Grose Valley inside the Blue Mountains National Park  (World Heritage)

before the Parks Service let a fire burn through it out of control

in the Spring of 2006

[Photo by Ian D Smith]

.

20 Sep 2006:  (2 months prior) Parks Service maximises hazard reduction burns

.

<<With warmer days just around the corner and continuing dry weather the Blue Mountains Region National Parks and Wildlife Service (Parks Service) is again undertaking rigorous preparation for the coming fire season.

“Every year around this time the Parks Service runs a number of fire preparedness days to ensure staff and fire-fighting equipment are fully prepared for the season ahead”, said Minister for the Environment Mr Bob Debus.

“Fire preparedness days require fire-fighting staff to check their personal protective equipment, inspect fire-fighting pumps and vehicles and ensure that communication equipment and procedures are in place and working before the fire season begins.”

Mr Debus said a number of exercises, including four-wheel drive and tanker driving, first aid scenarios, entrapment and burnovers, were also employed to re-familiarise staff with all apsects of fighting fires.

“Burnovers, where fire-fighters are trapped in a vehicle as fire passes over it, is one of the worst case scenarios a fire fighter can face so pre-season practice is critical to ensure that their response is second nature”, he said.

“Local fire-fighters have also undergone stringent fitness assessments to make sure they are prepared for the physical demands of fire-fighting – like being winched from a helicopter into remote areas with heavy equipment, to work longs hours under very hot and dry conditions wearing considerable  layers of protective clothing”, Mr Debus explained. 

Mr Debus said that fire preparedness and fitness assessment days worked in conjunction with a number of  other initiatives as part of a year-long readiness campaign for the approaching summer.

.

“Over the past 12 months, NPWS officers have conducted more than 150 hazard reduction burns on national park land across NSW.  Nineteen hazard reduction burns have been conducted in the Blue Mountains region covered more than 4500 hectares.” said Debus.

.

Setting fire to bushland starts bushfires, strangely enough

.

[Ed:  These did nothing to prevent the Grose Fires.  In fact it was one of the hazard reduction burns deliberately ignited by the Parks Service with the Hartley Vale Rural Fire Service along Hartley Vale Road that escaped over the Darling Causeway that was the main cause of the Grose Fire]

.

Hartley Vale Road looking east about 1km west of the village of Hartley Vale.

Observe the right (south side) and the consistent blackened ground and blackened tree bases, clear evidence of ground level hazard reduction /backburning.

Compare this to the left unburnt side.  It was this Hazard Reduction/Backburn on Sunday 12th November 2006 (or thereabouts) that escaped control and incinerated the treetops up slope and which crossed over the Darling Causeway into the Blue Mountains National Park and ultimately down into the Grose Valley on 23rd November 2006.

[Photo by Editor, 20070204, Photo © under  ^Creative Commons]

.

Mr Debus said that while fire fighting authorities are preparing themselves to be ready as possible for flare ups and major fires, home-owners in fire-prone areas of the Blue Mountains should also be readying themselves for the approaching  season.   [Ed:  Famous last words]

“Now is the time to start cleaning gutters, ember-proof houses and sheds, prepare fire breaks and clear grass and fuel away from structures.” he said.  [Ed:  Such was the least of the bushfire risks when the Parks Service and RFS were actively and recklessly setting fire to bushland].

.

[Source:  ‘Fire Crews Prepare’, 20060920, Blue Mountains Gazette, print]

.

Tasman Flax-lily (Dianella tasmanica) (blue berry) in a Blue Mountains Swamp

At the headwaters of Katoomba Creek, Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Q:  When is a protected swamp not deemed a swamp and so not worthy of protection?

Closed sedgeland dominated by Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa)

across a Blue Mountains Swamp along the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

A:  When unqualified local Council development planning staff are selectively blind to allow for housing development. 

Colorbond fence encroaching into the above Blue Mountains Swamp 

Along the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Q:  When is a protected swamp deemed a swamp worthy of protection?

A:  When quasi-qualified local Council environmental staff are selectively seeking public relations kudos and grant funding.  

The Save Our Swamps (SOS) Project

.

The Save Our Swamps (SOS) Project is a recent joint project between Blue Mountains City Council, Gosford City Council, Lithgow City Council and Wingecarribee Shire Council to protect and restore the federally listed Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone endangered ecological community.  

It is funded through a 12 month $400,000 federal Caring for Country grant operating across all four LGAs as well as a 3 year $250,000 NSW Environmental Trust grant focused on the Blue Mountains City Council and Lithgow City Council Local Government Areas.     [Source:  Blue Mountains Council, ^http://saveourswamps.com.au/index.php]

.

Blue Mountains Swamp

A ‘hanging swamp‘ – hanging on a steep slope

.

The Blue Mountains National Park is one of seven national parks which collectively comprise a million hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains Area, which since 2000 has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.   This area is protected internationally for (1) its outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals and (2) contain 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.      [Read More about ^The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage values]

.

Since 12th May 2005,  ‘Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone‘ have been recognised as an important and rare ecological community listed as Endangered under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, as well as within New South Wales under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) (TSC Act).

So naturally, one would expect such swamps to be identified, mapped and ecologically protected – one would expect.  .

These swamps occur naturally in very few places on the planet, as shown (in red) in the following distribution map within south eastern Australia:

.Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone – Global Distribution Map

[Source:  Australian Government, Department of Environment et al.,
^http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=32#Distribution, accessed 20121015]

.

Blue Mountains Swamps are included as part of the Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone.   These are the top two red areas in the above map.

The Blue Mountains west of Sydney are Triassic sandstone plateaux.  Blue Mountain Swamps occur in shallow, low-sloping, often narrow headwater valleys (Keith and Benson 1988; Benson and Keith 1990), on long gentle open drainage lines in the lowest foot slopes, low-lying broad valley floors and alluvial flats (Department of Environment and Conservation 2006), and in gully heads, open depressions on ridgetops and steep valley sides associated with semi-permanent water seepage (Holland et al. 1992; Blue Mountains City Council 2005; Department of Environment and Conservation 2006).

Farmers Creek Swamp

Newnes Plateau, Blue Mountains – is it protected?   Or just not targeted for development yet?

Grevillea acanthifolia (pink flower) in the foreground

[Source:  Lithgow Environment Group, ^http://www.lithgowenvironment.org/swamp_watch2.shtml]

.

Most of these swamps are situated within the Greater Blue Mountains Area and so are ecologically protected, but many are not.  Many Blue Mountains Swamps are situated just outside on the fringe lands.  Those fringe lands lie on the bush interface with human residential settlement and despite their environmental protection on paper are at risk of being bulldozed for housing development.   Such threats from development are referred to as ‘edge effects‘.   These swamps are on the edge of housing development, or put the more chronological way, housing development is being allowed to encroach upon the edge of these swamps that were there first.      Other Blue Mountains Swamps such as those up on Newnes Plateau are at risk of being bulldozed and drained for mining.

According to the Blue Mountains Council, there are less than 3,000 hectares of Blue Mountains Swamp in existence. As they predominantly comprise many small areas, they are very susceptible to edge effects.    As the urban footprint expands to the edges of the plateau, the swamps are coming under ever increasing pressure.

.

• Clearing for urban development
• Urban runoff – sediment deposition, tunnelling and channelisation from stormwater discharges
• Bushfire (both ‘wild’ and ‘hazard’ reduction)
• Weed invasion
• Nutrient enrichment (urban runoff)
• Mowing
• Grazing
• Water extraction (bores, tapping natural springs and building dams)

.

[Source:   ‘Blue Mountains Swamps’, Blue Mountains Council, ^http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/sustainableliving/environmentalinformation/livingcatchments/bluemountainsswamps/]

.

Blue Mountains Swamp

Here an acre of pristine Coral Fern (Gleichenia dicarpa) burned at Devil’s Hole, Katoomba

It was set fire to (‘hazard reduced’) by National Parks and Wildlife (NSW) on 20120911

Photo by Editor 20120922, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

..

Blue Mountains Swamps – substrate characteristics

.

Blue Mountains Swamps are characterised by the constant presence of groundwater seeping along the top of impermeable claystone layers in the sandstone and reaches the surface where the claystone protrudes (Keith and Benson 1988; Holland et al. 1992; Blue Mountains City Council 2005).

The substrate tends to be a shallow black to grey coloured acid, peaty, loamy sandy soil with organic matter and are poorly drained and so tend to be either constantly or intermittently water logged (Hope and Southern 1983; Keith and Benson 1988; Benson and Keith 1990; Stricker and Brown 1994; Stricker and Wall 1994; Winning and Brown 1994; Stricker and Stroinovsky 1995; Benson and McDougall 1997; Whinam and Chilcott 2002; Department of Environment and Conservation 2006).

Blue Mountains Swamp on Newnes Plateau

 

The swamps naturally trap sediment and disperse rain water over a wide area and protect floors of headwater valleys from erosion.  They vary in structure and species composition according to geology, topographic location, depth of the water table, extent and duration of water logging and bushfire frequency.

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – vegetation variation

.

The structure of Blue Mountains Swamp vegetation varies from open shrubland to closed heath or open heath (dominated by shrub species but with a sedge and graminoid understorey and occasionally with scattered low trees) to sedgeland and closed sedgeland.   The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area ids listed for its outstanding natural values, a major component of which is the high number of eucalypt species and eucalypt-dominated communities.  These can be found in a great variety of plant communities including within and upslope of Blue Mountains Swamps.

Topographic location, hydrology and soils significantly influence the dominant species composition.   Structure of the vegetation varies from closed heath or scrub to open heath to closed sedgeland or fernland.   The common cross-feature with all types is the presence of frequently waterlogged soil.

The Gully Swamp

Dominant tree canopy is Eucalyptus oreades

This one’s ‘protected’ as an Aboriginal Place under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), Part 6

Yet it is infested with environmental and noxious weeds – so what does ‘protected’ mean?

(Photo by Editor 20110502, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge)

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Tree Species

.

• Eucalyptus mannifera subsp. gullickii
• Mountain Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus aquatica)
• Eucalyptus copulans
• Ed:  Blue Mountains Ash (Eucalyptus oreades), only at creek headwaters around Katoomba

 Eucalyptus mannifera (subspecies ‘gullickii’)

Found naturally in a Blue Mountains Swamp

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Shrub Species

.

• Flax-leaf Heath Myrtle  (Baeckea linifolia)
• Leptospermum juniperinum
• Hakea teretifolia
• Leptospermum grandifolium
• Grevillea acanthifolia (subspecies ‘acanthifolia’)
• Leptospermum polygalifolium
• Banksia spinulosa
• Almaleea incurvata
• Epacris obtusifolia
• Epacris hamiltonii
• Sprengelia incarnata
• Deane’s Boronia   (Boronia deanei)
• Persoonia hindii
• Swamp Bush-pea   (Pultenaea glabra)
• Bantam Bush-pea   (Pultenaea parrisiae)
• Dwarf Kerrawang   (Rulingia prostrata)

.

Flax-leaf Heath Myrtle  (Baeckea linifolia)

In a Blue Mountains Swamp, flowering in late summer

(Photo by Editor 20080128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge)

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Fern Species

.

• Water ferns  (Blechnum nudum)
• Pouched Coral ferns Gleichenia spp  (G. dicarpa and G. microphylla)
• Umbrella ferns Sticherus spp
• King Fern   (Todea barbara)
• Drosera binata

.

Blue Mountains Swamp – is this one protected?

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Sedge Species

.

• Large tussock sedge, Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus

• Rhizomatous sedges and cord rushes:

• Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa)
• Lepidosperma limicola
• Ptilothrix deusta
• Lepyrodia scariosa
• Leptocarpus tenax
• Cord-rush    (Baloskion longipes)

.

‘Edge Effects’ – when housing development is allowed to encroach upon Blue Mountains Swamps

(Where Fifth Avenue Katoomba has priority over the headwaters of Yosemite Creek, before it enters the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area)

Tree species here is Eucalyptus mannifera subsp. gullickii

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Blue Mountains Swamps – Known Grasses and Herbs Species

.

• Deyeuxia spp  (D. gunniana, D. quadriseta),
• Swamp Millet   (sachne globosa )
• Lachnogrostis filiformis
• Poa spp  (P. labillardierei var. labillardierei, P. sieberiana)
• Tetrarrhena turfosa
• Entolasia stricta
• Dampiera stricta
• Mirbelia rubiifolia
• Gonocarpus teucrioides
• Carex klaphakei
• Derwentia blakelyi
• Wingecarribee Gentian    ( Gentiana wingecarribiensis)
• Lepidosperma evansianum
• Yellow Loose Strife   (Lysimachia vulgaris var. davurica)
• Tawny Leek-orchid  (Prasophyllum fuscum)
• Dark Leek-orchid   (Prasophyllum uroglossum)
• Large Tongue Orchid   (Cryptostylis subulata)

.

Large Tongue Orchid (Cryptostylis subulata)

Blue Mountains Swamp

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

For further Reading visit: ^Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone ,   ^Blue Mountains Swamps in the Sydney Basin Bioregion – profile

.

So what differentiates a Blue Mountains Swamp?

.

What is common across the above varying substrate and vegetation characteristics, that differentiates a Blue Mountains Swamp from other vegetation communities are the following attributes:

1. Situated on the Narrabeen Sandstone plateaux across the Blue Mountains region
2. Underlying sandstone, ironstone and claystone bedrock forming a horizontal impermeable layer
3. Ancient peaty sandy soil with organic matter that is poorly drained
4. Presence of groundwater
5. Constantly or intermediately waterlogged soil
6. Locally native vegetation that thrives in such waterlogged soils

.

Q:  But where do the spatial limits of a Blue Mountains Swamp begin and end?  Are Blue Mountains Swamps dependent upon the health of adjoining vegetation communities, particularly of those upstream.

A:  Probably, but who knows and who is researching Blue Mountains Swamps?

 

Q:  Is it the physical characteristics that differentiate a Blue Mountains Swamp from other less significant vegetation communities or is it our selective attitudes that decide whether to protect it or condemn it?

God Government Death Lever

.

A Save or Bulldoze Case Study:  

‘Katoomba Creek Swamp at Twynam Street’

.

Katoomba Creek Swamp

With a cluster of magnificent King Ferns (Todea barbara) up the back, which are dependent upon constant ground water seepage

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

 

Katoomba Creek in the Upper Central Blue Mountains flows northward from a central plateau into the Grose Valley within the Blue Mountains National Park.

Katoomba Creek Swamp

Dominated by Pouched Coral Ferns (Gleichenia dicarpa), which are dependent upon constant ground water seepage

Tree canopy is Blue Mountains Ash  (Eucalyptus oreades), which is rare and in the Blue Mountains found only around Katoomba

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

The headwaters of Katoomba Creek are forked from four upland gullies, one which has been dammed for water reservoir (Cascade Reservoir), and another starts near Twynam Street which forms the outer settlement area of Katoomba.  It is just three kilometres upstream from the World Heritage Area – the boundary of which is rather arbitrary and should be here at the precious headwaters.

