Blue Mountains {city} Council’s latest greenwashing promotion of itself, it terms its ‘Planetary Health Initiative‘.

But what on Earth is this construct syntax ‘planetary health‘? 

Some quick online research reveals it’s all about human health, not that of planet Earth.  It is another anthropocentric ideology, so those guilty of damaging native habitat can feel warm and fuzzy by token eco-gesturing. 

 

The Habitat Advocate disagrees strongly with any anthropocentric philosophies.   In stark contrast and transparently, we advocate the ‘Deep Ecology‘ philosophy – meaning:

“Deep ecology, environmental philosophy and social movement based in the belief that humans must radically change their relationship to Nature from one that values nature solely for its usefulness to human beings to one that recognizes that Nature has an inherent value.”

This is a recommended read:  ^https://www.britannica.com/topic/deep-ecology

 

In our view, ‘Planetary Health’ comes under the realm of ‘Greenwashing‘ – typically a public relations ploy used by both governments and corporations that are way short of best practice to protect the natural environment under their custodial stewardship, so they resort to token public relations campaigns using expert consultants and publicly trusted ‘celebrities’ to message ‘ecological care’ when it isn’t.   Blue Mountains {city} Council is a serial offender of greenwashing – we think the worst in Australia given the council’s location (surrounded by and upstream of natural World Heritage), its record of environmental neglect and harm, and its hubris about is continual self back-patting claims of its ecological stewardship.  

 

Greenwashing?

“‘Greenwashing’ is a term used to describe false or misleading environmental claims. Greenwashing makes business appear more environmentally beneficial than they really are.  Omitting information can amount to a false or misleading representation or misleading or deceptive conduct, depending upon the circumstances and the overall impression created.  We consider a business to be engaging in greenwashing where they use any claim that makes a product or service seem better or less harmful for the environment than it really is.   Sometimes businesses accidentally mislead consumers. By following the ACCC’s guidance, businesses that make environment or sustainability claims are less likely to mislead consumers and break the law.”

[SOURCE:  ‘Greenwashing defined’, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,  ^https://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-and-promotions/environmental-and-sustainability-claims]

 

A reality check:

 

Where is this current high density townhouse development taking place? 

It’s more than 3 km from Katoomba’s retail precinct, isolated on the defunct golf course site (was fairway #3) within just 100 meters of the World Heritage Jamison Valley escarpment across Narrowneck Road.  Here’s the location map with the black star showing the site location of the above photo image.

 

In our view, hardly close to amenities, and these properties aren’t cheap…

 

 

The defunct Katoomba Golf Course Clubhouse?

 

At Council’s public meeting of 29th September 2020, councillors endorsed purchase of the defunct Katoomba Golf Course Clubhouse site (1 Acacia Street, Katoomba) for $3.3 million using ratepayers’ money of course, not theirs.  So, an easy low-risk decision by said councillors who voted ‘YES’.   

That old defunct clubhouse sits alongside the similarly defunct Katoomba 18-hole golf course – long owned by council.   This combined site has become council’s largest operational land holding, at 29.66 hectares (so pretty much 30 hectares).  It’s bigger than Ben Hur.  It exceeds Council budget and Council doesn’t know what to do with it.  

 

A key Blue Mountains community question here is that given the Katoomba Golf Club and its predominant owner at the time, golfer Geoff Reed of Reed Constructions had in 2012 gone into liquidation, and the Club then followed suit being liquidated in 2013; so to whom did Council pay the $3.3 million out of Blue Mountains ratepayers’ funds?   

Presumably, the money was paid to the Katoomba Golf Club’s liquidator so as to pay off the Club’s owed creditors and owed staff salary entitlements.   This means that local ratepayers ultimately bailed out this failed golf club, not Council.  This sham had all the while for well over a decade, seen Council senior management and ratepayer-elected councillors stage numerous closed-door secret meetings at Council chambers with the Club and developers (denying access to ratepayers) – yet those developers ultimately all went bloody broke, and ratepayers took the can.

All the while for decades, fewer were interested in playing golf.  The writing had been on the wall for decades.

 

Quite separately, a third adjoining site to the direct east of the Clubhouse used to also be part of the community land that Council undertook in 1920 to be for explicit sole use for the old Katoomba Golf Club.  But multiple dodgy closed door meetings by Council re-zoned numerous fairways into ‘operational land’ (so deeming the land saleable) so that Council could flog them off for profiteering of community land  to a developer for dense housing development, which it did during in the 1990’s for its own coffers.

That’s just a brief background to this multi-decade saga.   

1. So why did Council buy it? 
2. What was the hard sell to councillors who voted to approve the purchase? 
3. Who benefits? 
4. What is the return on investment for Blue Mountains ratepayers? 
5. How is this part of Council’s remit? 
6. Surely there were opportunity costs for a lazy $3.3 million – like potholes fixed, rates reduced, landslips properly repaired and vital access roads re-opened?
7. Did this $3.3 million purchase of a tired building (hardly an “asset”) ever appear on Council’s strategy plans, like on its 2017 ‘Blue Mountains Community Strategic Plan 2035’?

 

Council since its 2020 purchase of the Clubhouse, has for the past four years been trumpeting its planned re-purposing of this 30 hectare defunct recreational site, including options for re-use of the old clubhouse.  Before, that purchase and before any local community consultation.  Council’s consultation with the local community didn’t start until 14th March 2022.  

Council at least two years prior had already (secretly again) seconded external consultants for ideas about the site’s possible uses (another Greenwashing public relations campaign to justify Council’s $3.3 million expense of ratepayer’s funds and its proposed ‘noble’ initiative). 

Yet, The Habitat Advocate previously accessed Council’s webpage.  We also made a written submission which we shall soon share publicly in a subsequent article on this website. 

We discovered the following fine print, which reveals Council had already pre-decided that any community ideas would have to conform within its notion of restoring planetary health – whatever Council decided to have that mean…

Quote:

“Former Katoomba Golf Course Precinct Plan

You’re invited to imagine the future of the former Katoomba Golf Course Precinct

At this extraordinary time, at an extraordinary site in our City within a World Heritage Area, we have an amazing opportunity to do something special.

We urgently need to take better care of nature to protect our own health. Our City is perfectly positioned to explore ways to care for our planet’s natural systems and share these solutions globally.

With Traditional Custodians, our community, educators and researchers from a number of universities, Blue Mountains City Council is exploring opportunities related to planetary health initiatives at the former Katoomba Golf Course precinct (clubhouse and adjoining 30 hectares of public land). We are doing this for the long-term benefit of our City and our community and to create new job opportunities.

We want to know – what opportunities you see for the former Katoomba Golf Course site? How do you think this site could be transformed to help restore planetary health?”

 

That is why in Council’s media release about the purchase, Council was already on the front foot flagging its pre-arranged re-purposing plans for the large site under its newly conceived  ‘Blue Mountains Planetary Health Initiative‘.  Read the two media releases we reproduce below – one by Council dated 5th October 2020, the other by Western Sydney University dated 10th December 2020. Recall councillors approved the purchase of the clubhouse on Tuesday 29th September 2020, just a week before Council’s media release, as stated in this article.

 

 

 

A few fact checks here…

 

 

The same verge 50 metres south along Narrowneck Road…

And the forthcoming beneficiaries of Council’s so-called planetary health initiative? …

 

Council has set up a webpage that defines its understanding of this rather academic globalist concept of ‘Planetary Health‘, stating:  “Its aim is to provide a framework for us to reassess and adapt human practices to better support a healthy planet for current and future generations.”

Council webpage on this rattles on…  GoTo:  ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/what-planetary-health

 

 

Council’s initiative programme is being delegated to Blue Mountains local Lis Bastian, now Council’s Senior Programme Lead for the Planetary Health Local Action Programme.  Now there’s a bureaucratic mouthful.  Ms Bastian is an experienced art teacher, grassroots environmentalists of sorts with a passion for The Arts and Permaculture amongst other interests and public leadership roles.  An eco-celebrity being used by Council to garner trust with the local community.  A brave person to take on this role.

But Council didn’t initiate this “Planetary Health” nonsense.

Prior to Council effectively buying back a building asset on the community land of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley it had long already owned, Council had consulted with Western Sydney University to try to attract university interest and ongoing funding for this otherwise very large defunct recreational site on the edge of Katoomba.

This is the Western Sydney University’s media release timed around the same time of Council’s purchase of the Golf Clubhouse (actually, less than two weeks later from 29th September 2020, thus:

 

‘Western Sydney University to explore Planetary Health excellence in local area’

2020-12-10, by Emma Sandham, Senior Media Office, Western Sydney University, ^SOURCE

 

“Western Sydney University has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Blue Mountains City Council (BMCC) and the Monash Sustainable Development Institute to explore the establishment of a Planetary Health Leadership Centre in Katoomba.

The Centre – to focus on the emerging science of Planetary Health, which links our activities with the health of people and the planet – is set to be based at the former Katoomba Golf Clubhouse recently purchased by BMCC.

Western Sydney University’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice President (Research, Enterprise and International) Professor Deborah Sweeney commended the signing, which will place Western at the forefront of this emerging interdisciplinary research field.

“This MOU underpins the University’s mission of striving for innovation and excellence in its pursuit of impactful research that solves some of our most pressing local, regional, national and international challenges,” said Professor Sweeney.

The Planetary Health Leadership Centre’s (PHLC) proposed aims include:

• The research and promotion of sustainable living, environmental science and other initiatives relating to how human practices can better support a healthy planet for current and future generations;
• Research into climate change and bushfire management, and their impact on the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and its unique biodiversity;
• A reinvigorated sustainability model for the region based on the principles of planetary health;
• A substantive forum for BMCC, academics, local stakeholders, and global theorists and practitioners to be in meaningful dialogue about:
  • the practicalities of enacting transitions to cultures of planetary health;
  • the undertaking of research and promoting the development of strategies to improve the environmental health of the planet and to respond to the challenges of climate change, natural disaster, bushfire, and other processes which threaten sustainable living;
  • emulating the persona of the Blue Mountains as a unique place that fosters a culture of diverse and high quality creative endeavour as a City of the Arts.

Blue Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill said: “The signing of this MOU to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Blue Mountain’s World Heritage status announcement, is fitting.

Planetary Health is a global imperative.  It resonates with the people of the Blue Mountains, but it is a matter for all people globally.”

For further information about plans for the PHLC, please contact Professor Nicky Morrison nicky.morrison@westernsydney.edu.au.

 

Yet, before 2020, we find this online academic article on Planetary Health dated September 2018…

 

‘Planetary Health: From the Wellspring of Holistic Medicine to Personal and Public Health Imperative’

by Susan L Prescott 1, and Alan C Logan 2, PMID: 30316687 DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2018.09.002, National Library of Medicine (an official website of the United States government), ^SOURCE.

 

Abstract

“The term planetary health – denoting the interconnections between the health of person and place at all scales – emerged from the environmental and holistic health movements of the 1970-80s; in 1980, Friends of the Earth expanded the World Health Organization definition of health, stating: “health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and ecological well-being and not merely the absence of disease – personal health involves planetary health”.

By the 1990s, the concept of planetary health was part of the fabric of integrative medicine; more recently, after the 2015 Lancet Commission on Planetary Health report, the concept has penetrated mainstream academic and medical discourse.

Here, we explore this history and describe its relevance to contemporary healthcare; integrative medicine is uniquely positioned to educate and advocate on behalf of patients and communities (current and future generations), helping to safeguard health of person, place and planet.

We use the emerging microbiome science as a way to illustrate the interconnectivity and health implications of ecosystems (including social/political/economic systems) at all scales. As highlighted in the Canmore Declaration, mainstream planetary health discourse will be strengthened by inter-professional healthcare perspectives, and a more sophisticated understanding of the ways in which social dominance orientation and medical authoritarianism compromise the World Health Organization’s broad vision of global health.

Planetary health isn’t a “new discipline”; it is merely an extension of a concept that was understood by our ancestors, and remains the vocation of all healthcare providers. Discourse on the topic requires cultural competency, critical consciousness and a greater appreciation of marginalized voices.”  

