city of tea tree gully strategic bushfire management … · 2015-10-09 · city of tea tree gully...

City of Tea Tree Gully Strategic Bushfire Management Plan

1

dices

CITY OF TEA TREE GULLY

STRATEGIC BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2010 PART ONE

PART 1 - Factors and Considerations for Bushfire Risk Leglislative and Policy Obligations Existing Fire Management Plans


2

Contents Summary 5 Introduction 6

Bushfire Management 6 Intent 7 Outline of the Strategic Bushfire Management Plan 8

Part 1 Legislative, Policy and Inquiry Obligations 9 Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 9 Local Government Act 1999 10

Native Vegetation Act 1991 10 Development Act 1993 10 Land Bushfire Management (Part 3) Plan Amendment Report Draft 11 dated May 2007 Identification of Bushfire Protection Areas 11 Ministers Code – ‘Undertaking development in Bushfire Protection Areas 13 (February 2009) Residential Development Code March 2009 13 Bushfire Management Ministerial Plan Amendment Report 13 Government Agencies Fire Liaison Committee 13 Land Management Principles 14 Code of Practice for the Management of Native Vegetation to reduce 14 the impact of Bushfire Council Obligations 15

Existing Fire Management Plans 16 DEH Zoning 18

The City and its Bushfire Factors 21 City of Tea Tree Gully 21

CTTG Strategic Plan 21 Topography 24 Weather and Climate 29 Water Supplies 30

Vegetation 31 Impact of Weeds 32 Fuel Types 34 Prescribed burning 34 Combining the factors of gradient, aspect and vegetation 35

Land Use 39 Bushfire Penetration into Urban Areas 41

Shared Responsibility 41 Management of larger Private holdings 42 Residential and Firefighter Access and egress 42 Fire Danger Rating 47 Fire History 48 MFS/CFS Legislative Boundary 52

Assets 53 Review of existing fire management 53


3

Part 2 – Separate Document Identified Risks, Proposed Mitigation and Recommended Actions Risk Mandatory Requirements

High Risk Areas Ignition Risks

Planning Risks Protection Risks Response Risks Governance Risks

Plan Administration Responsibilities for the Plan

Endorsement and accessibility Budget

Distribution Evaluation

Conclusion Summary of the Fire Problem Vulnerabilities that cannot be changed

Vulnerabilities that can change Appendices

Glossary References Related legislation, reviews and approaches to bushfire mitigation Summary of existing Native Vegetation Regulations (exemptions) fuel reduction/fire protection issues Tea Tree Gully District Bushfire Prevention Advisory Group Initial Reserve Classifications Example of Notice to Landholders to Reduce Fire Hazards Example of Notice to Landholders for Control of Olives and Declared Plants Bushfire Management Relationship Chart DEH Risk Assessment Explanation

Part 3 – Separate Document Consolidated works program.

This document is Part 1 only. Other elements of the Plan are

provided as separate documents.


4

Abbreviations used in the Report. AS/NZS Australian/New Zealand Standard BFP Bushfire Prevention (Plan, Officer, Committee) CFS Country Fire Service CERM Community Emergency Risk Management COAG Council of Australian Governments (including the Australian State and

Territory and representation from Local Government) CTTG City of Tea Tree Gully DEH Department for Environment and Heritage DTEI Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure EMA Emergency Management Australia GAFLC Government Agencies Fire Liaison Committee FPO (District Bushfire) Fire Prevention Officer IMT Incident Management Team LGA Local Government Association LSA (Police) Local Service Area NRMB Natural Resources Management Board NVC Native Vegetation Council RAPID Rural Area Position Identification Data SDI Soil Dryness Index

Acknowledgements Consultation was undertaken with all Government agencies with tenures in the Plan Area, Councils and Emergency Services. The author thanks the Council Fire Prevention Officer, Mr Andrew Oakley, who coordinated input from Council staff.

Disclaimer While every effort has been made to present the most accurate information and assessment, Leading Emergency Services expressly disclaim all liability or responsibility to any person, organisation or government using the information or advice contained in this Plan. Mapping provides broad depictions of data and not accurate positioning of real time information. Mapping should not be relied upon for detailed planning, navigation land or operational use.


5

Summary In the Adelaide Hills bushfire is endemic. The area is considered amongst the most bushfire-prone regions in Australia. The City of Tea Tree Gully (CTTG) is on the periphery of the Adelaide Hills. In the past, the City has not been considered to be at high bushfire risk. However, recent events have led to this being reviewed. Despite the relatively high urbanisation of the Council area, there is a significant bushfire risk, particularly in the rural and park areas.

The Plan is made up of three documents:

• Part One provides a comprehensive review of all relevant features and factors influencing bushfire as it pertains to CTTG. There is an extensive legislative framework which is detailed, together with existing fire management plans of stakeholders. The Plan highlights that as CTTG is located at the base of the Adelaide Hills, there is an inherent bushfire threat. Much of the risk comes not from within the Council area, but from adjacent areas. DEH fire management zones are discussed. A series of images depict the CTTG and surrounding area in relation to topography, orientation, vegetation, infrastructure and land use. Previous fire events are depicted. An overall assessment of existing fire management completes Part One.

• Part Two details all the risks identified for bushfire within and around the CTTG and highlights mandatory requirements. It details actions as to how these could be mitigated under the following headings:

o High risk areas o Ignition risks o Planning risks o Protection risks o Response risks o Governance risks

It also highlights how the Plan could be administered. • Part Three lists the specific actions identified in Part Two, as a consolidated listing

with mandatory, strategic, local and residential requirements. It provides an assessment based on evidence of what has and has not been achieved.

The Plan is a living document that needs to be reviewed at least annually and updated throughout the year. Fires will continue to occur in the Mt Lofty Ranges due to the mediterranean climate, the vegetation, the topography of the Southern Mt Lofty Ranges and the human activity. There are vulnerabilities that cannot change including fire history, topography, vegetation, climate and the current drought, and the existing residential areas with adjacent parks and rural areas. CTTG needs to concentrate on the factors it can change, including community awareness, adjusting and protecting infrastructure, identifying ignition when fires do occur, promoting the level of operational response and acknowledging that bushfire mitigation is always work in progress. This Strategic Bushfire Management Plan has reviewed the factors that contribute to Bushfire risk. Issues will continue to arise and all risks will never be fully mitigated. Council needs to make an assessment of what it can afford and what resources can be directed to the bushfire threat, concurrently with the many other demands on its resources. The bushfire threat however, carries with it one consequence not shared by many other demands on Council – if it is not adequately addressed, lives could be lost.


6

City of Tea Tree Gully

Strategic Bushfire Management Plan

Introduction

1.1 Bushfire Management Bushfires are an inevitable occurrence in Australia. Australian vegetation is dominated by fire-adapted eucalypts. Fire is most common over the tropical savannas of the north, where some parts of the land burn on an annual basis. However, south-eastern Australia is susceptible to less frequent, large bushfires that threaten life and property. While perhaps this is most applicable in Victoria, South Australia is also highly vulnerable to bushfire. In the Adelaide Hills bushfire is endemic. The area is considered amongst the most bushfire-prone regions in Australia, itself one of the most bushfire-prone countries in the world. The City of Tea Tree Gully (CTTG) is on the periphery of the Adelaide Hills. In the past, the City has not been considered to be at high bushfire risk. However, recent events have led to this being reviewed. Despite the relatively high urbanisation of the Council area, there is a significant bushfire risk, particularly from the rural and park areas. While these are undoubted assets, unmanaged they can also become liabilities. The presence of the Metropolitan Fire Service (MFS), local Country Fire Service (CFS) volunteers and rapid response water bombing aircraft may also provide a false sense of security within the City. While these Emergency Services are able to control most fires, the Ash Wednesday fires in 1981 and 1983, the 2005 Black Tuesday fires on Eyre Peninsula and the 2009 Victorian fires, underline the fact that the potential for disaster remains very real under certain catastrophic conditions when uncontrolled fire may be swept in from adjoining areas. Management includes identifying likelihood and consequences, and putting in place mitigation measures to minimise the impact of bushfires. This is the intent of this Plan, which focuses on reducing the impact of bushfire across the area, while also identifying longer-term strategic objectives. It is important to make it clear that the Plan is not about managing all aspects of fire fighting in the area. This is the responsibility of the MFS, CFS, Police and other Emergency Services. The term ‘bushfire prevention’ is generally not used in this Plan. While acknowledging the common use and reference in legislation to ‘bushfire prevention planning’ and the term ‘bushfire prevention’ being consistent with the emergency management framework of ‘Prevention, Preparation, Response, Recovery’, it is a term which implies bushfires can be prevented. Although the likelihood of bushfires occurring and their impact on communities can be reduced, they have not been prevented anywhere in Australia. The Council of Australian Government National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management1 chose not

1 Ellis S, Kanowski P and Whelan R. National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management, March 2004 printed by COAG Canberra.


