperature of 46.4 degrees (Celsius), while nearby Avalon recorded the state’s high of 47.9 (Celsius).

Remembering Marysville and indeed, Regional Victoria

.

Forest Reserve Map – ‘Interim Reserve Boundaries’  (IGA)

Tasmanian Forest Agreement Verification: Advice to Prime Minister and Premier of Tasmania

(Click map to enlarge, then click map again to enlarge again)

.

Tasmanian Forests Agreement – some key documents

(newest to oldest – with format ‘document title YYYYMMDD‘)

.

[17]  Conservation Agreement (Gillard Govt with Forestry Tasmania 20120113).pdf  [272kB]

.

[16]  Tasmanian Forests IGA Newsletter Final_20111121.pdf  [85kB]

[15]  Deed Poll of Undertaking Relating to Contractors Voluntary Exit Grants 20111026.pdf  [25kB]

.

[14]  National Partnership Agreement (IGA) Tasmania and Commonwealth 20110929.pdf  [48kB]

.

[13]  ENGO Report of Logging breaching IGA Clause 26 – 20110920.pdf  [4.3MB]

.

[12]  Tasmanian Forests Agreement Independent Verification Group 20110909.pdf  [40kB]

.

[11]  Independent Verification Group Terms of Reference 20110819.pdf  [71kB]

.

[10]  Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 20110807.pdf  [271kB]

.

[9]  Heads of Agreement 20110724.pdf  [47kB]

.

[8]  FIAT Submission to Legislative Council Re Transition out of Forestry 20110407.pdf  [2.8MB]

.

[7]  Tasmanian Forest Contractors Exit Assistance Program 201011.pdf  [64kB]

.

[6]  Tasmanian Forests Statement of Principles 20101007.pdf  [82kB]

.

[5]  Tasmanian Forests Interim Report (Bill Kelty 2010331).pdf  [15MB]

.

[4]  Tasmanian Forest Agreement (Howard Liberal Government) CFA 20050510.pdf  [2111kB]

.

[3]  Protecting Private Forests (Howard Liberal Government 20050905).pdf   [267kB]

.

[2]  Blueprint for Tasmania’s Forest (Timber Workers for Forests 200408).pdf  [550kB]

.

[1]  Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement 19991020.pdf   [84kB]

.

 

On Sunday 13th November 2006  two separate bushfire ignitions were believed to have been started by lightning just west of the Grose Valley of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, according to the Rural Fire Service (RFS).  One ignition was located outside the small rural village of Hartley Vale in a valley referred to as Lawsons Long Alley, while the other was in rugged bushland at Burra Korain Head about 4 km east of the village of Mount Victoria.   Ten days later catastrophe…

Pyrocumulus cloud as the Grose Valley goes up in smoke on 23rd November 2006

.

‘Two bushfires that were believed to have been started by lightning strikes on Monday are burning in the Blue Mountains National Park. A fire burning 2 km north of Mount Victoria has burnt out about 1100 hectares of private property and parkland and is burning on both sides of the Darling Causeway. The Darling Causeway remains closed to traffic and motorists are advised to use the Great Western Highway and Bells Line of Road as alternate routes.

A second fire burning about 5 km north of Blackheath in the Grose Valley has burnt out about 500 hectares of parkland. Waterbombing aircraft are slowing the progress of the fire as it is burning in difficult and inaccessible terrain.’

[Source: New South Wales Rural Fire Service Blue Mountains website, Fire Name: Lawsons Long Alley, Time Message Issued: 1700, Date Message Issued: 16/11/06, ^http://lists.rfs.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bluemountains-info]

.

At the time the RFS reported that the ‘fire is not threatening any properties or homes at this stage‘, but it was this reassurance that lulled the fire fighting effort into a false sense of security.  Over the coming days the fires were not earnestly suppressed but instead allowed to burn out of control as neither were ‘threatening any properties or homes at this stage‘.  Famous last words.  Worse was that a series of broadscale backburns were started by the RFS at Hartley Vale, Blackheath and along Bells Line of Road – each of which at times got out of control.

.

Comparison with 2003 Canberra Firestorm

.

Three years prior, four ignitions that had been purportedly been sparked by lighting on 8th January 2003 were allowed to burn out of control in remote bushland outside Canberra, Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and starting outside the ACT in NSW.   At the time, those fires were deemed not to be threatening any properties or homes at that stage too.  Ten days later, the four fires – McIntyre’s Hut Fire, the Bendora Fire, the Stockyard Spur Fire and the Mount Gingera Fire all coalesced into what became known as the 2003 Canberra Firestorm in which four people perished.

McIntyre’s Hut Fire 20030108 – distant, isolated and remote at this stage.

Ten days later it became the 2003 Canberra Firestorm

.

Three years hence, the two bushfires west of the Grose Valley after seven days had coalesced into what has become known as the 2006 Grose Valley Fires that ended up incinerating 14,070 hectares of wild bush habitat, including the iconic Blue Gum Forest down in the Grose Valley inside the Greater Blue Mountains World heritage Area .

Both catastrophic bushfires were ultimately the responsibility of the RFS in New South Wales to suppress in order to prevent them becoming uncontrollable firestorms.    The RFS failed catastrophically on both occasions with RFS Commissioner Phil Koperberg at the helm.  The lessons from the 2003 Canberra Firestorm had not been heeded.

An aerial view of a fire-devastated Chauvel Circle in the suburb of Chapman on 21st January, 2003 in Canberra,

where 15 of 20 homes in the street were destroyed by fire.

Four people were killed and 419 homes destroyed when the fires being fought on five fronts swept through the nation’s capital.

(Photo by Daniel Berehulak, Getty Images)

.

According to the report of the official enquiry into the 2003 Canberra Firestorm by ACT Coroner Maria Doogan,  she states:

‘During the inquiry it was submitted that the severity of the firestorm could not have been foreseen.  I do not accept this. Australia has a recorded history of extreme fire events dating back to at least 1851.  As discussed in Chapter 7 (of the Coroner’s Report), CSIRO fire expert Phil Cheney predicted several years ago a conflagration of the type experienced in January 2003.  He made his prediction on the basis of information in the report of one  of the seven inquiries that have been held since 1986 to examine various aspects of the ACT’s emergency services.

‘The point to make here is that experiences in life, be they good or bad, serve no useful purpose if we fail to learn from them.  It is hoped, therefore, that the many lessons that can be learnt from this catastrophe in the ACT are in fact learnt and result in positive action, not just supportive words and shallow promises.’

[Source: ‘The Canberra Firestorm: Inquest and Inquiry into Four Deaths and Four Fires between 8 and 18 January 2003’, Vol 1, Ch1, pp.2-3., by ACT Coroner]

.