 

Ok, so this term ‘Planetary Health’ pre-existed as a human holistic health concept back in the 1960’s.  So, it was definitely NOT Blue Mountains {city} Council’s original initiative.  Yet, admittedly borrowed from some external consultant – a university or one more local?  

Notably, the term ‘planetary health‘ from this definition from 2018 is clearly NOT about the health of the planet, but rather the health of person and place.  The notion is purely anthropocentric  – meaning “regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals“. [Oxford Dictionary]   

It states that by the 1990s, the concept of planetary health was part of the fabric of integrative medicine.  So NOT ecology.

Council has made up it’s own different definition, akin to somehow saving the planet.  But clearly not by what it does itself, but by what it expects others to do.

Out of the blue then in 2020, Blue Mountains {city} Council issued a press release to the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper

 

‘University push for Katoomba as council buys old golf clubhouse site’

2020-10-05, ^https://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/6954634/university-push-for-katoomba-as-council-buys-old-golf-clubhouse-site/

 

“Two universities are planning to establish a centre in Katoomba under a major proposal unveiled by Blue Mountains City Council.  Monash University and Western Sydney University are currently finalising a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with council after it purchased the old Katoomba Golf Clubhouse site for about $3.3 million.  The MoU sets out a commitment to establish a leadership centre of international significance in the field of planetary health at the clubhouse site.

Monash University’s Sustainable Development Institute director, Professor Tony Capon, described the plan as “a visionary way to mark the 20th anniversary of the UNESCO world heritage listing of the Greater Blue Mountains Area next month.  We are very much looking forward to pressing forward with our shared vision for planetary health in the Blue Mountains,” he said.

Councillors endorsed the purchase of the clubhouse site that sits alongside the former Katoomba golf course – already owned by council – at their September 29 meeting.  The purchase makes the site council’s largest operational land holding, at 29.66 hectares.

Blue Mountains Mayor Mark Greenhill:  “The site is a strategic investment opportunity with significant potential benefits for the city in the short, medium and long term,”
“Council will explore, with the community, the best strategic options for future uses of the precinct through the upcoming master plan process for Katoomba.  What’s exciting is that this opportunity gives us our first real chance to work with universities to establish a leadership centre in the Blue Mountains that would provide jobs, as well as income that comes from sources other than rates.”

Establishing a planetary health leadership centre with universities was part of a local strategic planning statement endorsed by council this March.

Discussions with the universities have canvassed linking the centre with a hub in Katoomba’s town centre.

A UNESCO Chair in Planetary Health, funded by an external donor, could also be attached to the learning centre.

Professor Capon said the emerging field of planetary health “acknowledges that human health entirely depends on the health of natural systems. The COVID-19 pandemic, and last year’s unprecedented bushfire season, are signs that our current lifestyles are out of balance with nature”.

“In the interest of the well-being of all people, we should re-think the way we feed, move, house, clothe and power the world,” he said. “The Planetary Health Leadership Centre will advance practical solutions to everyday challenges, and strive for planetary conscious in the way we live.”

Blue Mountains mayor Mark Greenhill and Blue Mountains City Council CEO Dr Rosemary Dillon at the former Katoomba Golf Clubhouse (below).

Blue Mountains City Council CEO Dr Rosemary Dillon said the former clubhouse site has “significant potential to support appropriate development of this precinct that enables sustainable economic and social development, as well as job creation.  By purchasing the clubhouse site, it remains in council’s ownership and leverages opportunities for the future.”  She said “it is a fitting gift to the city – and the world – that we look to establish such a significant centre” as the Blue Mountains prepares to celebrate the 20th anniversary of its world heritage listing.

The purchase has been funded by council’s property investment fund and internal sources to avoid the long-term cost of borrowing.

While the establishment of any university-linked centre is likely years away, council believes income generated from the site in the short term will help cover the costs associated with the facility and maintenance of the former golf course site.”

 

Council’s corporate culture still blindly considers it’s a “city”.  It’s management and staff need to get outside that ivory tower more.

 

Our Blue Mountains region is the antithesis of being a city.  It remains one of the last natural tracts of contiguous forested land in New South Wales and indeed Australia.  That is why many local folk campaigned from the 1920s to protect it to achieve its World Heritage status.   So why celebrate an ugly ‘city’ status for this beautiful and rare natural place in which we live?   

According to Council’s ‘Blue Mountains Planetary Health Initiative’ webpage, it wants us to recognise as humans #WeAreNature.   Yet, the reality is that with the planet’s human population plague at 8.1 billion and forecast to reach a “milestone” of 10 Billion by 2058 according to the United Nations, humans are not Nature but a virulent destructive, self-serving plague; hardly a Natural phenomenon. 

 

 

Council’s ‘city’ mindset emanated from councillors proclaiming the string of villages along the Cox’s Watershed to be a ‘City’ back in post-war 1946.  That’s where the bureaucrats mindset is stuck, still boasting in its media releases of  “celebrating the unique privilege of managing a City within a World Heritage Area“.   A city is not a privilege.  It is an oxymoron.  The mindset poses a threat to World Heritage – mostly juxtaposed downstream of Council’s encouraged urban development.

If council management, staff and councillors want to live in a city they should go back to the Sydney megalopolis which permeates on our Nepean River boundary – and crossing it recently by gerrymandering the NSW Penrith electoral boundary into Glenbrook.  The Blue Mountains is not ‘Greater’ Sydney.  When a NSW Government declaration, like a lockdown, is imposed for Greater Sydney, it does NOT affect the Blue Mountains. 

 

---

 

References:

 

[1]   ‘What is Planetary Health?‘, Blue Mountains {city} Council, ^https://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/what-planetary-health

 

[2]   ‘University push for Katoomba as council buys old golf clubhouse site‘, 2020-10-05, by Damien Madigan,  Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper, ^https://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/6954634/university-push-for-katoomba-as-council-buys-old-golf-clubhouse-site/

 

[3]   ‘Western Sydney University to explore Planetary Health excellence in local area‘, 10 December 2020, by Emma Sandham, Senior Media Office
^https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/story_archive/2020/western_sydney_university_to_explore_planetary_health_excellence_in_local_area

 

[4]    ‘Yarrabee is an Aboriginal word meaning ‘lot of gums‘, “Aboriginal Words and Their Meanings” by JH Sugden), Yarrabee is a place in Queensland. Yarrabee Close was built in 1975, ^https://history.lakemac.com.au/page-local-history.aspx?pid=1085&vid=20&tmpt=narrative&narid=3023.

 

[5]    ‘Deep Ecology‘ defined, Encyclopaedia Brittannica   ^https://www.britannica.com/topic/deep-ecology

 

[6]    ‘Centre for Planetary Health hypocrisy‘, 2024-05-28, by The Habitat Advocate, ^https://habitatadvocate.com.au/centre-for-planetary-health-hypocrisy/

 

[7]    ‘Greenwashing‘  defined, by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,  ^https://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-and-promotions/environmental-and-sustainability-claims]

 

[8]    ‘Katoomba Golf Club’s escarpment vandalism‘, 2013-07-05, by The Habitat Advocate, ^https://habitatadvocate.com.au/katoomba-golf-clubs-escarpment-vandalism/

 

[9]    ‘Wollumboola threatened by selfish 20thC ‘golf’‘, 2011-09-02, by The Habitat Advocate, ^https://habitatadvocate.com.au/wollumboola-threatened-by-selfish-20thc-golf/

 

[10]    ‘Yarrabee Katoomba‘, by Real Estate.com, ^https://www.realestate.com.au/project/yarrabee-katoomba-600040364 , accessed 2024-06-01

 

[11]    ‘Yarrabee Katoomba‘ , by McGrath Real Estate, ^https://yarrabeekatoomba.com.au/

 

[12]   ‘Is Economy Or Lack Of Interest Hurting Golf?‘, 2011-05-23, by Ian Hutchinson , ^http://www.golfnewsnow.ca/2011/05/23/is-economy-or-lack-of-interest-hurting-golf/]

 

There is a legacy of hoaxes, scams, cons, white elephants, crazy schemes and plans, wacky ideologies and bandwagon movements globally (since before the notorious Dutch Tulip Mania of 1634), and including sadly throughout Australia; also indeed right here in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales.

Possibly the worst on the cards currently is Blue Mountains {city} Council’s conjured up ‘Centre for Planetary Health Initiative‘, which is set to re-purpose its disused and ultimately failed Katoomba Golf Course situated on the western edge of Katoomba.   

Actually, it seems that this initiative was not Council’s idea, but introduced from Western Sydney University via an intermediary we shall say.  Those in Council’s ivory tower chambers, situated aloof from town, appear to have been hoodwinked by some cult-type global noble phenomenon, termed ‘Planetary Health‘.

‘Planetary Health‘ is an interesting construct.   Where did this crop up from?   Well, our research shall soon reveal the background to this latest fad in subsequent articles.

A decade after Katoomba Golf Course inevitably went broke in 2013, this exotic religious ornament propped up unannounced on Council’s old Katoomba Golf Course site just outside the old club house.  Perhaps the timing was just after Blue Mountains [city} Council forking out $3.3 million of ratepayers’ funds to buy back the golf course club house building on the combined site that it had originally owned. 

We presume this obelisk is not Aboriginal, but may have arrived from a falling comet from the Cosmos, else some Council notional ‘Kumbaya’ committee thought bubble.  Who knows?

 

 

So who on Council arranged this ugly cult thing at Council’s defunct Katoomba Golf Course? 

Back on 8th October 2019, nearby Radiata Plateau outside Katoomba was sold by the Indian religious cult, the Transcendental Meditation Organization (TMO), to the NSW Government Minister for the Environment (NPWS), Matt Kean for $2.8 million.   So is this where the TMO ended up, quid pro quo? 

A zoom-in of this ‘cult-thing’ to some maharishi yogi…

 

Clearly something odd is going down in Council’s ivory tower over in North Katoomba.  Katoomba residents around the old golf course are not impressed, especially local dog walkers being denied by Council off-leash access on the 30-hectare golf course.

‘Planetary Health‘ seems to be some motherhood construct.   It conveys a sense of ‘warm and fuzzy’ do-gooding.   The choice combined wording is a syntax slogan morally is difficult to criticise.  This ‘initiative’ sounds wonderful in concept and hard to morally criticise, so IT MUST BE GOOD?   Good for the planet and good for health?  Such is what propaganda is about.  We suspect this is a deliberate propaganda ploy by another organised social movement.  We shall explore this background.

The Habitat Advocate has been in The Mountains since 2001.  We didn’t come down in the last shower.  We have experienced dealing with Blue Mountains {city} Council especially on matters negatively impacting Katoomba Falls Creek Valley as a member (2002-2008) of the Friends of Katoomba Falls Creek Valley Incorporated.  This includes protesting against the now defunct 30 hectare Katoomba Golf Course and its expansionism and residential developments.  

Local residents, again, are concerned with Blue Mountains Council’s motives and undisclosed plans and ends for this public land site that has a record of dodgy ‘Confidential Business Papers, secret closed-door council meetings and deals dubbed ‘commercial-in-confidence’, all the while council has repeatedly wasted ratepayers’ funds for decades in order to bail out its hair-brained golfing mates’ developments and expansions. 

 

A bit of relevant history:

 

Back in 1920, a group of local Katoomba businessmen (golfers) initially set up ‘The South Katoomba Land Company Limited‘ having the idea of leasing bushland on the edge of Katoomba near the Jamison Valley escarpment from then custodial owners ‘The Council of the Municipality of Katoomba‘ (now Blue Mountains {city} Council) –  to deforest the bushland and watercourse in order to convert the land use into a convenient local golf links for their golfing leisure.  This was the heyday of golf, popular up to the 1960s.  

Council was very obliging, probably because many of the then male councillors enjoyed playing few rounds.   ‘The South Katoomba Land Company Limited‘ morphed into becoming Katoomba Golf Club Ltd and so had the golf links constructed – we suspect with generous financial support from Council’s ratepayers’ funds.  This will become evident by reading further. 

By 1923, it was a 9-hole golf course replete with a moderate club house.  It was popular and became crowded, so by 1927, double the bushland was deforested eastward and northward to expand it into an 18-hole golf course. 