7

to use the term in their national report in 2004 as they considered it had the potential to infer bushfires can be prevented. In 2009 the CTTG developed a scope which has formed the basis of this Plan. The scope identified the following objectives - • Project Start Up workshop - A workshop with CTTG staff would be held as part of this

milestone. Information such as management plans (e.g. roadside vegetation, district bushfire protection, revegetation, biodiversity, emergency management), policies and programs (e.g. Development Plans, fire tracks, fuel breaks) and supporting infrastructure (e.g. people, equipment, 2-way radios) will be identified and contents considered.

• Risk Assessment - Site Inspections would be undertaken with Council’s Fire Prevention Officer and other appropriate staff. Together with the Project Steering Group a Risk Assessment using Council’s standard Risk Assessment template would be used

• Audit - involving key stakeholders (internal and external emergency services personnel (i.e. DEH, MFS, CFS, SES, SAPOL, SAAS and TTG District Bushfire Committee). A workshop would be held as part of this milestone.

• Report - a draft SBMP is developed for consultation, which includes a Works Program. Presentations to CTTG staff, Emergency Services and then Council to finalise SBMP

This Plan refers to bushfire mitigation – how the impact of fires can be reduced and minimised. This accurately reflects the ‘risk reduction’ responsibilities of Councils, land managers emergency services and residents; to reduce the risk of adverse impacts of bushfire, rather than preventing them occurring altogether, which is an impossible task. This Plan takes a strategic, landscape approach. To do that, it considers areas beyond Council boundaries as much of the bushfire risk may originate on land adjacent to the CTTG. Because of this the text at times refers to the ‘Plan Area’, which encompasses areas beyond the Council boundary that remain relevant for bushfire risk planning. CFS is encouraging future bushfire mitigation planning to include broader areas thereby, adopting a more regional approach. This is beyond the scope of this Plan.

1.2 Intent The intent of the CTTG Strategic Bushfire Management Plan is to protect life and reduce the impact of bushfires through the following objectives: • identify existing legislation, policies, environmental land management principles and

relevant management plans; • identify and audit factors and considerations for bushfire risk, including the threat from

adjacent areas, climate, topography, vegetation, land use, access and fire history; • identify risk and propose appropriate mitigation; • make recommendations regarding changes in priorities, resourcing and outcomes; This Plan takes a collaborative approach to conservation, land use and bushfire management through planning, consultation and implementation. This Plan does not replace the existing Bushfire Prevention Plan but rather incorporates its considerations into this longer term, strategic document. Costs have not been estimated as part of this Plan. In order to include relevant considerations beyond the CTTG boundaries, the term ‘Plan Area’ is used, to include adjacent considerations while ‘Council Area’ refers to the CTTG.


8

1.3 Outline of the Strategic Bushfire Management Plan The Plan is divided into four parts. They are: Summary Part One identified the requirements, constraints and factors influencing bushfire within CTTG. Part Two details the risks and proposed mitigation. It is presented diagrammatically below:

Introduction

PART ONE

Legislative and Policy Obligations

Existing Fire Management Plans

Factors and considerations for Bushfire Risk

PART TWO

Identified Risks, Proposed Mitigation and Recommended Actions

Plan Administration and Responsibilities

Conclusion

Part Three – Details specific to actions identified in Part Two as a consolidated listing

PART THREE

Works Program and Action Plans

This plan includes a series of maps and diagrams. While greater detail is available using electronic versions available to Council, they are included for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to be used for practical application in the field.


9

Part 1 Legislative and Policy Obligations

2.1 Legislative, Policy, and Inquiry Obligations This Plan is being developed during a period of review and change in bushfire considerations across Australia. Specifically in South Australia, two significant changes have been instigated in the last 12 months and their implementation will take much longer to finalise. In September 2009 the ‘Bushfire Task Force forwarded its’ 63 recommendations as a result of reviewing the considerations of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission. In November 2009, an Amendment Bill to the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 was passed which has specific changes to bushfire prevention planning. This Plan has therefore been developed with what Council considers to be the most appropriate ‘way ahead’ considering these recently introduced changes. There is significant State legislation that impacts on the management and mitigation of bushfires. Legislation that directly relates to bushfire prevention governance and the role of Local Government is addressed specifically below. Other related legislation, inquiry recommendations and reviews that may influence the Plan but are not legal implications, are detailed in Appendix 3. 2.2 Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 and Fire and Emergency Services (Review) Amendment Bill 2009. The Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 previously required Prevention Committees at three levels: • State - SA Bushfire Prevention Advisory Committee – providing advice to the Minister; • Regional - Regional Bushfire Prevention Committees in each of the six CFS Regions

across SA to assess and co-ordinate bushfire prevention; and • Local Government - District (Council) Bushfire Prevention Committees to assess, consult

and advise on bushfire risk, develop a District Bushfire Prevention Plan, and formulate guidelines to issue permits.

The Act has also required Councils to appoint a suitably qualified Fire Prevention Officer, maintain a District Bushfire Prevention Committee and the development of a District Bushfire Prevention Plan It also stipulated that the Prevention Committee meets prior to, and after, the Bushfire Danger period. The Act was amended in November 2009, removing the requirement for Councils to have a District Bushfire Prevention Committee, while Councils retain the responsibility for managing bushfire risk on their land. District Bushfire Prevention Committees and Bushfire Prevention Plans, become an option for Councils, although the CFS advice is that where a hazard continues to exist, Councils should continue to manage the land using the same mechanisms that were used employed. This issue is addressed further in Part 2 of the Plan. Section 83 (2) and 84 (1) of the Act still states that the owner of private land, or a rural council that has the care and management of land in the country, must take reasonable steps to protect property on the land from fire, and to prevent or inhibit the outbreak of fire on the land, or the spread of fire through the land. The key word in this section is ‘reasonable’. ‘Reasonable steps’ is open to interpretation and legal debate. This Plan seeks to identify what are considered ‘reasonable steps’ in the CTTG.


10

2.3 Local Government Act 1999. Chapter 2 Section 7(d) of The Local Government Act 1999 requires a Council “to take measures to protect its area from natural and other hazards and to mitigate the effects of such hazards”.2 Within Local Government, there has been ongoing debate regarding what could reasonably be considered as ‘taking measures’. Each Council needs to consider this phrase and reach an agreed position. Regardless, there appears no doubt that there is a requirement for the CTTG to take measures to protect its Local Government District and to mitigate against bushfire. This Plan identifies how that will be achieved. 2.4 Native Vegetation Act 1991 The Native Vegetation Act 1991 controls the clearance of native vegetation. Under the Regulations, there are clearance exemptions for a variety of purposes including • where the vegetation is situated within 20m of a dwelling where there is high bushfire

risk; • where the clearance is in accordance with an approved fuel reduction management plan; • to provide clearance 5m either side of an existing fence for the passage of vehicles; and • where the clearance is to provide for a fire break – 5 or 15 m depending on the

circumstances.

If prescribed burning is to occur within the Plan Area, approval for each burn is required from the Native Vegetation Council, a process that is time-consuming both to apply for and then to gain approval (historically up to six months). Recently the Native Vegetation Council and CFS has put in place a sub-committee to consider burn applications for bushfire mitigation, and this has streamlined the application process to some degree. This Plan advocates an alternative approach similar to the approach adopted by the DEH – submitting an appropriate fire management plan to the Native Vegetation Council, outlining the fire management proposed during the life of the plan, and gaining approval for prescribed burns in accordance with the plan. Where fire management plans are developed and approved by the Native Vegetation Council, approval for subsequent prescribed burning is far less problematic. 2.5 Development Act 1993 The Development Act 1993 was established to provide clear policies and strategies for development in SA, including development assessments where planned development falls in the ‘CFS referral area’, and Councils are required to take action to meet CFS advice and direction. This includes development approval being required where buildings are being constructed in designated bushfire prone area, and construction must include residences being ‘spark proofed’ in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and Ministers’ Specifications. The performance requirement P2.3.4 is satisfied if it is constructed in accordance with South Australian Ministers Specification SA G5.101 – Construction of buildings in bushfire prone area. Schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 1993 requires the relevant planning authority to refer applications to specialist authorities (CFS) for ‘advice and direction’.