Yet despite the substrate and vegetation characteristics of the creek headwaters suiting those of a Blue Mountains Swamp, Blue Mountains Council’s chief housing development manager, Paul Weston, Executive Principal, Building & Construction Services on 13th February 2012 deemed that “the vegetation community across the site is consistent with the Eucalyptus oreades Open Forest community, and known variations of that community, and is not a hanging swamp.”

“The inspections confirmed that some basic features common to hanging swamps are present on the land, such as steep slopes and groundwater seepage which supports the occurrence of the fern species Pouched Coral Fern (Gleichenia dicarpa), which is also found in swamps.  However, the absence of many typical Blue Mountains Swamp species, the presence of a prominent tree canopy, the absence of peat formation and the co-existence of the ferns with established and emerging sclerophyll shrub species, make this community inconsistent with that of the Blue Mountains Swamp Community.”

Furthermore, while the sheltered south easterly aspect, steep slope, the underlying geology and locally moist conditions provide a niche within the forested E. oreades- E. radiata – E. piperita community for ferns and other species to flourish in the wet conditions, the area does not support the usual suite of Blue Mountains swamp sedges, ground layer and shrub vegetation, nor the development of peat, nor is it wet enough to prevent the co-existence of other drier sclerophyll forest understory and canopy species in this vicinity.

The Proposed Housing Development Site at 121 Twynam Street Katoomba

The same Katoomba Creek Swamp – Tasman Flax-lily (Dianella tasmanica) in foreground

Photo by Editor 20120128, licensed under ^Creative Commons, click image to enlarge

.

Blue Mountains Council’s Environmental Scientist and Environmental/Landscape Assessment Officer have inspected and assessed this swamp and deemed it not a swamp but a ‘wet forest‘.

Ed:  What puritanical pretense!

.

This pristine vegetation community lies wholly within the riparian zone of the headwaters of Katoomba Creek (just metres away from the above photo).  The underlying substrate is sandstone, ironstone and claystone bedrock forming a horizontal impermeable layer.  The soil is ancient peaty sandy soil with organic matter that is poorly drained.  It has constant groundwater causing waterlogged soil.  The vegetation is a carpet of Pouched Coral Ferns, with a large cluster of King Ferns.  It has Soft Twig Rush (Baumea rubiginosa), its Lepidosperma limicola (sedge grass in foreground).    The tree canopy is Eucalyptus oreades which is common across Blue Mountains Swamps found at creek headwaters, but endemic only around Katoomba.

Is this more Swamp Selective Bias?

Indeed, the Blue Mountains Council ecological mapping assigned this site as a dry sclerophyll  Eucalyptus piperita/ Eucalyptus sieberi forest.  Woops.

The Council judgment letter stated that this site is zoned under Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1991 as Residential Bushland Conservation.  But in fact, 80% of the site is zoned as a ‘Protected Area – Environmental Constraint‘  (see below extract).  Woops.

.

The ‘Environmental Constraint Area‘ zoning under Local Enviropnment Plan 1991 for 121 Twynam Street (perimeter highlighted)

covers 80% of the site from the street frontage.

.

LEP 1991 Protected Areas Objectives:   Clause 7.2 Environmental Constraint Area

.

(a) To protect environmentally sensitive land and areas of high scenic value in the City  (Ed: not that any reasonable person could possibly deem the Blue Mountains to be a ‘city’).
(b) To provide a buffer around areas of ecological significance.  (Ed: Such as a pristine Blue Mountains Swamp)
(c) To restrict development on land that is inappropriate by reason of its physical characteristics or bushfire risk.  (Ed: the site is Bushfire Risk Category 1)

.

121 Twynam Street is zoned a Category 1 Bushfire Risk

.

The Slope of the site exceeds 33% grade, which exceeds the limits for the Council’s development criteria

.

LEP 1991 Clause 11.3  ‘Environmental Constraint Area’

.

“The Council shall not consent to development in a Protected Area – Environmental Constraint Area, unless it is satisfied, by means of a detailed environmental assessment, that the development complies with the objectives of the Protected Area that are relevant to the development and will comply with the Development Criteria in clause 10 that are relevant to the development.”

 

Council Judgment:

.

 “In conclusion it is considered that the proposed dwelling and driveway have been designed and located to ensure that the development will not have a significant adverse environmental impact and is suitable for the site.”

.

[Sources:  ‘Proposed dwelling at 121 Twynam Street, Katoomba”  letter by Paul Weston, Executive Principal, Building & Construction Services, Blue Mountains Council’s Development, Health & Customer Services Department, 20120213, Ref: X/69/2010;  Blue Mountains Council website – ‘Interactive Maps’, ^http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/bmccmap/index.cfm]

.

Ed:  So is this judgment and the process one of selective blindness, ignoring rules, hypocrisy, incompetence, or worse?   In the case of Katoomba Creek Swamp, the decision is not to save this particular Blue Mountains Swamp, but to bulldoze it.

.

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

.

The fire tragedy afflicted Australia’s legendary ‘Conservation Cradle’

 A scorched Grose Valley from Evan’s Lookout, looking north up Govett’s Gorge

(Photo by Editor taken 20061209, free in public domain.  Free Large Image)

.

A heritage tragedy unfolds

.

A simple lighting stike ignited remote bushland in rugged terrain within the Blue Mountains National Park, over 5km north of the township of Blackheath on 20061113.

Innocuously, the ignition started off on hilly Burra Korain Ridge,

It was far from settlement but during relatively calm weather and low temperature, so it was not suppressed but ‘monitored’

..then the wind picked up.

.

It and a second ignition west were allowed to continue burning for days until they eventually coalesced with compounded backburning into a firestorm some ten days later down in the Grose Valley.   On 20061122, the prized Grose Valley and its iconic and precious Blue Gum Forest were incinerated under a pyrocumulus cloud of towering wood smoke that could be seen from the Sydney coast a hundred kilometres away.  Some 14,070 hectares of National Park habitat was burnt.  The tragedy did not so much as ‘strike‘ from the lighting itself, but as Blue Mountains residents we saw it ‘unfold‘ over many days and nights under the trusteeship of Bushfire Management.

.

..ten days later

The pyrocumulus cloud of a screaming, dying Grose Valley precious to many, including wildlife

The Grose Valley and its Blue Gum Forest and wildlife burning to death on 20061122

A greenhouse gas estimate was not taken.

.

Community shock, sadness and overwhelming sense of loss

.

How was this allowed to happen?

In the days that followed, many Blue Mountains residents and especially the many conservationists familiar with the Grose Valley and Blue Gum Forest over many years became deeply shocked at learning about the loss of this magnificent sacred preserved forest – its tall 300+ year old rare Blue Gums (Eucalytus deanii).

Without knowledge of personal accounts, one respects that the dramatic scenes of the smoke and fire inflicted personal trauma with many, given so many people’s long and established personal knowledge, affinity, love, awe and respect for..

 ‘The Blue Gum‘

.

The Habitat Advocate reaches out to these people (doesn’t matter the fact that years have passed) and we choose to express the view of a need to tell truths and to seek some sense of learned maturity from it all.  For the Grose Valley contained many tracks, many walks and many special places if one knew where to look.  Popes Glen and from Govetts Leap down under Bridal Veil following the popular Rodriguez Pass to Junction Rock then Acacia Flat and the Blue Gum Forest in the heart of the Grose.   Many special places includes Beauchamp Falls, Docker Buttress, Pulpit Rock, Lockley Pylon, Anvil Rock lookout, Perrys Lookdown, Hanging Rock, Pierces Pass, Asgard Swamp, and the inaccessible Henson Glen and David Crevasse gorge.

To this editor, the return in 2007 to a previously sacred special, but incinerated Neates Glen was emptying in spirit.  There was heartfelt shock and dismay by many local conservationists familiar with the iconic Blue Gum Forest who became deeply saddened by the tragedy.

Neates Glen, as it was

But since incinerated, not by the wildife, but by deliberately lit ‘backburning’

.

Phone calls and emails were exchanged with many locals wanting to know the extent of the damage and whether ‘the Blue Gum‘ could recover.   The original fire had been fanned westward from Burra Korain Head spotting along the Blackheath Walls escarpment, but then decended and burnt through Perrys Lookdown, Docker Buttress and down and through the Blue Gum.   Deliberately lit backburns had descended and burnt out Pierces Pass (Hungerfords Track) through rainforest into the Grose and everyone had seen the pyrocumulus mushroom cloud towering 6000 feet above the Grose on the 22nd.

There was an immense sense of loss.     The relatively small Blue Gum Forest, perhaps just several hectares, was unique by its ecological location, by its grand age and by its irreplaceability.  The sense of loss was perhaps more pronounced amongst the more mature conservationists, now lesser in number, who knew its original saviours of the 1930s – Alan Rigby, Myles Dunphy and other dedicated bushwalkers who had championed to save it from logging 81 years ago.

The conservation heritage of The Blue Gum Forest dates back to Australia’s earliest conservation campaign from 1931

For this reason ‘The Blue Gum Forest’ has been passionately respected as

Australia’s ‘Cradle of Conservation’

.

The region is home to threatened or rare species of conservation significance living within the rugged gorges and tablelands, like the spotted-tailed quoll, the koala, the yellow-bellied glider, the long-nosed potoroo, the green and golden bell frog and the Blue Mountains water skink.  Many would have perished in the inferno, unable to escape.  The Grose is a very quiet and sterile place now, with only birds.  But to the firefighters, these were not human lives or property.

.

Deafening silence from the ‘Firies’ naturally attracted community enquiry and suspicion

.

The day after the firestorm that enveloped the Grose Valley, the wind subsided and from 20061123 through to the final mopping up date of 20061203, the 2006 Grose Bushfire and its many ember spotfires came under bushfire management control and were ultimately extinguished or else considered to be ‘benign‘.

It is important to note that during the entire bushfire event from 20061113 through to 20061203, only NSW Rural Fire Service ‘Major Fire Updates’ on its website and headline journalism appeared in the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper.  Initially, the community, conservationists and ‘firies’ were respectfully passive.    In the immediate aftermath of the fire from 20061204 through to the weekly issue of the  Blue Mountains Gazette on 20061129, the local community, conservationists and ‘firies’ were letter silent in the paper.  It was a combination of shock, preoccupation with the emergency and respectful anticipation of communication from the bushfire authorities.

One can assume here that given the scale of the tragedy, many in the Blue Mountains community were respectfully patient in anticipation of an assured announcement from Bushfire Management or some communication process.  But none eventuated.

.

Injustice

.

The following weekly issue of the Gazette was published on 20061129, but no communication from Bushfire Management.   Only dismissive bureaucratic statements came from Parks and Wildlife’s Regional Director Geoff Luscombe with a tone suggesting minimal damage and business-as-usual.

This was the article:

 

6th Dec:    ‘Park managers take stock as smoke clears’

[Source: ‘Park managers take stock as smoke clears’, by journalist Jacqui Knox, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20061206, ^http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/park-managers-take-stock-as-smoke-clears/487936.aspx?storypage=0]

Ed: This RFS propaganda photo was included in the media article.

Govetts Leap Track (shown here) was deliberately lit by Bushfire Management

.

‘Hundreds of fire-fighters are celebrating a return to normality this week after cooler weather and an intense two-week campaign by volunteers and professionals brought a fire in the Grose Valley under control.

According to the Rural Fire Service this good weather, combined with a thorough mop-up operation and ongoing infra-red monitoring, means flare-ups are unlikely.  However the 15,000 hectare burnt area – including the iconic Blue Gum Forest – is likely to remain closed for the “foreseeable future” due to safety concerns and regeneration.

Geoff Luscombe, regional manager of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), said the fact that only part of the Grose Valley burnt meant many animals had been able to seek refuge.

“Many of the Australian plants and animal species have learnt not only to survive fire but to exploit it,” he said.  However he confirmed fears that the fire had burnt Blue Gum Forest – a Mecca for bushwalkers and conservationists in the heart of the Grose Valley.

“Blue gums aren’t a particularly fire-tolerant species,” he said.   “Fire last burnt through Blue Gum in 1994. The effects of this fire we don’t know yet and we may not know for many months to come.”

A botanist has been sent to inspect the area and there could be ongoing monitoring.   Mr Luscombe did not wish to comment on how the fire was handled due to a lengthy absence, but Inspector Jack Tolhurst from the Blue Mountains District Rural Fire Service has warded off any potential criticism.

“I think at the moment we should be looking at the positive,” said Inspector Tolhurst. “The fire is contained . . . It’s been a very long campaign but at the end of the day we haven’t lost any property or lives and half the Grose Valley at least remains intact.”

A fire that broke out near Zig-Zag Railway last week has also been contained.  [Ed.  According to inside reports, Zig Zag Railway Station was accidentally firebombed by an aerial helicopter attempting backburning].

“We’ve had a lot of help from a wide range of people. We’ve had wonderful support from the community . . . it was a wonderful effort from everyone.”

Meanwhile the hard work has only just begun for another group of dedicated volunteers.  Blue Mountains WIRES are expecting to rescue a number of fire-affected native animals in coming months as they wander into residential areas for food and water.

“The arboreal animals – possums and gliders – they come to grief,” said chairperson Greg Keightly. “Birds suffer heat stress and smoke inhalation. They’re going to be flying around bewildered.”

He said residents who see native wildlife in urban areas should keep pets inside, provide water off the ground in a place safe from predators, and avoid the temptation to feed wildlife.

“Things come up for months after fires,” said Mr Keightley.  “Do ring us (4754-2946) if you thing something is injured or doing it tough,” he said.

The national park south of the Great Western Highway, and the lookout at Govetts Leap, are open to visitors.   For information on closures call 4787-8877 or visit www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au’

.

---

.

Mismanagement?

.

So the silence from the firies, from Bushfire Management and from the New South Wales Government ultimately responsible and accountable, was deafening.  It was as if the entire Firie fraternity had gone to ground in a code of silence behind closed doors.

So naturally the community response was that something smelt fishy.   This communication intransigence was a public relations blunder by Bushfire Management, to its detriment.

Then filtered out accounts of crazy operational mismanagement during the bushfire and of bush arson by the firies behind the roadblocks beyond the public gaze.

