The Australian Association of Bush regenerators (AABR) is cautioning against rushing in to replant burnt areas. They are advocating a focus of allowing sites to regenerate and for sites where there is a need (and an opportunity) to remove weeds that could worsen if not treated and which would prevent recovery of native habitats.

They are establishing a database of volunteers, skilled and unskilled, AABR members and supporters who might be able to contribute some time to the volunteer effort over the next 6 to 12 months. They are particularly seeking people who provide their expertise to inform under-supported land managers and private landholders in high priority fire-affected areas about post-fire weeding so that they can better secure recovery of faunal habitats.

Click here for more information.

The NSW government is not holding sittings in Macquarie Street but decisions are still being made, with most of them being a continuation of the same disregard for the environment. Here are some examples.

Planning System Acceleration Program

To aid recovery from the economic downturn arising from the COVID-19 pandemic the government has announced a Planning System Acceleration Program which will bring forward planning reforms:

to cut red tape and fast-track assessment processes to boost the construction pipeline and fast-track new projects

Only limited details of the program have been provided and it is proposed that it will include measures:

• to fast-track the assessment of state significant developments, development applications and rezonings, with more decisions to be made by the minister if necessary
• to support councils and planning panels to fast-track locally and regionally significant development applications
• to expand the type of works that can be carried out as a complying development
• to introduce a ‘one stop shop’ for industry to progress projects that may be ‘stuck in the system’
• to appoint additional acting commissioners to help clear the current backlog of merits appeals in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court

The developer lobby group, Urban Taskforce, was asked by Treasury to provide a list of ‘shovel ready’ projects that could be accelerated. STEP has been following two of these candidates closely. They have both been knocked back for good reason.

• The Mirvac plan to build 600 units on the old IBM site in West Pennant Hills that would destroy Blue Gum High Forest and threatened species habitat. The zoning changes required before the detailed DA could be assessed were rejected by the Hills Council for many technical reasons and huge community protest.
• The seniors housing development on Bayview Golf Course proposal that would clear an important wildlife corridor was rejected by the Land and Environment Court. The developer has resubmitted the DA.

Logging in koala and threatened species habitat

It is appalling that the NSW Forestry Corporation is logging in unburnt forests on north coast in some of the depleted habitat for threatened species. This includes areas that conservationists hope will become part of the Great Koala National Park.

Approval to extend longwall mining under Sydney’s water catchment

In March approval was granted for further longwall mining by Peabody Energy at the Metropolitan Mine under the Woronora Dam to provide coal for the Port Kembla steel works. It is claimed by the Planning Department that the mining process has been reviewed by independent experts who:

consider that the proposed mining would not compromise the reservoir – but have recommended a range of precautionary adaptive measures to ensure the mining is carefully monitored.

How can it be possible to manage the damage after subsidence has started causing loss of water from the reservoir into the mine?

In December the government also gave its tick for another longwall expansion at South32's Dendrobium Mine, also within Sydney's catchment. With this one the Avon and Cordeaux Dams are affected.

It has been revealed by the Sydney Morning Herald that WaterNSW is strongly opposed to the project. There is insufficient design to prevent drainage cracks and predicted water loss of as much as 5.2 million litres a day might be an underestimate.

Sydney is the only city in the world to allow mining under its water catchment. A petition with over 10,000 signatures opposing these decisions cannot be debated in parliament in the current circumstances.

NSW climate change policy

There is some good news at the state government level. They and most of the other states are leaving behind the recalcitrant federal government and have announced some real climate change policy.

The Net Zero Plan: 2020–30 is to reduce emissions by 35% below 2005 levels by 2030. This is more ambitious than the federal commitment to reduce emissions by 26-28%. The plan is part of the pathway aiming for zero emissions by 2050.

The plan recognises the situation that jobs will be created and business will save money by using low emission technologies. The government will spend almost $2 billion in a series of programs.

The programs include support for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, electricity demand reduction via building codes, creation of renewable energy zones that will create jobs in regional areas and a fund to support manufacturers to install low emissions equipment and farmers to lower emissions and take advantage of carbon offset programs.

Raising the Warragamba Dam Wall

The government seems determined to proceed with the plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall by 14 metres. The project is currently undergoing research for a final EIS. It has been reported that the species mapping that was carried out before the fires was rushed with timeframes that would make it impossible to properly identify species numbers.

The area in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area that would be affected by flooding after the dam wall is raised has been badly affected by the bushfires. No appraisal is being done of the impact of the fires.