2 SA Local Government Act 1999, Chapter 2 Section 7(d)


11

2.6 Land Bushfire Management (Part 3) Plan Amendment Report Draft dated May 2007 The Plan Amendment Report (PAR) was released in May 2007. Its genesis was the Premier’s Bushfire Summit in May 2003 which, in part, identified that development controls for buildings and subdivisions in some areas at risk from bushfire was “inadequate and inconsistent”3. Essentially it proposed adjusting CFS referral areas beyond the Mt Lofty Ranges, and adjustments to areas within the Mt Lofty Ranges. Areas assessed within the Plan Area are either Extreme or High in the north, and include Medium areas in the south of the Plan Area. The Bushfire Management Ministerial Plan Amendment Report (PAR) is the State’s planning guidance on all planning considerations including bushfire. The objective of the PAR is that development should minimise the threat and impact of bushfires on life and property, while protecting the natural and rural character. In addition, buildings and the intensification of non-rural land uses should be directed away from areas of high bushfire risk 2.7 Identification of Bushfire Protection Areas Following the Canberra bushfires of January 2003, the State Government convened the Premier’s Bushfire Summit, the aim of which was to review existing planning, environment and building safety regulations that were last amended 20 years earlier following the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires. The Summit made 15 recommendations to the State Government which covered a broad range of issues. In relation to matters covered by the Development Act 1993, the following recommendation was made:

…review the bushfire management policy framework and development plans (including land use and infrastructure) to update development controls in designated Bushfire Prone Areas and to consider extending the number of Bushfire Prone Areas.

As a result, a State Agency Working Group was established to review existing bushfire prone areas in the Mount Lofty Ranges, Barossa and Hills Face regions and to map the remainder of the State to determine the appropriateness or otherwise of extending the existing provisions to the rest of the State. The identification of Bushfire Protection Areas involved an extensive bushfire risk mapping exercise. Identification was based on risk analysis techniques that involved satellite images, slope and topography, weather statistics, vegetation data (including fuel loads) and population growth. The analysis of this data resulted in the Bushfire Protection Areas being divided into three distinct levels of bushfire risk: General Bushfire Risk Medium Bushfire Risk or High Bushfire Risk. There were also some areas, generally townships and urban areas, with adequate fire protection measures that were defined as ‘excluded’ where it was not considered necessary to introduce specific bushfire planning or building requirements. While much of the City of Tea Tree Gully is ‘excluded’, there are significant areas of Medium and High bushfire risk, with further areas of High risk existing to the north and east of the Council area, as depicted on the following map.

3 PAR dated May 2007 p3


12

Figure 1: Areas of medium and high bushfire risk in and surrounding CTTG.


13

2.8 Minister’s Code – ‘Undertaking development in Bushfire Protection Areas (February 2009 (as amended December 2009) This Code was written to assist applicants seeking to undertake development in Bushfire Protection Areas, and the professionals who assess development applications. The information provided in this Code is limited to bushfire-related planning and building requirements and includes a checklist of information required when lodging a development application for land division, new dwellings, tourist accommodation or other habitable buildings (or additions or alterations to any of these buildings). It references specific statutory documents (which are listed in Part 3 of the Code).

2.9 Residential Development Code March 2009 A Residential Development Code was introduced in March 2009. The Code has been developed following consultation with public, industry and local government in 2008. The changes are part of the Government's Planning Reform package aimed at ensuring that South Australia has competitive pricing and development. As part of the changes there has been an expansion of the categories for complying development, by essentially providing a 'tick-box' assessment for a proposal against a set series of criteria know as 'Performance Controls'. These include issues such as location, height, setback and site coverage. The Code does not apply for any new homes located in High Bushfire Risk Areas or where the application would need to be referred to the Country Fire Service for decision. Even where the Code does apply, additional construction requirements may apply under the Building Code. 2.10 Bushfire Management Ministerial Plan Amendment Report The PAR indicates that almost 36 km2 of the CTTG are rated as CFS referral area - High Community Risk and almost eight km2 are considered Medium Risk - non CFS referral area. 10 detailed PAR maps identify bushfire risk within CTTG. The PAR needs to be considered for all planning applications and where required, advice from CFS needs to be sought. 2.11 Government Agencies Fire Liaison Committee (GAFLC) considerations Since 1992, CFS, ForestrySA, DEH and SA Water have drawn up South Australian Guidelines for State Government Agencies, specifically relating to firebreaks and fire access tracks. These have been reviewed from time to time, were approved in 2005, and have since been further refined. They highlight consistency being required with the following planning considerations:

• Environmental; • Safety; • Effectiveness; and • Cost.

The guidelines as agreed4 relate to:

• Planning considerations; • Firebreaks; • Access tracks; and • Sign posting.

The intent was to undertake ‘bushfire prevention measures’ using the same objectives and specifications, thereby developing a uniform, consistent approach. It was deemed that these 4 GAFLC approved ‘Guidelines for State Government Agencies’ dated September 2005


14

guidelines would apply across the State, and also be relevant to private as well as public landholders. 2.12 Land Management Principles The Emergency Services Act 2005 requires that District Bushfire Prevention Committees ‘take into account proper land management principles’. The establishment of land management principles is an objective of this Plan. Principles identified in this Plan are: • fire management planning must address the threat of bushfire, accommodate the use of

prescribed burning, and provide for the achievement of other land management practices. • an appropriate response to the inevitable occurrences of bushfire must be planned by the

responsible agencies. • the incidence of preventable bushfires must be minimised by Councils, property owners

and residents through planning, and clear responsibilities leading to effective action and review.

• environmental care must guide all preparedness and suppression activities including: • water quality and quantity to be protected, minimising the impact on streams and

water catchment areas; • appropriate prevention and management activities to maintain the vigour and diversity

in populations, species and habitats while restricting and where possible, eradicating pest plant species, particularly those that are effective fire fuels;

• management of revegetation projects to take into account fire management objectives;

• protection of soils by minimising erosion and topsoil loss after fires and encouraging soil stabilisation;

• respect for cultural and historical sites; • air quality be considered and addressed during planned fire events; and • avoid the introduction and proliferation of pests and weeds during and after fires.

2.13 Code of Practice for the Management of Native Vegetation to Reduce the Impact of Bushfire In 2009 the Departments for Environment and Heritage and Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, the Native Vegetation Council and the CFS released a ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Native Vegetation to Reduce the Impact of Bushfire’ to provide land managers with a clear and consistent approach to the management of native vegetation to reduce the impact of bushfire. The Code promotes a planned approach to bushfire protection and fuel reduction works, including vegetation clearance, around houses and other built assets. The Code complements and maintains established delegations and existing fire plans for fuel reduction works already approved by the Native Vegetation Council (NVC). The Code applies to the CTTG and refers to the three Fire Management Zones detailed subsequently in the Plan (Section 3.2 DEH Zoning). The Code identified who is the approving authority for a wide range of actions in each zone, including prescribed burning. Further detail on Legislation, Policy, and Inquiry obligations relevant to the following references and considerations is at Appendix 3. • Environment Protection (Burning) Policy 1994 – pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of

the Environment Protection Act 1993 • Government Agencies Fire Liaison Committee (GAFLC) • Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and

Management


15

• Wangary Coronial Inquest 2007 • The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Natural Resource Management Board • Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission 2.14 Council Obligations Council obligations resulting from legal requirements are detailed in both Part 2 and Part 3 -the Action Plan.


16

Existing Fire Management Plans 3.1 Existing Fire Management Plans A number of plans and approaches have been reviewed during the development of this plan. This Plan does not seek to replicate detail in these other plans but rather, highlight their existence and intent. Any strategic considerations of fire management across the Plan Area needs to also take into account these other plans. Relevant fire management plans and specific approaches include: • CFS District Bushfire Prevention Planning Framework. The hierarchy of district and

regional Prevention Plans is currently being reviewed. With the November 2009 amendments to the Fire and Emergency Act 2005 prevention planning will change to landscape planning without Council or CFS Region boundaries. This will be progressively introduced over future years.

• CTTG Bushfire Prevention Plan 2008/2009. The CTTG Bushfire Prevention Plan was

completed in November 2008 by the CTTG Bushfire Prevention Committee. It meets the basic requirements of the Fire and Emergency Act 2005. It describes the general area, identifies key assets and risks, outlines a series of strategies and includes an annual works program. This Plan builds on the CTTG Bushfire Prevention Plan and considers longer term, strategic factors.

• SA Water. SA Water advises that it is currently developing management plans for the

SA Water estate in the Adelaide Hills. A plan is developed for Little Para Reservoir but not Hope Valley Reservoir. Roads, boundary fire breaks, signage and water points comply with GAFLC standards.

• DEH Fire Management Plan Reserves of the Hills Face Zone Mount Lofty Ranges. The DEH Draft Fire Management Plan Reserves of the Hills Face Zone Mount Lofty Ranges was developed in 2007 as an external draft for consultation. The consultation has subsequently been concluded but, the draft Plan has yet to be issued as a final Plan. It also adopts a landscape approach and provides excellent descriptions of vegetation, fire history, fire management strategies and fuel reduction regimes across DEH managed reserves. It is a valuable companion to both the CTTG Bushfire Prevention Plan and this Strategic Plan and they should be considered together. The CTTG is identified as being in the overall DEH Adelaide Region Priority Response Zone.


17

• ForestrySA Mount Lofty Ranges Forests Bushfire Prevention Plan 2006-2010.5 The ForestrySA Fire Management Plan has been prepared for the forests in the Mount Lofty Ranges and covers 20,000 ha. The plan covers forest outside the Plan Area. It is the ForestrySA corporate bushfire prevention plan and should be read together with the CTTG Bushfire Prevention Plan and this Strategic Plan.