Over the decades, Council then acquired adjoining bushland sites to expand the size of the golf course out to about 74 acres (30 hectares).  That’s 300,000 m², or the equivalent area of 550m x 550m – a big chunk of bushland, which included a watercourse and series of natural swamps – all graded and swallowed up – bugger the ecology!  Golf being more important, like Council’s bulldozed Catalina car racing track nearby in The Gully in 1957!  This was all in the same Katoomba Falls Creek Valley natural water catchment above Katoomba Falls.

Later in May 1991, it was Council itself that proposed funding the tenants of the golf course, Katoomba Golf Club Ltd, a massive residential expansion development proposal.

 

Council labelled its own initiated development ‘Katoomba Golf Resort and Spa‘.  It was an A3-sized spiral-bound booklet of 30 pages including promotional ‘artist impression’ watercolour drawings that included a proposed large 2-storey club house including a licensed hotel, multiple function facilities and 48-room ‘lodge’ accommodation in two adjoining side wings either side of the club house/hotel.   

So, a conflict of interest by Council as custodial landlord of this public land to fund a commercial tenant’s recreational interests, or what?   

Here are a few extracts of that proposal commission by Blue Mountains {city} Council via its outsourced developer Leisure Lea Corporation to St Leonard’s based architects John Bruce and Partners: 

 

 

 

Note that multiple golf fairways/holes were to be re-purposed so driving the need to maintain the golf club’s 18-hole golf course offering by Council’s acquisition and re-zoning of surrounding community bushland.  This was an ongoing programme of destructive environmental expansionism for the pursuit of a dying pastime – Golf.   The architectural costs of this plan would have been considerable – all paid by local ratepayers.   

Just one of many examples of Blue Mountains [city} Council’s secret deals concerning its dodgy secrecy with their golfing mates, whilst exploiting ratepayers’ funds behind closed doors:

Council had sold off a number of fairways to housing developer, Mr Tracey Lake of Noroton Holdings Pty Limited, to use the land to build a hotel and ab0ut 20-odd townhouses. 

For over a decade the various developments schemes for the mixed use site were negotiated with Council in secret behind closed doors for more than a decade – suspiciously, the proceeds of Council’s partial land sell-off of what was ordiginall community land (rezoned operational by Council to enable it to be sold for housing, was used to prop the failing Katoomba Golf Club multiple times.   

Mr Lake’s business went broke and re-emerged as Numarra Pty Limited in 2004 and as Katoomba Escarpment Estates Pty Ltd (KEE).  In 2010, Council approved a 99-year lease of the Golf Course to Reed Constructions, which had controlling ownership in the club.   Then the golf course expanded into surround bush to recreate its 18-hole course status.   In 2012, Reed Constructions went into liquidation.  Then Katoomba Golf Club went into liquidation on Monday 1 July 2013.   

In 2020 Council bough the club house using $3.3 million of ratepayers’ funds.  The adjoining townhouse development persists to this day.

 

This is Blue Mountains {city} Council hypocrisy in spades.  Since when has Blue Mountains {city} Council been trusted?

Katoomba Golf Course ultimately went broke, first during Council’s re-zoned residential development and sale to Noroton Holdings Pty Limited, then by Reed Constructions in 2013.   Council all the while schemed with the lessee and successive developers behind closed-door backroom deals, misappropriating Blue Mountains ratepayers’ funds to prop up this dated golfing failed venture. 

Outcome?  A dog’s breakfast. 

 

 

The Katoomba Golf Course had gone broke in 2013 basically due to the lack of local general interest in playing golf.   The similar demise has afflicted the antiquated courses at  Lawson, Wentworth Falls, and Leura, and decades ago the one at Mount Victoria once attached to the Victoria and Albert Hotel harking from before The Great War.

So over time, disused golf clubs incrementally have sold off their land for housing development.   Notably, this includes the golf clubs at Leura, Wentworth Falls and Katoomba.  The defunct Lawson golf course remained in Council ownership, and being so remote, Council proposed no housing development to be viable.

Back to Katoomba Golf Course…

 

 

 

Our Blue Mountains (‘The Mountains’) have a destructive bombardment record of deforestation of this valley to suit its own ends backing selfish indulgences of wealthy business people wishing to indulge in their sporting pastimes – like playing golf, and watching car racing, and profiting from amusements parks (like Catalina and Scenic World).   Cultural spots don’t change.

Council’s old business paper records reveal that near Blackheath some enterprising nutter once proposed Australian prime ministers’ equivalent gouging like Mount Rushmore be carved into the west facing escarpment of Fortress Ridge, so viewable to tourists from Govetts Leap Lookout on the western side of the Gross Gorge, plus a glass elevator shaft up and down Bridal Veil Falls nearby.  There used to be cattle grazing in the Blue Gum Forest and Kanangra and previously in the mid 19th Century, the colonial government of NSW proposed building a railway line up the Grose River Gorge from Windsor to Lithgow.

Exploitative damage to The Mountains natural landscape, along with the permanent destruction of native habitat, has been encouraged by successive governments since 19th Century English immigrant ‘robber baron’ John Britty North’s deforestation and mining exploits of Katoomba in the 1870s.  

Now a decade after Katoomba Golf Course went into liquidation in 2013 and lay abandoned for a decade,  Council since 2020 indulged $3.3 million of Blue Mountains ratepayers’ funds to buy back the golf course and club house.

Government’s latest hair-brained scheme like this failed Katoomba Golf Course site smells surely of more Blue Mountains {city} Council’s PR greenwashing again.  ‘Blue Mountains Centre for Planetary Health’.  Seriously?

Research the history of this 30-hectare site to begin to understand our cynicism.  Where to start?  Start with our thirty-year knowledge and environmental protest legacy perhaps.

The site was Community land.  The original Katoomba Golf Club leased the lands from the land holder Blue Mountain Council in 1920.

Check this document.  A Declaration of Trust with Council that the land only be used for recreation…

 

Embarrassingly so, Blue Mountains {city} Council re-imagined a re-purposing of its failed golf club from a century since 1920.  Bureaucrats are slow learners.  Actually, they most never learn from their mistakes because they are granted impunity from any accountability.   The head honcho fat cat bureaucrats in BMCC senior management are still there, raking it in for themselves and wrecking the joint.

This is our previous article on this matter from 2013: 

Katoomba Golf Club’s escarpment vandalism

 

References:

 

[1]    ‘Declaration of Trust‘, between  The South Katoomba Land Company Limited to The Council of the Municipality of Katoomba, 28th January 1920, declaring said specified council land in Katoomba for the sole purpose of lessee use for golf links, as witnessed by Hughes & Hughes solicitors of 26 Hunter Street Sydney, (3 pages), resourced from The Neil Lewis Stuart Archive – Topic Group ‘F2: Valley Threats Katoomba Golf Course’;

 

[2]   ‘Katoomba Golf and Resort Spa Resort‘ land-use development proposal, Development Agreement Documents, May 1991, by John Bruce + Partners (architects) for Ted Stirling PGA of Golf Development Resources, resourced from The Neil Lewis Stuart Archive – Topic Group ‘F2: Valley Threats Katoomba Golf Course’, A3-size, 30 pages;   

 

[3]   ‘Katoomba Golf Club membership brochure‘, circa 1999, 2 pages, resourced from The Neil Lewis Stuart Archive – Topic Group ‘F2: Valley Threats Katoomba Golf Course’;

 

[4]   ‘Item C3 in Confidential Business Paper – Katoomba Golf Course Development‘, 12 Nov 2002, ‘Quality Local Government’, Ordinary Meeting business paper Page 17, Blue Mountains {city} Council , File No: H00003, 1 page, resourced from The Neil Lewis Stuart Archive – Topic Group ‘F2: Valley Threats Katoomba Golf Course’;

 

[5]    ‘Tulip Mania‘ speculative frenzy, Holland [17th-century], by Doug Ashburn, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024-05-07,  ^https://www.britannica.com/money/Tulip-Mania

 

 

Live vegetation is waste management JJ Richards?

Above is our consultant’s tree branch from his street verge taken out by Blue Mountains {city} Council outsourced waste management truck to JJ Richards meatheads last Thursday 16th February 2023.  

We felt Council might like to get out of its ivory tower high rise offices isolated from ratepayers and find out what is actually going on in its so-called city within a disappearing World Heritage Area.  So this is our memento to Council and its hypocritical ‘planetary health’ sentiment.

Whilst working from home at the time we heard the recycle truck outside doing it rounds in the street and then snap!   So he went out to inspect.

 

 

 

So as a resident ratepayer, what does one do? 

Pick up the pieces, saw off the hacked tree limb, clear the footpath.  It wasn’t even green bin collection, as in green waste.

 

Here’s the culprit driver we caught taking off heading back to Council base minutes later.

 

Quite a noisy and distinctive vehicle in our short quiet street, so we went outside and watched it depart.

 

This particular day was ‘yellow lid bin’ recycled waste removal day.  Council gets recycled waste collected fortnightly.   

Our mutually courteous arrangement with the waste removal drivers has worked just fine for many years without issue.   No yellow lid bins were outside our premises at the time of removal.  They never are, because we position all bins on the other side of our street where there are no verge trees, so that the driver gets a clear run.  It’s the same for the weekly garbage collection (red lid bins) and also for the garden green organic waste (green lid bins). 

But J.J. Richards in November 2022 must have employed a new driver to do a run that included our street.  This when the garbage started.  We noted this because the driver turned up around lunch time instead off the normal mid-morning, taking a different route only to back track many times.  He seemed lost.  Likely no handover training was provided by J.J. Richards from their older experienced bloke to this malicious meathead.   So what happened to the older experienced bloke we’d had for two decades?

And on his first round this malicious meathead hit the curb at the end of our street, failing to judge the sharp corner.   

 

Two weeks after the curb was run over by JJ Richards, and reported and the concrete stormwater cover re-positioned, the same driver hit the same curb and stormwater cover again.  Slow learner!

Unbelievable!

Council was informed a second time but chose to ignore the Customer Service Request (CSR) complaint and simply closed the CSR we suspect to exaggerate its statistics; not the first time.    How about fixing our footpath before a local pedestrian coming home in the dark breaks their foot.

 

We reported this stormwater drain cover damage by the truck to Blue Mountains {city} Council twice since November 2022.  The initial Customer Service Request (CSR) reference number was  441245.  Council fixed it the first time, but next month the same trucker collected it again.   The damage was again reported , yet three months later it remained damaged and dangerous for pedestrians, especially at night.

Clearly the driver of the J.J. Richards waste truck lacks the skills to know that tight corners require a wider margin to allow the rear wheels with a smaller turning circle to miss the inside curb.  (This author has held a heavy combination ‘HC’ semi license since the 1980’s).

In disbelief, we delivered our severed tree limb to Blue Mountains {city} Council’s reception to pass on to its Waste Management department with a please explain.

 

 

Council’s Waste services did not respond to our complaint until 3rd March 2023, thus:

 

“I’m writing in regards to your phone call lodging a CSR on 16 February and your follow up email providing photos of the damaged branch out the front of your property.

We are sorry that the tree has been damaged in this way.  We have asked JJ’s to review the footage.  From lifting the bin at a previous property and moving toward the bin and the next property, the truck did go under the overhanging tree.  The footage shows that a very small branch dropped behind the truck, so the driver wasn’t aware of the damaged branch shown in your photos.  The driver will be asked to take particular care in the future.”

(Rebecca) Manager, Resource Recovery & Waste Services, Blue Mountains Council.

 

“Very small branch”?   Garbage!  It was 2 metres long and 5 cm thick.  Our overhand is 2.7 metres about the road, ideal for shade for cars given that there is precious little shade around our area.  But is is not suited to bulldozing truck incompetent meatheads!   The JJ Richards truck cabin roof front will surely have a dent atop.

So Council management, enjoy our dead shrub!   Have J.J Richards waste collect it. 

 

 

Some bloke at JJ Richards (Aaron) rang us to say JJ Richard’s were inspecting their recycle truck’s dashcams.   We never got that call back from Aaron. 

 

Then a week later, JJ Richards (green lid) waste truck ran over the same corner curb.  The driver is either a meathead else serial offender employed by JJ Richards and Sons Pty Ltd, probably with dodgy quals and no reference checks.  