This strategy has taken many months to finalise after extensive consultation was undertaken with interested groups, often with competing interests.

STEP’s main interest is the Warrimoo downhill mountain bike track in St Ives. We have written about this many times (STEP Matters 181 and 188). It was built illegally back in the early 2000s.

Council closed the track in 2016 because it went through a coastal upland swamp, a vegetation community that was declared to be an endangered ecological community in 2012. The track also went through areas that are habitat for endangered wildlife such as the Eastern Pigmy-possum and Rosenberg’s Goanna. Nevertheless, the mountain bikers ignored or removed the barriers and carried on regardless.

Council resolved the situation by deciding to create an official track covering some of the existing track but changing the route so that it was well away from the upland swamp. This is a single downhill track (pretty scary) and a separate track for the return uphill. There is still stage 2 to do to investigate completing the loop for the return uphill and provide access for walkers. This project will be subject to approval from Crown Lands and an environmental impact assessment.

A volunteer Trailcare group, the Moo Volunteers has been appointed to assist with the construction planning and maintenance.

A visit to the site in March 2020 revealed that it was already in use but some signage is still needed.

The strategy also plans the following actions where improvement is badly needed:

• Establish and manage an environmental advisory group, with representatives from Council, the community and environment groups, to provide advice on environmental issues and opportunities in relation to recreation in natural areas and to assist Council in promoting responsible and sustainable recreation in the region.
• In collaboration with recreation user groups, develop codes of conduct for endorsed recreation activities in Ku-ring-gai’s natural areas, as well as dog walking and horse riding, to facilitate responsible and safe user behaviour and practices and to reduce conflict between recreation user groups and individuals. Codes of conduct will guide users to partake in recreation in natural areas in a socially and environmentally sustainable way.
• Reduce the incidence and impacts of unauthorised bicycle track construction through proactive management and stakeholder engagement – this activity is rife – we need to keep an eye out for these illegal tracks and shortcuts. In some cases, Council will pursue prosecution for unauthorised clearing or environmental harm.
• Improve directional signage and interpretative information about recreation areas on location and on Council’s website.

Sydney escaped the extreme bushfire experiences of last summer but the heatwaves, strong winds and extremely dry bush conditions could easily have caused a major fire. After all the experiences of 1987, 1994 and 2001–02 demonstrate what can happen.

Bushfire preparation has been extensively upgraded by the Rural Fire Service and local councils. The following information has been provided by Ku-ring-gai Council’s Bushfire Technical Officer, Heath Fitzsimmons. He has now moved to the Central Coast so his position is vacant.

The authorities cannot possibly provide all the protection that property owners need from bushfire. People living near bushland have a responsibility to maintain their own properties to minimise the fuel load and vulnerability of their houses. Maintaining means regular clearing the roof and gutters, ensuring there are no wood piles or flammable gardens etc. Maintenance could also mean upgrading doors, windows etc to safer options).

Even so it is important not to overestimate the level of protection that a fire break or hazard reduction burn can provide. Experience with recent fires such as in Paradise California has shown that homes far from the fire front are at great risk from ember attack.

There is also the issue of whether property owners next to bushland are able to do any clearing of an Asset Protection Zone in bushland next to their boundary if the vegetation and debris has built up to be a fire hazard and Council or National Parks have not been able to do any clearing in recent times.

STEP developed the STEP Method of Selective Hand Clearing to be used for this purpose some 40 years ago but the legality of its application on Council or National Park land is not clear. If Council and National Parks are able to adopt a policy whereby qualified homeowners are able to be permitted to hazard reduce in land adjacent to their properties then STEP would of course support that. A natural extension of that would be permitting approved commercial bush regeneration firms to carry out such hazard reduction work at the homeowner's cost should they so propose.

When Ku-ring-gai Council has appointed a new bushfire officer STEP will hope to discuss this issue further and organise a talk prior to the next bushfire season, COVID-19 restrictions permitting.

Information from Ku-ring-gai Council

Planning and coordination of bush fire hazard reduction works

Bush fire hazard reduction works in the Ku-ring-gai Area are planned by the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Bush Fire Risk Management Committee (BFMC), comprised of representatives from Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby Councils, NSW Rural Fire Service, NSW Fire and Rescue, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and other land managers, emergency services and utility managers.

Every 5 years the BFMC develops a Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (BFRMP), Risk Assessment Table and Asset and Treatment Table. These documents identify the ‘assets’ within the district, categorise those assets based on the level of bush fire risk faced and set out a broad 5-year plan for prioritised bush fire risk management works including hazard reduction burning, fire break and fire trail maintenance, and community engagement. From this broad plan the BFMC develops an annual works program.