5 Mount Lofty Ranges Forest Bushfire Prevention Plan 2006-2010 prepared by ForestrySA

Figure 2: The area of the Hills Face covered by the DEH Fire Management Plan which extends over a 30 km length of the Hills Face. The DEH Plan includes detailed maps on:

o Terrain, tenure and Infrastructure

o Vegetation communities and significant species

o Fire History o Fire management and

access.

Figure 3: ForestrySA reserves in the Adelaide Hills. While no ForestrySA estate extends into the CTTG, plantations are located near the north eastern corner of the Plan Area (Mount Crawford Forest Reserve) and further to the east. With a north-easterly or easterly prevailing wind, a fire in these plantations, both pine and native, would threaten areas of CTTG and most likely be a source of significant ember attack.


18

• ETSA. ETSA maintain reserves and rights of way through both public and private land and also maintain fire management responsibilities. Council needs to maintain liaison with ETSA to ensure its land management meets Council objectives.

3.2 DEH Zoning6 In 2006 fire management zoning was introduced into DEH fire planning to ensure a consistent approach and application for asset protection and ecological management. Fire management zones indicate the primary integrated fire management purpose for an area of land. Generally areas are zoned following consideration of:

• the strategic importance of fire protection to the areas; • the natural and developed assets and values to be protected or enhanced on the

area being considered, for example water catchments; • other management objectives for the area; • suppression methods most appropriate to the area; and • the principles of environmental management.

DEH has adopted the Fire Management Zones that are categorised according to the primary objective for fire management: • Asset Protection Zone ‘APZ’ Zone – to provide a low fuel area of at least 40m to help

protect life (owners/firefighters) and property/built assets from radiant heat damage, flame contact and short distance ember attack, providing fire crews with a modified rate of spread and fire intensity.

• Bushfire Buffer Zone ‘BBZ’ Zone – to minimise the likelihood of bushfire impacting on property and ecological assets, reducing bushfire intensity and ember attack and providing a ‘suppression advantage’ to assist in containing bushfires within defined areas.

• Conservation-Land Management Zone ‘C-LMZ’ Zone – to manage fire to meet the reserve management objectives and to assist in the conservation of species and populations and to reduce the likelihood of contiguous vegetation burning in a single event.

This is further detailed in the DEH Fire Management Plan for the Reserves of the Hills Face Zone and is explained as a table below:7 DEH Fire Management Zones

Zone Purpose Zone Objectives Zone Characteristics Asset

Protection Zone (APZ)

To protect human life, property and highly valued public assets.

To minimise bushfire impacts on undefended assets. To improve the safe use of suppression strategies within the zone.

Highly modified vegetation maintained at Low to Moderate fuel hazard level.

Bushfire Buffer Zone

(BBZ)

To provide strategic areas of fire protection advantage which will reduce the speed and intensity of bushfire, and

To improve the safe use of suppression strategies in high to very high fire weather conditions within the zone.

Zone identification related to suppression objectives and dependent upon:

Topography Aspect

6 DEH Policy and Procedures for fire Management Zoning in DEH Fire Planning, DEH, Government of SA 2006 7 DEH Draft Fire Management Plan Reserves of the Hills Face Zone, Mount Lofty Ranges 2007.


19

reduce the potential for spot fire development.

To reduce the rate of spread and intensity, and minimise spot fire ignition and crown fire development within the zone.

Spotting propensity Location of adjacent fire-

breaks Mosaic pattern of treatment

Fuel hazard level maintained at no greater than High

Conservation - Land

Management Zone

(C-LMZ)

To meet relevant conservation and land management objectives in areas where APZs or BBZs are not appropriate.

As per the land management and fire protection objectives of the responsible land management agency/land manager. To reduce the likelihood of spread of fires.

As appropriate to achieve land management, (eg heritage and/or fire protection by broad scale mosaic burning) objectives.

Table 1: DEH Fire Management Zones In Victoria, four zones are used:8 • Asset Protection Zone. This Zone provides the highest level of strategic protection to

human life, property and highly valued assets vulnerable to damage by wildfire through radiant heat and ember attack. Fuel management in these areas must be intensive and aim to maintain a nominated range of fuel characteristics within defined limits.

• Strategic Wildfire Moderation Zone. This Zone consists of strategic areas of sufficient width and continuity to provide a substantial barrier to the spread of wildfire. This Zone will aim to reduce the speed and intensity of fires, along with the potential for spot fire development. It will also reduce damage to built assets caused by wildfires and provide areas which assist in making fire suppression activities safer and more effective.

• Ecological Management Zone. This Zone will provide for the use of prescribed burning for specific land management objectives, such as using prescribed fire to achieve ecologically appropriate fi re regimes.

• Prescribed Burning Exclusion Zone The Prescribed Burning Exclusion Zone will provide for the exclusion of prescribed burning for at least the period of the Fire Management Plan from areas of vegetation in which high potential exists for economic, ecological or cultural loss if subjected to prescribed burning.

The assessment of these zones uses the DEH ‘Overall Fuel Hazard Guide for South Australia’ which was developed to assist in assessing the bark fuel, elevated fuel and surface fine fuel in forest, woodland and shrub-land fuels. It draws on principles established in the Victorian guide developed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and includes several outcomes from Project Vesta9 research. This guide is a significant tool in the developing understanding of fuel loads and hazard assessment. The three DEH Zones identified above were determined giving consideration to overall fuel hazard levels in different habitat types and the level of risk to assets including life, property, cultural and heritage value and biodiversity assets. It is anticipated that fuel management will be undertaken in Asset and Protection Zones so that fuel levels in APZ Zone will be no

8 Department of Sustainability and Environment Victoria Code of Practice for Fire Management on Public Land, Revision No 1 January 2006 p14-15 9 Project VESTA is a CSIRO fire behavior research project with findings distributed across fire agencies.


20

greater than ‘moderate’ and in BBZ Zone, no greater than high. In Conservation Zones, management is not dictated by fuel levels. Instead, zoning allows for fire management to meet ecological and conservation management activities as well as agricultural, revegetation and non fire management objectives. While these Zones have so far only been applied to DEH managed land reserves, an understanding of the intent and application is appropriate across the landscape of the Plan Area. Potentially, the same approach could, and overtime should, be adopted by Council and private land holders on the advice of DEH. Applying A and B Zones adjacent to assets identified later in this Plan will be critical to their survival in a major wildfire. This Plan also utilises the currently endorsed and utilised Fuel Hazard Guides and subsequent assessments developed by the SA Department of Environment and Heritage.10

10 Department of Environment and Heritage, ‘Overall Fuel Hazards Guide for South Australia’ April 2006


21

The City and its Bushfire Factors 4.1 City of Tea Tree Gully The name Tea Tree Gully was initially used to describe the local range of hills, then the surrounding district and officially in 1858, as the local government area. The area remained a vineyard district and agricultural area for many years. The first suburb was developed in 1923 and the population has risen from just over 500 in 1962 to nearing 100,000 in 2010.

The CTTG is located in Adelaide's north eastern suburbs, between 9 and 25 km north-east of the Adelaide GPO. It is bounded by the City of Playford in the north, the Adelaide Hills Council area in the east, the City of Campbelltown in the south and the Cities of Port Adelaide Enfield and Salisbury in the west. The City includes the suburbs of Banksia Park, Dernancourt, Fairview Park, Gilles Plains (part), Golden Grove, Gould Creek (part), Greenwith, Highbury, Holden Hill (part), Hope Valley, Modbury, Modbury Heights, Modbury North, Para Hills (part), Redwood Park, Ridgehaven, Salisbury Heights (part), St Agnes, Surrey Downs, Tea Tree Gully, Upper Hermitage (part), Valley View (part), Vista, Wynn Vale and Yatala Vale. The CTTG lies within the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (AMLR NRMB) area and the Mount Lofty Ranges Fire Ban District.11 The CTTG is predominantly residential area. The City encompasses a total land area of about 95 km2. Areas in the west of the City comprise established and newly developed residential suburbs, while in the City's east, the Hills Face Zone provides a rural backdrop. The north-east of the City includes an established extractive industry area as well as the catchment area of the Little Para Reservoir. The natural slopes of the foothills and the wooded character of the face of the Mt Lofty Ranges provides a pleasant contrast to the suburbs on the plains, and gives Tea Tree Gully a special character. While the natural face of the ranges and the skyline as seen from various points in the Council area retain a natural character and are attractive, they are also an inherent bushfire risk. In addition, apart from the aesthetic value, areas such as Anstey Hill are worthy of conservation, supporting rare species of flora.12 4.2 CTTG Strategic Plan The Council Strategic Plan 2007-2010 indicates the vision of the City is:

The City of Tea Tree Gully provides a truly unique lifestyle. It is both a City of choice and a City of choices, providing a diverse range of housing together with public, commercial, learning, recreation and health facilities, located centrally to residential neighbourhoods to minimise the need for travel and to maximise accessibility for all.