Blue Mountains Council’s response to the 2006 Grose Valley Fires

.

The 2006 Grose Valley Fires coalesced into a conflagration on Thursday 23rd November 2006 down in the World Heritage Grose Valley.  Many in the local Blue Mountains community were outraged that this could have been allowed to have occurred.  Public demands for answers finally led Blue Mountains Council two months later on Tuesday 30th January 2007 to agree to support the call of ‘concerned residents’ for the New South Wales Government to undertake a thorough, independent review of the Grose Valley Fires.

It is important to note that at the time there was a Labor Government in New South Wales, which was ultimately held responsible for both the 2003 and 2006 bushfire emergency responses.

The following is a copy of the official meeting minutes of Blue Mountains Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 20070130, two months after the 2003 Grose Valley Fires:

.

‘A Motion was moved by Councillors (Terri) Hamilton (Independent) and (Daniel) Myles (Liberal):

.
1. That the Council gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all the volunteers, professionals and agencies that worked together to control the recent Grose Valley Fire.

.

2. That the Council, in order that improvements in fire management can continue for the Blue Mountains and other parts of NSW, as a matter of urgency, writes to the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon Morris Iemma, stating it supports the call of concerned residents on the New South Wales Government, which appeared on page 13 of the Blue Mountains Gazette of 6 December, 2006, as follows:

“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 to the most effective way?

2. Ensure adequate funding is available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of environmental damage.
3. Fund more research to improve understanding of fire in the Blue Mountains landscape and methods for fire mitigation and suppression.
4. Improve research and 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.”

.
3. That the independent review includes addressing the questions raised by Blue Mountains Conservation Society:

a. The Blue Mountains City Council therefore supports the following adopted position of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and would like the review to address the following questions:

i.    In what circumstances are back burning from the “Northern Strategic Line” and the Bells Line of Road appropriate?
ii.   What can be improved to ensure that lightning strikes or arson fires are contained as quickly as possible?
iii.  What can be done to better manage fire risk in the Grose Valley in terms of preparation and suppression to minimise damage to people, property and biodiversity?
iv.  What is needed to allow remote area fire teams to be able to work at night when conditions are more benign?
v.   How can funding of bushfire management and suppression be changed to reduce overall costs to the community. (Federal funding of suppression under section 44 means funding for trail maintenance and planning is limited.)

.

b. If practicable, would the review also address the following?

i.    The World Heritage Area contains a number of threatened species and ecological communities that, in addition to the direct threats associated with climate change, are particularly vulnerable to increased fire frequency and intensity.
ii.   The effects on biodiversity of the fire regimes in the Grose Valley over the last 40 years, where there has been a succession of large intense wild fires without sufficient interval between them.
iii.   Climate change predictions suggest a probability of more frequent and more intensive fire events, with significant implications for fire management and integrity of ecosystems.
iv.   The Blue Mountains City Council also supports and requests involvement in the forum being organised by the Director of the Central Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bob Conroy, on the 17 February 2007.

.
4. That the Council emphasises that the requested review should be of a scientific and technical nature.

.

5. That a copy of this letter be forwarded to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon Tony Kelly, the Member for the Blue Mountains, the Hon. Bob Debus, and the New South Wales Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam.

.
Upon being PUT to the Meeting, the MOTION was CARRIED, the voting being:

FOR:

1. Fiona Creed  (Liberal)
2. Terri Hamilton (Independent)
3. Pippa McInnes (Greens)
4. Daniel Myles (Liberal)
5. Kerrin O’Grady  (Greens)
6. Lyn Trindall (Blue Mountains First

.

AGAINST:

1. Mayor Jim Angel   (Labor)
2. Kevin Frappell   (Labor)
3. Alison McLaren  (Labor)
4. Adam Searle  (Labor)
5. Chris Van der Kley  (Liberal)  and Chair of Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee

The Hartley Vale backburn 20061115 escaped up Hartley Vale Road and over the Darling Causeway (above) toward the Grose Valley to the right

(Photo by Editor 20070204, free in pubic domain, click to enlarge)

..

Editor’s Note:

Ahead of the Blue Mountains Council voting for the above motion, two Labor Councillors, Clr Chris Van der Kley (also Chair of the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee) and Clr Kevin Frappell (Labor) moved an alternative motion, however it was lost upon voting. This proposed alternative motion was labelled an ‘amendment’ but it was significantly different in detail.  The proposed amendment excluded calls for an independent review (per the first item in the original motion). 

This proposed amendment also excluded asking the six key questions put by the concerned residents such as ‘Were fire detection and initial suppression timely and adequate?‘, ‘Is fire management funded to the most effective way?‘, etc. 

This proposed amendment also excluded that part of Item 1 which recommended strategic improvements to bushfire management such as ‘Ensure adequate funding is available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of environmental damage‘ and ‘Fund more research to improve understanding of fire in the Blue Mountains landscape and methods for fire mitigation and suppression‘, etc.

This proposed amendment  instead drew upon the view of the leadership of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society at the time that considered an independent enquiry would equate to criticism and assigning blame and so be politicised.    This did however include advocating “an interagency and technical review process, to tease out the lessons learned.”

.

The Amendment (although lost in the Council voting) is important for the record and read as follows:

1. That the Blue Mountains City Council gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all the volunteers, professionals and agencies that worked together to control the recent Grose
Valley fire.

.
2. That the Blue Mountains City Council supports the recent position adopted by the Blue Mountains Conservation Society in relation to the Grose Valley fire in November
2006.   We note and support the position of the Society when it says,

“The circumstances of the bushfire are complex and it is not in anyone’s interest for criticism or blame to be apportioned. However, there is much to be gained by looking at what was done and how it can be improved. The Society does not therefore support a large public inquiry and its attendant politicisation. Instead, the Society advocates an interagency and technical review process, to tease out the lessons learned.”

.

3. That the Blue Mountains City Council therefore supports the following adopted position of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and would like the review to
address the following questions:

1. In what circumstances are back burning from the “Northern Strategic Line” and the Bells Line of Road appropriate?
2. What can be improved to ensure that lightning strikes or arson fires are contained as quickly as possible?
3. What can be done to better manage fire risk in the Grose Valley in terms of preparation and suppression to minimise damage to people, property and biodiversity?
4. What is needed to allow remote area fire teams to be able to work at night when conditions are more benign?
5. How can funding of bushfire management and suppression be changed to reduce overall costs to the community. (Federal funding of suppression under Section 44 means funding for trail maintenance and planning is limited.)

.
If practicable, would the review also address the following?