• Rumours circulated that the initial ignition had been left for burn in the critical first few days of 13th November and 14th November up on Burra Korrain Ridge because it wasn’t right next to a road so that fire trucks could get to it.   The fire had even been abandonned.  Then the wind picked up and it spread. Airborne firefighting was not called in until a Section 44 incident declaration was effected on 15th November.
• A second fire nearby to the west near Hartley Vale, purported also lit by dry lightning on 14th Nov, had attracted broadscale backburning from the Hartley Vale Road.  But the backburn got out of control, ripped up the valley fanned by winds and crossed over the Darling Causeway on to the Blackheath Escarpment and the Upper Grose to join up with the first blaze.  The onground evidence shows that this was a hazard reduction burn starting from alongside the Hartley Vale Road just east of the village of Hartley Vale.
• Then came the account of senior bushfire management at the Rural Fire Service headquarters at Homebush ordering a ‘headburning’ a new 10km fire front along the south of the Bells Line of Road into the Grose Valley.  Perhaps the NSW Government had stepped in demanding action.  Perhaps RFS headquarters response was a series of overreactions, albeit too late and to be seen to be now ‘acting’ was only compounding the fire risk to the Grose .  Apparently, the RFS Commissioner had even touted imposing a massive defacto hazard reduction north of the Bells Line of Road right though the vast wilderness of the Wollemi National Park, to somehow head off another fire on 20th November some 80km away north of Wiseman’s Ferry, but that strategy was rejected in a heated operational debate.   [“The Wollemi National Park is part of the World Heritage Area and covers 488,620 hectares.  Important values of the park include the spectacular wild and rugged scenery, its geological heritage values, its diversity of natural environments, the occurrence of many threatened or restricted native plant and animal species including the Wollemi pine and the broad-headed snake, significant plant communities, the presence of a range of important Aboriginal sites and the park’s historic places which are recognised for their regional and national significance.” – Wollemi NP Plan of Management, April 2001]
• Even the Zig Zag tourist railway station was apparently accidently firebombed by an overzealous airborne firefighter starting backburning en mass
• Then came the account of Blackheath residents who had their houses subjected to the risk of a deliberately lit backburn during the course of the bushfire.  Despite the out of control wildfire being many miles to the north west of Blackheath, a broadscale backburn (some say is was really a ‘defacto hazard reduction‘)  was lit along the fire trail below the electricity transmission line near Govetts Leap lookout.   But it got out of control briefly and threatened to burn houses in Connaught Road.   Indeed the entire Blackheath Escarpment fire from Hat Hill Road  south through Govetts Leap Lookout and Ebans Head was started deliberately as a ‘strategic’ backburn.

Blackheath Escarpment completely burnt (top) for hectares, looking south from Hat Hill Road

(Photo by editor 20061209, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)

.

The rural property east of Hartley Vale where on 20070207 there was clear evidence of hazard reduction (HR)

commencing only from the south side Hartley Vale Road, opposite.

Eucalypts were burned only at the base, but further up the hill the tree crowns had been burned.

The HR had quickly got out of control and then crossed over the Darling Causeway.

(Photo by editor 20070207, free in public domain, click image to enlarge)

.

 

Once two weeks had passed since the dramatic firestorm and with only silence emanating from Bushfire Management and the NSW Government, local people had had enough and they wanted answers.

Some 143 local yet disparate conservationists via ‘jungle drums’ met up, discussed the issue, united informally and agreed to go public.  They informally formed the ‘Grose Fire Group‘ and contributed to a fighting fund some $1700 odd and became vocal.  Two weeks after the Grose Valley Firestorm the Grose Fire Group managed a full page open letter in the local Blue Mountains Gazette on 20061206 on page 13.  It was directed to the ultimate authority responsible and accountable for the Grose Fire Tragedy, the NSW Government.  The Premier at the time was Labor’s Morris Iemma MP.  The NSW Member for the NSW Seat of Blue Mountains as well as NSW Minister for Environment at the time was Bob Debus MP.

Those who valued the Blue Gum Forest challenged those responsible for its protection.  The tragedy certainly stirred and polarised the Blue Mountains community.  Conservationists naturally wanted answers, an enquiry, a review of bushfire prevention and management from:

• NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service under the direction of Regional Director Geoff Luscombe
• NSW Rural Fire Service under the direction of Commissioner Phil Koperberg
• Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee aligned with Blue Mountains City Council and chaired by Councillor Chris Van Der Kley.

.

‘Grose Valley Fire – World Heritage takes a hit’

“The Blue Gum Forest, birth-place of the modern conservation movement, was badly damaged by the Grose fire on Wednesday the 22^nd of November. If this precious forest was a row of houses, then there would automatically be a major investigation into how the fire was fought. The fact that this major loss of our natural heritage is only now becoming known is testimony to the prevailing attitudes of those controlled the media spin during this recent fire event,” said Keith Muir director of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness.

“Until today the overall perception from the media was that this fire was a good one. No houses or lives lost”, Mr Muir said.

“There where no media updates on the struggle to save Blue Gum. No the reports of success in saving fire sensitive rare plants and rainforests along the escarpment edge. All the media reports spoke of bushland burnt; not on the success of any strategy to minimise the impact on the World Heritage listed national park, while saving lives and property”, he said.

“The Blue Mountains National Park Fire Management Strategy 2004 sets out all the necessary actions to protect the natural environment, as well as life and property. Yet for some reason it appears at this stage that the fire was not fought according to that agreed Strategy, as far as its provisions on natural heritage were concerned”, said Mr Muir.

“Increased fire is a major threat to World Heritage values of the Greater Blue Mountains national parks. Unless we develop and implement better strategies to defend the bush, as well as lives and property, then climate change will make this threat much worse,” Mr Muir said.

“The fire management strategies and techniques undertaken during the fire need to be re-examined to ensure the diversity of the Blue Mountains forests is protected into the future,” he said.

“Future fire management requires the feedback that only an inquiry into the Grose Valley Fire can achieve. Such an inquiry should not be taken as a criticism of those involved in fighting fire. It is an opportunity to ensure that everyone stays on fully board with future efforts to minimise fire damages,” Mr Muir said.’

[Source: Colong Foundation for Wilderness, ^http://www.colongwilderness.org.au/media-releases/2006/12/grose-valley-fire-%E2%80%93-world-heritage-takes-hit].The magnificent rich carpeted Gross Valley, as it was

(compare with the lead photo at the start of this article, click image to enlarge)

.

What exacerbated the conflict was not some much that the bushfire had got out of control and had raged through the precious Grose Valley per se, but it was more the defensive, aloof reaction by ‘Firies’ which escalated into a barrage of defensive and vocal acrimony against any form of criticism of the firefighters.

In the face of such palatable denial by the Firies,of any accountability the initial shock and sadness within the local community within days quickly manifested into outrage and anger, and even to blame and accusations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most conservationists however felt a right to question and seek specific answers from Bushfire Management about the Grose Fires, for lessons to be learned, for fundamental changes to be made to bushfire management policy, bushfire fighting resourcing and practices, all simply so that such a tragedy should not be repeated.

But the key problem was that the ‘Firies‘ adopted an ‘in denial’ approach to a community suffering loss.   Many Firies denied that they had done anything wrong and rejected any criticism by conservationists.  Some Firies vented their anger in the local media attacking anyone who dared criticise.   Clearly, Bushfiore Management’s debriefing and review of the bushfire in its immediate aftermath was poorly managed.

Underlying the conflict was the Firies urban fire fighting mandate to ‘protect lives and property” – that is human ones, not forests, not wildlife.  Whereas what emerged with many in the Blue Mountains community was the implicit expectation that the World Heritage Area is an important natural asset to be protected, including from devastating bushfire.

The Grose Valley

Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area

.

Hence, it was a conflict between differing cultural value systems.  It was about recognition of the value of the natural assets of the Blue Gum Forest and the Grose Valley within the Bue Mountains National Park within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

The iconic Blue Gum Forest

(Acacia Flat, before the pyrocumulus firestorm of 22nd November 2006)

.

The iconic Blue Gum Forest

(The aftermath)

.

20 Sep:  (2 months prior)…‘Fire crews prepare’

[Source: ‘Fire crews prepare’, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20060926]

.

‘With warmer days just around the corner and continuing dry weather the Blue Mountains Region National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) is again undertaking rigorous preparation for the coming fire season.

“Every year around this time the NPWS run a number of fire preparedness days to ensure staff and fire-fighting equipment are fully prepared for the season ahead,” said Minister for Environment Mr Bob Debus.

NSW Labor Minister for Environment

Mr Bob Debus MP

.

“Fire preparedness days require fire-fighting staff to check their personal protective equipment, inspect fire-fighting pumps and vehicles and ensure that communication equipment and procedures are in place and working before the fire season begins.”

Mr Debus said a number of exercises, including four-wheel drive and tanker driving, first aid scenarios, entrapment and burnovers, were also employed to re-familiarise staff with all aspects of fighting fires.

“Burnovers, where fire-fighters are trapped in a vehicle as fire passes over it, is one of the worst case scenarios a fire-fighter can face so pre-season practice is critical to ensure that their response is second nature”, he said.  “Local fire-fighters have also undergone stringent fitness assessments to make sure they are prepared for the physical demands of fire-fighting – like being winched from a helicopter into remote areas with heavy equipment, to work long hours under very hot and dry conditions wearing considerable layers of protective clothing”, Mr Debus explained.

Mr Debus said that fire preparedness and fitness assessment days worked in conjunction with a number of other initiatives as part of a year-long readiness campaign for the approaching summer.

“Over the past 12 months, NPWS officers have conducted more than 150 hazard reduction burns on national park land across NSW.”

.

“Nineteen hazard reduction burns have been conducted in the Blue Mountains region covering nmore than 4500 ha”    ~Bob Debus MP

.

Mr Debus said that while fire-fighting authorities are preparing themselves to be as ready as possible for flare ups and major fires, home-owners in fire prone areas of teh Blue Mountains should also be readying themselves for the approaching season.  “Now is the time to start cleaning gutters, ember proof houses and sheds, prepare fire breaks and clear grass and fuel away from structures”, he said.’

.

20 Nov:     ‘Bushfires rage closer’

[Source: ‘Bushfires rage closer’, by Dylan Welch and Edmund Tadros, Sydney Morning Herald (with Les Kennedy and AAP), 20061120, ^http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/21/1163871368365.html?from=top5]

.

Wisemans Ferry: 

‘Residents in the historic Hawkesbury River village of St Albans prepared for the worst as raging bushfires neared.  Their predicament came with a  fresh fire outbreak in a  remote corner of Wollemi National Park, 73 kilometres north of Windsor about 2pm.   A Rural Fire Service spokesman said the blaze had destroyed 450 hectares by 3pm. It was being fanned by a string of north-westerly winds and had jumped Putty Road, causing its closure to traffic between Singeleton and Richmond.  Winds of up to 80kmh forecast for the early hours of tomorrow are expected to drive the  fire towards St Albans.   About 45 Rural Fire Service volunteers with 10 tankers have been deployed to protect the small community as residents tried to safeguard their homes from floating embers.  At least two helicopters were in the air to assist the operation.

Wildfire, spot fires and back burning across the Blackheath plateau

(Photo by Rural Fire Service)

.

Blue Mountains:

‘Meanwhile a spokesman for the RFS, Andrew Shade, told (the Sydney Morning Herald) firefighters were waiting to see if changing winds would affect the Blue Mountains fires, which jumped containment lines overnight.  “The fire is across about 7000 hectares; we’ve got 18 aircraft working the fire, including two sky cranes, [and] 400 personnel at the fire on about 60 trucks.”

..Other fires continue to burn across the state, with a number of fires across 7000 hectares in the Hunter Valley burning in remote and inaccessible areas.  Two other fires, near Forbes and Bathurst respectively, are both contained but the RFS has expressed concerns over the weather and its ability to cause a change in the nature of the the two blazes.  Firefighters set up a containment line to protect the outskirts of Blackheath in the Blue Mountains.

Rural Fire Service Commissioner Phil Koperberg said today winds gusting up to 80kmh were predicted for about 3am tomorrow – a time when firefighting planes are unable to fly.   At a news conference in Katoomba, Mr Koperberg described the present threat to Blue Mountain towns as “fairly serious … not grave”.   However, he urged residents to clean fuel away from their homes as a precaution.   This afternoon the most intense efforts were along a containment line at the northern end of Hat Hill Road at Anvil Rock. If that line was breached, the outskirts of Blackheath could be under threat, he said.  Firefighters expected wind changes in the area between 4pm and 6pm today. The Bells Line of Road remains closed and the Blue Mountains National Park will remain closed until further notice.

The Great Western Highway and the Darling Causeway were open but drivers were advised to proceed with caution, with smoke likely to affect the roads.   A total fire ban now applies in all but the north-east corner of the state as temperatures in the high 30s (Celsius), the strong winds and low humidity combine to produce potentially savage conditions…’

 

.

22 Nov:      ‘Firefighters standing strong’

[Source: Firefighters Standng Strong’, by Shane Desiatnik, Blue Mountains Gazette, Wednesday, 20061122, pages 1 and 3,^http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/standing-strong/439486.aspx?storypage=0, Ed: Note this is quoted from the paper edition, which was different to the online edition]

.

‘Thick smoke continues to drift across the Blue Mountains as the largest firefighting and backburning operation in the region since January 2003 enters its second week.

Hundreds of RFS volunteers, NSW Fire Brigades, SES and NPWS personnel, a number of remote firefighting units and 16 waterbombing aircraft are enlisted under a Section 44 declaration with a mission of containing and then attacking bushfires burning in the Grose Valley.  The fires are believed to have been ignited by lightning on Monday, November 13 and at the time of going to press had burnt out 3800 hectares of bushland and private parkland in the valley below Blackheath, Mt Victoria, Bell and Mt Tomah.

No homes were under threat on Tuesday morning, but the RFS almost doubled its resources in the Blue Mountains on Monday night following unfavourable weather conditions.
The NSW FireBrigades also deployed extra fire engines and firefighters ot the Blue Mountains on Tuesday.

The large Blue Mountains bushfire broke its containment lines at Anvil Rock about 11 pm on Monday.  Earlier, a comprehensive backburning operation involving 300 firefighters commenced on Saturday night between Blackheath and Mt Victoria to protect the townships if conditions worsened.  A second phase began along Bells Line of Road between the Darling Causeway and Mt Tomah on Monday morning, continuing to Pierces Pass picnic area to the south.

The backburning activities can cause heavy smoke to linger in residential areas and residents are advised to close windows and doors.  An emergency operations centre is active in Katoomba under the control of Local Emergency Operating Controller and Blue Mountains Police Local Area Commander Patrick Paroz, with the RFS as the lead combat agency.

Blue Mountains RFS community safety officer Eric Berry said remote area firefighting units will continue to attack the fire at the fringe and a fleet of 16 aircraft based in Medlow Bath airfield will operate to contain the fire.