11 Rural solutions p6 12 From PAR


22

Figure 4: Suburban Boundaries within the City of Tea Tree Gully An emphasis on sustainable development, a focus on family values and genuine engagement between Council, residents, business, and other levels of Government creates a strong sense of community for the City. The CTTG is a great place to live, work and visit; a City that provides a clean, green environment and encourages community wellbeing.


23

The strategic objectives are: • Strengthening Urban Development and the Environment: To achieve an integrated,

innovative and sustainable urban development that combines the natural environmental and the physical and built elements of the City necessary to support and enhance day-today community living. Our focus will be directed towards developing long-term planning solutions that respond positively to the changing structure of society and community demand for affordable yet responsive living environments.

• Improving Family, Community Health and Safety Services: Aim to improve the quality

of life and wellbeing of the community and individual residents by focusing upon health and safety, and catering for the special needs of disadvantaged groups and individuals. Emphasis will be placed on encouraging community to provide support in a “self-help” environment and recognising those in community who are most in need of support.

• Growing Recreation, Leisure, Culture, Arts and Entertainment: Our priority is to

continue to provide and maintain a high standard of recreation and leisure opportunities within a wide range of facilities for all in the community to enjoy. Emphasis will be placed on encouraging additional entertainment facilities and precincts within the City and to provide a focus for cultural activity and events that embrace the different cultures and backgrounds of our residents, both current and future.

• Expanding Learning and Education: Provide the opportunity for all in the City to have

access to continuous learning and education so as to enhance job and lifestyle opportunities. Our focus will be to collaborate and work with State education agencies to complement them as a significant provider of learning programs, and to determine the variety and extent of both private and Council learning opportunities that will be made available to the Tea Tree Gully community.

• Enhancing Business, Employment and Economic Activity: To raise the level of

prosperity and business vibrancy in the City and to provide the community with accessible high quality services, jobs and business growth opportunities. The focus will be directed towards attracting new investment, encouraging business diversity and developing partnerships in collaboration with Council, creating job opportunity, particularly for young people and addressing the changes to the population demographic.

• Delivering Robust and Responsible Management: Ensure that the community expectations in terms of the City being managed responsibly and providing best value for money is achieved on a continuous and ongoing basis. Our focus will be directed towards establishing systems and reporting processes, engaging with community undertaking statutory responsibility, developing partnerships, and reporting on outcomes and financial sustainability.

This Strategic Bushfire Management Plan needs to align with Council’s Vision and Objectives. In delivering responsible management, future planning, needs to take into account the bushfire risks identified in this Plan. The future education of the community, needs to place greater emphasis on bushfire awareness and learning. CTTG with its numerous parks and open spaces, needs to manage the bushfire risk which these vegetated areas presents.


24

4.3 Topography The Hills Face Zone planning area incorporates the eastern third of the CTTG, on the western aspects of the Mount Lofty Ranges. The Hills Face Zone is characterised by rugged topography and is generally dominated by Eucalyptus including Stringybarks. It is assessed as an Extreme overall fuel hazard, using the DEH Fuel Hazard Guide. There is contiguous vegetation from Anstey Hill Recreation Park in the north to Belair National Park on the south. This combination of slope and fuel contributes to the fire danger.13 An important topographical consideration in bushfire planning is gradient and aspect. Gradient is a factor in bushfire planning because the greater the upward slope, the faster the rate of fire spread or put simply, fire will run faster up hill. This is because on upward sloping ground, the fire has a better opportunity to heat the fuels in front of the fire, therefore preparing them to burn faster and more effectively. On steep slopes this can produce the effect of vegetation and trees ‘exploding’ as super-heated fuel ignites as the fire front passes through. The greater the gradient, the greater the potential there is for fire to move quickly and uncontrollably. Every 10 degrees increase in slope, doubles the rate of spread of the fire.14 Dependant on the overall Soil Dryness Index (SDI), the impact of this gradient factor can be magnified when it is facing north, northwest or west, where much of the moisture is already removed by exposure to the sun over summer. If there is a large fuel load, the fire will burn more fiercely and quickly. (While this is often the case, northern slopes may support less vegetation due to less moisture being present and southern slopes can support greater fuel loads due to greater moisture. Ironically, by late summer, southern slopes can present greater dangers for fire behaviour than northern slopes as these areas with greater fuel loads dry out). Four images are presented on the following pages representing: • elevated slopes; • north and west facing slopes; • gradient by degree; and • combination of gradient and north and west facing slopes Together, these factors highlight the topographical risks across the Plan Area. As can be identified from the image on the following page, the CTTG is in a natural topographical basin. It is the perimeter ridges to the north and east that are most exposed to bushfire risk. Fires that develop to the north or east of the Plan Area are a potential threats. While the prevailing winds on acute fire danger days are from the north-north-west and after the southerly change from the south-west, gully wind at night or in the early hours of the morning could cause going fires to travel westerly of the Hills Face into the east of the Plan Area.

13 DEH Fire Management Plan, Reserves of the Hills Face Zone, Mount Lofty Ranges 2007 p 11 14 Fire Behaviour Paper


25

Figure 5: This exaggerated depiction of elevated slope highlights that the Council area is in a gently undulating basin. The Para Escarpment is readily visible to the west of Plan Area and the Adelaide Hills Face Zone is evident to the east. The north-east of the Plan Area presents some challenging areas with valleys and ravines.


26

Figure 6: This image depicts northerly and westerly facing slope (shaded brown). This representation highlights the amount of the Plan Area (including areas out to 5 km from the Council boundary) that is likely to be most stressed through summer. North and west facing areas are concentrated near the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the Plan Area.


27

Figure 7: Image depicting degree of slope. Steeper slopes in the Plan Area are to the south-east. All areas greater than 10% are likely to present more challenging fire fighting.


28

Figure 8: Degree of slope and aspect within the Plan Area.


29

The eastern boundary would traditionally be considered the most exposed area for bushfire risk within the City. Particularly on the extreme eastern boundary, houses along and near Range Road North and South, and further north along One Tree Hill Road are potentially isolated and readily susceptible to fire entering their properties from the north, west or east. Anstey Park Recreation Park and Black Hill Conservation Park provide further opportunities for bushfire.

4.4 Weather and Climate Detailed weather information is available from the Bureau of Meteorology website. Tea Tree Gully is in the centre of the following three Bureau sites: Mt Lofty, Mt Crawford, and Parafield. An analysis of these three sites identifies the following: Climate. The climate is Mediterranean, with cool, normally wet winters and hot dry summers. While summer wind patterns dominate from the south west, occasional dry northerly winds lower the humidity and raise the fire danger. The hottest months are January and February although, in recent years, December and March have also experienced hot days, and October and November can herald the start of the bushfire season. Grass curing coincides with the onset of higher summer temperatures and any rainfall received during the months of December, January and February generally does little to reduce the impact of fire. The most acute fire danger period is generally relatively short, usually commencing early to mid January and concluding with the opening rains in March. This may extend in dryer years. Temperature. The hottest months of the year are January and February with the average daily maximum temperature being 29°C at Parafield, 27°C at Mt Crawford, and 22°C at Mt Lofty. Maximum temperatures generally exceed 35°C on about 14 days each summer in Parafield, four days at Mt Crawford, and one day at Mt Lofty. Parafield may experience temperatures over 40°C on two days each summer, although recently these averages have been greatly exceeded.

Humidity. Relative humidity for the January to February period varies during the day from an average of 51% at 9.00 am to 35% at 3.00 pm at Parafield, with 60% down to 37% at Mt Crawford, and 68% down to 50% at Mt Lofty. On days of extreme fire danger, it is likely to drop to less than 10%.

Winds. Winds have a significant effect on fire spread. During the summer months the most frequent wind direction across the Plan Area is from the south west near the Hills Face although northerlies and north- westerlies are common. Late afternoon changes from the south west are a regular feature after northerly winds. Wind speeds average over 40kph on 3 days per month over spring and summer. However, fire danger can be expected to increase when the presence of a ‘high’ is situated over the Tasman Sea, which allows a stream of hot, dry northerly air flow across the State. Locally, westerly sea breezes often turn into easterly gully winds overnight which can be fresh to strong and occasionally reach gale force. These winds are referred to as katabolic winds (gully winds), which are a down slope wind caused by greater air density on the slope associated with surface cooling of the slope. These winds are very unpredictable, may not be forecast by the Bureau of Meteorology and during a going fire, can present an acute fire danger, leading to changes in the direction of the fire.


30

Climate Change. Ongoing climate change is also likely to magnify existing stresses. A hotter, drier climate can influence fire regimes increasing frequency, intensity and extent of fire events.15 The average temperature has risen by about 0.7°C since 1900 and the 11 warmest years on record since 1850 have occurred in the past 12 years.16 Climate change projections indicate that south-eastern Australia is likely to become hotter and drier in future17 Put simply, if summers continue to become hotter, bushfires may increase in frequency, size and intensity and their impact will be more pronounced.