1. The World Heritage Area contains a number of threatened species and ecological communities that, in addition to the direct threats associated with climate change, are particularly vulnerable to increased fire frequency and intensity.
2. The effects on biodiversity of the fire regimes in the Grose Valley over the last 40 years, where there has been a succession of large intense wild fires without
   sufficient interval between them.
3. Climate change predictions suggest a probability of more frequent and more intensive fire events, with significant implications for fire management and
   integrity of ecosystems.
4.  That the Blue Mountains City Council also supports and requests involvement in the forum being organised by the Director of the Central Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bob Conroy, on the 17 February 2007.

.

Upon being PUT to the Meeting, the AMENDMENT was LOST, the voting being:

FOR:

1. Mayor Jim Angel   (Labor)
2. Kevin Frappell   (Labor)
3. Alison McLaren   (Labor)
4. Adam Searle   (Labor)
5. Chris Van der Kley   (Liberal, and Chair of Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee)

.

AGAINST:

1. Creed   (Liberal)
2. Hamilton   (Independent)
3. McInnes   (Greens)
4. Myles   (Liberal)
5. O’Grady  (Greens)
6. Trindall   (Blue Mountains First)

.

[Source: Blue Mountains Council’s Ordinary Meeting, 20070130, Minute No. 7, File Ref. C01095. Subject: ‘Grose Valley Fire’, pp.15-16]

.

Editor’s Analysis:

.

1. Similar failure by the RFS and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to muster all available necessary resources to suppress and extinguished both the Lawson’s Long Alley and Burra Korain Head fires, demonstrated that lessons from the 2003 Canberra Firestorm had not been learnt.  Critical time was lost in the initial days of the ignitions at both to effectively suppress the fires while they were of a small size and weather conditions relatively favourable to enable suppression.
2. The RFS strategy to apply excessive broadscale backburning on multiple fronts at at Hartley Vale, Blackheath and Bells Line of Road exacerbated the complexity and scale of both fires and in the most part contributed to the conflagration of all the fires down in the Grose Valley on 23rd November 2006
3. The shortcoming of not mustering all necessary resources to suppress and extinguish bushfires, irrespective of whether a fire is immediately affecting property and homes or not, is flawed, negligent and only heightens the inherent risk of a bushfire escalating out of control.  The risk of a bushfire escalation into uncontrollable firestorm is heightened as time allows for the prospect of worsening bushfire weather conditions – increased wind, wind gusts,  wind direction, temperatures, and lowering humidity – contributory factors in both the respective Canberra and Grose Valley Fires.  There is no indication that this operational culture has changed.
4. That a bushfire is situated in inaccessible terrain is not an excuse for bushfire management not to muster all airborne and RAFT resources to suppress and extinguish it as soon as feasibly possible
5. After local community realisation that the bushfire had overrun the Grose Valley including burning through the iconic Blue Gum Forest on 23rd November, an informal collection of local ‘concerned residents‘ formed numbering 143 and co-ordinated by Blue Mountains resident Ian Brown.  By Wednesday 6th December, within days of the fire finally being suppressed (3rd Dec), this informal group had collectively paid for a full page letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper costing $2,131.40(page 13). The letter was entitled ‘Burning Issues – fire in the Grose Valley – A statement funded and supported by concerned residents‘.   The context was that detailed in Council’s carried motion above.
6. Blue Mountains Council’s response was simply a manifestation of the “supportive words and shallow promises” whom ACT Coroner Maria Doogan had cautioned in the Coroner’s Report into the 2003 Canberra Firestorm.  No effective Council follow up to its supportive words was undertaken.  Sure per Council’s carried motion, Council’s then acting General Manager, Dave Allen, sent off the letter with supportive words to the NSW Premier Morris Iemma, on 20th February 2007, but Council took no other review or enquiry action.
7. In the Central Blue Mountains, there are three government agencies responsible for bushfire management  – the New South Wales Rural Fires Service, the National Parks and Wildlife Service as part of the NSW Department of Environment (what ever its frequently changing title)  and Blue Mountains Council.  Collectively these three bodies have co-operated under the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee, which was/is chaired by Blue Mountains Councillor Chris van der Kley.) and is responsible for planning in relating to bush fire prevention and coordinated bush fire fighting, as well as responsible for advising the Commissioner on bush fire prevention; mitigation and coordinated bush fire suppression.  Included on the Committee is also the Commissioner of the RFS, and a nominated representative respectively from the NSW Fire Brigades, Forests NSW, NPWS, the Local Government Association of NSW, the Shires Association of NSW, the NSW Rural Fire Service Association, NSW Police, a nominee of the Minister for the Environment (then Bob Debus), a representative of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, a person appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Farmers Association, a representative of the Department of Community Services and a representative of the Department of Lands. In March 2008, the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee (BMBFMC) staged a series of community workshops on the Plan’s review process.   The Plan was approved on 14th December 2000 with a required review every five years.  So by the Grose Valley Fire, the Plan was a year out of date and by March 2008 the Plan was three years out of date.
8. It is not surprisingly that the above proposed amendment to the Council letter to the NSW Premier excluded calls for an independent review.  Those who proposed the motion and who voted for it  were either all Labor Party members or in the case of Liberal Councillor Chris Van Der Kley, Chair of the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee who was operationally involved.  An independent enquiry and the proposed strategic improvements to the bushfire management establishment would have likely revealed operational and government failings and recommended changes to the RFS structure, strategies, and management and importantly to its culture.  The amendment was rejected anyway due to Labor having insufficient votes on Council.
9. On Sunday 13th November 2006  two separate bushfire ignitions were believed to have been lit by lightning just west of the Grose Valley of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area by the RFS.  Following a back burn/hazard reduction burn that had got  out of control up Hartley Vale Road and crossed the Darling Causeway, on Wednesday 15th November the RFS declared a formal escalation to a Section 44 bushfire emergency.  This four day delay in detection and suppression is unexplained by the RFS.
10. Despite the calls by the concerned residents (with Blue Mountains Council’s supportive words) for the ‘NSW Government to undertake a thorough, independent  review of the Grose Valley Fire, involving all stakeholders, so such independent review was done.
11. The local Labor member for the NSW Seat of Blue Mountains at the time and NSW Minister for the Environment was Bob Debus MP, who categorically refused requests for either an independent review or a public review into the management of the Grose Valley Fires.
12. The Blue Mountains Conservation Society (BMCS) similarly rejected calls for a public enquiry, stating “the circumstances of the bushfire are complex and it is not in anyone’s interest for criticism or blame to be apportioned. However, there is much to be gained by looking at what was done and how it can be improved. The Society does not therefore support a large public inquiry and its attendant politicisation. Instead, the Society advocates an inter-agency and technical review process, to tease out the lessons learned.”  It needs to be pointed out that key committee members of the BMCS were/are also active members of the RFS, which raises the issue of and actual or perceived conflict of interest.
    