“14 medium to heavy capacity helicopters have been operating 24/7 since last Tuesday  [Ed: This contradicts the official RFS Section 44 Incident Controllers Report – Wednesday 15th not Tuesday 14th]  and we now have three air crane helicopters on the job,” Inspector Eric Berry said.  “This is a massive operation, certainly the biggest in the last three years.  “It involves up to 300 RFS, NSW Fire Brigades, NPWS, police and SES personnel and volunteers at any one time, sourced from all over eastern NSW as well as every Blue Mountains RFS brigade.  “Then there are the support services chipping in like the Salvation Army, who have been supplying breakfast at 5.30 am on a daily basis for the firefighters.”

Inspector Berry said RFS community information meetings last weekend were very successful in seven upper Mountains towns.   “More than 200 residents attended one of the meetings held at Blackheath Golf Club, giving us an opportunity to explain what is going on in plain English.   “More meetings may occur, but in the meantime residents should phone the RFS information line for updates.   “We are getting nearly 6000 hits on our website per day and are updating the site at regular intervals.”

The Gazette visited the Medlow Bath Airfield last Friday, which continues to be a hive of activity.  Six helicopters, including a giant sky crane chopper, took off and landed several times inside an hour, collecting water loads from nearby dams and dropping them into and ahead of the flames.   Kev Adams, an RFS volunteer from Gloucester, described the conditions the pilots had to deal with early last week as wild.

“I came down from Gloucester last Wednesday and we went up in a chopper and the wind was blowing at about 41 knots.  “We hit a pocket of turbulence and I hit my head on the ceiling even though I was strapped in, that’s how wild the wind was.  “Hopefully we’ll be able to head home soon.”

Inspector Eric Berry said good progress has been made, but the weather ahead could test the containment lines.’

.

Ed: Additional reporting in the online version of this article:

‘Severe weather is expected for the Blue Mountains this afternoon between 2.00pm and 5.00pm.  A Total Fire Ban has been declared for a number of areas across the state today, including the Blue Mountains. Temperatures in the Blue Mountains are expected to reach 31 degrees with west-north-west winds gusting up to 45km/h.

Fire behaviour yesterday was subdued due to mild conditions and the main front extinguishing in very low fuel levels. Advantage was taken of these conditions to consolidate containment lines.  The fire has now been burning for fourteen days and burnt nearly 15,000 hectares.

The amount of smoke is likely to increase today. Aircraft and ground crews will be actively patrolling the fire for reactivation of fire edges.  Infrared hot spot technology is being used in an attempt to identify stumps and roots that are still smouldering near the edges. Crews can then locate the hotspots and extinguish them.

The Bells Line of Road between the Darling Causeway and Mount Tomah has been re-opened but may be closed intermittently.  Mount Banks and Pierces Pass trails and tracks are closed to the public.  Residents in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury should remain vigilant.’

.

22 Nov:   ‘Bushfire breaks lines again’

[Source:  ‘Bushfire breaks lines again’, 20061122, Sydney Morning Herald, (AAP), ^http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bushfire-breaks-lines-again/2006/11/22/1163871435049.html]

.

Volunteers back burn along Bells Line of Road as smoke from the fire front can be seen overhead

(Photo by Wade Laube)

.

‘A major bushfire burning out of control in the Blue Mountains again broke containment lines overnight ahead of forecast rugged day for fire fighters.  Two separate blazes have blackened more than 8,000 hectares of the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, with the larger of the two burning on a massive front about four kilometres north of the township of Blackheath.

Wind gusts of up to 70kph are forecast to push through that area, around Grose Valley, about 4am (AEDT) today.  Blustery conditions expected for most of the day with temperatures in the low 30s (Celsius).

Rural Fire Service (RFS) Commissioner Phil Koperberg has said the towns of Mt Tomah and Mt Wilson would be vulnerable to a wind change.  An RFS spokesman said crews had been working on a 35km containment line through the night but the bigger fire had now broken its eastern containment lines.   He said crews were prepared for the “tricky” conditions expected early today, with wind gusts expected to pick up as the day gets warmer.   Waterbombing aircraft cannot take off until first light but no property is currently under direct threat.

Meanwhile, a new bushfire burning in the Wiseman’s Ferry area is not posing any immediate threat to the village of St Albans, 90km north-west of Sydney.  However, the RFS spokesman said that could also change depending on today’s winds.  A total fire ban has been declared for much of the state today, including the Greater Sydney and Greater Hunter areas, the Illawarra and far south coast, southern and central ranges, the upper and lower central west plains and the eastern Riverina.’

.

23 Nov:     “Massive fire back-burn effort’

[Source:  ‘Massive fire back-burn effort’, Mx (free Sydney commuter newspaper), by Matt Sun, 20061123, page 1]

.

‘Hundreds of firefighters are today hoping a massive 30km containment line will stop the Blue Mountains bushfire in its tracks.  [Ed: Bit late, this is the day after that pyrocumulus firestorm] 

About 200 Rural Fire Service and NSW Fire Brigade firefighters worked overnight on a back-burn between Blackheath and Wentworth Falls.  Firefighters were on standby until temperatures dropped and winds died.  They were sent in to light the back-burn as soon as conditions calmed down.  Crews spent this morning back burning on the Bells Line of Road and hoping to create containment lines near the village of (Mt) Tomah if winds subside.

The RFS said 400 firefighters started work on the blaze this morning.  The weather bureau forecast a maximum temperature of 27C, 45kph gusting winds and 17% humidity this afternoon.

Two fires, both ignited by lightning 10 days ago, joined up this week and have now destroyed 14,500 ha.  An RFS spokeswoman said the fire was burning 2.5 km south of Mt Tomah and 7km north of Wentworth Falls…Crews and 15 aircraft will remain on standby to extinguish any spot fires that pass over teh containment line.  Fire-bombing helicopters Elvis and Shania were likely to be sent to other fires burning across NSW.

The RFS today said Blue Mountains townships were not in immediate danger but should remain alert.  But experts warned the extreme weather conditions would return next week, with the mercury reaching the mid 30s.’

.

29 Nov:     “Firefighters gain upper hand”

[Source: ‘Firefighters gain upper hand’,  by Shane Desiatnik, 20061129, ^http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/firefighters-gain-upper-hand/348587.aspx]

RFS propaganda photo for a sympathetic media

These two RFS firies are at the Evan’s Lookout backburn that was deliberatly lit by the RFS

(Photo by Blue Mountains Gazette journalist, Shane Desiatnik, 20061124)

.

The above photo shot taken by the local Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper’s lead journalist, achieved front page on 20061129.  The caption read: “Assessing the aftermath: Medlow Bath RFS crew member Noah Taylor and team leader Michael Anderson near Evans Lookout last Friday.” 

This same photo was re-used by the Blue Mountains Gazette a year later on 20071024 (page 7) to support an article by the Rural Fire Service incident controller in charge of co-ordinating the fire-fighting of the 2006 Grose Fire, Mal Cronstedt, who responded to an article in the paper on this subject by The Habitat Advocate dated 20071010.

.

‘Hundreds of weary but determined firefighters are steadily gaining the upper hand over a Grose Valley bushfire that has burned about 15,000 hectares since November 13.

Daylight waterbombing by a fleet of choppers based at Medlow Bath airfield, increasing access by remote area firefighting units, successful backburns along the northern and southern escarpments and milder than predicted weather conditions since Saturday have limited the spread of the fire.

At the time of going to press, 130 RFS, NSW Fire Brigades and NPWS firefighters and nine helicopters were conducting backburns, mopping up buffer zones and cutting in access trails to the fire’s fringes.  The active front of the fire was within containment lines yesterday morning, allowing the Bells Line of Road and Mt Tomah Botanical Gardens to re-open.

A small fire that started at Mitchells Lookout in Mt Victoria on November 23 is extinguished and investigations are continuing into its cause.

Blue Mountains RFS is warning residents to remain vigilant by continuing to prepare their homes for fire if conditions worsen and to immediately report any suspicious activity to CrimeStoppers by calling 1800-333-000.

The milder conditions are a welcome relief from the heat and 100 km/h wind gusts that put residents of Hazelbrook, Linden, Faulconbridge and Winmalee on high alert last Wednesday afternoon.

An explosion within the fire, which witnesses described as causing a mushroom-like cloud to develop, ignited spotfires four kilometres north of Lake Woodford and five kilometres north of Hazelbrook.   Many residents headed home early from work to clear gutters and roofs and two Winmalee schools opted to close for 24 hours as a precaution.  Eighteen water-bombing aircraft attacked the spotfires, extinguishing one within hours and the second by Thursday evening.

For daily fire updates and advice, go to www.bluemountains.rfs.nsw.gov.au, phone a dedicated 24-hour hotline manned by local volunteers on 1800-264-525 or visit your local RFS station, staffed by volunteer station officers.

“These people are the unsung heroes of the RFS,” Blue Mountains RFS public liaison and education officer Paul McGrath said.

.

Overwhelming grief shunned by government hush, galvanised an immense sense of environmental injustice :

 

It was time to challenge (with due civility) the unaccountable bastards in authority…the NSW Government:

An extract of a full page letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette 20061206 on page 13

It was commissioned by 143 concerned Blue Mountains residents

It was addressed not to the ‘firies’, but to the NSW Government.

.

Pulpit Rock on the left of the Grose Valley, before the firestorm

It is easy to see why the Blue Mountains, with their Eucalytus tree oil suspended in the atmosphere, get their famous name.

(Photo by Chris Ellis)

.

This article was initially written by this editor and published in the Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper on 20051005 as a letter to the editor, entitled ‘RFS strategy misguided‘.

.

19th Century heritage-listed ‘Six Foot Track’

..bulldozed by the Rural Fire Service in July 2005, widened into a convenient Fire Trail for its fire truck crews.

.
It has been revealed that the June bulldozing or grading of the Six Foot Track near Megalong Creek (Blue Mountains, New South Wales) was a mere drop in the Rural Fire Service (RFS) Bushfire Mitigation Programme.

Across the Blue Mountains, some twenty natural reserves including the Six Foot Track were targeted under the RFS 2004-05 Fire Trail Strategy:

• Edith Falls
• McMahons Point
• Back Creek
• Cripple Creek
• Plus some 95 hectares inside the Blue Mountains National Park.

.

Read: [>RFS Fire Trail Policy]

Read: [>RFS Fire Trail Classification Guidelines]

.

According to the Australian Government’s (then) Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) website, some $151,195 was granted to the RFS in the Blue Mountains alone, for it to bulldoze and burn 144 hectares of native bushland under the euphemism of “addressing bushfire mitigation risk priorities”  (Ed: Read ‘bush arson‘) 

‘The Six Foot Track Conservation and Management Plan 1997, Vol II’ lists numerous vulnerable species of fauna recorded near Megalong Creek – the Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Clyptorhynchus lathami), Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus), Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).

Glossy Black-Cockatoo

[Source: Dubbo Field Naturalist & Conservation Society
http://www.speednet.com.au/~abarca/black-cockatoo.htm]

.

Giant Burrowing Frog

[Source:  Frogs.org.au, ^http://frogs.org.au/community/viewtopic.php?t=4876&sid=0dc45ef08e12cd5e1d27524bca2269f9]

.

Spotted-tailed Quoll

(Dasyurus maculatus)

Blue Mountains top order predator, competing with the Dingo

.

The RFS contractors wouldn’t have had a clue if they were within 100 metres or 1 metre of rare, vulnerable or threatened species.

The RFS is not exempt from destroying important ecological habitat; rather it is required to have regard to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD).

Read: >RFS Policy 2-03 Ecologically Sustainable Development

.

The ‘Rationale‘ of this RFS ESD policy states at Clause 1.2:

‘The Bush Fire Coordinating Committee, under the Rural Fires Act 1997 Sec 3 (d), is required to have regard to ESD as outlined in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, which sets out the following principles:

a)   The precautionary principle namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

i.   careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and
ii.   an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

.

b)   Inter-generational equity namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations

.

.

c)   Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in all decisions.

.

d)   Recognising the economic values that the natural environment provides. The natural environment has values that are often hard to quantify but provide a benefit to the entire community. By recognising that the natural environment does have significant economic and social values we can improve decision making for the present and future generations.’

.

.

Yet the RFS policy on hazard reduction is woefully loose in the ‘Bushfire Co-ordinating Committee Policy 2 /03 on ESD‘ – which (on paper) advocates protecting environmental values and ensuring that ESD commitments are adopted and adhered to by contractors.

Experience now confirms this policy is nothing more than ‘greenwashing’.  The RFS wouldn’t know what environmental values were if they drove their fire truck into a Blkue Mountains upland swamp.  There is not one ecologist among them.

While the critical value of dedicated RFS volunteer fire-fighters fighting fires is without question, what deserves questioning is the unsustainable response of the RFS ‘old guard’ to fire trails and hazard reduction with token regard for sensitive habitat.  Repeated bushfire research confirms that bushfires are mostly now caused by:

1. Bush arson (hazard reduction included, escaped or otherwise)
2. More residential communities encroaching upon bushland.

.

Under the ‘Blue Mountains Bushfire Management Committee Bushfire Risk Management Plan’ (Ed: their bureaucratic name), key objectives are patently ignored:

• ‘Ensure that public and private land owners and occupiers understand their bushfire management responsibilities’
• ‘Ensure that the community is well informed about bushfire protection measures and prepared for bushfire events through Community Fireguard programs’
• ‘Manage bushfires for the protection and conservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and recreational features , including tourism values, of the area’.

.

Instead, the Rural Fire Service is content to look busy by burning and bulldozing native bushland.  The RFS actively demonises native vegetation as a ‘fuel hazard‘, in the much the same way that ignorant colonists of the 18th and 19th centuries demonised Australia’s unique wildlife as ‘vermin‘ and ‘game‘.

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   Previous article on The Habitat Advocate:  ‘RFS Bulldozes Six Foot Track‘  (published 20101220):  [>Read Article]

.

[2]  Tip of the Bush-Arson Iceberg

What these government funded and State-sanctioned bush-arsonists get up to, deliberately setting fire to wildlife habitat, is an ecological disgrace.

The following list is from just 2005 of the vast areas of native vegetation deliberately burnt across New South Wales in just this one year.  [Source: DOTARS].

Not surprisingly, this State-sanctioned bush-arson information is no longer published by government each year for obvious clandestine reasons, as the bush-arson continues out of the public eye.

The hazard reduction cult is similarly perpetuated across other Australian states – Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, West Australia as well as Northern Territory and the ACT.   No wonder Australia’s record of wildlife extinctions tragically leads the world!  There is little precious rich wildlife habitat left.

.