A list of the hazard reduction burns on the current works program for the Ku-ring-gai area and maps of the proposed burn areas can be found toward the bottom of the bush fireplans and policies page of Council’s website. As these burns are scheduled (up to a week in advance) they will appear on the hazard reduction section of the NSW RFS website, and will also be published on Council’s Twitter and Facebook pages. Past fire history including both hazard reduction burns and bush fires can be viewed on Council’s web map.

Bush fire protection measures and effective risk management treatments

When considering the bush fire risk faced by a home it is most important to consider two major methods of bush fire attack; radiant heat and ember attack. Direct ignition from radiant heat/flame contact accounts for less than 15% of the houses lost to bush fire, while the overwhelming majority (approximately 85%) of losses are due primarily to ember attack. The two also have a cumulative effect, with houses exposed simultaneously to both radiant heat and ember attack at greatest risk.

The threat posed by radiant heat is very effectively reduced by establishing an Asset Protection Zone (APZ), i.e. increasing the separation distance between buildings and bush fire prone vegetation. The separation distance required ranges from 10 to 100 m depending on slope, vegetation type, and the nature of the asset. Council maintains more than 22km of fire breaks on public land in locations where APZs cannot be accommodated within private property boundaries. Where APZs can be accommodated within private property boundaries it is the responsibility of private property owners to manage these areas.

It is important to note that even the largest APZ provides a negligible reduction in the risk posed by ember attack and the only effective way to increase a home’s resilience to ember attack is through upgrading and effectively maintaining the building and immediate surrounding area. It is also critical that people living in bush fire prone areas recognise that there can be no guarantee that even buildings constructed to the absolute highest standards will be defendable or able to provide a safe refuge during a bush fire, and often the only safe option is to leave early, before a fire even starts. No buildings are designed to withstand a bush fire during Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating conditions, and many older buildings and subdivisions were not designed to withstand bush fire at even the lower Fire Danger Ratings.

Hazard reduction burning is an important aspect of an effective bush fire risk management plan, but does not provide long term protection from the threat of bush fire on its own. Rather, it is intended to complement other bush fire protection measures such as ember protection and APZs. More specifically, the purpose of hazard reduction burning is to:

• Provide fuel reduced areas which enable the protection of assets by firefighters when APZs are not in place,
• Complement APZs where these do not provide adequate protection,
• Provide strategically located fuel reduced areas to reduce the potential for large wildfires to develop,
• Provide areas where fire can more easily be suppressed, or
• Provide strategically located fuel reduced areas to reduce vulnerability of assets which are susceptible to fire.

A range of environmental considerations must be taken into account when planning hazard reduction activities, and for information on this see Guidelines for Ecologically Sustainable Fire Management and Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code. A key concept of these guidelines is that of an appropriate fire interval – the minimum and maximum length of time between fires necessary to maintain ecosystem functions. Recommended fire intervals vary depending on vegetation type, with the minimum intervals applicable to Ku-ring-gai ranging from 5 years for dry ridgetop vegetation to 25 years for wet eucalypt forests.

The final critical component of an effective bush fire risk management plan is community engagement. Ku-ring-gai Council, in consultation with emergency management agencies and government, has developed the award-winning Climate Wise Communities initiative to actively engage with individuals and communities and assist in increasing the resilience of their homes and neighbourhoods to extreme weather events including bush fire. Through this program we partner with other councils, emergency services, non-government organisations and community groups to provide workshops, tools and access to experts for ‘at risk’ community members.

You may also find some useful information at the following links:

• Climate Wise Communities Ready Check – An online tool developed by Council to help you understand your risk from bush fire and other extreme weather events, and the first step in creating a survival plan.
• Bush Fire Survival Plan – A guide from the RFS to help you and your family create an all-important survival plan.
• NSW RFS Standards for Asset Protection Zones – Includes recommendations on landscaping and vegetation management.
• Building Best Practice Guide: Upgrade of Existing Buildings – Upgrades you can make to your home’s building elements to improve bush fire resilience.
• Water Smart and Energy Smart rebates – some applicable to bush fire protection, including up to $1000 for water tanks and up to $500 for external window shutters.
• 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code – Some information on the sort of vegetation clearing you may be allowed to carry out on your property without Council consent.

One final link I want to include is the Overall fuel hazard assessment guide 4^th ed. This is the industry standard method of assessing bushfire fuel hazard and is used to inform bushfire behaviour models and help plan hazard reduction activities.