13. There were two reviews of sorts, none independent and none public.
1. 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.
2. On Saturday 17th February 2007, there was a ‘Grose Valley Fire Forum‘ held at Mount Tomah organised by Director of the Central Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bob Conroy, and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute.  Only selected participants were permitted to attend – mainly from the bushfire management, fire experts and selected members of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society.  A copy of the report of that forum will be publicised on this website shortly.
14. Following ongoing community concerns about the lack of transparency, no evidence of any lessons being learned from the Grose Valley Fires and even of a cover up into some of the operational decisions, in January 2007 Bob Debus MP announced a suggestion of there being an Environmental Summit to be staged in the Blue Mountains to provide the first public forum into important environmental issues affecting the Blue Mountains region, notably to discuss the Grose Valley Fire.  Well, by the time the summit eventuated it was over a year later and held on the weekend of 23rd and 24th February 2008.   By then Bob Debus had moved to federal politics (though still representing the Blue Mountains via the Seat of Macquarie.  The summit was chaired by the RFS Commissioner responsible for the 2006 Grose Valley Fires, Philk Koperberg (now local Labor MP) and even the bushfire Incident Controller of the 2006 Grose Valley Fires, RFS Superintendent Mal Cronstedt, was in attendance.  However, the summit was now called a conference and the agenda had expanded to many issues including Energy, Social Systems, Natural Systems and Water.  Discussion about bushfire was restricted to a two hour workshop and so available time to the Grose Fire to one or two questions which copped only official spiel.  It was a classic Labor tactic or stalling on accountability until the community gives up or forgets.
15. Since 2006, the Blue Mountains community still doesn’t know whether in the 2006 Grose Valley Fire or currently:

• Fire detection and initial suppression was/is timely and adequate?
• Whether bushfire management resources were/are adequate, appropriate and supported?
• Whether in the Grose Valley Fire the adopted strategies were the best available under the circumstances?
• Whether other strategies of closer containment could have offered lower risk to the community
• Whether currently it has better firefighter safety, higher probabilities of success, lower costs and will cause less impact on the environment?
• Whether existing knowledge and planning is adequately utilised?
• Whether bushfire management is funded to the most effective way?
• Is adequate funding available for post-fire restoration, including the rehabilitation of environmental damage?

.

Another three years hence, in the Blue Mountains we have witnessed from afar the catastrophic Victorian ‘Black Saturday’ Bushfires of 7th February 2009.

.

Another three years hence in 2012, have we learnt anything? 

.

Tarkine National Coalition (TNC) has questioned the motives behind the watering down of the EPBC assessment approach to the Tarkine Road proposal in Tasmania.

The Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke has opted for the less stringent Public Environment Report approach despite the original Tarkine Road proposal being subject to an Environmental Impact Statement approach prior to it’s withdrawal. This comes on top of the Minister’s refusal to National Heritage List the area despite the former proposal triggering a Emergency National Heritage Listing in 2009 by former minister Peter Garrett (lapsed by Minister Burke in 2010).

“There are some questions here that the Minister must answer. Clearly the revise Tarkine Road proposal is not being subjected to the same scrutiny as the original proposal, at a time when the risks to the area are even better understood than in 2009,” said Tarkine National Coalition spokesperson Scott Jordan.

The resubmitting of the Tarkine Road proposal by the Tasmanian Government called into play a promise made by Minister Burke in December 2010 that if the Tarkine Road was resubmitted, that he would immediately re-list the Tarkine. The Minister failed to deliver on that promise.

TNC has maintained conditional support for the revised project, subject to the altered route, staging of the project sections and there being demonstrable evidence that proposed mitigation measures address the expected increase in roadkill of Tasmanian devil and Spotted tailed quoll normally seen with road sealing. So far no mitigation trials have been conducted and that evidence does not exist.

“The lowering of the bar doesn’t make sense given that the state government is increasing it’s efforts to reduce the impact of the road. I suspect pressure is coming from other sources”.

 “In my estimation, the lowering of the assessment approach has less to do with the alterations to the route, but the fact that a mining company now needs this route for transporting product to ports”.

.

‘Few understand how much transport influences land use patterns.  Transport leads land use.  Once an expressway or railway is built, it is easy to change the zoning and development laws to increase the population along the corridor.’

[Source: Then New South Wales Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, Sydney Morning Herald, 20080929, p11]

.

‘A road desecrates wilderness

and enslaves wildness’

~ Editor

.

.

The site of Blue Mountains Significant Tree #5 – it was a massive Eucalyptus oreades

~ Our endemic heritage woodchipped into oblivion

Lest we forget!

(Photo of Editor 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

This mature native tree was respected enough to have been listed on Blue Mountain Council’s Significant Tree Register.  Indeed it was the 5th such listed tree on Blue Mountains Council’s Register of Significant Trees back in 1988.

So what is the meaning of a ‘Significant Tree‘ on Blue Mountains Council’s register?

Well back on 21st June 1988 the Register of Significant Trees was adopted by Blue Mountains Council as an integral part of its Development Control Plan, which proclaimed significant trees be protected under Clause 6 ‘Protection of Items Listed in the Register of Significant Trees‘ so that:

.

‘No person shall ringbark, cut down, top, lop, injure, wilfully destroy or cause damage to the root system off any tree listed on the Register of Significant trees without consent of Council.’

.

Perhaps the current Blue Mountains Council mayor may care to publicly explain why its Significant Tree Number 5, a locally endemic Eucalyptus oreades (Blue Mountains Ash) of some stature located opposite 252 Old Bathurst Road Katoomba (Lot 2 DP707) has been woodchipped into oblivion?

• Was formal Blue Mountains Council consent given to kill it?
• If so, when was this Blue Mountains Council consent given to kill it?
• What Blue Mountains Council documentation is publicly available to validate such consent?
• What public notice was provided by Blue Mountains Council for community consultation about its killing?
• Does Blue Mountains Council give a bleeding toss?

.

The objectives of Blue Mountains Council’s Significant Tree Register include:

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

.

The following tree is not even on the Blue Mountains Council Significant Tree Register, so has even less chance of protection.

Katoomba’s most significant (grandfather) Eucalyptus oreades, beside Megalong Street

 Pitifully it manages to survive as an extremely rare relic of the once magnificent Oreades Forest

This tree is ‘endemic’ to the Central Upper Blue Mountains at Katoomba

(That is, it grows naturally nowhere else on the friggin Planet!) 

(Photo of Editor 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

But this tree is perpetually being subjected by Blue Mountains Council approved industrial development after industrial development – the road widening, the recent expansion of the bus depot across the road and now some ‘mega industrial’ estate behind it.  Blue Mountains Council pro-development forces are mounting against it.