National Park and Wildlife Service  (NSW) Bush Arson:

(Note: ‘NR’ = Nature Reserve, ‘NP’ = National Park, ‘SCA’ = State Conservation Area… as if these bastards care)

Reserve / Activity Name	Treatment Area (km2)
Baalingen NR	5
Baalingen NR	6
Bald Rock NP	7
Banyabba NR	0.5
BANYABBA NR	3
BANYABBA NR	24
BANYABBA NR	8
Barakee NP	6
Barool NP	20
Barool NP	6
Barool NP	5
Barool NP	4
Barool NP	2
Barool NP	5
Barrington Tops NP	2.5
Barrington Tops NP	2
Barrington Tops NP	6
Barrington Tops NP	18
Barrington Tops NP	6
Barrington Tops NP	16
Barrington Tops NP	11
Barrington Tops NP	1
Barrington Tops NP	4
Barrington Tops NP	2
Barrington Tops NP	1
Barrington Tops NP	3
Basket Swamp NP	1
Basket Swamp NP	12
Basket Swamp NP	2
Basket Swamp NP	4
Bellinger River NP	1
Ben Boyd NP	0.8
Ben Boyd NP	3
Ben Boyd NP	0.9
Ben Boyd NP	0.9
Ben Boyd NP	5
Ben Boyd NP	13
Ben Boyd NP	5
Ben Boyd NP	0.4
Ben Boyd NP	1
Ben Boyd NP	2
Ben Boyd NP	3
Ben Boyd NP	5
Ben Boyd NP	3.6
Ben Boyd NP	1.9
Ben Boyd NP	1.6
Ben Halls Gap NP	3
Bindarri NP	2
Black Bulga SCA	8
Black Bulga SCA	12
Black Bulga SCA	21
Blue Mountains NP	42
Blue Mountains NP	8.3
Blue Mountains NP	23
Blue Mountains NP	10
Blue Mountains NP	12
Bogendyra NR
Bolivia NR	1
BOLLONOLLA NR	2
Bondi Gulf NR	8
Bondi Gulf NR	6
Bondi Gulf NR	10
BONGIL BONGIL NP	0.3
BONGIL BONGIL NP	0.5
Boonoo Boonoo NP	9
Boonoo Boonoo NP	10
Booti Booti NP	0.5
Booti Booti NP	0.3
Booti Booti NP	3
Booti Booti NP	0.3
Booti Booti NP	3
Border Range NP	6
Border Ranges NP	4
Border Ranges NP	3
Border Ranges NP	4
Border Ranges NP	2.8
Bouddi NP	0.5
Bouddi NP	0.3
Bouddi NP	0.9
Bouddi NP	0.9
Bouddi NP	0.5
Bouddi NP	1.1
Bouddi NP	0.5
Bouddi NP	1.9
Bouddi NP	1.1
Bouddi NP	0.6
Bouddi NP	2.3
Bournda NR	10
Bournda NR	5
Bournda NR	0.5
Bournda NR	0.5
Bournda NR	0.5
Brindabella NP	20
Brisbane Water NP	4.4
Brisbane Water NP	2.4
Brisbane Water NP	3.7
Brisbane Water NP	3.6
Brisbane Water NP	0.3
Brisbane Water NP	3.1
Brisbane Water NP	0.6
Budawang NP	4.8
Budderoo NP	10
Bugong NP	3.1
Bundgalung NP	2
BUNDJALUNG NP	7
BUNDJALUNG NP	4.5
BUNDJALUNG NP	8
BUNDJALUNG NP	1.5
BUNDJALUNG NP	0.5
BUNDJALUNG NP	6
BUNDJALUNG NP	3
BUNDJALUNG NP	3
BUNDJALUNG NP	4
BUNDJALUNG NP	2
BUNDJALUNG NP	1
Bundundah Reserve	1.94
Bundundah Reserve/Morton NP	4.7
Bungawalbyn NP	2
Bungawalbyn NP	2.25
Bungawalbyn NP	4
Bungawalbyn NP	5
Bungawalbyn NP	3
Bungawalbyn NP	4.5
Bungawalbyn NP	6.5
Bungawalbyn NP	5
Bungawalbyn NP	1.65
Bungawalbyn NP	1.5
Burnt Down Scrub NR	2
Burnt School NR	2
Burrinjuck NR	8
Burrinjuck NR	15
Burrinjuck NR	3
Butterleaf NP
Butterleaf NP	3
Butterleaf NP	3.2
Butterleaf NP	1.2
Butterleaf NP	1.6
Butterleaf NP	1.2
Butterleaf NP	2
Butterleaf NP	1.8
Butterleaf NP	1.4
Butterleaf NP	0.5
Butterleaf NP	2.3
Butterleaf NP	3.3
Butterleaf NP	3.9
Butterleaf NP	5.3
Butterleaf NP	0.4
Butterleaf NP	0.5
Butterleaf NP	1.5
Butterleaf NP	2.9
Butterleaf NP	5.3
Butterleaf NP	4
Butterleaf NP	3.3
Butterleaf NP	3.6
Butterleaf NP	1.5
Butterleaf NP	8.8
Butterleaf NP	0.5
Capoompeta NP	10
Cataract NP
Cataract NP	1.5
Cataract NP	2
Cataract NP	2
Cataract NP	1.5
Cataract NP	2
Cataract NP	1
Clayton Chase	5
Clayton Chase	10
Clayton Chase	3.5
Clayton Chase	4
Clayton Chase	3
Clayton Chase	3
Clayton Chase	4
Conjola NP	5.7
Conjola NP	1.8
Conjola NP	8.3
Conjola NP	4.8
Conjola NP	2.9
Conjola NP	4.5
Conjola NP	6.5
Coolah Tops NR	28
Coolah Tops NR	1
Coolah Tops NR	6
Copeland Tops SCA	3
Copeland Tops SCA	3.5
Corramy SCA	0.7
Cottan-bimbang NP	6
Cottan-bimbang NP	16
Cottan-bimbang NP	15
Culgoa NP	30
Curramore NP
Curramore NP	8
Curramore NP	8.9
Curramore NP	11
Curramore NP	5.5
Dapper NR	10
Deua NP	15.2
Deua NP	1.4
Deua NP	1
Deua NP	4
Deua NP	21.5
Deua NP	2.1
Deua NP	1.4
Deua NP	3.3
Deua NP	8.5
Deua NP	20.8
Deua NP	5.3
Deua NP	6.6
Deua NP	28.2
Deua NP	5.65
DUNGGIR NP	4
Eurobodalla NP	0.8
Eurobodalla NP	2.5
Eurobodalla NP	0.8
Eurobodalla NP	2.4
Eurobodalla NP	2
Flaggy creek  NR	3
Flaggy creek  NR	1.8
GANAY NR	2
GANAY NR	2
Garawarra SCA
Garby NR	2
Gardens of Stone NP	18
Gibraltar NP	14
Goobang NP	5
Goobang NP	25
GUMBAYNGIR SCA	12
GUMBAYNGIR SCA	7
GUMBAYNGIR SCA	6
Ironbark NR	13.5
Jerrawangala NP	6.83
Jervis Bay NP	2.37
Jervis Bay NP	5.42
Jervis Bay NP	0.56
Jervis Bay NP	0.82
Jervis Bay NP	1.45
Jervis Bay NP	1.72
Jervis Bay NP	0.21
Jervis Bay NP	0.32
Jervis Bay NP	0.7
Jervis Bay NP	0.4
Jervis Bay NP	0.35
Jervis Bay NP	0.35
Jervis Bay NP	0.48
Jervis Bay NP	1.03
Jervis Bay NP	0.65
Jervis Bay NP	1.91
Jervis Bay NP	0.34
Jervis Bay NP	0.95
Jervis Bay NP	1.46
Jervis Bay NP	0.71
Jervis Bay NP	1.07
Jingellic NR	20
Karuah NR	10
Karuah NR	28
Karuah NR	10
Karuah NR	12
Karuah NR	1
Kings Plains NP	7
Kings Plains NP	0
Kings Plains NP	4
Koreelah NP	6
Kosciuszko NP	30
Kosciuszko NP	9.5
Kosciuszko NP	22
Kosciuszko NP	22
Kosciuszko NP	33
Kosciuszko NP	33
Kosciuszko NP	33
Kosciuszko NP	12
Kosciuszko NP	12
Kosciuszko NP	17
Kosciuszko NP	5
Kosciuszko NP	28
Kosciuszko NP	9
Kosciuszko NP	6
Kosciuszko NP	6
Kosciuszko NP	26
Kosciuszko NP	8.9
Kosciuszko NP	15
Kosciuszko NP	15
Kosciuszko NP	2.5
Kosciuszko NP	8.9
Kosciuszko NP	10
Kosciuszko NP	11
Kosciuszko NP	4.8
Kosciuszko NP	18
Kosciuszko NP	19
Kosciuszko NP	7.2
Kosciuszko NP	7.2
Kosciuszko NP	13
Kosciuszko NP	18
Kosciuszko NP	33
Kosciuszko NP	33
Kosciuszko NP	18
Kosciuszko NP	18
Kosciuszko NP	15
Kosciuszko NP	12
Kwiambal NP	7
Kwiambal NP	3
Kwiambal NP	2
Kwiambal NP	2.25
Lake Macquarie SCA	0.3
Lake Macquarie SCA	0.4
Lake Macquarie SCA	0.4
Lake Macquarie SCA	0.4
Ledknapper NR	15
Linton NR	12.5
Meroo NP	2.4
Meroo NP	0.9
Meroo NP	0.6
Meroo NP	3.3
Meroo NP	3.9
Meroo NP	3.5
Meroo NP	0.5
Morton NP	5.9
Morton NP	8.3
Morton NP	3.8
Morton NP	6
Morton NP	13
Morton NP	0.4
Morton NP	4.5
Morton NP	5
Morton NP	2.7
Morton NP	0.7
Morton NP	2.1
Morton NP	1
Morton NP	6
Mt Canobolas SCA	1
Mt Clunnie NP	6.5
Mt Dowling NR	2
MT NEVILLE NR	11
MT NEVILLE NR	1
MT NEVILLE NR	1.5
MT NEVILLE NR	11
MT NEVILLE NR	1.5
MT NEVILLE NR	3.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	2
MT PIKAPENE NP	4
MT PIKAPENE NP	2.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	1.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	1.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	4
MT PIKAPENE NP	7
MT PIKAPENE NP	2
MT PIKAPENE NP	2.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	6
MT PIKAPENE NP	3
MT PIKAPENE NP	0.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	0.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	2.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	2
MT PIKAPENE NP	1
MT PIKAPENE NP	2.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	6
MT PIKAPENE NP	2
MT PIKAPENE NP	1
MT PIKAPENE NP	2.5
MT PIKAPENE NP	2
MT PIKAPENE NP	1.5
Mummell Gulf NP	3
Mummell Gulf NP	7
Mummell Gulf NP	5
Munmorah SRA	0.7
Munmorah SRA	0.8
Munmorah SRA	0.45
Munmorah SRA	1
Munmorah SRA	2
Munmorah SRA	0.9
Munmorah SRA	1.6
Muogamarra NR	1
Murramarang NP	0.9
Murramarang NP	8
Murramarang NP	1
Murramarang NP	5.1
Murramarang NP	8.2
Murramarang NP	3.1
Murramarang NP	6.8
Murramarang NP	16
Murramarang NP	4.3
Murramarang NP	4
Myall Lakes NP	5
Myall Lakes NP	5
Myall Lakes NP	1.5
Myall Lakes NP	2
Myall Lakes NP	1
Myall Lakes NP	5
NGAMBAA NR	2
NGAMBAA NR	5
Nombinnie NR	10
Nymboida NP	6
Nymboida NP	12
Nymboida NP	3
Nymboida NP	4
Nymboida NP	1
Nymboida NP	4
Nymboida NP	4
Nymboida NP	3.2
Nymboida NP	4.5
Nymboida NP	2
Nymboida NP	4
Nymboida NP	2.8
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	4.2
Nymboida NP	7
Nymboida NP	6
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	10.7
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	19.1
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	13.4
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	18
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	18
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	15
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	33
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	33
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	5
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	5
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	4
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	3
Oxley Wild Rivers NP	7
Parma Creek NR	0.21
Parma Creek NR	0.07
Parma Creek NR	0.3
Parma Creek NR	0.01
Parma Creek NR	0.29
Parma Creek NR	5
Paroo Darling NP	60
Policemans Cap	10
Razorback NR	17
Richmond Range NP	3.9
Richmond Range NP	6.5
Richmond Range NP	3.8
Richmond Range NP	4.5
Richmond Range NP	5.5
Richmond Range NP	9
Royal NP	1
Seven Mile Beach NP	1.09
Seven Mile Beach NP	1.79
Seven Mile Beach NP	2.24
Seven Mile Beach NP	0.74
Seven Mile Beach NP	2.03
Severn River NR	6
Single NP	21
South East Forest NP	5
South East Forest NP	1.2
South East Forest NP	1.2
South East Forest NP	2.6
South East Forest NP	3
South East Forest NP	10.9
South East Forest NP	1.3
South East Forest NP	1
South East Forest NP	1.2
South East Forest NP	2.8
South East Forest NP	2
South East Forest NP	1.2
South East Forest NP	2
South East Forest NP	5.1
South East Forest NP	3.5
South East Forest NP	0.5
South East Forest NP	6
South East Forest NP	3
South East Forest NP	1
South East Forest NP	5.5
South East Forest NP	0.8
Stoney Batter NR	6
Tapitallee NR	0.52
Tapitallee NR	0.33
Tapitallee NR	0.36
Tapitallee NR	0.32
Tarlo River NP	3.8
Tarlo River NP	2.1
Tarlo River NP	2.9
Tarlo River NP	5.9
Tarlo River NP	6.5
Tarlo River NP	2.7
Tarlo River NP	2.1
Tarlo River NP	6
Tollingo NR	150
Tomaree NP	1.8
Tooloom NP	3
Toonumbar NP	31.9
Toonumbar NP	8.5
Toonumbar NP	17
Toonumbar NP	21.5
Triplarina NR	0.71
Triplarina NR	0.32
Triplarina NR	0.66
Triplarina NR	0.75
Triplarina NR	1.34
Triplarina NR	0.31
Triplarina NR	1.24
Triplarina NR	1.35
Ungazetted (Kalyarr NP)	48
Ungazetted (Kalyarr NP)	26
Unknown	7
Wa Hou NR	10
Wa Hou NR	1
Wa Hou NR	7
Wa Hou NR	1
Wa Hou NR	11
Wa Hou NR	1
Wa Hou NR	7
Wa Hou NR	1
Wa Hou NR	1
Wa Hou NR	1
Wa Hou NR	1
Wallaroo NR	3
Wallaroo NR	1.5
Wallaroo NR	8
Wallaroo NR	5
Wallaroo NR	11
Wallaroo NR	7
Wallaroo NR	7
Wallaroo NR	16
Wallaroo NR	6
Wallingat NP	2
Wallingat NP	1.3
Wallingat NP	3.6
Wallingat NP	3.3
Washpool Np	18
Washpool NP	5.3
Washpool NP	5.6
Washpool NP	7.1
Washpool NP	6.4
Washpool NP	1.6
Washpool NP	7
Washpool NP	2.8
Watson’s Creek NR	5
Wereboldera SCA	9
Woggoon NR	144
Wollemi NP	21
Wollemi NP	12
Wollemi NP	10
Wollemi NP	30
Wollemi NP	7
Wollemi NP	11
Wollemi NP	7
Wollemi NP	16
Wollemi NP	2
Wollemi NP	8
Wollemi NP	5
Woodford Island NR	1.5
Woodford Island NR	2
Woodford Island NR	3
Woodford Island NR	3
Woollamia NR	1.51
Woollamia NR	0.77
Woollamia NR	1.95
Woollamia NR	1.88
Woollamia NR	0.74
Woomargama NP	15
Yabbra NP	8
Yabbra NP	45
Yango NP	0.45
Yanununbeyan NP	11
YARRIABINNI NP	2
YARRIABINNI NP	3
YARRIABINNI NP	5
YARRIABINNI NP	6
YARRIABINNI NP	4
Yuraygir NP	4
Yuraygir NP	3.5
Yuraygir NP	1
Yuraygir NP	1
YURAYGIR NP	0.03
Yuraygir NP	1
Yuraygir NP	3.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	1.5
Yuraygir NP	28
Yuraygir NP	10
Yuraygir NP	12
Yuraygir NP	1
Yuraygir NP	1
Yuraygir NP	4
Yuraygir NP	3.5
	3,785.10 Ha

i.e.  An area 6km x 6km

.