Council’s Waste Manager Rebeccas claims a Council maintenance team “s promptly actioned” the stormwater drain cover damage and after subsequent damage would “rectify the safety hazard the damaged stormwater covers pose”.  However, Council maintenance team did nothing of the sort.   On Sunday 12^th March I chatted with a nearby neighbour about this saga, and he told me he’s heard and seen truck hit the curb in question, and that he has taken it upon himself to reposition the concrete stormwater three times. 

Yet Rebecca reckons her maintenance crew fixed the three damage episodes?  She’s in desk-bound Lalaland.

 

 

Seriously, this JJ Richards serial malicious meathead trucker off the road, before a local pedestrian trips or gets seriously injured!  Where else is he causing streetscape havoc vandalism?

 

JJ Richards ‘Total Waste Management‘ means…?  

 

… red lid bins, indeed any lid coloured bins, curbs, stormwater drain lids, verges, trees, parked cars, other trucks, buildings, pedestrians, councillors…the planet. 

JJ Richards TOTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT !

 

 

 

 

 

 

With Council’s waste manager in denial and ignoring our requests concerning this matter, we’ve tried engaging directly with JJ Richards Contract manager Aaron Hilliard.  This is the same person who didn’t get back to us once he watched his culprit driver’s dashcam footage running into our verge tree.

On 16th March 2023 it went like this:

“Hello Aaron,  as requested, I forward you my correspondence with Blue Mountains Council since November 2022 complaining about the damage in my street (and then verge) by this same JJ Richards Driver).  It includes my photo records.  Please read these, and understand that all I want is for this ongoing damage to stop, and then please investigate and sort this ASAP and  let me know the outcome.  Much appreciated. “ 

Aaron’s reply:

“I spoke to Rebecca (Manager, Resource Recovery & Waste Services, Blue Mountains Council) yesterday again about the issues you have raised.  Rebecca has now advised that all correspondence should go through Council for their follow up.  Please contact Council with any further issues you experience with the waste, recycling & garden organics services.  Thank you. Aaron”

Our response:

“It may be inconvenient to both JJ Richards and Council, but the malicious damage cause by JJ Richards as waste contractor to Blue Mountains Council it is more inconvenient to me.  I shall continue to contact both JJ Richards and Council until this problem is properly resolved. Ignoring our complaint will only prologue the matter and escalate it into politics and the media, if that is what you both want.”

 

On 28th March we phone JJ Richards again trying to track down Aaron’s boss at Glendenning.   We’re told Aaron was on the tools  at the time (back on the road driving a  JJ truck) to fill in for JJ drivers taking sickies.   Reception puts us through to ‘Ray’, who comes across as older than Aaron and we suspect Rat report to Aaron not vice versa.  Ray says he knows nothing, so we email him Ray about the saga, asking all we just want this JJ Richards street damage and harassment to us to end.   

No replies yet from Ray, not unsurprisingly.   So, we’ll keep moving up the JJ Richards pecking order (garbage trail). 

 

INCIDENT 5:

Gets worse…Tuesday 28th March at 7:30am, a JJ Richards recycle truck pulls up outside our home and puts his reversing alert on for up to 10 minutes, but without actually reversing.

Tuesday’s not a scheduled waste collection day nor was there any booked curbside household waste to collect anywhere in our small street.

The loud beeping noise woke us up, so I go outside into the street and the driver suddenly took off.  Harassment or what?

I shall get his rego next time on video.  He’s on notice for such harassment.   

Council’s waster manager Rebecca claimed the driver was looking for an empty a missed recycle bin from the Thursday prior after the owner complained.  Our street of all of 100 metres in length, so not exactly difficulty to find the only bin put out for collection in the street.  

It remains full.  Unbelievable.  We have a meathead  on our hands and Council and JJ Richards are in collaborative denial. 

Has this individual had background police checks before he started working at JJ Richards?  Has he got mental health issues or a criminal history such as a an AVO perhaps?

I saw him on his run last Thursday, observing he is a younger male perhaps in his 30s with medium length blonde dreadlock hair. 

The saga continues…

---

We recall a previous trucking meathead back on 2 August 2019 who crashed his Metromix Concrete mixer truck into a crash barrier nearby.

 

 

 

Oddly, Council gave Metromix the concrete contract, but not to properly replace the damaged barrier, but to construct new concrete curbing.  Well, it’s one way to get a council contract, s’pose.  Two years later though in August 2021.  The verge is full of weeds.  Welcome to The Gully.

 

 

 

We do monitor the ongoing damage in The Gully in Katoomba, a gazetted heritage place since 2002, and our surrounding historical North’s Estate streetscape dating back to 1876 and heritage listed.  We’ve been based here since 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

Dead fox found near Braeside Track, Blackheath, Blue Mountains in 2006

There was no sign of it being shot.  Was it baited?

(Photo by Editor, 20060722, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)

.

In June 2012, Gerry from Hazelbrook in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney wrote in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper:

“Our  place backs on to bushland.  The other morning I was looking out the kitchen window and I saw two foxes just beyond our back fence, ambling along, very relaxed, looking like they owned the place.  They were large, and looking extremely well fed.

A few days earlier I had seen a very large feral cat stalking prey in the same area.

Question: whose brief is feral animal control in the Blue Mountains, and what to they actually do about the problem?”

[Source: ‘Who is responsible?’, (letter to the editor), by Gerry Binder, Hazelbrook, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20120627, p.4]

.

Well, no one from the authorities responded to Gerry in the newspaper.

So who is responsible for fox control across the Blue Mountains?   One would be inclined to consider the local Blue Mountains Council, or the regional National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)  if the fox is in the National Park.

A phone call to Blue Mountains Council today revealed that the Council does not get involved in feral animal control.  It has no policy or strategy to deal with the fox problem, or indeed with feral predation in the Blue Mountains local government area (LGA).

This area comprises two east-west human-settled corridors through the central region of the Blue Mountains: (1) along the Great Western Highway (including Hazelbrook) and (2) along the Bells Line of Road.   Both corridors are surrounded and upstream of the UNESCO-listed Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

According to the Blue Mountains Council, feral animal control across the Blue Mountains, outside the World Heritage Area, is handled by the New South Wales Government Department, the Livestock Health and Pest Authority.  So to answer Gerry’s question above, if anyone has an issue with foxes outside the World Heritage Area, don’t contact Blue Mountains Council, but instead contact the the Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA).

The LHPA has geographically divided the Blue Mountains region into two serviced districts.  From Bullaburra east back toward Sydney, the Cumberland Livestock Health and Pest Authority based at Camden takes an interest (Tel: 02-6331 1377).  From Wentworth Falls west to Bathurst, the Bathurst Livestock Health and Pest Authority based at Bathurst takes an interest (Tel: 02-4655 9165).

The Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA) is primarily tasked with safeguarding agriculture from threats – such as feral predation, insect control, livestock disease prevention and health.  It has sixty offices across NSW and works with rural producers, government and industry to safeguard agriculture in NSW.  The LHPA operates under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (NSW) and is ultimately accountable to the NSW Minister for Primary Industries.

Strangely enough, the LHPA has NOT listed foxes as ‘declared pests’ in NSW.  It does list wild rabbits, wild dogs, feral pigs and locusts as declared pests.   The reason is one of jurisdiction and legal delegation.  The LHPA is primarily charged with safeguarding agriculture, not safeguarding native habitat and fauna.  It classes foxes and mice merely as ‘nuisance animals’ throughout New South Wales and states that there is no legal obligation for a landholder in NSW to control foxes or mice.   LHPA only provides control advice and assistance to rural property owners.  So in relation to fox control, the LHPA is more token and lip service.  Blue Mountains Council adopts a complete cop out approach to the fox problem across the Blue Mountains.

From its brochure on foxes, the control methods LHPA adopts for fox control are:

1. 1080 poison (sodium monofluoroacetate) – a cruel and indiscriminate poison, that kills slowly (carnivores up to 21 hours) causes pain, suffering, trembling, convulsion and vomiting.  It is banned in most countries because it is considered inhumane, but still used across Australia.  [Read More: ^http://www.wlpa.org/1080_poison.htm]
2. Rubber jawed leg hold traps
3. Mesh cage traps, which seem the most humane option.

[Source:  Livestock Health and Pest Authority website, ^http://www.lhpa.org.au/pests]

.

This is its public brochure on foxes and note that shooting is not mentioned as an option:

LHPA Brochure on Foxes

[Source: ^http://www.lhpa.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/434014/Final-foxes.pdf]

.

A week after Gerry’s letter, on the front page of the Blue Mountains Gazette ran the story of a Burns Road resident in nearby Springwood discovering that his cat Sam had been caught in a wild dog trap.  Sam’s legs had been broken by the trap and he was euthanised as a result.   The article in the paper stated that the Blue Mountains Council and  National Parks and Wildlife Service were jointly undertaking a trapping programme in the Blaxland to Springwood area after receiving complaints about wild dogs.  Traps has been set along a fire trail to catch the wild dogs.     [Source: ‘Sad end for Sam’, by Damien Madigan, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20120704, p.1]

Rubber Jaw Leg-Hold Trap

.

That the cat was roaming in the bushland down a fire trail, suggests that it may well have been preying on wildlife as well.  What is the difference in wildlife impact between that of a targeted wild dog, and a companion cat that is roaming wild in bushland?  That the trap broke the cat’s legs meant that the control method was not humane.  It also means that trapping, like poisoning is an indiscriminate form of feral animal control.  So herein lies a challenge of feral predator control.

Native Dingo caught in a rubber jaw leg-hold trap

It confirms that trapping is indiscriminate

.

In May 2011, Paul from Winmalee in the Blue Mountains, with his stated background in wildlife conservation, wrote in his letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette that shooting feral animals as a conservation measure is a largely inefficient way to control foxes.  “The National Parks and Wildlife Service has done studies showing that shooting/hunting feral animals has minimal affect (sic) on their numbers”, he said.      [Source: ‘Not conservation’ (letter to the editor), by Paul Bailey, Winmalee, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20110511, p.8]

.

Recreational shooting of feral animals can attract the wrong mentality

.

Back in July 2011, a local Blue Mountains resident, ‘Don’, asked in his email to The Habitat Advocate “would you like to give some coverage to the lack of ongoing fox control around Katoomba?”   Don clarified in his email:

“Quite a good effort was made about 3-4 years ago (2007-08) and for about 18 months afterwards there was no sign of foxes but, as happens all too often with the bureaucratic model of pest animal control, there was no ongoing effort and foxes are now back in serious numbers, as can be detected by direct sightings, tracks and scats.

We have noticed huge losses amongst wood duck especially (the ducklings are very vulnerable to fox predation) and the swamp wallaby population is no-where near what it should be. In fact, observable wallaby numbers are down on what they were ten or fifteen years ago.

The cost of control programmes is obviously an issue. Unfortunately, due to the parasitisation of the environmental movement by animal rights folk, self-sustaining control measures such as the commercial exploitation of foxes for their skins is no longer pursued. If that remains the case, can we realistically expect the politicians ever to find the money for ongoing effective fox control, given the competing environmental considerations, not to mention budgetary issues such as mental health, which is sorely languishing?”

Feral Foxes are healthy across the Blue Mountains

.

Don’s request happened to be our very first request for onground action and so we shall stay by Don and see that his very legitimate request is pursued.

Our understanding is that across the Blue Mountains region, there are three categories of land ownership/control which would be impacted by fox predation:

1. The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
2. Council lands spread across 8 multiple Local Government Areas (LGAs) of:
   1. Blue Mountains
   2. Lithgow
   3. Oberon
   4. Wollondilly
   5. Hawkesbury
   6. Muswellbrook
   7. Singleton
   8. Mid-Western Regional (Mudgee)
3. Private land including urban, rural, farms and to a small extent, mining leasehold land

Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area

(Source: New South Wales then Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2007)

(Click image to enlarge)

.

The custodial responsibility for managing the natural values of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is the Australian Government.  The area totals roughly 10,000 square kilometres (1.03 million hectares) of sandstone plateaux, escarpments and gorges dominated by temperate eucalypt forest.   It comprises eight protected areas:

1. Blue Mountains National Park
2. Kanangra-Boyd National Park
3. Wollemi National Park
4. Gardens of Stone National Park
5. Yengo National Park
6. Nattai National Park
7. Thirlmere Lakes National Park
8. Jenolan Caves Karst Conservation Reserve

‘Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’

Listed by UNESCO in 2000 for its unique and significant natural values

(Photo by the Rural Fire Service)

.