Lightning. Lightning can be experienced any time of the year but is more frequent during late spring and summer. During the warmer months, storms can produce lightning and heavy localised rainfalls although dry storms are occasional and are most likely to ignite fires. Lightning strikes are more likely in the northern areas of the Plan Area where iron stone is more prominent.

Rainfall. Rainfall varies across the Plan Area. Parafield averages over 453 mm annually, whereas Mt Crawford receives 626 mm.. Approximately 75% of rainfall occurs in the cooler months of April to October. The average monthly rainfall for the period from November to March is 22 mm at Parafield and 25 mm at Mt Crawford. Although this may be received at regular intervals, its value is diminished by the high rate of evaporation. It generally does little to sustain plant growth, maintain the Soil Dryness Index or reduce the threat of fire. Water. The CTTG lies within the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board (AMLR NRMB) area. Surface water drains into the Little Para catchment in the north, Cobbler and Dry Creeks in the central area and the Torrens River in the South. The Torrens River forms the southern boundary of the Council. The Hope Valley and part of the Little Para reservoirs are situated within the Council boundary. Few watercourses have been modified into drains, except at road crossings. Numerous sections of watercourse traverse through urban backyards, but, especially in the more recently developed suburbs, most watercourses have been retained in the Council’s reserve system.18 While the River Torrens water course and associated reserves are generally well managed and developed, the disused aqueduct previously flowing into Hope Valley Reservoir is currently a liability. This area has passed from SA Water to Planning SA and is currently managed by DEH. It includes areas of poorly managed mature trees, unkempt undergrowth and no management regime or plan currently exists for the area. 4.5 Water Supplies Reticulated water is available to nearly all throughout the Council Area. However, during firefighting operations, those residents with access to reticulated water can expect very low water pressure – even in well established urban areas. For properties that are located in CFS referral area, see Figure 19 below, residents are required to provide private water storage for fire emergencies. The following guidance to Council planning authorities is

15 Draft National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan 2004-2007 p 9 Natural Resource Management Policies and Programs Committee Dept of Environment and Heritage 2004 16 P6 17 P6 18 Rural Solutions p6


31

provided by the CFS, depending on whether the property is in a CFS referral area and that area is assessed as medium or high as identified on the map at p11.

A supply of water independent of reticulated mains supply shall be available at all times for firefighting purposes. This supply shall be fitted with a fuel driven pump or an equivalent system that operates independently of the main electricity supply and is capable of pressurising water for the means of firefighting Water supplies either need to be 22,000lt or 5,000lt dependant on whether properties are outside towns or not and the local assessment of bushfire risk. Council planning authorities have additional guidance in relation to pumps, connections, hoses and nozzles and sprinkler based systems.

This Plan encourages the use of sprinkler systems regardless of the CFS/Planning requirements, in order to generate an unbroken band of wet vegetation between the threatening fire front and the dwelling and a sprinkler system on dwellings to generate damp roofs during the period of ember attack by an oncoming bushfire. 4.6 Vegetation The relationship between fire and healthy native vegetation is a complex one. Fire occurs naturally in the Australian environment and may be used as a management tool in maintaining vegetation health and diversity. All vegetation, including non- native species, is to a greater or lesser degree flammable and in conjunction with leaf litter and bark, provides the fuel for fire.19 However, it is not automatically ecology versus fuel reduction and good planning and active management can provide opportunities for both. The Ecological Mapping of the CTTG20 identified public open space for its ecological potential and the need to retain all native flora and fauna species, actions as recommended in the Ecological Mapping report would increase the probability of native flora and fauna surviving into the future. In part, this can be achieved through good fire management. Activities such as prescribed burning, conducted to reduce fuel loads, without inflicting the trauma of bushfire on the environment, will enhance the regeneration of some native species, accommodate the survival of both native flora and fauna and reduce the likelihood of future bushfires. This is discussed further at Section 4.9. Vegetation across the Plan Area incorporates small areas of remnant native vegetation containing large trees and a grassy understorey through to areas including weeds and exotic species. Less than 4% of the original native vegetation remains in Adelaide.21 In native vegetation areas, existing dominant over-stories include Eucalyptus obliqua, Stringybark, Eucalyptus porosa, Mallee box, Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp. leucoxylon, SA Blue Gum and Acacia pycnantha, Golden Wattles. Understorey fuel includes dead or living material from Eucalyptus and Acacia species, and numerous introduced species including Heaths, Hakea, Blackberry, Broom, European Olive, Bridal creeper, Boneseed, Gorse, and Coolatai grass.22 A number of Council and other control programs are seeking to actively manage these plants. With the dominance of Stringybark on the eastern Plan Area, these rough bark trees support fires travelling from the ground, through mid-storey to the canopy. Stringy barks also support 19 ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Native Vegetation to Reduce the Impact of Bushfire’ 2009 p1 20 Rural Solutions ‘Ecological Mapping of the City of Tea Tree Gull’ February 2007 21 (Oke 1999 in Tait et al. 2005). 22 DEH Draft Fire Management Plan – Reserves of the Hills Face Zone, Mount Lofty Ranges 2007 p20


32

spotting – the propulsion of burning embers and bark ahead of the fire initially through convection currents created by the fire but then by the prevailing wind. Spotting can occur kilometres ahead of the fire front and on extreme days, making it almost impossible to contain a bushfire.

However, the condition of most areas of native vegetation has been compromised by weed invasion, grazing (preventing regeneration, changing species composition and removing ground cover), past logging practices, and altered frequency of fires.

Generally vegetated areas include many exotic species in urban gardens, but a combination of exotic and eucalyptus woodlands with either shrubby or grassy understory occur in many reserves and parkland. This vegetation exists on both public and private land. Around both urban and rural residences are both native trees and shrubs together with exotic gardens. In gullies and on steeper slopes much of the vegetation is woody weeds and ongoing removal of these is occurring in some areas. In the Para Escarpments are significant outbreaks of Coolatai grass, Hyparrhenia hirta. 4.7 Impact of Weeds Woody weeds such as European Olive, Olea europaea,and Blackberry, Rubus sp. together with grasses such as Phalaris, Boneseed, and Cocksfoot increase the elevated fuel loads and often restricts the regeneration of native species. Pinus Radiata outside plantations is effectively a weed and is removed as roadside vegetation. These trees together with woody weeds, often occur in gullies and along roadside verges in and near the Hills Face Zone. Council is seeking to remove these weeds although in some areas they remain a serious environmental problem, increasing the available elevated fuels and overall fuel loads. Pest plant eradication programs initiated by Council do not take into account the requirements on private land. When arranging weed eradication on Council or public land, the Council FPO or an Authorised Officer under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 where possible, should at least notify adjoining private landholders. That way, if private land holders sought to undertake coordinated works, there would be an opportunity to do so. Council responsibility rests with ensuring the owner undertakes eradication if and when required. Council advice is provided through ‘Notice to Landholders to Reduce Fire Hazards’ an example is at Appendix 7 and ‘Notice to Landholders for Control of Olives and Declared Plants’ an example is at Appendix 8. Coolatai Grass. Coolatai Grass is an invasive tussock forming perennial grass, which is highly flammable and a major pest plant in the Para Escarpments along the western edge of the City. The CTTG is responsible for the containment and eradication of Coolatai Grass (Hyparrhenia hirta) within the Council and specifically the City’s Cobbler Creek Reserve. It is a declared pest listed in the Natural Resources Act 2004 as it replaces and causes decline of native vegetation understory. As a dense monoculture, they are a severe fire hazard as they produce a large amount of biomass. In Verdant Reserve, Wynn Vale there are recorded infestations of between 51% and 75%.This is one of 250 infestations in CTTG. An integrated Coolatai control program has been in place since 2005 involving both spraying and physical removal, reflecting a report at that time identifying only two effective control options: mechanical or chemical.23

23 Coolatai grass Management Plan for the Northern Adelaide Region April 2005


33

Figure 9: This map identifies all vegetation in the CTTG, although it fails to identify the surrounding vegetation that is likely to have a direct impact is fires are burning outside the Council boundary.