NSW Local Government Areas (LGAs)

Bush Fire Management Committee / LGA	Reserve / Activity Name	Treatment Area (km2)
Blue Mountains	Northern Strategic Line -Primary	8
Blue Mountains	De Faurs Trail – Mt Wilson -Primary	2.8
Blue Mountains	Mitchell’s Creek Fire Trail – Primary	3.5
Blue Mountains	Nellies Glen Fire Trail	2.8
Blue Mountains	Back Creek Fire Trail – Primary	3.2
Blue Mountains	Mt Piddington Trail – Hornes Point	N/A
Bombala	Gibraltar Ridge Fire Trail (2) (PT)	20
Bombala	Mt Rixs Fire Trail (PT)	6
Bombala	Roaring Camp Fire Trail (PT)	12
Cooma-Monaro	Brest Fire Trail (2) (PT)	15
Cooma-Monaro	Calabash Fire Trail (2) (PT)	22
Cooma-Monaro	Murrumbucca Fire Trail (2) (ST)	15
Cooma-Monaro	Bridge Fire Trail (2) (PT)	6
Cooma-Monaro	Log In Hole Fire Trail (2) (PT)	5
Gloucester	Upper Avon Fire Trail	11
Greater Argyle	Mountain Ash Fire Trail	10
Greater Argyle	Mootwingee Fire Trail	6
Greater Hume	Murphy’s Fire Trail	0.2
Greater Hume	Mandaring Fire Trail	1
Greater Queanbeyan City	Queanbeyan River Fire Trail	5.5
Greater Queanbeyan City	Gourock Fire Trail	5.8
Hawkesbury District	Jacks Trail	1.6
Hawkesbury District	Duffys Trail (2) ?tenure	3
Mallee	Various Fire Trails	N/A
Mallee	No 21 Fire Trail	20
Namoi/Gwydir	Warialda State Forest	6.5
Namoi/Gwydir	Zaba-Kaiwarra-Kiora Fire Trail (check)	10
Namoi/Gwydr	Blue Nobby Fire Trail (check)	8
Namoi/Gwydr	Araluen Fire Trail (check)	6
Snowy River	Snowy Plain Fire Trail (2) (PT)	18
Snowy River	Crackenback Fire Trail (PT)	10
Snowy River	Devils Hole Fire Trail (PT)	18
Snowy River	Golden Age Fire Trail (2) (PT)	8
Sutherland	Sabugal Pass Fire Trail	N/A
SW Mallee	Various Fire Trails	N/A
SW Mallee	Oberwells Fire Trail	28
SW Mallee	Mandleman Fire Trail	40
Upper Lachlan	Johnsons Creek Fire Trail	15
Warringah/Pittwater	Lovett Bay Trail (2)	2.5
Warringah/Pittwater	Elvina Bay Trail (2)	1.5
Yass Valley	Nelanglo Fire Trail	21
Yass Valley	Hayshed Fire Trail 1	7
Yass Valley	Hayshed Fire Trail 2	7
		391.90 km2

i.e.   An area 20km x 20km

.

Forests NSW (government’s industrial logger of NSW remnant forests).

(Forests NSW did not publish the area burnt, only the cost. As a rule of thumb use $3000/square km)

Bush Fire Management Committee	Reserve / Activity Name	NSW Allocation
Clarence Zone	Dalmorton SF	$30,000
Future Forests	Swan	$20,050
Future Forests	Tindall	$10,680
Future Forests	Tooloom	$10,425
Future Forests	Mazzer	$7,341
Future Forests	Kungurrabah	$4,435
Future Forests	Morpeth Park	$3,773
Future Forests	Loughnan	$3,155
Future Forests	Inglebar	$3,000
Future Forests	Lattimore	$2,604
Future Forests	Byrne	$1,755
Future Forests	Ziull 4	$1,677
Future Forests	Lejag	$1,670
Future Forests	Ziull 2	$1,600
Future Forests	Bates	$1,563
Future Forests	Ziull 3	$1,454
Future Forests	Envirocom	$1,410
Future Forests	Morgan	$1,361
Future Forests	McNamara	$1,279
Future Forests	Neaves	$967
Future Forests	Zuill	$872
Future Forests	Boyle	$807
Future Forests	Fitzpatrick	$791
Future Forests	Morrow	$785
Future Forests	Morrow	$785
Future Forests	Morrow	$785
Future Forests	Wallwork	$665
Future Forests	Smith	$665
Future Forests	Wilson	$622
Future Forests	Jarramarumba	$600
Future Forests	Hession	$597
Future Forests	Edwards	$563
Future Forests	Maunder	$558
Future Forests	Kuantan	$515
Future Forests	Billins	$484
Future Forests	Cox	$475
Future Forests	Paterson	$461
Future Forests	Gladys	$415
Future Forests	O’Keefe	$371
Future Forests	Woodcock	$369
Future Forests	Pratten	$346
Future Forests	Truswell	$323
Future Forests	Divine	$323
Future Forests	Hastings	$323
Future Forests	White	$300
Future Forests	Miller	$300
Future Forests	Koop	$300
Future Forests	Lacy	$277
Future Forests	Nosrac	$277
Future Forests	Tully	$277
Future Forests	Baker	$277
Future Forests	Yaganegi	$277
Future Forests	Siezowski	$254
Future Forests	Zuill	$254
Future Forests	Atcheson	$254
Future Forests	Dissevelt	$254
Future Forests	Hoy	$254
Future Forests	Woods	$254
Future Forests	Dawson	$254
Future Forests	Hagan	$254
Future Forests	Skelly	$231
Future Forests	Robards	$231
Future Forests	Maunder	$231
Future Forests	Day	$231
Future Forests	O’Connell	$231
Future Forests	Kompara	$231
Future Forests	Carmen	$231
Future Forests	Maurer	$231
Future Forests	Cunin	$208
Future Forests	GCC	$208
Future Forests	White	$208
Future Forests	Hayer	$208
Future Forests	Southgate	$208
Future Forests	Peck	$208
Greater Taree	Kiwarrak SF	$40,000
Hastings	Cowarra SF	$30,000
Hastings	Caincross SF	$4,000
Hume	Clearing fire trails	$100,000
Hume	New FT	$6,000
Hunter	Pokolbin SF	$13,600
Hunter	Myall River SF	$12,800
Hunter	Myall River SF	$12,800
Hunter	Heaton SF	$12,400
Hunter	Bulahdelah SF	$6,100
Hunter	Watagan SF	$3,200
Hunter	Awaba SF	$3,200
Hunter	Myall River SF	$3,100
Macquarie	Warrengong	$16,250
Macquarie	Vulcan & Gurnang	$11,519
Macquarie	Kinross SF	$8,800
Macquarie	Mount David	$6,101
Macquarie	Newnes SF	$5,199
Macquarie	Printing 25 fire atlas’	$2,048
Macquarie	Black Rock Ridge	$447
Mid-Nth Coast – Taree	Knorrit SF	$36,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Taree	Yarratt SF	$16,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Boonanghi SF	$37,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Northern Break	$9,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Caincross SF	$3,000
Mid-Nth Coast – Wauchope	Western Break	$2,000
Monaro	Clearing fire trails	$114,685
North East	Thumb Creek SF	$46,000
North East	Candole SF	$29,535
North East	Various State Forests	$20,000
North East	Mt Belmore SF	$12,115
North East	Candole SF	$8,900
North East	Lower Bucca SF	$5,500
North East	All North Region	$3,300
North East	Wild Cattle SF	$3,000
North East	Orara East SF	$1,900
Northern -Casino	Barragunda	$11,522
Northern -Casino	Yaraldi 2003	$8,847
Northern -Casino	Yaraldi 2004	$3,207
Richmond Valley	Bates	$20,000
Richmond Valley	Whiporie SF	$13,154
Richmond Valley	Swanson	$12,000
Richmond Valley	McNamara	$10,180
Richmond Valley	Whiporie SF	$9,582
Southern	Pollwombra FT	$6,360
Southern-Eden	Various – whole district	$112,019
Tamworth	Nundle SF	$40,000
Walcha	Nowendoc SF	$30,000
Walcha	Styx River SF	$20,000
		$1,073,482

i.e.  Approximately an area 20km x 20km

 .

NSW Department of Lands    (what native vegetation’s left).