.

The Mega industrial development immediately behind this magnificent native tree

~ but what would BMCC care?

(Photo by Habitat Investigator 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

The Theo Poulos promoted ‘Mega Industrial Park’

excavated right behind this rare, significant Eucalyptus oreades,

~ as if the developer or Theo Poulos gives a crap!

(Photo by Habitat Investigator 20120111, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

But then Blue Mountains Council’s so-called Significant Tree Register has always been a crock of deceptive community greenwashing!

As soon as any tree on its register becomes slightly inconvenient, our pro-development Blue Mountains Council, strangled by Liberal-Labor Party vested interests, easily turns a blind eye to significant Blue Mountain heritage and no more significant tree.

Is it any wonder that as the Blue Mountains is allowed to be developed and its natural amenity destroyed that outsiders no longer see the Blue Mountains as a significant attraction, but more as an extension of Sydney sprawl?  They just speed past on that forever faster, noisier and more dangerous Trucking Expressway!

.

Tasmania’s magnificent ‘Weld Forest’

~ one of Tasmania’s rare ancient forests constantly threatened

by Tasmanian Government recidivist logger ‘Forestry Tasmania’

.

Australia’s Gillard Labor Government yesterday (20120114)  announced an ‘interim legal protection for 428,000 ha’ ahead of tomorrow’s scheduled return of recidivist logging.

This appears good news which obviously the Gillard media release intends. But the process is duplicitous and sly.

Tasmania’s 2011 Forests Agreement is a community agreement about public forest protection involving taxpayer funded Forestry Tasmania so what moral right does the Labor Party have to deny the process being public – i.e. transparent and open?  Why is the forest map not publicly online showing the updates of the discussions?  Which 1950ha get the chainsaw and why?

This is the only available map. [Read Tasmanian Forest Protection Map 2011]

 

Professor Jonathan West, Chair of the Independent Verification Group has a lot to answer for.  Why has he not voiced outrage publicly of Forestry Tasmania’s illegal logging of the 430.000 hectares of native forests protected in Interim Reserves under the Agreement?

Relative position of the local Tasmanian community protest tree sit The Observer Tree

For ongoing updates visit The ObserverTree.org

.

 

Tasmania’s Forest Defender  – Miranda Gibson

stationed in a eco-Tree Sit 60 metres above the Styx Valley Forest floor

Visit: The ObserverTree.org

…waiting for Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard to honour her personal promise to Tasmanians to protect Tasmanian old growth forests for perpetuity.

.

572,000 hectares of Tasmania’s remaining old growth

…’as agreed‘ Julia!

.

‘Tassie forests deal like a Gunn to the head’

[Source: ‘Tassie forests deal like a Gunn to the head’, by political journalist Bruce Montgomery in Hobart, ^http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/06/tasmanian-forrests-deal-gillard-and-giddings/]above the Styx
.
‘The $276 million agreement that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings flaunted only a month ago as the ultimate peace deal to end the 40-year war in Tasmania’s forests is dead in the water.  It comes as no surprise to those who have sought to interpret the poorly drafted provisions of  the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) signed by Gillard and Giddings and those of the agreement that preceded it, the so-called Statement of Principles.

The Statement of Principles was the product of those purporting to represent the Tasmanian forest industry and the conservation movement to achieve a peace, most recently under the guidance of former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty.

Both documents appear to have been the work of plant operators rather than draftspeople.  Grammar and proofing blunders aside, the giant flaw in both agreements has been the right of conservation groups to identify and nominate another half a million hectares of Crown land in Tasmania to be annexed into reserves, perhaps to the status of national parks or World Heritage, in order to neuter, by law, the timber industry in Tasmania and to pay alms to its victims.

Private foresters, who manage 26% of the total forest cover, were excluded from the negotiations on the pretext that the talks did not involve forests on private land, yet clause 31 of the IGA specifically drags 885,000 hectares of private forests into the equation.

Such a deal, whether concluded at NGO or government level, was never going to pass Tasmania’s Upper House, the Legislative Council. If it did come to pass, it would seal the fate of the Labor-Green governments in Canberra and Hobart as far as Tasmanian voters were concerned.

The premise for the Statement of Principles and the IGA was that the major industrial player, Gunns, was getting out of native forest logging in favour of plantations in order to swing public and banker support behind its $2.5 billion pulp mill proposal at Long Reach on the Tamar River.

In effect, Gunns was about to place all its eggs in one basket, a world-scale pulp mill using only plantation timber.  Both agreements hinged on Gunns getting government compensation for its departure from public native forests, yet the mood in Tasmania has clearly been that Gunns should get nothing; its exit from native forests was being made on purely commercial grounds; it was immaterial that it had residual rights to use the public native forests.

If the Giddings government had been responsible for giving Gunns one red cent from the overall $276 million compensation package for the IGA, it would have faced political and electoral oblivion.

We don’t know what Gunns was offered in the end. It is thought to have been $23 million, but on the proviso that it pay its debts to Forestry Tasmania, a disputed $25 million.

Yesterday the Tasmanian government confirmed Gunns had rejected the offer, though Gunns, which has been in a trading halt on the stock exchange since August 8, said nothing.

Assuming that is right, it has the option to place those forest rights on the market. Since the IGA depends on those forests being protected, the keystone to the agreement is gone.’

.

‘Tasmanian forest deal riles green groups‘

[Source: ‘Tasmanian forest deal riles green groups’, by Lanai Vasek and Matthew Denholm, ‘The Australian’, 20120113, The Australian: ^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tasmanian-forest-deal-riles-green-groups/story-fn59niix-1226243780040]

.

The Gillard Labor Government has announced interim legal protection for 428,000 ha of Tasmania’s forests, but has been accused of reneging on a deal to deliver a larger logging ban.

Australia’s 27th Prime Minister, The Hon. Julia Gillard     (June 2010 – ?)

In her vital and privileged position, she has the power, influence, connections and taxpayer resources

to protect Tasmania’s 572,000 hectares of old growth native forests consistent with the IGA.

As usual, it comes down to political will, courage and innovative thinking – which is what we expect of our leaders.

.

Environment Minister Tony Burke announced the move today after the Greens suspended normal relations with the government in protest at continues logging of areas deemed sensitive.

The new Conservation Agreement with the Tasmanian Government falls 1950ha short of the forest protection promised under last year’s intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the Gillard and Giddings governments.

This provoked an angry reaction from environment groups, who said it had “shaken” their confidence in the two governments’ ability to deliver a broader agreement to protect up to 572,000ha.

And Greens leader Bob Brown said it was “a blueprint for the destruction of more than 20 square kilometres of high-conservation value forests”.