Fauna of the Blue Mountains region classified as ‘threatened with extinction’ or ‘rare’ include the Tiger Quoll, the Koala, the Yellow-bellied Glider, the Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby and the Long-nosed Potoroo as well as rare reptiles and endangered amphibians such as the Green and Golden Bell Frog, the Blue Mountain Water Skink  and the Broad-headed Snake and endangered birds like the Regent Honeyeater.    The largest predator of the region is the Australian Dingo to which its natural prey in the region is the Grey Kangaroo and various subspecies of Wallaby, other macropods, small marsupials and reptiles.

Tiger Quoll   (Dasyurus maculatus)

Also known as the spotted-tail quoll (which we consider a rather naff politically correct name)

An endangered carnivore, native to the Blue Mountains and competing with the Dingo and feral fox as the top order predator of the region

(Photo by OzTrek)

.

The feral fox, being carnivorous, poses two types of threats to wildlife across the Blue Mountains region.  It preys on small ground dwelling animals and reptiles.  It also competes for prey with the Tiger Quoll and Dingo.

.

Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area – significant natural values

.

The Australian Government has outsourced and delegated its custodial responsibility for managing the natural values of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to the New South Wales State Government, which has in turn delegated the responsibility to one of its departments, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS).

At the time of writing, the NSW NPWS, is part of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), within the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.  One has to check every four years or so, because the department changes its name that frequently.  This is the current website, but that could change too: ^http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/about

The regional office of the NSW NPWS is located in Katoomba in the Blue Mountains.

Conservation management of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, including feral animal control, is guided by a number of documents.  Pertinent to the fox predation threat, the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area listing includes World Heritage natural values worth conserving and protecting under World Heritage Natural Criterion 44 (a)(iv):

“…contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation…”

.

[Source: ‘The Greater Blue Mountains Area – World Heritage Nomination‘, 1998, prepared by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service in association with Environment Australia, p 30, referencing World Heritage Operational Guidelines 1998, ^http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/blue-mountains/pubs/gbm-nomination.pdf  [>Read Nomination‘  5.7MB, PDF]

.

Pertinent to fox predation threat, The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area meets World Heritage Natural Criterion 44 (a)(iv) by it including significant habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity, taxa of conservation significance, exceptional diversity of habitats providing outstanding representation of the Australian fauna within a single place.  These include endemic species, relict species, species with a restricted range, and rare or threatened species (40 vertebrate taxa – including 12 mammal species) and examples of species of global significance such as the Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) and the Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus aculeatus).

[Source: ‘Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Values‘, Australian Government, Department of Environment et al., ^http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/blue-mountains/values.html , accessed August 2012]

.

.

Threat Abatement Plan – Predation by Foxes

.

In 1999, the Australian Government’s Department of Environment et al. published a threat abatement plan (TAP) which established a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia’s response to the impacts of European red foxes on biodiversity.  It sought to comply with Australia’s Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 to promote the recovery of species and ecological communities that are endangered or vulnerable, and to prevent other species and ecological communities from becoming endangered.

In Schedule 3 of the Act, Predation by the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is listed as a key threatening process.  The focus of this plan is on the actions required to reduce the threat posed by foxes to endangered or vulnerable species or ecological communities.

It concluded that ‘eradication of foxes on the mainland is not possible‘ and so settled for methods to reduce fox numbers and predation on wildlife in significant areas. The fox abatement plan aimed to reduce the impact of fox predation on native wildlife over a 5-year period by:

The Australian Government’s funding to implement the plan was to be primarily through funding programmes of the Natural Heritage Trust.

The ideal of the Fox Threat Abatement Plan was to eradicate foxes, which seems fair enough.  To achieve fox eradication it proposed:

.

However, because foxes had become so well established across a vast area, the plan pre-concluded that complete removal of foxes from Australia was well beyond the capacity of available techniques and resources.  Saunders et al. (1995) reviewed current knowledge on techniques for suppressing fox populations including poison baiting, shooting, trapping, hunting with dogs and fumigating dens.  The review concluded that, with the exception of broad-scale baiting, the existing control methods are expensive, labour intensive, require continuing management effort and can be effective in only limited areas.

[Ed:  This reads as a self-fulfilling ‘too-hard basket’ prophecy by bureaucrats.  Do nothing, and for sure, nothing will happen]

.

Baiting

The fox abatement plan considered that in most situations, poison baiting (using 1080 poison) was the most effective method of reducing fox numbers and impact.  However, it acknowledged the negative impact on non-target species.  “A major drawback is that it may affect native carnivores and scavengers such as dingoes, quolls, goannas and some scavenging birds, and also domestic dogs.”  Whoops.

“Aerial baiting of foxes has been demonstrated to be an effective method of control for covering large areas provided the risk of non-target bait uptake is minimal.”

Sounds the kind of spiel akin to the CIA about its collateral damage in Vietnam with its Agent Orange sorties.   Well Western Australia is happy to use aerial baiting of 1080 over large areas (up to three million hectares) and has been shown to dramatically reduce fox numbers.  Apparently, it has had minimal impact on populations of rare species because the native fauna somehow have a higher resistance to the naturally occurring 1080 poison found in native plants.  Mmm, where is the proof?

..

Biological Control

This was more conceptual a strategy, since no current pathogen yet exists that is virulent, humane and specific to foxes and not transferable to other species.  The idea is that by targeting fox fertility, an effective long-term approach to reducing their numbers can be achieved.  Fertility control is still at an experimental stage of development. It has not been successfully applied to a free-ranging population of wild vertebrates over a large area nor has it been attempted as a method of reducing the impacts of predation on an endangered or vulnerable species.   Methods of fertility control include hormone treatment and sterility (immunocontraceptive technology).  However, some scientists and wildlife managers remain sceptical about the likely success and effectiveness of this approach (Carter, 1995). The obstacles to achieving a workable method are formidable and include:

.

Barriers to Fox Invasion

Fences have been proposed as a component in conservation management programs to protect endangered species from predators such as foxes and cats.  A large range of fence designs has been used to exclude foxes from particular areas but there is little information on the effectiveness of particular designs.

A recent review of predator-proof fencing in Australia (Coman and McCutchan, 1994) found that although fences can be a significant barrier to foxes, even the most elaborate can be breached. Frequent monitoring for the presence of foxes inside the fence is an essential precaution as considerable damage can be caused by a single fox breaching the fence.

Shortcomings of fences include posing a hazard to non-target wildlife, restricting the natural ability of native animals to disperse, the high cost of predator-proof fencing and the necessary maintenance costs for it to be effective.   However, recent studies at Shark Bay, Western Australia have found that a combination strategy of fencing, baiting, trapping along with a combination of natural water barriers, can be effective fencing on peninsulas (Department of Conservation and Land Management, 1994).

[Ed: Question is did it adversely affect non-target native species?     One could incinerate the entire landscape, defoliate it, concrete it so there may be not foxes left, but then no wildlife as well.  This seems consistent with West Australia’s simplistic blanket one-size-fits-all approach to environmental control].

.

Habitat Management

In environments with dense vegetation, steep topography, rocky crevices or extensive wetlands, prey are less likely to be caught by foxes (Saunders et al.et. al. 1995).  [Ed: This would seem to describe the Blue Mountains landscape with its many impassable escarpments]

The foraging efficiency of foxes seems to be maximal in open habitats where they are able to range widely and freely. They readily use roads, tracks and other cleared access ways through denser vegetation or complex topography.  [Ed:  This has been encouraged by the frequent fire regime of the Rural Fires Service and NPWS to remove thick vegetation labelled as ‘fuel’].

Arboreal marsupials become vulnerable when they descend to the ground to move between trees. A continuous canopy and a thick understorey of shrubs enable them to move about in the trees where they are not at risk from fox predation. An important conservation strategy for some situations will be to minimise habitat fragmentation and to investigate options for fire, grazing or other management practices which do not destroy ground habitat.

.

Fox Bounties

Reviews of the history of fox management in particular (Braysher, 1993; Saunders et al.et. al. 1995), concluded that fox bounties have rarely been effective.  There is little evidence, except occasionally and in small areas, that hunting of foxes has a significant or lasting impact on fox numbers or the damage they cause. Where private land adjoins or contains important wildlife habitat, assistance or encouragement to landholders and the development of incentives to promote fox control on private land may be appropriate, especially if the property forms part of a buffer zone to protect threatened species populations.

[Ed:  This is a scientific lesson for the current NSW OFarrell Government in light of its recent decision to counter legislate for hunting in 79 National Parks across the State for supposed feral animals like foxes]

.

[Source:  ‘Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox‘, Biodiversity Group Environment Australia, 1999, Australian Government’s Department of Environment et al.,  ^http://www.environment.gov.au/archive/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/foxes/index.html]

.

Blue Mountains Urban Fox Programme (2003)

.

In 2001, the NSW NPWS published its ‘Fox Threat Abatement Plan 2001′.

This is it:   >’NSW Threat Abatement Plan – Predation by the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), December 2001‘   (PDF, 930kb)

Then in 2003, the NPWS along with the Blue Mountains Council and other government agencies commissioned a public survey using a questionnaire method to gauge public perception about the impact of foxes across the Blue Mountains.  An external consultant as engaged and a committee formed, the Blue Mountains Urban Fox Steering Committee‘. 

The survey found that foxes were indeed considered a problem in the Blue Mountains.   In January 2004, published in the survey results included was that 64% of those surveyed considered foxes to be a major problem.  The impact of foxes was 30% domestic animal impacts, 12% wildlife impacts, and 6% property damage impacts.  53% of respondents felt that not enough was being done to manage foxes in the Blue Mountains townships and surrounding natural areas.

And so the assembled committee prepared a strategy document on the management of ‘urban foxes’ and some education material.  But it wasn’t to control foxes…

“The top two priorities of this strategy are for:

• community education
• local research on foxes and their impacts.

.

It was a bureaucratic waste of time so that Blue Mountains NPWS could be politically seen to be thinking about doing something about foxes.   The gain was corp0rate-political for NPWS Blue Mountains Senior Ranger, Chris Banffy, to be seen to be doing something on paper, but nothing on the ground, financial gain for the engaged Pest Management Consultant, Nicola Mason.

True to consultant form there was the big survey, survey advertising, data collation, published results in January 2004 and a follow up community workshop on 26th March 2004.

Yes, there was community education published in May 2004.  It took the form of another two page A4 brochure.  Here it is, as two scanned pages.

.

Community Education Page 1:

Click image to enlarge and read

.

Community Education Page 2:

Click image to enlarge and read

.

And of course, NPWS did nothing about the Blue Mountains confirmed fox problem.  It just built a bigger library of reports.

Was it due to lack of funding or lack of direction from Environment ministers.  Or perhaps it always just a token public servant ‘look busy’ project to be seen to be thinking about doing something to justify one’s cosy job perpetuation?   Certainly to the foxes of the Blue Mountains, it was business-as-usual and they saw nothing from the entire exercise.

And still the fox threat continues unabated

.

The whole project was a steaming scat, perhaps one of the better construed abuses of taxpayer and ratepayer funds of the Blue Mountains in living memory.

In 2006, the NPWS then umbrella department called the ‘Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) in its ‘State of the Environment Report 2006′, Chapter 6 on Biodiversity, reported on ‘ Terrestrial Invasive Species (Section 6.4).  It acknowledged the feral predation problem, combining it with the weed problem:

“Invasive species remain one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in New South Wales. Over half of all the key threatening processes listed relate to invasive species.  Once invasive species become widely established, few can ever be eradicated, and controlling them must focus on strategically limiting their impacts on biodiversity.  The main vertebrate pests in NSW have been present for the last century, with many widespread across the State.

Predation by foxes and cats is implicated in the decline or extinction of numerous small- to medium-sized animals. Herbivores, particularly rabbits and feral goats, are responsible for overgrazing of native vegetation and land degradation.   Some 1350 exotic plant species have become established in NSW, more than 300 of which are significant environmental weeds.  New pest species continue to become established in the environment. Combining prevention, early detection and eradication is the most cost-effective way to minimise the impacts of new pests.”