Bush Fire Management Committee	Reserve / Activity Name	Treatment Area Ha / Other	Treatment Area (km2)
Baulkham Hills	Porters Rd / Cranstons Rd		5
Baulkham Hills	Porters Rd / Cranstons Rd (2)		4
Baulkham Hills	Pauls Road Trail		5
Baulkham Hills	Mount View Trail		1
Baulkham Hills	Idlewild		2
Baulkham Hills	Maroota Tracks Trail		7
Baulkham Hills	Yoothamurra Trail		1
Baulkham Hills	Kellys Arm Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Dargle Ridge Trail		5
Baulkham Hills	Dargle Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Days Road Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Dickinsons Trail		6
Baulkham Hills	Fingerboard Trail		3
Baulkham Hills	Floyds Road Trail		8
Baulkham Hills	Neichs Road Trail		4
Bega	Eden Strategic Fire Trail		3
Bega	Illawambera Fire Trail		1
Bega	Merimbula/Turu Beach Strategic Protection		2
Bega	Yankees Gap		2
Bega	Millingandi Special Protection (Trail)		1
Bega	Wallagoot Strategic Protection (Trail)		1.2
Bega	South Eden Strategic Protection (Trail)		1
Bega	Merimbula/Pambula Strategic Protection (APZ)		1
Bega	Pacific St Tathra		0.5
Bland	Bland Villages (FTM)		2
Bland	Water Tower Reserve FTM		3
Blue Mountains	Cripple Creek Fire Trail Stage 2		5
Blue Mountains	Cripple Creek Fire Trail Complex		5
Blue Mountains	Caves Creek Trail		0.4
Blue Mountains	Edith Falls Trail		2
Blue Mountains	Boronia Rd – Albert Rd Trails		1
Blue Mountains	Perimeter Trail – North Hazelbrook		1.5
Blue Mountains	McMahons Point Trail – Kings Tableland		7
Blue Mountains	Back Creek Fire Trail		3.2
Blue Mountains	Mitchell’s Creek Fire Trail		3.5
Bombala	Gibraltar Ridge Fire Trail		11
Bombala	Burnt Hut Fire Trail		5
Bombala	Merriangah East Fire Trail		12
Bombala	Bombala Towns & Villages (Trails)		10
Campbelltown	St Helens Park – Wedderburn Rd (Barriers)		0.3
Campbelltown	Barrier / Gate
Campbelltown	Riverview Rd Fire Trail		0.65
Canobolas	Calula Range FTM
Canobolas	Spring Glen Estate FTM
Cessnock	Neath South West Fire Trail		2
Cessnock	Neath South East Fire Trail		1.5
Cessnock	Neath North Fire Trail (2)		1
Cessnock	Gates – Asset Protection Zones
Cessnock	Signs – Asset Protection Zones
Cessnock	Signs – Fire Trails
Cessnock	Kearsley Fire Trail		0.5
Cessnock	Neath – South (Trail)		4
Cessnock	Neath – North (Trail)		2
Clarence Valley	Bowling Club Fire Trail		1
Clarence Valley	Brooms Head Fire Trail		0.2
Clarence Valley	Ilarwill Village		0.3
Cooma-Monaro	Chakola Fire Trail		21
Cooma-Monaro	Good Good Fire Trail		12
Cooma-Monaro	Inaloy Fire Trail		19
Cooma-Monaro	Cowra Creek Fire Trail		4
Cooma-Monaro	David’s Fire Trail		2.1
Cooma-Monaro	Clear Hills Fire Trail		5
Cooma-Monaro	Mt Dowling Fire Trail		16
Cooma-Monaro	Towneys Ridge Fire Trail		6
Cunningham	Warialda Periphery 2		20
Cunningham	Upper Bingara Fire Trail
Dungog	Dungog Fire Trail Signs
Far North Coast	Byrangary Fire Trail		1
Far North Coast	Main Arm Fire Trail (NC67)		2
Far North Coast	Burringbar Fire Trail (NC69)		1
Far North Coast	Mill Rd Fire Trail (NC95)		1
Far North Coast	Broken Head Fire Trail (NC68)		0.5
Far North Coast	New Brighton Fire Trail (NC44)		0.5
Far North Coast	Mooball Spur Fire Trail		1
Far North Coast	Palmwoods Fire Trail (NC06)		0.5
Gloucester	Coneac Trail		6
Gloucester	Moores Trail		6
Gloucester	Mt Mooney Fire Trail		6
Gosford District	Signs – Fire Trails
Great Lakes	Ebsworth Fire Trail		1
Great Lakes	Tuncurry High Fire Trail		0.6
Great Lakes	Monterra Ave Trail – Hawks Nest		0.7
Greater Argyle	Browns Rd Komungla		12
Greater Argyle	Greater Argyle Fire Trail Maintenance
Greater Argyle	Cookbundoon Fire Trail		2
Greater Taree District	Tinonee St Road Reserve		0.25
Greater Taree District	Beach St SFAZ – Wallabi Point		0.35
Greater Taree District	Sth Woodlands Dr – SFAZ		1.3
Greater Taree District	Cedar Party Rd – Taree		2
Hawkesbury District	Sargents Road (2)  ?tenure		0.75
Hawkesbury District	Parallel Trail (2)		2.5
Hawkesbury District	Parallel Trail (1)		1.1
Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai	Tunks Ridge, Dural		1
Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai	Radnor & Cairnes Fire Trail		0.5
Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai	Binya Cl, Hornsby Heights		1.5
Shellharbour District	Saddleback – Hoddles Trail		3
Shellharbour District	Rough Range Trail		1
Lake Macquarie District	Kilaben Bay Fire Trail		1.5
Lake Macquarie District	Gates – Access Management
Lake Macquarie District	Signs – APZ
Lake Macquarie District	Signs – Fire Trails
Lithgow	Wilsons Glen Trail		6.1
Lithgow	Kanimbla Fire Trail No 314		7.8
Lithgow	Camels Back Trail No 312		4.5
Lithgow	Crown Creek Trail No 206		7
Lithgow	Capertee Common Trail No 203		3
Lower Hunter Zone	Access Infrastructure – All Districts
Lower North Coast	Cabbage Tree Lane Fire Trail, Kempsey		1.5
Lower North Coast	Bullocks Quarry Fire Trail		0.66
Lower North Coast	Perimeter Protection, Main St, Eungai Creek, Nambucca		0.6
Mid North Coast	Urunga Lagoon, Bellingen		4
Mid North Coast	Wenonah Head, Bellingen		4
Mudgee	Munro’s Fire Trail		24
Mudgee	Munro’s Fire Trail		5.25
Penrith	Londonderry/Castlereagh		6
Port Stephens	Bobs Farm Fire Trails		4
Port Stephens	Salamander Way Fire Trail		1.5
Port Stephens	Gan Gan Hill West Fire Trail		1.2
Port Stephens	Nelson Bay – Gan Gan Hill (Trail)		1.5
Port Stephens	Taylors Beach Fire Trail		1
Port Stephens	Nelson Bay – Wallawa Rd (SFAZ)		0.7
Port Stephens	Taylors Beach East Fire Trail		3.5
Port Stephens	Nelson Bay – Wallawa Rd (Gates)
Port Stephens	Port Stephens Fire Trail Signs
Port Stephens	Corlette – Salamander Way (Trail)		1
Shoalhaven	APZ Access Works
Snowy River	Southern Boundary Fire Trail		3
Snowy River	Somme Valley Fire Trail		5
Sutherland District	Forbes Creek North Trail		1.3
Sutherland District	Still Creek Complex (Trail)		3.8
Sutherland District	Mannikin Trail		1.5
Sutherland District	Viburnum Trail		0.8
Sutherland District	Mill Creek Complex		2.6
Sutherland District	Loftus Creek Complex		1.9
Sutherland District	Cranberry Trail		0.8
Sutherland District	Turella Trail		0.8
Sutherland District	Freemantle Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Illaroo Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Yala East Trail		0.9
Sutherland District	Bunyan Fire Trail		1.2
Sutherland District	Rosewell Service Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Belarada Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Belbowrie Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Leawarra Fire Trail		0.9
Sutherland District	McKenzie Service Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Walsh Close Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Yala West Trail		0.7
Sutherland District	Barnes Cres Service Trail		0.6
Sutherland District	Illumba Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Penrose Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Tatler Place Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Torumba Service Trail		0.5
Sutherland District	Friendship Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Kippax – Rosewall Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Tallarook Service Trail		0.4
Sutherland District	Billa Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Chestnut Trail		0.2
Sutherland District	Croston Rd Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Kingswood Rd Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Roebourne Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Whimbrel Service Trail		0.3
Sutherland District	Shearwater Trail		0.1
Tamworth	Moore Creek Dam Reserve		3.5
Tamworth	Moore Creek Dam Reserve		1
Tumut	Bundarbo Fire Trail (Stage 1)		30
Tumut	Yammatree Reserve		2
Tumut	Thomas Boyd Track Head		2
Tumut	Tumut Bush Common		5
Tumut	Batlow Hill		2
Tumut	Rimmers Ridge – Adelong
Tumut	Bangadang		7
Upper Lachlan	Upper Lachlan Fire Trail Maintenance
Upper Lachlan	Isabella Fire Trail		10
Wagga Wagga	Silvatite Reserve (Trails)		5
Wagga Wagga	Wagga Wagga Towns & Villages (Trails)		10
Wagga Wagga	Kyeamba Gap		4
Wagga Wagga	San Isadore		3
Warringah/Pittwater	Sandy Trail		0.1
Warringah/Pittwater	Lovett Bay Trail		2.5
Warringah/Pittwater	Elvina Bay Trail		1.5
Warringah/Pittwater	Aumuna Cooyong Trail		0.2
Wingecarribee	P3 Fire Trail		6
Wingecarribee	Weir Fire trail		3.8
Wingecarribee	Lukes Fire trail		0.1
Wollondilly	Bargo Weir Fire Trail		10
Wyong District	YMCA North / South Link Fire Trail		2
Wyong District	YMCA South / Kanangra Dr Fire Trail		2
Wyong District	Lake Munmorah Fire Trails		3.25
Wyong District	Hyles St Fire Trail, Chittaway Pt		0.1
Wyong District	Big “T” and YMCA Link Fire Trails		1.5
Wyong District	Lake Road Fire Trail, Chittaway Point		0.1
Wyong District	Big “T” Fire Trail – Crangan Bay		1.1
Wyong District	Wyong APZ Signs
Wyong District	Lake Road Fire Trail, Tuggerah		1
Wyong District	Doyalson North, 219-225 Pacific Hway (Trail)		0.8
Yass Valley	Yass Valley Fire Trail Maintenance
			565.16

i.e.  Approximately an area 24km x 24km

. .

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/

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

.

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

.

Comparison with 2003 Canberra Firestorm

.

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

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

Ten days later it became the 2003 Canberra Firestorm

.

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo by Daniel Berehulak, Getty Images)

.

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

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

.

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

.

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

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

FOR:

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

.

AGAINST:

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

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

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

..

Editor’s Note:

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

.

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

FOR:

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

.

AGAINST:

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

.

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

.

Editor’s Analysis:

.

1. Similar failure by the RFS and the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) to muster all available necessary resources to suppress and extinguished both the Lawson’s Long Alley and Burra Korain Head fires, demonstrated that lessons from the 2003 Canberra Firestorm had not been learnt.  Critical time was lost in the initial days of the ignitions at both to effectively suppress the fires while they were of a small size and weather conditions relatively favourable to enable suppression.
2. The RFS strategy to apply excessive broadscale backburning on multiple fronts at at Hartley Vale, Blackheath and Bells Line of Road exacerbated the complexity and scale of both fires and in the most part contributed to the conflagration of all the fires down in the Grose Valley on 23rd November 2006
3. The shortcoming of not mustering all necessary resources to suppress and extinguish bushfires, irrespective of whether a fire is immediately affecting property and homes or not, is flawed, negligent and only heightens the inherent risk of a bushfire escalating out of control.  The risk of a bushfire escalation into uncontrollable firestorm is heightened as time allows for the prospect of worsening bushfire weather conditions – increased wind, wind gusts,  wind direction, temperatures, and lowering humidity – contributory factors in both the respective Canberra and Grose Valley Fires.  There is no indication that this operational culture has changed.
4. That a bushfire is situated in inaccessible terrain is not an excuse for bushfire management not to muster all airborne and RAFT resources to suppress and extinguish it as soon as feasibly possible
5. After local community realisation that the bushfire had overrun the Grose Valley including burning through the iconic Blue Gum Forest on 23rd November, an informal collection of local ‘concerned residents‘ formed numbering 143 and co-ordinated by Blue Mountains resident Ian Brown.  By Wednesday 6th December, within days of the fire finally being suppressed (3rd Dec), this informal group had collectively paid for a full page letter in the Blue Mountains Gazette newspaper costing $2,131.40(page 13). The letter was entitled ‘Burning Issues – fire in the Grose Valley – A statement funded and supported by concerned residents‘.   The context was that detailed in Council’s carried motion above.
6. Blue Mountains Council’s response was simply a manifestation of the “supportive words and shallow promises” whom ACT Coroner Maria Doogan had cautioned in the Coroner’s Report into the 2003 Canberra Firestorm.  No effective Council follow up to its supportive words was undertaken.  Sure per Council’s carried motion, Council’s then acting General Manager, Dave Allen, sent off the letter with supportive words to the NSW Premier Morris Iemma, on 20th February 2007, but Council took no other review or enquiry action.
7. In the Central Blue Mountains, there are three government agencies responsible for bushfire management  – the New South Wales Rural Fires Service, the National Parks and Wildlife Service as part of the NSW Department of Environment (what ever its frequently changing title)  and Blue Mountains Council.  Collectively these three bodies have co-operated under the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee, which was/is chaired by Blue Mountains Councillor Chris van der Kley.) and is responsible for planning in relating to bush fire prevention and coordinated bush fire fighting, as well as responsible for advising the Commissioner on bush fire prevention; mitigation and coordinated bush fire suppression.  Included on the Committee is also the Commissioner of the RFS, and a nominated representative respectively from the NSW Fire Brigades, Forests NSW, NPWS, the Local Government Association of NSW, the Shires Association of NSW, the NSW Rural Fire Service Association, NSW Police, a nominee of the Minister for the Environment (then Bob Debus), a representative of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, a person appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the NSW Farmers Association, a representative of the Department of Community Services and a representative of the Department of Lands. In March 2008, the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee (BMBFMC) staged a series of community workshops on the Plan’s review process.   The Plan was approved on 14th December 2000 with a required review every five years.  So by the Grose Valley Fire, the Plan was a year out of date and by March 2008 the Plan was three years out of date.
8. It is not surprisingly that the above proposed amendment to the Council letter to the NSW Premier excluded calls for an independent review.  Those who proposed the motion and who voted for it  were either all Labor Party members or in the case of Liberal Councillor Chris Van Der Kley, Chair of the Blue Mountains Bush Fire Management Committee who was operationally involved.  An independent enquiry and the proposed strategic improvements to the bushfire management establishment would have likely revealed operational and government failings and recommended changes to the RFS structure, strategies, and management and importantly to its culture.  The amendment was rejected anyway due to Labor having insufficient votes on Council.
9. On Sunday 13th November 2006  two separate bushfire ignitions were believed to have been lit by lightning just west of the Grose Valley of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area by the RFS.  Following a back burn/hazard reduction burn that had got  out of control up Hartley Vale Road and crossed the Darling Causeway, on Wednesday 15th November the RFS declared a formal escalation to a Section 44 bushfire emergency.  This four day delay in detection and suppression is unexplained by the RFS.
10. Despite the calls by the concerned residents (with Blue Mountains Council’s supportive words) for the ‘NSW Government to undertake a thorough, independent  review of the Grose Valley Fire, involving all stakeholders, so such independent review was done.
11. The local Labor member for the NSW Seat of Blue Mountains at the time and NSW Minister for the Environment was Bob Debus MP, who categorically refused requests for either an independent review or a public review into the management of the Grose Valley Fires.
12. The Blue Mountains Conservation Society (BMCS) similarly rejected calls for a public enquiry, stating “the circumstances of the bushfire are complex and it is not in anyone’s interest for criticism or blame to be apportioned. However, there is much to be gained by looking at what was done and how it can be improved. The Society does not therefore support a large public inquiry and its attendant politicisation. Instead, the Society advocates an inter-agency and technical review process, to tease out the lessons learned.”  It needs to be pointed out that key committee members of the BMCS were/are also active members of the RFS, which raises the issue of and actual or perceived conflict of interest.
    
13. There were two reviews of sorts, none independent and none public.
1. On Tuesday 19th December 2006 there was apparently an ‘Inter-Agency Review‘ which took place at Katoomba behind closed doors by members of bushfire management and operating personnel involved in the fire fighting. Despite requests by this Editor, no minutes or reports of that meeting were ever forthcoming.  The meeting was internal and secret.
2. On Saturday 17th February 2007, there was a ‘Grose Valley Fire Forum‘ held at Mount Tomah organised by Director of the Central Branch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Bob Conroy, and the Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute.  Only selected participants were permitted to attend – mainly from the bushfire management, fire experts and selected members of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society.  A copy of the report of that forum will be publicised on this website shortly.
14. Following ongoing community concerns about the lack of transparency, no evidence of any lessons being learned from the Grose Valley Fires and even of a cover up into some of the operational decisions, in January 2007 Bob Debus MP announced a suggestion of there being an Environmental Summit to be staged in the Blue Mountains to provide the first public forum into important environmental issues affecting the Blue Mountains region, notably to discuss the Grose Valley Fire.  Well, by the time the summit eventuated it was over a year later and held on the weekend of 23rd and 24th February 2008.   By then Bob Debus had moved to federal politics (though still representing the Blue Mountains via the Seat of Macquarie.  The summit was chaired by the RFS Commissioner responsible for the 2006 Grose Valley Fires, Philk Koperberg (now local Labor MP) and even the bushfire Incident Controller of the 2006 Grose Valley Fires, RFS Superintendent Mal Cronstedt, was in attendance.  However, the summit was now called a conference and the agenda had expanded to many issues including Energy, Social Systems, Natural Systems and Water.  Discussion about bushfire was restricted to a two hour workshop and so available time to the Grose Fire to one or two questions which copped only official spiel.  It was a classic Labor tactic or stalling on accountability until the community gives up or forgets.
15. Since 2006, the Blue Mountains community still doesn’t know whether in the 2006 Grose Valley Fire or currently:

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

.

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

.

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

.

There is a ‘baby boomer‘ political penchant to encourage more and more freight to travel by truck, which has dominated Australian Government transport planning for the past sixty years since World War II.

It is a short-term tactical stop-gap measure.  Compared with rail freight, road linehaul for large volumes, over long distances, in the long term is price uncompetitive, and Peak Oil driving up fuel costs will eventually prove road linehaul a strategic economic blunder.

Speeding B-doubles increasingly dominate the highway over the Blue Mountains

‘Woe betide anyone who gets in my way!‘

(Photo by Editor, free in public domain)

.

Yet ‘road-centric’ freight policy dominates the infrastructure planning, simply because it is being driven by the self-centred vested interests of the trucking industry –  influenced (read ‘bought‘) by ongoing substantial monetary donations (read ‘bribes’)  to the electoral campaigns of alternating Labor and Liberal governments.  Visit ^http://democracy4sale.org/ and choose either:

.