…The agreement provides legal protection to the area until an independent process decides how much of the larger area of 572,000ha deserves protection and can be locked up without harming existing timber contracts.

Mr Burke said the new interim deal was good for both forest conservation and jobs and would allow all parties to focus on supporting the longer-term independent verification process, expected to complete by June.

“With this agreement in place, all parties can now concentrate their efforts on assisting the important work of the Independent Verification Group, which is assessing the conservation values of the entire 572,000ha nominated by environmental non-governmental organisations, in addition to verifying long-term timber supply requirements,” Mr Burke said.

“This is a good result for Tasmania’s forestry industry, for local jobs and communities while protecting Tasmania’s iconic forests.”

However, the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Environment Tasmania all condemned the two governments for allowing logging in the 1950 ha, saying this included iconic, ancient forests in the Styx Valley, Weld Valley and The Tarkine, including endangered species habitat.

Earlier this week Greens leader Bob Brown said he would not resume his regular meetings with Julia Gillard once parliament returns next month unless she committed to ending logging. This afternoon, Senator Brown said he remained open to ad-hoc talks with Ms Gillard, who will visit Tasmania on the weekend, but accused her of reneging on the promise to protect the full 430,000ha in the IGA announced in August last year.

.

How is Tasmania’s Premier Lara Giddings dealing with the colonial cultural right to log Tasmania’s remaining ancient forests?

Only when Tasmania’s condemned old growth forest is ultimately logged, will neanderthal loggers ugg…

.

‘Where’s me big trees gone’ ?

.

Bill Kelty’s drafting of the IGA was a contradictory hoodwink

.

While the public message is $276 million (no less) to exit native forests and a logging moratorium, what is Lara Giddings saying privately to Forestry that we see its business as usual pursuing old growth logging self-righteously on its perceived right to log?

Under the conservation agreement, the Tasmanian government agency Forestry Tasmania is restrained from logging swathes of disputed public forest while the deal is settled.  However, evidence has been found of Forestry Tasmania continuing to penetrate its logging deep into these wilderness forests.   Meanwhile the contradictory message by the Giddings Labor Government to the Tasmanian forest industry is that it has a ‘guaranteed wood supply‘.

Perhaps having the $276 million cake she says its ok to log the forest too!

In 2004 the Timber Workers for Forests (TWFF) defended their “statutory requirement that a minimum of 300,000 m3 of high quality Eucalypt veneer and sawlog be made available annually.” It’s ‘Logging Statutory Requirement‘ versus ‘Native Logging Moratorium‘ allowing a duplicitous and sly parallel government message process.

Bill Kelty’s drafting of the IGA was worse that a compromise.  Its complex and contradictory legalese was a hookwink. Kelty’s wording allowed Forestry to have its cake and eat it.   On the one hand it promises Conservation (lumped as “ENGO’s”) under Clauses 25, 26 and 27 …”The State will immediately place the 430,000 ha of native forest…into Informal Reserves.”

While at the same time it also guarantees Forestry wood supply for the remaining industry under Clause 17…”At least 155 000 thousand cubic metres per year of high quality sawlog, by regulation, 265 000 metres per year of peeler billets, a speciality timber supply, noting that the industry claim is 12,500 cubic metres per year, subject to verification.”

So Forestry has has a window of logging opportunity to go for it while Professor Jonathan West’s Independent Verification Group decides the exact boundaries of the 430,000 and 572,000 for either protection or the chainsaw (Clause 20).  That decision was due 31st Dec 2011, two weeks ago.

.

“It is little wonder that many Tasmanians now worry that the woodchippers’ greed destroys not only their natural heritage, but distorts their parliament, deforms their polity and poisons their society. And perhaps it is for that reason that the battle for forests in Tasmania is as much about free speech and democracy – about a people’s right to exercise some control over their destiny, about their desire to have a better, freer society – as it is about wild lands.”

[Source:  ‘Out of Control: The tragedy of Tasmania’s forests’, by Richard Flanagan, in The Monthly, May 2007, ^http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-richard-flanagan-out-control-tragedy-tasmania-s-forests-512]

.

Logging invades Tasmania’s South-West wilderness in the Huon valley,

not far downstream of the above photo.

This logging is ruining the integrity of the adjacent Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

whose boundaries have been drawn to protect the treeless mountaintops

and leave the forested valleys to the loggers.

.

A ‘paddock tree’ in Australia – valued by farmers for their livestock shade

Also a desperate refuge for remnant wildlife, long denied their entire friggin forest!

.

A 19th Century farm meadow in Northern Ireland

Ulster American Folk Park, Castletown, Northern Ireland

(Photo by Editor 20060904, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

In a native forest, old trees naturally die and saplings germinate from the seed of their parent trees.  Native forests are living regenerating ecosystems.

But when humans destroy and disturb forest ecology, the forests change.  When humans destroy complete forests and leave a few token shade-providing ‘paddock trees‘ in deforested paddocks, and livestock fertilize the thin fragile soils, humans completely deny forest ecological succession.  Isolated trees are isolated trees, so they die.  Dieback is one such outcome – suitably named; that is ‘Deforestation Dieback‘ as distinct from the disease ‘Phytophthora dieback‘.

And now some are crying foul out over losing these token ‘paddock trees‘, despite the loss of the entire original forest not getting a mention.  This is such anthropocentric bias.  The 19th Century William Wordsworth/John Constable pastoral romanticism of what the English countryside ought to look like became the colonial vision for Australia from 1788.  It is this inherited notion of a ‘Colonial Bucolic Vista‘ and disturbingly it’s legacy still pervades Australian agricultural culture.

A classic vision of the bucolic English countryside

– where centuries of native heritage, agrarian culture and constant rainfall…permit.

.

‘Reversing a tree regeneration crisis’   (Dr Joern Fischer)

.

[Source: ‘Reversing a tree regeneration crisis’, by Dr Joern Fischer, Fenner School of the Environment and Society, ANU College of Medicine Biology and Environment, Summer 2009, Australian National University, ^http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=1725]

.

According to Australian National University (ANU) research published in the US-based ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2009):

.

  ‘Australia’s south-east temperate grazing region could be virtually treeless within decades.‘

.

‘The research team concluded that most of the trees scattered across millions of hectares of temperate grazing land in New South Wales and Victoria re old and close to death.  Existing land management practices (Ed: aka broadscale deforestation) have prevented regeneration of young trees to replace them.  The study pointed out that disappearance of ‘paddock trees’ would lead to loss of shelter for livestock, loss of habitat for birds and other wildlife, decreasing  water infiltration and other detrimental flow-on effects over the entire ecosystem.

.

(Ed: Is there any trace of a native forest ecosystem on rural farm holdings?  These shade tree deprived farmers didn’t complain when they were massacring Australian native forests.  A treeless wasteland is the consequence of deforestation, you fools!)