.

DECC listed ‘Introduced Terrestrial Species’ (Ed: a fancy name for feral foxes and cats, etc) as a key bio-indicator of National Park health, with pest animals having a devastating impact on biodiversity. Predation by feral cats and red foxes had contributed to regional declines and the extinction of a range of native species, particularly among small-to medium-sized ground-dwelling and semi-arboreal mammals, ground-nesting birds, and freshwater turtles (Dickman 1996).

DECC recommended better coordination efforts across jurisdictions to target control efforts for species listed as key threatening processes, and research into more effective and target-specific control methods, such as biological control.   It prepared a NSW Threat Abatement Plan (TAP).  It prioritised feral cat control based on a review of the evidence of cat impacts, and little mention of foxes.  The threat abatement strategy was “Research…Develop and trial a cat-specific bait that will ensure non-target species are not impacted.”

[Source:  New South Wales Government’s Department of Environment et al., 2006,  ^http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/pas_ktp_profile.aspx?id=20008]

.

Then three years hence in 2007, the NPWS fox survey report was getting a tad stale, so NPWS did another survey and another report.  The Katoomba NPWS regional office this time was aggregation feral animals with weeds, and calling the lot ‘pests’.   It was drafting its ‘regional pest strategy’ and foxes were now grouped with weeds.   It asked for community input, but like most government strategies, they stopped short of funded action to do anything except generate another report confirming a problem that needed to be addressed.  This is the report:

[>’Blue Mountains Pest Strategy (NPWS 2007-2011)‘  (PDF, 1.7MB]

 

In 2008, the Australian Government’s ‘1999 Fox Threat Abatement Plan‘ was superseded by the Australian Government’s ‘2008 Fox Threat Abatement Plan‘.

Read:  The ‘2008 Fox Threat Abatement Plan (Background)‘  [PDF 138kb]

Read:  The ‘2008 Fox Threat Abatement Plan (Report)‘  [PDF 148kb]

.

In 2010, the NSW NPWS published its ‘Fox Threat Abatement Plan 2010′.

This is it:   >’NSW Threat Abatement Plan – Predation by the red fox(Vulpes vulpes), December 2010‘   (PDF, 390kb)  ^http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/pestsweeds/110791FoxTAP2010.pdf

 

Ed:   Another year another plan, nothing done, ongoing fox predation, less wildlife.

.

We end here as we began, with a last word from a concerned reader, which succinctly tells it as it is:

.

‘Act now to save native wildlife or it’ll be too late‘

.

“This letter is an appeal on behalf of all our endangered native creatures being destroyed by the ever-increasing numbers of feral animals.

The Federal Government estimates there are 18 million feral cats roaming our countryside killing our unique marsupials and birds in numbers that equate to a massacre.  There are also countless numbers of foxes doing their best to wipe out our wildlife.  And those are only two of the dreadful “invasive” animals, as the Government calls them.  There are also cane toads, carp, pigs and goats.

Unfortunately for our native creatures there is not a politician in Australia who seems to be interested in this matter.  They will jump up and down about whales, but ask them to show some interest in our native wildlife and they are struck dumb.  If you ask the political parties they will say they have policies to solve these problems but that is empty rhetoric.  No one is doing anything constructive to address this problem.

In the case of feral cats, I am advised that governments have access to a number of viruses that could be used with some success but I can only surmise these brave politicians are afraid of a backlash from the “domestic cat lobby”, even though there are vaccines available to protect pet cats.

The only party that I thought might show an interest in this problem, the Greens, hides behinds a screen of policy statements that means absolutely nothing unless implemented with some positive action.

Perhaps someone with some interest in this terrible problem and who has the clout to do something about it might start the ball rolling to protect our native wildlife.  Otherwise future generations of Australians may see our brilliant birds and fascinating marsupials only in zoos.

[Source: ‘Act now to save native wildlife or it’ll be too late‘, (letter to the editor) by Neville Ridge, Bowral, Sydney Morning Herald, 20090110, p.24]

.

…well perhaps not the last word…

Fox Predation – unequivocal results

Roland Van Zelst, left, Rene Mooejkind and Darren Bain with their night’s haul.

(Photo by Lee Griffith)

.

Hundreds of foxes and other feral animals have been culled in agricultural regions across WA to protect livestock and native animals from the destructive pests.

At the weekend, hundreds of farmers and scores of volunteers took part in the annual Red Card for Red Fox drive which encourages rural communities to bait and shoot foxes.

The cull will resume on the March 20-21 weekend.

Now in its eighth year, the Red Fox Drive aims to reduce Australia’s seven million-strong fox population. During the cull weekends, agricultural communities also target feral pigs, cats and rabbits.  In the community of Wandering, 120km south-east of Perth, locals culled 140 foxes, nine feral pigs, 12 feral cats and 43 rabbits.

Co-ordinator Lisa Turton said the aim was to keep the fox population at a manageable level.

“We will never be able to eradicate the foxes,” Ms Turton said.  “But we need to ensure that their populations are low because they do get to the young lambs and they target the native birds and marsupials.” Foxes eat an average of 136kg of food a year, including lambs, mice, rabbits and many species of native animals.

Ms Turton said those participating in the drive were not “cowboys” with guns but instead followed strict guidelines.  “Everybody who takes part must do so on their own land,” she said.  “We don’t just go out on the road and start shooting. We do this to protect the native species.”

Last year, 5000 foxes, 230 feral cats and 2500 rabbits were shot over the four weekends throughout WA.

[Source: ‘Shooters take aim at feral foxes to preserve livestock’, by Lee Rondganger, The West Australian, 20100222, ^http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6834199/shooters-take-aim-at-feral-foxes-to-preserve-livestock/]

.

…one more …

The result of just one cull – the scale of the fox problem is rife!

.

“They only got one cat.

These animals do have feelings.

However, they don’t belong on this continent.

The native fauna is ill-prepared to deal with their depredations.

And the only way to save many species of native Australian wildlife is to create areas that are free of foxes and cats.

The only way to do that is to kill them.

They shouldn’t be tortured when they are killed. A single killing shot will do.”

.

[Source:  ‘Fox and cat cull in Australia’, by ‘Retrieverman’, 20110929, ^http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/fox-and-cat-cull-in-australia/]

.

Footnote

.

Response from the Livestock Health and Pest Authority  20120914:

 

Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPAs) are responsible for administering and enforcing the Rural Lands Protection Act 1998 (RLP Act), which governs the control of declared pest animals in New South Wales (NSW). Animals declared as pests include; feral pigs, wild dogs and European wild rabbits. The declaration of the species as pests requires landholders to control them. Other animals such as foxes, goats and deer are feral and considered pests by many people but the legislation doesn’t require landholders to continually control them.

There are many reasons why these other species of feral animals are not declared pests such as, restricted control options (in the case of fox control), public perception, potential financial value and even recreational value. Therefore the control of these species essentially lies with the landholder to determine whether they need to control them based on impacts caused by the species not because the landholder is legally required to. For example, foxes preying on lambs on an agricultural property, or foxes preying on an endangered species in a National Park.

LHPAs are a statutory authority funded via a rating system whereby landholders with 10 hectares or more pay compulsory rates to the LHPA. LHPAs provide assistance to these landholders in relation to livestock health and pest animal control. LHPAs also provide much greater benefit to the general community through livestock disease surveillance and disease control, and the coordination of pest and feral animal control programs on LHPA rateable and non rateable land.

LHPAs cannot simply declare animal species as pests under the RLP Act. This decision is made by government and LHPAs enforce the legislation set by government. Despite this, LHPAs are involved in coordinating numerous fox control programs around NSW for both agricultural and environmental benefits.

Legal restrictions on pesticide use and restrictions on other control techniques present challenges for landholders in implementing effective fox control. There are restrictions on the distance baits must be laid from houses, a requirement to notify all people who are within 1km of bait sites, and those laying the bait require a training qualification to use and store the pesticide known as 1080. This presents a problem with implementing fox control along the urban and peri-urban corridor along the Great Western Highway in the Blue Mountains.

LHPAs do not set these restrictions. These are set in Pesticide legislation and regulated by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), and are in place for valid reasons such as reducing the likely impact to animals like domestic dogs which are very susceptible to 1080. LHPAs must however ensure that the restrictions can be observed and applied by the person laying baits to ensure that it is used safely and effectively whilst minimising risks.

1080 is a very effective poison to control carnivores and is very target specific contrary to what many people are led to believe. It is a naturally occurring chemical in Australia and as a result of this many of our native species, particularly birds and reptiles have high natural tolerances to 1080.

Rubber jaw leg hold traps for foxes and wild dogs is effective but generally very labour intensive and require specialised skills. Cage trapping is considered ineffective and only occasionally results in success. Baiting is generally used to reduce populations significantly and trapping is utilised as a secondary technique which aims at maintaining populations at a low level.

The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (BMWHA) is an enormous area much of which is completely inaccessible. Despite a history of control programs, pest and feral animals are still present, even if in low densities due to the success of control programs. On mainland Australia, despite developments in control techniques, research and understanding of feral and pest animal biology, we are yet to eradicate an introduced vertebrate pest species.

Due to budgetary constraints pest and feral animal control has become much more strategic over the last decade. Pest control is being prioritised based on impacts caused by a particular species whether it is a feral or a declared pest and programs have become highly coordinated to get the most effective results with the available resources. Coordination has involved the establishment of working groups, one such example is the Oberon feral pig and wild dog working group which largely covers most of the BMWHA and includes representatives from various government departments and private landholders who work together to coordinate and implement programs which provide joint benefit to agriculture and the environment.

Pest control can be a sensitive issue and although it may seem little is being achieved, there are a number of programs being implemented particularly in the BMWHA which is a significant conservation area with unique values. The urban corridor through the middle of it adds to its uniqueness but also presents many challenges one of which is pest management. Urban fringe areas generally support higher densities of some pest animals, namely foxes, as we provide them with ideal opportunities to prosper such as food and harbour which are the fundamentals for their survival. We do this without even realising for example, leaving food out for dogs or keeping poultry in our backyards. These are simple examples that are highly attractive to foxes and they can’t resist and won’t refuse them.

Community education and responsible domestic animal keeping is the key to eliminating most of the problem. Pest and feral animal control is a landscape issue and therefore everyone’s problem, not just government. LHPAs will continue to assist landholders and coordinate control programs working within the legislation to ensure that pest control is target specific and effective in providing benefits to agriculture and the environment.’

 

Steve Parker

Ranger

Cumberland Livestock Health and Pest Authority

.

Illegal dumping in The Gully, Katoomba, Blue Mountains

Reported to local council and promptly removed by local council.

(Photo by Editor 20060702, image free in public domain, click to enlarge)

.

Illegal dumping is not unique to the Blue Mountains, but it continues to be an ongoing problem in this populated area that is situated upstream of the internationally valued Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

Whereas litter is generally individual items of waste products improperly disposed of in the environment, illegal dumping is generally of a larger scale and premeditated.   Both are illegal.

Both are selfish, lazy and disrespectful to society and the environment.   The larger problem of illegal dumping involves the deliberate or unauthorised dumping, tipping or burying of waste on land that is not licensed or fit to accept that waste.   People illegally dump bags of household rubbish, electronic equipment, furniture, mattresses, industrial wastes, construction and demolition materials, garden waste, packaging, tyres, old cars and soil.

It is bad enough that an increasingly populating society that is also increasingly consuming resources is also increasingly contributing to landfill for its waste.  Worse is when that waste is illegally dumped and far worse when it is dumped in places that harm native ecology.

Lawn Clippings dumped at remote Hargreaves Lookout Road,

west of Blackheath in protected bushland, Blue Mountains, New South Wales

(Photo by Editor 20080405, image free in public domain, click to enlarge)

.

Illegal dumping is more than just unsightly waste in an inappropriate location.  It not only reduces property values and costs rate payers a substantial amount of money each year to clean up.   Illegal dumping is inherently unnatural which means when dumped in a natural environment, the composition of the waste will have an adverse impact upon the natural ecology – it degrades and spoils local ecology.  The waste does not have to be deemed ‘hazardous’ such as toxic chemicals, paints, solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or asbestos for instance.