Money talks, hence the political penchant to favour road freight.  Whereas rail, entrenched as a government monopoly, has long denied any community say.  Rail has become the Cinderella to Road where only a small honourary volunteer lobby, the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) has not the funds to compete against the collective corporate might of trucking donors.   Read about the ARA:  ^http://www.ara.net.au/site/index.php

The Liberal-Labor Party’s Auslink National Transport Plan since 2004 professed  ‘a new strategic framework for the planning and funding of Australia’s roads and railways to meet long term economic and social needs.’    However, in reality the funding has all but gone into building bigger and more highways.

News is, we are about to enter the year 2012, so we should have advanced somewhat from post-war trucking thinking.

Yet in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, well over $1 billion is forecast to be spent to build a massive highway viaduct and tunnel; simply so that larger and faster trucks can cart freight, fuel and ore over the Blue Mountains and to bypass the village of Mount Victoria.  The fact that a rail line following a similar route exists and has long been used to cart copious quantities of coal over the Blue Mountains, is ignored by a truck-centric political mindset.   The planned Mount Victoria bypass is just one of the multiple ongoing highway widening sections being constructed by Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) contractors over the Blue Mountains and ultimately extending from Penrith in Sydney’s outer metropolitan west to the New South Wales central-west regional town of Orange, 250km away.

Great Western Highway, Wentworth Falls, March 2010

This trucking section just $115,000,000  (pre-blowout estimate)

(Photo by Editor, free in public domain)

.

The widening of the highway has caused the destruction of much native vegetation and has ruined the bushland amenity of the villages and towns of the Central Blue Mountains.  Construction has caused irreversible sediment contamination of many Blue Mountains waterways that drain from the highway ridgeline downstream into the Blue Mountains National Park and World Heritage Area.

Leura, January 2006

– collateral stormwater pollution of downstream creeks to serve the Trucking Expressway

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

.

Since 1996, the widening of the Great Western Highway over the Blue Mountains has cost over a billion dollars already.  Yet the highway runs parallel to an existing dual rail line, which for the most part runs right alongside one another.  One justification argued for the massive cost and widening of the highway is to relieve traffic congestion for motorists, but there is a low population base in the Blue Mountains as settlement is confined to the ridgeline over the Blue Mountains where the highway and rail run together.  Steep terrain either side prevent a large population expansion.

Katoomba, May 2009

– collateral vegetation damage to serve the Trucking Expressway

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

.

Before construction began, the only systemic traffic congestion on the highway was at weekends when tourists from Sydney ventured west in their cars.  Spending billions to encourage domestic regional tourism has not been the real justification.  The real justification has been and continues to be to encourage more truck freight along the Great Western Highway.

Yet the public is still waiting for a cost-benefit analysis, a calculation of any return on investment, an end-to-end journey analysis of the freight options, an holistic comparison to rail.
Instead, not only has there been a road-only freight focus, the trucks have got bigger.  Governments are now permitting and encouraging the use of 19 metre ‘B-doubles’ along the highway.  It is only a matter of time before 26 metre B-doubles turn up.  In Victoria they are permitting B-triples – basically road-trains!   Successive Labor and Liberal governments at both national and state level have maintained a truck-centric mindset since the 1980s when the NSW Greiner Government abandoned and close down much of the State’s rail infrastructure, including the closure of  rail depots at Valley Heights and Junee.

This baby boomer political penchant has been encouraged and lauded by baby boomer himself, Bob Debus, long-time Labor politician for the NSW seat of Blue Mountains then the Federal seat of Macquarie, both covering the Blue Mountains region.  Bob Debus has since retired, yet the Labor boomer mindset perpetuates with its truck-centric fervour.

.

“It is with dismay that I watch the Mountains stand by as the RTA fulfills Bob Debus’ promise of an “upgraded” highway (read Trucking Expressway) – by his own admission – built to carry 26m B-double trucks.  The RTA admits that when the western container hubs are finished they will generate 4000 extra B-double movements per day.  Parked end to end they would stretch 102 km – every day!  Goondiwindi, Toowoomba and many other towns don’t allow them but we will see them roaring through every Mountains town – past schools, shops and homes.”

.

~ Dennis Plink, Hartley Vale (letter ‘B-double agenda‘ in Blue Mountains Gazette, 20090304, p.8.

.

The widening of the highway into a trucking expressway is wrecking the Blue Mountains.  And certainly, those trucks have increased – in number, in size and length and in speed.  These bigger, faster trucks are not policed.  They are turning the Great Western Highway into a dangerous death zone.

Speeding B-Double truck overturns on Lapstone Hill

–  at an already widened section of the Trucking Expressway

Zoom, zoom, zoom!

(Photo by Top Notch Video).

 

Last July, on the highway at Lawson near Queens Road, truck driven by a 66-year-old Murrangaroo man collided head-on with an eastbound car trapped a female passenger, followed by a separate collision between a truck and a car near Boland Ave at Springwood.  On Friday, 29th July 2011 on Lapstone Hill the driver of a semi-trailer failed to negotiate a left-hand bend while travelling east and crashed into the concrete median barrier.  The impact caused the truck’s trailer — containing a full load of bark — to tip over the barrier and slide a short distance into the path of a westbound Mitsubishi Lancer, driven by a 30-year-old Hazelbrook woman, who remained trapped before being rushed to Westmead Hospital.  Traffic chaos ensued as all westbound lanes were closed for more than eight hours and one eastbound lane also shut for the clean-up operation. Lapstone Hill is one of the widened sections of the highway.

.

[Source:  ‘Blue Mountains highway mayhem’, by Shane Desiatnik, Blue Mountains Gazette, 20110803, ^http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/news/local/news/general/blue-mountains-highway-mayhem/2246694.aspx?storypage=0]

.

Increasingly we are reading in local newspapers of road trauma involving trucks.   Across Australia, during the 12 months to the end of March 2009, 248 people died from 229 crashes involving heavy trucks or buses. These included:

• 138 deaths from 124 crashes involving articulated trucks (semi-trailers, B-doubles, B-triples)
• 90 deaths from 86 crashes involving heavy rigid trucks
• 22 deaths from 21 crashes involving buses.

.

[Source: ‘Fatal Heavy Vehicle Crashes Australia: Quarterly Bulletin, January-March 2009’, Summary, ^http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/fhvca_q12009.asp]

.

---

.

Here are just some of the tragic road trauma incidents involving trucks across Australia over the past year:

.

‘Truck burns at Yelgun’ … two days ago!

.

Flames engulf a postal truck at Yelgun on the NSW north coast on December 18, 2011. The driver stopped the truck after noticing smoke pouring from the engine bay. He collected his belongings and departed the vehicle before the flames took hold.

.

[Source: ‘Truck burns at Yelgun”, by Kalindi Starick, ABC, 20111220, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-19/flames-engulf-a-postal-truck-at-yelgun-on-the-nsw-north-coast/3737752]

.

‘Teenage driver killed in truck collision’…two days ago

.

One woman was killed and five people were injured in two accidents involving B-double trucks.

1. Engineers were called to the scene of a dramatic accident on the Gateway Motorway at Boondall in Brisbane about midday yesterday, when a B-double truckexploded after it and a car collided.
2. On the Bruce Highway near Rockhampton, a 19-year-old woman died and four people were injured when a car and a B-double truck collided. Police said the station wagon tried to turn into the southbound lanes of theBruce Highway at Marmor just before 8pm on Friday when the car and truck, whichwas travelling in the northbound lane, collided.  The 19-year-old driver was killed, while her three female passengers, two aged19 and one aged 18, were taken to Rockhampton hospital. The three are in a stable condition. The 65-year-old driver of the B-double was taken to hospital for precautionary treatment and has been released.

.

[Source: ‘Teenage driver killed in truck collision’, by Date: December 18 2011, Ellen Lutton, 20111218, Sydney Morning Herald, ^http://www.smh.com.au/queensland/teenage-driver-killed-in-truck-collision-20111217-1p0ax.html?skin=text-only]

.

‘Truck crash closes Melbourne freeway’

Melbourne’s Monash Freeway is closed in both directions after a semi-trailer crashed into a bridge pylon in the suburb of Mulgrave in the city’s south-east.

.

[Source: ‘Truck crash closes Melbourne freeway’, ABC, 20111213, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-13/truck-crash-closes-melbourne-freeway/3727918]

.

 

‘Truckie quizzed over fatal crash’

 

Two people have died in a crash on the Pacific Highway near Yamba on the NewSouth Wales north coast.

A 62-year-old man and a 51-year-old woman from the Leeton area died when two cars collided about 11:00am (AEDT) today.  A woman and three children who were in the other car have been taken to the Coffs Harbour Hospital. Police say a truck driver who was involved in the accident but failed to stop, was later pulled over at Ballina.  Police are interviewing him. Rebecca Walsh, from the Traffic Management Centre, says the Pacific Highway is closed in both directions and vehicles are being diverted along the Summerland Way at Grafton.

.

[Source: ‘Truckie quizzed over fatal crash’, ABC, 20111111, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-11/truckie-quizzed-over-fatal-crash/3660874]

.

‘Chemical alert after truck rolls in Blue Mountains’

.

Fire crews are battling to contain a major chemical spill on the Great Western Highway at Katoomba in the Blue Mountains, after a truck overturned and 20,000 litres of a bright green industrial chemical poured out.

Protective bunds have been built around the spill site to stop the chemical, which is possibly a type of hydraulic fluid, reaching the iconic Leura cascades.  The chemical is described as biodegradable, but it can be a toxic irritant to skins and eyes if touched.

Six fire crews were at the site at 5pm, plus a hazardous materials unit from St Marys, a spokesman for Fire and Rescue NSW said.National Parks rangers, Blue Mountains council staff and fire crews are monitoring the extent of the spilled fluid, some of which entered the drainage system. Council staff have poured gravel around the edge of the spill area to try and contain it. The truck rolled over at about 2pm, and the driver’s condition is unknown, although he or she was understood to not have been trapped in the vehicle.

.[Source: ‘Chemical alert after truck rolls in Blue Mountains’, by Ben Cubby, Environment Editor, 20111026, Sydney Morning Herald, ^http://www.theleader.com.au/news/national/national/environment/chemical-alert-after-truck-rolls-in-blue-mountains/2337200.aspx]

 

.

Editor:  Subsequent reports by a Katoomba resident reported observing the green hydraulic fluid flow in quantities down Govetts Creek.  The contaminant would probably have ended up in the World Heritage Area of the creek within the Grose Valley, but would the RTA, Blue Mountains Council or the National Parks Service care? 

‘.

‘Truck overturns at Tabbimoble’  (Maclean)

.

A woman suffered minor injuries when the truck she was driving overturned on the Pacific Highway at Tabbimoble yesterday morning.

The B-double truck carrying general freight was heading north on the Pacific Highway and was about 2km south of the New Italy complex and 25km north of Maclean when it rolled shortly before 5am.  The 46-year-old woman who was at the wheel of the Volvo semi-trailer complained of back pains and was taken by ambulance to Lismore Base Hospital. The highway was partially blocked for four hours while emergency service cleared away the debris.  The accident occurred on what has become a notoriously black stretch of road where several fatalities have occurred in recent years.
.

[Source: ‘Truck overturns at Tabbimoble’, Northern Star, 20110609, ^http://www.northernstar.com.au/story/2011/06/09/truck-overturns-tabbimoble/]

.

‘Cyclists mowed down by truck’

M4 Motorway (aka Trucking Expressway) on approach to the Blue Mountains

Photo: Adam Hollingworth

.

One man has died after a truck veered into a group of cyclists on the M4 motorway.

Fatigue may have caused a truck driver to veer into the breakdown lane and mow down a group of cyclists, killing one, on the M4 in Sydney’s west.  Police said a group of four cyclists were riding in the breakdown lane of the M4 near the Northern Road overpass at South Penrith when they were struck by a B-double truck about 7.40am today. A male cyclist died and the three others sustained serious injuries. The injured were taken to Nepean Hospital.

A WorkCover spokesman said a preliminary investigation was under way to ascertain whether driver fatigue caused the accident.  Police said the male truck driver was taken to hospital for mandatory blood and urine tests.  Police are investigating the cause of the crash.

.

[Source: ‘Cyclists mowed down by truck’, Sydney Morning Herald sourcing AAP , 20100410, ^http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cyclists-mowed-down-by-truck-20100410-rz7v.html]

.

‘Overtaking gamble cost highway driver his life, police believe’

.

One person has died after a truck carrying chemicals exploded after colliding with a car on the NSW north coast this morning.

Police believe a car driver’s early morning gamble in trying to pass a B-double truck on a no-overtaking stretch of the Pacific Highway cost him his life. The sedan was travelling southbound at Warrell Creek just before 4am when it appeared to pull out into the oncoming lane to overtake the truck. It then crashed head-on into a second, northbound, B-double carrying chemicals, Senior Constable Brian Carney of the Mid North Coast Crash Investigation Units aid.

.

[Source: ‘Overtaking gamble cost highway driver his life, police believe’, by Glenda Kwek, 20110405, ^http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/overtaking-gamble-cost-highway-driver-his-life-police-believe-20110405-1cz01.html]

.

‘Exploded fuel tanker closes Pacific Highway’

 

The Pacific Highway on the New South Wales north coast will be closed until New Year’s Day while crews clear a fuel tanker that exploded and killed the driver.

The tanker hauling 40,000 litres of fuel overturned and exploded on what is regarded by truckies as a notorious stretch of the highway, near Tintenbar, 10 km north of Ballina.

Authorities have set up a one-kilometre exclusion zone around the burning tankerand more than 100 firefighters equipped with breathing apparatus were sent to the scene.The ambulance service says the truck driver was killed in the blast, while two people have been freed from a nearby car after being trapped when powerlines came down on their vehicle.  The second trailer of the B-double was thrown into a paddock where it leaked fuel into a nearby wetland, and police still cannot get to the cabin of the burnt truck where the driver’s body remains inside.

Another tanker driver, Gary, says the driver is one of their own but they do not know who.”It is sad to be holed up on the side of the road like this. And it’s sad for a driver that’s not going to go home to his family,” he said.

The truck was laden with diesel and unleaded fuel, which has now been mostly contained.  Police say they will not be able to assess the damaged road until the scorched truck is moved, but they expect the Pacific Highway to be closed for the rest of today.  Six other trucks are banked up behind the accident site unable to turn around.

.

[Source: ‘Exploded fuel tanker closes Pacific Highway’, ABC, 20101231, ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/31/3104386.htm?site=goldcoast]

.

‘Truck lobby donations seem more important than people’s lives!‘

.

~ Dennis Plink, loc. cit.

Native Angophora 300 years old.

The RTA’s Environment Manager says it’s in the way – Chip it!

– collateral damage for the Trucking Expressway

…note railway line on left  

>:/

.