34

As a three to five year trial for the long-term management to a Coolatai infestation in Verdant Reserve, 1,000 Eucalyptus porosa were planted in 2009, (one plant per 1.5 m2) following a fire in 2008. The approach has been herbicide spraying together with a single overstorey species to provide root competition, canopy shade, allelopathetic conditions, as well as mulch and leaf litter, to subdue Coolatai re-establishment at the site. A similar approach has been used by Burnside Council at Mount Osmond for the containment and eradication of other weeds. As an alternative to chemical controls, it is supported as an effective approach. Such an approach however, does replace one fuel load with another. While the Eucalyptus is more desirable and arguably less flammable than Coolatai Grass, its use as a replacement species needs to be monitored. Once mature, the Eucalypt ‘s height will be beneficial from a fire management perspective, as lower limbs will be able to be pruned, diminishing opportunities for the trees to be ignited from grass fires. It is expected to take five to six years for the Eucalyptus porsa to influence the Coolatai infestation. If this integrated approach proves successful in ongoing Coolatai Grass control, the Eucalyptus porsa may need to eventually be managed to reduce the overall fuel load in the area. Alternatively, natural attrition may be sufficient to keep fuel loads to manageable levels. 4.8 Fuel Types Four prominent fuel types have been identified across the non urban Plan Area landscape:

• grassland and pasture 1-5 tonnes per hectare • native scrubland including mid-storey plants and a few tall trees with fuel • loadings of about 5-15 tonnes per hectare • pine plantations with closed canopy with fuel loads of 7-20 tonnes per hectare • (not within CTTG) • native forest with fuel loading between 15-37 tonnes per hectare.(minimal • within CTTG) 24

While not mapped as part of this Strategic Bushfire Management Plan, subsequent mapping of these areas would assist in identifying fuel loads throughout the city. 4.9 Prescribed Burning The issue of prescribed burns requires additional specific comment. “Those … who have been involved directly on the problem of suppressing bushfire have no doubt that where there is less fuel, the fire is less intense and it is safer and easier to put out.”25 This is the essence of prescribed burning from a fire suppression perspective. The other factor is ecological sustainability and both drivers can result in a safer and sustainable environment. Fire is a natural phenomenon in the Australian landscape and is an important factor in shaping and maintaining biodiversity, yet it is also a significant threat to human populations, infrastructure and if impacting too regularly, vegetation. While high intensity fires can provide essential circumstances for vegetation regeneration, low intensity prescribed burns reduce fuel loads and potentially provide better opportunities to manage unplanned fires. The driving issues are the risk reduction and ecological benefit achieved as a result of a prescribed burn. Therefore, prescribed burning should occur to either:

24 Fuel assessments figures from ForestrySA Fire Management Plan, DEH advice and local assessments 25 Phil Cheney in Australian Forestry 2008 Vol 71 No 1 pp 1-2


35

• Reduce risk – in this case reducing the risk of fire entering or escaping the Plan Area and reducing the risk of fires being uncontrolled once burning in the Area.

• Promote biodiversity and for ecological benefit. “Prescribed burning for fuel reduction is a key strategy to reduce the frequency and intensity of damaging wildfires which in turn reduces the risks to life and property. Frequent low intensity burning for fuel reduction purposes has effects on ecosystems and the species in them that are not always positive”. 26 There is also a practical consideration that without a comprehensive track network, and no clear strategic, natural or man-made fire breaks within the Plan Area, control of prescribed burns may be problematic. This needs to be balanced against the reality that the exclusion of any burning over an extended period, will mean that when a bushfire does enter the Plan Area, it is likely to experience a high intensity burn, with direct impacts on flora and fauna and an inability to control the event in areas of high fuel load. Further, the prolonged absence of fire may reduce propagation of some species and adversely impact on biodiversity within the Area. This effect was experienced on Kangaroo Island in the summer of 2007-2008. Decisions to conduct prescribed burns need to occur:

• as a result of landowner requests; • to reduce specific fuel loads; • to promote specific biodiversity; and • in consultation with CFS, DEH and the public.

The conduct of no prescribed burning in the Plan Area over an extended period is likely to lead to firefighters being reluctant to enter areas of heavy fuel during a bushfire, as their ability to control a fire will be reduced as a result of the high fuel loads. This may mean that a relatively small fire is not extinguished by firefighters due to the surrounding high fuel loads. The conduct of small, regular prescribed burns needs to be reviewed annually, particularly around boundary areas to reduce fuel loads near residential housing. In this way a mosaic of small burns around perimeters of native vegetation will be established. The timing of burning should vary – one year in late spring, another in autumn. Fauna populations also need to be considered. Where they are present, spring presents an unacceptable risk for nesting birds and many native animals. The Tea Tree Gully Reserve Fire Management Plan 2004 p7 states: “The first burn in 2004 would be carried out in late Spring to alleviate the risk of fire in summer 2004 –2005 with all subsequent burns occurring in autumn to reduce the impact on nesting birds.” Burning times will also be dependent on suitable conditions in any given year. No person or organisation should undertake any burn-off activities without the permission of the CFS.

26 CSIRO submission to the Victorian Bushfire Inquiry June 2003 p 1


36

4.10 Combining the factors of gradient, aspect and vegetation Linking gradient, aspect and native vegetation highlights areas with the potential for an increased rate of fire spread under heavy fuel loads. This Plan notes areas that have not burnt for extended periods, thereby having fuel loads exceeding 20 tonnes per hectare,27 which are assessed as extreme utilising the DEH fuel calculator. While these areas are limited, many are isolated and local residents and authorities need to be aware that if ignition occurs in these areas it is likely to lead to higher intensity fires that will be more difficult to control: The following images combine the factors below to generate areas known as ‘high intensity areas’:

• Topography – areas greater than 5 % gradient; • Aspect –areas facing West, North-West and North that are likely to be dryer and

where vegetation is likely to be more stressed during summer; and • Vegetation – areas where there is significant vegetation, both native species and

weeds. High Intensity Areas. Areas depicted on the map overleaf as high intensity areas are in themselves, not dangerous – areas can burn intensely without causing harm although high intensity burns may adversely impact on vegetation regrowth.28 Where high intensity burns occur near individual houses, towns or access and egress routes, they are likely to be a major threat to life and property as they are unlikely to be contained or extinguished in these locations. Further, these areas are likely to be sources of significant spotting impacting in the direction of the prevailing winds.

27 Figure taken from Forestry SA Fire Management Plan, assessments by FPO and measurements taken using the DEH ‘Overall Fuel Hazard Guide for South Australia’ April 2006. 28 While a high intensity burn may destroy some native species, others rely on high intensity burns to initiate regeneration of seeds dormant on the forest floor.


37

Figure 10: All native vegetation within and around the Plan Area, including vegetation growing on north-westerly slopes. The greatest concentrations of native vegetation is in the east of the Plan Area. The DEH Draft Fire Management Plan - Reserves of the Hills Face Zone Mount Lofty, includes detailed mapping of vegetation communities and species.


38

Figure 11: Depicting the combined effects of gradient (greater than 5%), aspect (north-westerly) and native vegetation – creating potential ‘high intensity areas’ concentrated to the east of the Plan Area.


39

Land Use

Figure 12: Land use within CTTG. The following map identifies land use and exposures out a further 5 km from the Council boundary.


40

Tea Tree Gully LGA 5km Buffer

TTG_5km_landuse_ClipDESCRIPTIO

Unkown

AGRICULTURE

COMMERCIAL

EDUCATION

FOOD_INDUSTRY

FORESTRY

GOLF

HORTICULTURE

LIVESTOCK

MINE_QUARRY

NONPRIVATE_RESID

PUB_INSTITUTION

RECREATION

RESERVE

RESIDENTIAL

RET_COMMERCIAL

RURAL_RESID

UTIL_INDUSTRY

VACANT

VACANT_RESID

Figure 13: Land use across the Plan Area. As can be identified from this image, land use to the east of the Plan Area is largely rural while to the west is essentially urban residential.

Tea Tree Gully LGA 5 km buffer Land use


41

4.11 Bushfire Penetration into Urban Areas. A number of studies29 have been completed into bushfire penetration into urban areas, the most recent having been completed for the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission. They all confirm that 80-90% of house losses occur with 100m of the vegetation edge. In most instances this vegetation edge is a significant source of native vegetation, not simply a small park within an urban area. However, some of the fires studied relate to small areas of bush within Sydney. What is evident, is that the vast majority of houses lost to bushfire are within 100m of vegetation and all losses are within 750m. 25% of houses lost on 7 February 2009 were directly adjacent to bushland, located very similar to houses along Range Road South. This needs to be highlighted to residents. Even those living adjacent to urban parks, need to have increased awareness and on acute fire danger days, they need to be extra vigilant. The scale of maps used in this Strategic Bushfire Management Plan does not allow the mapping of houses within 100m of vegetation within the Council Area. This has however, been listed as an action at Appendix 12. 4.12 Shared Responsibility. Acknowledging penetration of bushfires into urban areas is a good illustration of the need for shared responsibility with all aspects of bushfire management. Residents have a responsibility to be aware of the risks of their environment, comply with Council planning and building requirements and maintain their properties to minimise fire risk. On days of high fire danger, this extends to listening to media, being aware of the local environment and monitoring local weather conditions. Historically many in residential areas have not been inclined to consider the bushfire risk and a change in thinking is required. The example below drawn from Narre Warren in eastern suburban Melbourne is an example where local residents assisted firefighters to reduce the impact on residential houses.