Lawn clippings and woodchips will cause a moist environment for bacteria and flies to breed and after rain the nutrients will flow and contaminate surrounding soils, vegetation and watercourses.  This can be lethal to vulnerable and fragile flora and fauna, especially in Australia which naturally has low nutrient soils.

Illegally dumped waste can poison the soil and kill vegetation.  The introduced nutrients such as acids will prevent the vegetation from regenerating and dependent wildlife from returning.   Illegal dumping leads to long-term contamination of land, waterways, natural springs and groundwater, particularly when the waste is from an industrial source or contaminated soil.

Subsoil and rubble (left) dumped in The Gully (Katoomba), alongside the old race track

(Photo by Editor 20070310, free in public domain, click to enlarge)

.

Illegal dumping can be dangerous to people (broken glass, syringes, nappies and medical waste, and carcinogenic substances like asbestos) but also it can attract rodents, insects and other vermin.  It can provide an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes and maggots.  It can block waterways and stormwater drains, increasing the potential for flooding and erosion, and it can be a potential fire hazard.

The most common cause of illegal dumping in the Blue Mountains is typically on the side of a road where a motorist has carted the waste by trailer.

.

Perhaps it is time to outlaw trailers and to replace them with waste collection services only provided by local council. 

.

After all, if there is no means available to cart waste except by hand, the volume of illegal dumping will be reduced and the ability of illegal dumping to be away from residential areas and in natural areas will also be reduced.

Of course trucks can cart larger quantities of waste, but fewer people have access to trucks.  This does not mean that greater regulation cannot be imposed on truck drivers.  Perhaps every truck load needs to be registered and inspected by local council authorities, or an effective penalty imposed – say $5000 or a custodial sentence.

.

Whatever an effective mix of solutions, unless governments are serious about addressing the problem, illegal dumping shall continue unabated.   

.

Lenient law enforcement or the absence thereof, contribute to illegal dumping behaviour – and be clear, we are dealing with a human behavioural issue here.

In 2001, hundreds of tonnes of sand and rubble from the Soldiers Pinch upgrade to the Great Western Highway (Mount Victoria) was dumped by the RTA in The Gully over the top of an Upland Swamp. Permission was given by the Blue Mountains City Council, but without any community consultation.

 Subsequent actions by the Council involved planting on top of the compressed rubble, instead of properly removing it.

(Photo by Editor 20060702, 5 years on from the 2001 dumping little had grown.

Image free in public domain, click image to enlarge)

.

Shaping correct responsible behaviour requires a combination of a ‘carrot’ incentive and ‘stick’ deterrent approach.  If waste is collected from households like weekly garbage, then the incentive for illegal dumping is reduced.  Why go to the trouble of driving somewhere to dump when it can be collected from your residence?  Similarly, if the cost of collection is low, the incentive to utilise the collection service is stronger.

As the cost of landfill fees is rising due to reducing number of suitable tip sites, some people in order to avoid disposal fees at landfills will choose to illegally dump to save money.  the risk of getting caught is low and this is the core problem in trying to change this bad behaviour.

Over 20 tonnes of rubble dumped in The Gully by Sydney Water as part of its Sewerage Amplification Project in 2005

(Photo by Editor 20120624, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)

.

Penalties for illegal dumping vary around the country.  For instance, in Queensland under its Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011, there are a range of offences for litter and illegal dumping from $200 on the spot fine for littering through to $16,500 for illegal dumping of large domestic items such as fridges, garden refuse and construction material.

[Source: Townsville City Council, ^http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/resident/environment/Pages/litter.aspx]

.

But most offenders do not get caught because the scale of monitoring is unwieldy and practically ubiquitous.

In Victoria , a landfill levy on all households has helped to fund a dedicated Illegal Dumping Strike Force team as part of the Environment Protection Authority in that State.  It’s tasks are to support businesses to understand their legal requirements for managing waste and recyclable material, work with its council partners and other government agencies to share intelligence about dumping offences and hotspots, and to investigate and enforce against incidents of large-scale industrial waste dumping.

[Source: Victorian Government’s Environmental Protection Authority, ^http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/waste/prevent-illegal-dumping/default.asp]

.

Household garbage illegally dumped in The Gully near the South Katoomba Rural Fire Brigade, July 2012

(Photo by Editor, 20120703, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)

.

In the Hunter Valley of New South Wales, the Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (HCCREMS) in its Illegal Dumping project is seeking to address illegal dumping in the region through a range of new initiatives.

• Designing and trialing a number of enforcement campaigns to gain further data on illegal dumping ‘hot spots’ and determine effective campaign styles
• Trialing different illegal dumping deterrence methods (barriers, cameras, gates, etc) to determine their effectiveness at stopping illegal dumping
• Collating illegal dumping data, take photographs and coordinate media and community awareness activities.
• Establishing an Illegal Dumping Regional Database using Microsoft Access database software to collate and analyse data collected by councils, from dumping sites.  All incidents are entered into the database, which is linked to GIS and is able to produce maps of the locations in each council area.
• Allowing Councils to use the intelligence generated from the database to determine appropriate and effective inspection patrol regimes and where access control measures can be installed.
• Encouraging all councils to record incidents of illegal dumping on the incident forms developed by the Hunter Regional Illegal Dumping Group and forward these into HCCREMS for entry into the database.
• Illegal Dumping Deterrence Project – trialling deterrence measures including:  motion-sensitive cameras, revegetation, fencing, signage and earth mounds.
• Illegal Dumping Education and Awareness campaign including facilitating media involvement

[Source:  Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy, ^http://www.hccrems.com.au/Programs/Environmental-Compliance/Sub-projects/Illegal-Dumping.aspx]

.

Sample Record of Illegal Dumping reported to Blue Mountains Council by residents

.

Jan 2008:   Dumped Garden Refuse opposite 16 Garden St, Katoomba

To The General Manager, BMCC

Emailed to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au

.

‘Sir,

I request for the removal of dumped garden refuse within a bushland adjacent Carlton Street, Katoomba, opposite 16 Garden Street (located at the corner of Garden St and Carlton St). The garden refuse contains weeds and is near a large rock.

Dumped building waste (opposite a recently built house at 20 Carlton St) and cut down trees are also present within the bushland.

Please see attached photographs.

Also, I recommend that Council arrange for its ranger to inform nearby local residents that it is illegal to dump garden refuse and building waste under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and cut down trees under the Tree Preservation Order. Garden refuse smothers native vegetation, spreads weeds and increases bush fire danger.

As you will be aware, the cutting down of native trees for firewood reduces habitat and creates wood smoke pollution.’

.

Apr 2007:   Opposite Megalong Lodge, 40 Acacia Street Katoomba

.

To The General Manager, BMCC

Emailed to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au

.

‘Sir,

I request Council removes a very large amount of dumped garden refuse within escarpment bushland, located adjacent Cliff Drive and across the road from Megalong Lodge, 40 Acacia St, Katoomba.

The dumped refuse is believed to have come from Megalong Lodge, as it is made up of white driveway pebbles, pine needles, Agapanthus and Rhododendron cuttings found on this property. A bush trail in direct line to the property also contains the cuttings. Grass clippings have also been dumped.

Urgent removal of the garden refuse is recommended, since exotic grass is beginning to grow within the escarpment bushland. The dumping was discovered in April 2007. Please see attached photographs.

Also request the ranger to inform nearby local residents that it is illegal to dump garden refuse under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.    Garden refuse is pollution and smothers native vegetation, spreads weeds and increases bush fire danger.‘

.

Dec 2007:   Outside Katoomba Golf Club

To The General Manager, BMCC

Emailed to council@bmcc.nsw.gov.au

.

‘Sir,

I request for the removal of dumped grass clippings within bushland at Katoomba Golf Course, opposite 165 Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba. Dumped clippings are located next to the golf course entrance turnstile. The front lawn of 161 Narrow Neck Road had just been mown at the time of discovery of the still green clippings.  Please see the attached photograph.

Also, I request a Council ranger to inform nearby local residents that it is illegal to dump grass cuttings under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.   Grass cuttings smother native vegetation, spread weeds and increase bush fire danger.’

.

Bushcare Rehabilitation Site on a tributary of Katoomba Falls Creek

The Gully, Katoomba, Blue Mountains

This was allegedly ripped up by Blue Mountains Council to accommodate a marathon.

(click photo to enlarge)

.

‘The Gully‘ situated in the upper central Blue Mountains of New South Wales (NSW) is a natural creek valley surrounded by the township development of Katoomba, within a corridor and upstream of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

This valley has a disgraceful history of forced eviction of Aboriginal people from their traditional tribal lands by Blue Mountains Council in 1957, of environmental devastation to build a race track in the 1960s, of associated deforestation and commercial tourism exploitation, followed after the racetrack’s rundown and loan default, by many years of ecological neglect.

More recently, despite the efforts of members of the local community to rehabilitate degraded areas and eroded watercourses, a new threat has emerged – ‘Adventure Tourism‘.

Back in 2008, two separate organisations – AROC Sport Pty Ltd and The Wilderness Society NSW (an organisation which should know better) decided to launch respective marathons each through the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.   They each proposed their respective marathon events with the government custodian of the World Heritage Area, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and since both marathon courses also involved running through community land, they also approached the custodian, Blue Mountains (city) Council.

AROC Sport Pty Ltd proposed its Ultra Marathon with UK outdoor gear sponsor The North Face which it termed ‘2008 North Face 100‘ marathon – a 10okm individual marathon along walking tracks through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including through the magnificent Jamison Valley.  The Wilderness Society NSW proposed a similar marathon termed ‘Wild Endurance 100 Blue Mountains‘, also a 100km team-based marathon along walking tracks through the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including the Jamison Valley.  Both events were publicised as being one off events, but have since become annual events attracting hundreds of competitors and spectators.

In January 2008, The Habitat Advocate learned that these two events had already been approved by the Regional Director of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS NSW), Geoff Luscombe, without apparently any consultation either with the Blue Mountains community nor with any conservation groups that have for many decades had a close association with the Blue Mountains and its conservation.   [BMNP POM:  “A Neighbour Relations Strategy will be developed to raise awareness about the  park’s significant natural and cultural values, inform park neighbours about park management programs and encourage appropriate behaviour to minimise impacts on the park. Within the City of Blue Mountains, “neighbours” will include the whole community.”]

On 20080130, The Habitat Advocate wrote to the Blue Mountains (city) Council’s then Acting Bushland Management Project Officer, Ms Arienne Murphy, explaining our concern:

“The degree of environmental protection and safeguards for these affected natural areas that Council may be imposing upon the respective event organisers, and the trend of adventure tourism and elite sporting events using natural areas of high conservation value is one that warrants appropriate environmental safeguards, monitoring and a transparent decision making process.”

.

The Habitat Advocate requested from Blue Mountains (city) Council:

• A copy of the user requirements including any standard terms and conditions that Council issues to (1) casual recreational license holders and (2) ongoing recreational license holders of Council-managed/controlled natural areas in the Blue Mountains Local Government Area.
• A copy of the specific operating terms and conditions relating to the proposed Northface 100 and Wild Endurance marathon events both due to take place around Nellies Glen and through the Jamison Valley wilderness in May 2008.

.

The correspondence was ignored by Council and no information was received from Council.

At the time, The Habitat Advocate also raised similar concerns about the risks of damaging ecological impacts and of the unsuitability of these two events through the World Heritage Area with interested representatives of conservation groups – The Colong Foundation for Wilderness, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society, the National Parks Association of NSW, and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

Issues raised included:

• To examine and improve the rule that regulate these events
• To identify the location of high conservation value natural communities that the routes of each event propose to pass through
• How the responsible custodian (NPWS NSW) proposes to ensure these communities are not adversely impacted
• To protect and defend the important natural values of the Blue Mountains and the rare and threatened habitat of its flora and fauna.
• The hold the NPWS NSW as custodian of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to account under the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management (May 2001) [BMNP POM]and in accordance with its mottos of ‘tread lightly’ and ‘take only photos and leave only footprints’.
• Ensure protection of wilderness values and adherence to a wilderness code of conduct to ensure “minimal impact codes or practices for potentially high impact activities
  including cycling, horse riding, adventure activities and vehicle touring”  [BMNP POM, p.52]

.