.

Dr Joern Fischer from the Fenner School of the Environment and Society says:

“Under existing management practices, millions of hectares of grazing country, currently supporting tens of millions of trees, will be treeless within decades from now,”  “And the loss of this tree cover is predicted to lead to massive declines in biodiversity and grazing productivity.”  Dr Fischer’s Sustainable Farms research group has spent the last couple of years documenting the extent of the tree regeneration failure and has been investigating if the situation can be reversed by changing land management.

“Although clearing has largely stopped, tree cover continues to decline because many existing trees are dying of old age, and few young trees are regenerating,” says Fischer. “We studied a 1,000,000 hectare area in the Upper Lachlan catchment of New South Wales. Typical paddock trees are often over 140 years old, and in many locations, no young trees have regenerated for decades.”

ANU’s Dr Joern Fischer’s research found that  ‘(native) trees are more likely to regenerate in unfertilised pastures under high -intensity rotational grazing than under conventional, continuous grazing.  Fischer states that the study found that maintaining tree cover over vast areas cannot be done without Nature’s help – that is to say via natural regeneration. Therefore, farm ecosystems must become self-sustaining, allowing for natural tree regeneration while also providing an income to farmers.

.
(Editor: What brilliant insight!  I hope the taxpayer didn’t fund such lay findings).

.

According to Tim Wetherill, ‘paddock trees‘ provide shelter for livestock, homes for native animals, barriers against soil erosion and a host of other benefits. They’re an icon of the Australian countryside’. 

[Source: ‘Reversing a tree regeneration crisis’, by Tim Wetherill, ANU News, Summer 2009, ^http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=1725]

.

 

(Editor:  “An icon of the Australian countryside”  What colonial Pastoral Romanticism!  What about the more important values of intact native forests before the farmers clearfelled them, burnt the remains and dragged the topsoil under plough?

.

The decidedly browner, drier reality of Australia’s  fragile disappearing native vegetation

Nature on the run: Hundreds of hectares of native animal habitat is bulldozed for a new housing development in Perth’s outer suburbs this year.

(Source: Perth Now, Photo by World Wildlife Fund, Australia 2009)

 

.

Fischer’s report continues…

.

‘It’s long been known that paddock trees in much of Australia’s temperate grazing region are not regenerating. With every year we lose a few more as the old trees die but nothing is coming through to replace them. In recent years there’s been a growing realisation that the situation is rapidly evolving into a crisis.

“Our study identified a short list of management options for maintaining paddock trees,” says Fischer. “In some areas, natural regeneration is unlikely in the short term, for example because there are few parent trees, or because soil nutrient levels are high. In such areas, scattered trees can be planted with re-usable tree guards that protect individual trees from livestock – some pioneering farmers are doing this already. Another option is to temporarily exclude livestock from a paddock prior to re-seeding it and resting it for several years – an approach successfully used by Greening Australia in the Canberra region.”

“Our findings suggest that self-perpetuating farm ecosystems with farms trees can be created by applying high intensity rotational grazing with long rest periods, and by phasing out fertiliser use,” explains Fischer. “Even where these practices are adopted, changes in tree regeneration will not occur overnight. But unless significant changes in management are introduced now, old trees will continue to disappear, and opportunities for natural regeneration will continue to be lost.

“The future of Australia’s paddock trees depends on urgent and widespread management action. While mature trees still exist, they provide regeneration nuclei throughout the landscape, thereby offering a window of opportunity to reverse the tree regeneration crisis.”

.

Editor:  Fischer’s quest to save ‘paddock trees’ is ecologically ‘penny wise, pound foolish’.  

If Fischer’s aim is to have paddock trees regenerate so that farmers’ livestock may continue to have shade from the sun, then farmers can jolly well plant out their own shade trees – simple problem solved cheaply.  Farmers could even propagate their own. 

If Fischer’s aim is to maintain the 19th Century notion of the colonial bucolic vista, then he is disingenuous about forest ecosystem regeneration and ought to transfer from Science to Arts and study English Romanticism .  

If Fischer’s aim is science-based forest ecosystem regeneration, then he should revisit the ANU Library and grab some appropriate books on forest ecosystem regeneration and realise that it is a tad more than about saving ‘paddock trees’). 

.

Behold the Colonial Bucolic Vista!  …derived from 18th and 19th Century Pastoral Romanticism…achieved by clearfelling, ploughing, fertilising, grazing and leaving a few token ‘paddock trees’.

.

‘Wivenhoe Park, Essex’

by 19th Century English Romantic painter John Constable

.

The colonial conversion of Australia

.

‘Older paddock trees are dying at a rapid rate’  (M. Sheahan)

.

[Source: ‘Isolated Trees’, by M. Sheahan, Murray Catchment Management Committee/Department of Land & Water Conservation, Border Rivers-Gwydir – Catchment Management Authority, ^http://brg.cma.nsw.gov.au/index.php?page=isolated-trees]

.

‘When the land was cleared for grazing and agriculture, isolated ‘shade’ trees were left across the landscape. These isolated trees are, in many areas, all that remain of the native vegetation which once covered the land. As time passes, these trees are aging and dying, sometimes prematurely. If no action is taken to prevent their decline or replace them, we will be left with a treeless land – exacerbating land degradation and changing the face of a familiar landscape.

.
What are isolated trees?

.

Isolated trees can be defined as ‘trees around which the other components of a native vegetation community have been removed’. In some vegetation communities, like Open Woodland, the trees are naturally well-spaced. Trees in these communities are not considered to be ‘isolated’, if the vegetation community they are a part of generally remains intact.

.
The values of isolated trees

.

Isolated trees have a range of important values, including:

• Scenic and aesthetic value – isolated trees are, in many instances, what gives the Australian landscape its unique character. What would your area look like if all the isolated trees had gone?
• Shade – isolated trees provide shade for stock, enhancing livestock performance by preventing heat stress.
• Nesting sites for wildlife – many isolated trees are old, and commonly they have hollows. These hollows are used by many species of native animals, including birds, insect-eating bats and mammals. A third of all woodland birds require hollows for nesting, so these old trees may be the only place in the landscape where these species can breed. Hollows only begin to form in Eucalypts after about 100 years – the trees you plant today will take at least this long to replace the old isolated trees.
• Feeding sites for wildlife

.

A 300 year old Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) with a height of 20 metres and a diameter of 1.5 metres has a bark area of about 94 sq. metres. In comparison, a 20 year old tree which is 15 metres high with a diameter of 20cm has a bark surface area of just 9 metres. This extra bark (10 times more on the old tree) supports a diversity of insect life which can provide 10 times more food for insect eating birds.  Healthy mature trees also produce more nectar, foliage and fruits than young trees, as the younger trees put more energy into growth in height.

.

Connective value

.

• Isolated trees can act like ‘stepping stones’, enabling birds and other species to move across the landscape.
• Fallen limbs – fallen limbs provide habitat for a range of ground­-dwelling species.
• Nutrient cycling – the deep roots of isolated trees bring nutrients deep from the soil profile. These are then released at the surface in leaves, twigs, and branches that fall from the trees.
• Seed source – isolated trees can shower the site with seed, helping natural regeneration.

.

Why are they dying?

.

Isolated trees are, commonly, in decline and dying in some regions. This may be because they are old and reaching the end of their natural life, and they are not being replaced.

However, they may be dying prematurely, as a result of the change in land use around them. The changes which are affecting them can include:

• Soil compaction from stock
• Increased nutrient levels from stock and fertilisers
• Insect attack (the understorey, which provides the habitat of the insects natural predators, has been removed)
• Changes in the watertable
• Use of herbicides

.

.
Saving the ones that are left

.

Large trees were naturally once part of a functioning ecosystem that contained a range of other plant species and wildlife.  Now they are sitting out on their own, surrounded by grazed pasture or crop-land. Their support mechanisms – the understorey which contained habitat for the predators of insects, neighbouring trees for protection and pollination – have been removed.

Ideally, to ensure their survival, we need to try and re­create the conditions that existed before. This means re-instating a ‘web of life’ that brings back the tree’s support system.

There are three actions that can help this – fence, revegetate and connect.

• Fence the trees, or clumps of trees, so that an area twice the size of their canopies is protected. If the ground cover is weedy, or is dominated by introduced pasture grasses, these will need to be controlled.
• Revegetate this area with locally native shrubs and groundcover. Allow the trees to regenerate from seed-fall.
• Connect these fenced clumps together and link them to larger areas of native vegetation, such as roadsides, stock routes and reserves.

.

In some situations, this may not be practical. It might cost too much, might take too long or may take too much land out of production. If so, consider the following:

• Avoid the use of fertilisers under the canopy and around the trees;
• Avoid cultivating under the canopy of the trees;
• Ensure herbicide doesn’t drift onto the trees;
• Don’t scorch the trees if burning off; and
• Leave fallen branches and sticks where they fall under the trees.
• Fencing is still important. Fence out the larger clumps where possible. If planning new fencelines, position them to provide protection for clumps of older trees.

.

Temporary fencing is one of the best solutions for managing isolated trees, to ‘give them a break’ and to encourage growth and regeneration. This should be twice the size of the canopy of the tree/s. After 2 or 3 years, young seedlings may have grown above browse height, so the fence can be moved to another tree or clump of trees.

.
The importance of groundcover

.

It might not seem important, but in all cases, the quality of the ground layer is a critical factor in:

• determining the health of isolated trees
• their ability to regenerate.

.

If the groundcover is dominated by native species, then older trees will more easily recover and regenerate. If the groundcover is weedy, or dominated by introduced grasses, recovery and regeneration will be difficult to promote.   This is because weeds and vigorous introduced grasses like Phalaris intercept a lot of soil moisture before it can be taken up by the trees. The introduced grasses develop a dense sward, which suppresses tree regeneration.  If the groundcover is weedy or dominated by introduced species, these species need to be controlled.

.
‘Intensifying agriculture – removal of isolated trees’

.

Advances in agriculture have seen the introduction of wider machinery and new agricultural systems. To adopt these new and more efficient systems it is sometimes felt necessary to remove some or all of the isolated trees in a paddock.  The condition of isolated trees can decline, as branch tips die and, as condition declines, defoliation becomes intensive.

The process can be reversed if sound management is applied. However, if removal of trees is proposed to intensify agricultural enterprises, favour the retention of trees in better condition.  Indeed, the advent of new systems and machinery, and the associated conversion of grazing land to crop land, and crop land to irrigation, has the potential to dramatically reduce the number of trees in the landscape. This would lead to undesirable consequences – land and water degradation, loss of wildlife, and the loss of a familiar and pleasing landscape.

However, with sound planning, it may be possible to maintain the values of isolated trees and encourage more efficient agricultural systems.  Isolated trees fall within the definition of ‘native vegetation’ under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997. Clearing of native vegetation (unless exempt) requires an application to be made to the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

The chance of any application being successful will be much greater where the landholder is willing to `trade off’ the removal of some isolated trees, in return for better protection and management of other isolated trees and native vegetation. In doing so, a ‘win-win’ outcome may be able to be achieved. Given that the condition of many isolated trees is rapidly declining, such an outcome can ensure that there is no ‘net loss’ of vegetation over the long term, and that the landholder can make his or her enterprise more efficient.

.
‘Developing a proposal for intensifying agriculture’

.

First, you will need to map your proposal on a property plan or aerial photograph. In doing so, identify where the development can take place with the least impact on native vegetation.

• Site the proposed development on the land with least number of trees, and on areas with trees of poorer condition;
• Site the proposed development on land where the ground cover is dominated by weeds or introduced grasses, rather than on land with native ground cover;
• Avoid areas of remnant native vegetation and habitat features such as watercourses and wetlands;
• Identify areas where clumps of trees, including old or large trees, can be retained;
• Maintain corridors of trees and native vegetation that connect to other patches of native vegetation both inside and outside the property. These corridors could connect clumps of isolated trees, follow natural features such as watercourses or ridges, or be retained along fencelines; and
• Propose better protection (i.e. fencing) and management of retained vegetation.

.
Second, arrange for a Catchment Manager or Vegetation Management Officer to discuss your proposal on site before you complete a clearing application. Ring you nearest Department of Land and Water Conservation office to arrange this.

Once was a Shade Tree, once was a Forest

Now a dead reminder of self-righteous colonial exploitation

(Photo: Kate Sherren)

.

References:.

.

• Cremer, K.W (1990) Trees for rural Australia. Inkata Press, Melbourne.
• DNRE (1990) Wildlife needs natural tree hollows. Land For Wildlife Note No. 6 Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.
• DNRE (1992) Old Trees for Wildlife. Land for Wildlife Note No. 18. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.
• Nadolny, C. et al. (1997) A farmers guide to trees and bushland. North West Catchment Management Committee, Tamworth.
• Reid, N. (1996) Managing mistletoe. North West Catchment Management Committee, Tamworth.
• Wakefield, S. & Goldney, D. (1996) Assessing scattered farm trees, in Save The Bush Toolkit Charles Sturt University, Bathurst.
• Wakefield, S. & Goldney, D. (1996) Managing scattered farm trees, in Save the bush toolkit. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst.

.