A meeting was held at the office of the Colong Fondation in Sydney on Wednesday 20080206 between The Habitat Advocate, the above conservation groups and with Geoff Luscombe as well as with The Wilderness Society.  The above concerns were raised with Mr Luscombe and he politely gave assurances that both events would not cause damage to ecology.  The key document that would guide the conduct of the events and protect the ecology was the then ‘Interim Policy for Commercial Recreational Activities in National Parks of the Blue Mountains Region‘ (dated 20070926), by the then umbrella department of NSPW NSW, The Department of Environment and Climate Change.

However, no specific recognition, rules or guidelines were made to allow for commercial marathons involving large numver of participants and spectators within either the Interim Policy for Commercial Recreational Activities in National Parks of the Blue Mountains Region nor within the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management.

Indeed the Interim Policy includes clauses that run counter the large scale of two such commecvial marathons as per the following extract clauses:

.

‘Environmental Protection’:

.

Clause 5.1.11:    “Commercial activities will not be permitted to lead to permanent or unsustainable impacts on the resource or become a significant proportion of visitor impact on a site or area.”

.

Slashed vegetation for the marathon through The Gully’s swamp, Katoomba

But what is the impact is occurring upon  flora deep in the Jamison Valley Wilderness?

Who monitors the marathons?  Who is the watchdog over the custodian?

.

Clause  5.1.13  “The current Minimal Impact Bushwalking Code (Australian Alps National Parks) should be used by operators/guides as a minimum code of behaviour for all activities.” 

.

[Ed.  But under NPWS NSW Activity Agreement with AROC Sport, AROC Sport needs only..”Use best endeavours to ensure that participants adhere to the approved route on recognised and approved fire trails and walking tracks within the Park and do not deviate from these trails and tracks at any time.”]

.

Clause  5.1.14   “No modification to the environment, permanent or temporary, will be permitted (eg. fixtures or temporary caches) without specific Department approval.”

[Ed.  So where is the NPWS NSW monitoring of compliance, or lack thereof?]

.

Cliff Walk slashed along the top of the Blue Mountains Western Escarpment

to accommodate the North Face 100 marathon in 2008

(Photo by Editor 20080517)

.

North Face 100 participant runs through a Gully Bushcare Site, previously fenced off and sign posted

This riparian area was disturbed by Sydney Water in 2007 during its Sewer Amplification Project.

The site was subsequently rehabilitated with native plants by Networks Alliance in co-operation with local coucil and the local buschare group.

.

‘Recreation Management’:

.

Clause  5.1.21  “Commercial activities can only form a minor component of total use and not lead to the domination of a particular setting, site, route or activity, or unreasonably restrict or exclude the recreational opportunity of other users.”

Runners take right of way over bushwalkers

What happens when the marathons are required to stay together in teams?

.

Clause  5.1.22  “Acceptable levels of use, in relation to the conservation and protection of the environment, will be based on precautionary principles determined by the Department and this process may not maximise commercial opportunities.”

Northface100 competitors – 1000 registered entrants an “acceptable level of use”?

.

‘Appropriate Activities’:

.

Clause  5.1.25  “Activities resulting in minimal impact will be preferred over those causing greater impact (eg. track walking versus off-track walking).”  [Ed.  No mention here about commercial marathons involving hundreds of participants]

Does my team have to stick together over the entire length of the trail?
Wild Endurance:  Yes. It is compulsory for the whole team to stay together the whole time. The team must arrive together and depart from each Checkpoint and also cross the finish line together. Of course if you are in the Relay event, then only half the team needs to arrive at each checkpoint and cross the finish line together.

.

.

Clause  5.1.27  “Where impacts associated with activities are high and sites are deemed suitable for recreational purposes, sites may be managed by the Department to provide for intensive use.”    [Ed.  No mention was made by Luscombe about any monitoring and enforcement by NPWS NSW]

.

Revisiting the Blue Mountains National Park Plan of Management:

.

• The Service will continue to develop its Discovery interpretive program, including investigation of options for improving the quality, quantity and geographic spread of activities offered
• The emphasis will continue to be on environmental interpretation and education and away from hard adventure.
• Recreation Opportunities:  Use by domestic and international tourists is largely day use concentrated on the scenic escarpment areas of the Jamison and Grose valleys, from Wentworth Falls to Katoomba and at Blackheath, although other relatively easily accessible areas are popular for adventure ecotourism (see section 4.3.8 Guided Tours and Commercial
  Recreation).
• With tourism in the Blue Mountains region projected to increase strongly over the next five years, the need to minimise the impacts of tourism on the natural environment is a growing concern.
• Recreation use of the park includes a wide range of activities and is distributed throughout the park…Use is distributed throughout the year, with peaks during school holiday periods and long weekends.
• The park is under increasing pressure from the growing number of park visitors, with some popular bushwalking and camping areas such as the Grose Valley, Wollangambe
  area, the Wild Dog Mountains, Burralow Creek, Erskine Creek, Glenbrook Creek, Ingar and Murphys Glen showing signs of unacceptable environmental impacts.
• Adventure activities such as canyoning, abseiling and rockclimbing have increased dramatically in 56 popularity, with visitation to one popular canyon having doubled over a two year period.  These activities are associated with a proliferation of informal foot tracks which are eroding with increasing use. Vegetation is being denuded at popular abseiling and/or rockclimbing access points and public safety is an issue at some sites, particularly where there is conflict with other users.
• Major management considerations include the need to raise awareness of visitor impacts, to monitor visitor use and, where necessary, to regulate visitor numbers to
  protect the park environment, ensure visitor safety and maintain recreation experiences appropriate to a natural or wilderness setting.
• Regulation of large groups, commercial activities and adventure activities needs to be considered in relation to both environmental impacts and public safety. Use of the park
  by larger groups has the greatest potential to impact on the park. User conflicts, risks of accidents and injuries and impacts on natural and cultural heritage values all rise in
  proportion to the size of the group.
• The existing facilities have been developed over a period of more than a hundred years and are not necessarily compatible with existing design, safety and maintenance standards, may be having an unacceptable environmental impact and/or are inadequate to satisfy existing or projected recreation and tourism demand and patterns of use.
• A major review of existing facilities is required and clearer priorities for maintenance and
  upgrading of facilities or removal need to be developed to ensure that conservation and
  recreation objectives can both be met in a management environment of limited
  resources.
• Natural areas:  Recreation tends to be more dispersed and any facilities provided are relatively low-key compared to the developed areas, catering for a lower level of use.
• Wilderness areas: This setting provides opportunities for solitude and self-reliant recreation.
• Competitive activities including rogaining and orienteering will not be permitted in wilderness areas.

 

“The nominated area has a complicated border, defined partly by adjoining privately owned lands which, in the Blue Mountains Park section, also divides it into northern and southern sections along the corridor of the Great Western Highway. The heart of each Park is reserved as wilderness which totals 54% of the nominated area. ”

[Source: ‘Greater Blue Mountains (world heritage) Area’, United Nations Environment Programme, World ConbservationMonitoring Centre ].

 

The ‘Wild Endurance’ course map passes through the Jamison Valley Wilderness

.

.
‘NorthFace 100’ marathon course map passes through the Jamison Valley Wilderness

“Saturday 19th May 2012:  The 5th Annual North Face 100 will begin at Leura’s Fairmont Resort in the Blue Mountains Australia.

Some 900 runners will embark on a 100km trail race which will take them through Jamison Valley, Narrowneck Plateau, Megalong Valley…”

.

Ed:   Is this what custodianship of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area has become – all about maximising visitation over conservation?

.

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.

1. How many hectares of bush was burnt by the Grose Valley wildfire and how many was burnt by the RFS mitigation efforts?
2. How many houses and lives were at risk from the wildfire as versus to the RFS fire?
3. How many millions of dollars were spent on water bombing the RFS fire?
4. How many litres of precious water were used to put out the RFS fire?
5. 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?
6. Was local advice and expertise sought and followed or simply ignored?
7. 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

.

1. Associate Professor Sandy Booth – Forum Chairman and Facilitator (BMWH Institute)
2. Professor Ross Bradstock Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, University of Wollongong
3. Mr Ian Brown BM Conservation Society
4. Mr Don Cameron BM Conservation Society
5. Mr Matthew Chambers Environmental Scientist, Blue Mountains City Council (Observer)
6. Dr Rosalie Chapple Forum Co-Facilitator, BMWH Institute
7. Mr Bob Conroy Director Central, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC
8. Ms Carol Cooper Darug and Gundungurra Nations (Observer)
9. Superintendent Mal Cronstedt Blue Mountains District, Rural Fire Service
10. Mr Grahame Douglas Acting Chair, BM Regional Advisory Committee
11. Group Captain John Fitzgerald Blue Mountains District, Rural Fire Service
12. Mr Shane Fitzsimmons Executive Director Operations, Rural Fire Service (Observer)
13. Mr Richard Kingswood Area Manager Blue Mountains, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC
14. Mr Geoff Luscombe Regional Manager Blue Mountains, Parks and Wildlife Division, DEC
15. Dr Brian Marshall President, BM Conservation Society (Observer)
16. Mr Hugh Paterson BM Conservation Society & NSW Nature Conservation Council
17. Dr Judy Smith GBMWH Advisory Committee Member
18. Inspector Jack Tolhurst Blue Mountains District, Rural Fire Service
19. Mr Haydn Washington GBMWH Advisory Committee Member
20. Mr Pat Westwood Bushfire Program Coordinator, Nature Conservation Council
21. 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:

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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.

.

Further Reading

.

[1]   ‘2006 Grose Valley Fire – a cover up‘, article by The Habitat Advocate, 20101217, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/?p=3220

.

[2]  ‘2006 Grose Valley Fires – any lessons learnt?‘, article by The Habitat Advocate, 20120118, >https://www.habitatadvocate.com.au/?p=12859

.

[3]  ‘Grose Valley Fire Forum Report – FINAL (BMWHI 20070402).pdf‘, >[Read Report]  (4.2 mb)

.

[4]  Rural Fire Service’s  official report of Grose Valley Bushfires, report by Incident Controller Mal Cronstedt, Rural Fire Service, 20070208, >’Lawsons Long Alley Section 44 Report‘

.

[5]   ‘Blue Mountains Council Business Paper 20070424 Item 7 Cost of Grose Fire’, Blue Mountains Council, >Blue-Mountains-Council-Business-Paper-20070424-Item-7-Cost-of-Grose-Fire.pdf

.

[6]   ‘Blue Mountains World Heritage’, by Alex Colley (text) and Henry Gold (photography), published by The Colong Foundation for Wilderness, 2004, Foreward: “This book celebrates one of the greatest achievements of the Australian conservation  movement – the creation of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area” ~ Bob Carr, Premier of New South Wales, March 2004. ^http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/BMWH_book/BMWH_book.htm,  ^http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/917

.

[7]   ‘Back from the Brink: Blue Gum Forest and the Grose Wilderness’, book by Andy Macqueen, 1997, ^http://infobluemountains.net.au/review/book/bftb.htm

.

‘The Cradle of Conservation’

‘Everyone has been to the lookouts.  Many have been to the Blue Gum Forest, deep in the valley – but few know the remote and hiden recesses of the labyrinth beyond.  Here, an hour or two from Sydney, is a very wild place.

The Grose has escaped development.  There have been schemes for roads, railways, dams, mines and forestry (Ed:  ‘logging’), but the bulldozers have been kept out.  Instead, the valley became the ‘Cradle of Conservation’ in New South Wales when it was reserved from sale in 1875 – an event magnificently reinforced in 1931 when a group of bushwalkers were moved to save Blue Gum Forest from the axe.

This is story of the whole Grose Wilderness, and of the Blue Gum Forest in particular.  It is the story of people who have visited the wilderness: Aborigines, explorers, engineers, miners, track-builders, bushwalkers, conyoners, climbers…those who have loved it, and those who have threatened it.’

.

[8]   ‘Battle for the Bush: The Blue Mountains, the Australian Alps and the origins of the wilderness movement‘, book by Geoff Mosley, 1999, published by Envirobook in conjunction with The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Limited.  ^http://themountainjournal.wordpress.com/interviews-profiles/geoff-mosley/

.

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

.