Case Study 7 February 2009 Victoria Lynbrook Coral Drive Fire

The Black Saturday Fires on 7 February 2009 in Victoria were the most devastating bushfires in Australia’s recorded history. 173 lives and over 2000 homes were lost. Six of these homes were in suburban Narre Warren at the base of the Dandenong Ranges where a grass fire burnt six houses. The houses which all backed onto the reserve, were of modern construction on suburban size blocks. The fire burnt under high tension power lines which had been cleared and were devoid of trees or elevated vegetation. This fire, which was one of many in interface areas around Melbourne on 7 February, illustrates the potential for small but destructive urban bushfires on a Catastrophic day. The CTTG has many such areas directly adjacent to housing, many that support mature bushland and native trees up to the housing boundary – posing greater fuel loads than that at Narre Warren.

29 ‘Bushfire Penetration into Urban Areas in Australia: A special analysis Chen K and McAneney J Risk Frontiers Macquarie University January 2010


42

4.13 Management of larger Private Holdings Managing the fuel loads across the Plan Area is complex. Considerable public concern is expressed regarding the fuel load in public parks and reserves. DEH has invested considerable resources in developing land management plans as reflected in this Plan. Managing the fuel loads on private land is currently less clear. For residential size blocks, Council staff currently identify fuel management requirements and provide written advice to owners. While this also occurs for larger private holdings, the work required may not be as evident without detailed inspection and longer term requirements may not be addressed through annual inspection and notification. The result is that unmanaged fuel on larger private holdings may threaten owners or indeed neighbours. Adelaide Hills Council has introduced a ‘guideline’ for ‘Bushfire Mitigation on Private holdings’. A guideline implies that while not compulsory, it ‘encourages’ all property owners of land more than 0.5 ha to adopt a planned approach to managing vegetation for bushfire mitigation. It goes beyond the previous expectation that clearing would occur 5m adjacent to the boundary and developing a 20m defendable space around the house. It is a six step process using a ‘tax like’ self assessment system, which is backed up by Council staff initially offering advice and eventually if required, directing further action. It applies to grazing properties, orchards, vacant holdings, hobby farms, native scrub etc, noting that management of native vegetation must still comply with the Native Vegetation Act 1991. It applies the DEH zoning arrangements to these larger private holdings. Through photos it offers clear examples of acceptable and unacceptable land management. It requires that a simple fire management plan be developed where removal of vegetation cannot be completed within 12 months, identifying how it can be completed within four years. This is discussed further in Part 2.

4.14 Residential and Firefighter Access and Egress Access and egress. Access and egress has been identified as a key issue during many major bushfires. The combination of smoke, panic, increased heavy vehicle traffic and disorientation has often confused local residents and firefighters. Electrical wires may be down across roads, branches may have fallen down or roadside vegetation may be alight.

Although CTTG is predominantly an urban council, approximately 70 km of roadside is located within the Hills Face Zone and rural environments, and is subject to regulation by the Native Vegetation Act 1999.30 A review of routes within CTTG identified relatively few options in the eastern Hills Face Zone. Therefore, it appears of little value to declare these roads as priority routes during bushfire over lesser routes. Largely, they are the only routes and include:

• North East Road; • Lower north East Road; • Range Road North and South; • One Tree Hill; and • Seaview Road.

These routes need to be reviewed from the perspective of overhanging branches and vegetation on the roadside that if alight, could impact on road use. Consideration should also

30 Roadside Management Plan 2008


43

be given along these routes to areas where vehicles could stop and move off the road, without being surrounded by vegetation. Such areas could be spaced regularly along these routes. Intersections and driveways may offer this facility. Signage along these key routes may be appropriate. Alternatively, Council may consider signposting other routes to highlight their unsuitability, perhaps because they are narrow, overgrown with roadside vegetation or with heavy fuel loads adjacent to the roadside. CFS advice stresses that road movement when a bushfire is imminent is very dangerous and should be avoided. While it is under review, their current message of ‘Leave early or Stay and Defend’ reinforces the dangers of travelling on roads in the vicinity of bushfires. For public roads, ‘roadside grooming’ up to 1.5m from the roadside ‘water table’ is proposed. This includes slashing of ground cover adjacent to the roadside to reduce the opportunity for ignition next to the road as well as the removal of woody weed and large branches from trees protruding next to and onto the roadside. Roadside grooming seeks to provide safer access along the road and ensures that fuel is not immediately adjacent to the roadside. While phalaris and other grass removal adjacent to roadsides are of some benefit, reduction of trees and woody weeds offers the greatest protection to road users during bushfires. In preparing this Plan, the ‘Roadside Vegetation Survey’ conducted in October 2008 was reviewed.31 While noting that the sample was only 24.5km of roadway, the overall condition of vegetation classified as ’Good’ was 0.5 km. While noting other areas were of conservation significance, this identified that were required to assist access and egress for firefighting, trimming or removal of roadside vegetation was not going to significantly erode high value vegetation of conservation value. This Plan does not advocate the wholesale reduction in roadside vegetation. It notes the value of roadside vegetation as an environment that supports biologically important native flora and fauna species. However, it does encourage roadside weed removal, selection of suitable species and alternatives to trees when the opportunity presents itself to replace roadside vegetation. This becomes increasingly important with narrow roads of six metres or less. Council roadside management planning should concentrate on reducing overall fuel loads adjacent to roadsides, not simply roadside grooming through mowing. This may require prescribed burns adjacent to roadsides to reduce fuel loads. In developing this Plan, it was identified that a State-wide standard may be introduced for roadside vegetation by the Native Vegetation Council and CFS, that specifies future bushfire mitigation measures on public roads.

31 Roadside Vegetation Survey City of Tea Tree Gully 2008, Environmental and Biodiversity Services


44

Access for firefighting. Access is an important element of fire management to enable firefighters to either reach the fire directly or to use access such as a road or track as a control line ie: a suitable place to stop the fire’s spread or to commence a back burn. In some areas on the Hills Face Zone, access is almost impossible apart from the air. Not only does this make access to fire extremely difficult for firefighters, it is likely to minimise the opportunity to reduce fuels in areas that are physically inaccessible.

Figure 14: Major roads in the Plan Area.


45

Fire Trails and Tracks. The suitability of access routes and fire trails are critical to firefighting since: you cannot extinguish a fire if you cannot reach it. These access routes need to be regularly audited together with the suitability of each track for CFS 1.4, 2.4 and 3.4 firefighting vehicle movement. Detailed mapping of fire trails is reflected on the next page and recorded in detail in Council records. Ongoing maintenance work is required to maintain the existing tracks in a navigable condition.

It is noted that that the 64km of fire trails and fire tracks are graded on an ‘as need’ basis in compliance with the Fires and Emergency Services Act 2005. CTTG follow the state approved policy ‘Firebreaks and Fire Access Tracks: Guidelines for State Government Agencies’. This work includes the establishment and maintenance of runoffs for drainage, and vegetation clearance within clearance envelopes to maintain an effective fire buffer. Fallen trees and branch material is left on site.32 On ground inspection of fire tracks identified an adequate standard of maintenance. Compliance with GAFLC standards for construction, maintenance and signage of fire tracks need to be maintained.

However, in reviewing fire trails, it became evident that more could be done to link existing CTTG and DEH fire trails and tracks to maximise their benefit. Access faltering because of shared responsibility has previously inhibited response efforts at bushfires in Cobbler Creek in 2001. An example where linking fire tracks would be advantageous was linking fire tracks in Cobbler West Reserve (CTTG) to Cobbler Creek Recreational Park (DEH). While noting the advantages of roadside vegetation, the Roadside Vegetation Management Plan 2008 indicates that a benefit of roadside vegetation is: “a reduction in fire risk (compared to introduced vegetation)”33 this is difficult to support with evidence. The Plan supports bushfire mitigation through:

• reducing the occurrence of woody weed adjacent to roadsides; • reducing the intensity of potential fires on road reserves while preserving natural

vegetation; • ensuring the accessibility of fire fighting vehicles; • providing space between potentially burning vegetation and vehicles caught on the

road; and • providing opportunities at regular intervals for vehicles to turn around without being

impacted by burning vegetation.

Any burning of native vegetation within road reserves is considered to be clearance under the Native Vegetation Act, 1991, and requires both Council and Native Vegetation Council approval.

Private property owners also need to consider roadside clearance along private tracks and driveways. Over hanging branches and difficulty in turning firefighting vehicles places response crews in greater danger. Residents need to be aware that maintaining private roads in such condition, may lead to firefighters not accessing that property as it presents an unacceptable access and egress risk. Further, if there is no turn-around area at the end of long driveways, crews may choose not to defend that dwelling rather than have to back down long driveways.

32 Roadside Vegetation Plan p 12 33 Roadside Management Plan 2008 p1


46

Figure 15: Fire tracks in the Plan Area.

Colour Code Unsealed roads 12 CTTG Fire Tracks 36 DEH Fire Tracks 04 While this map is too small to identify detail, it provides an indication of the number of fire tracks within CTTG


47

4.15 Fire Danger Rating In 2009, all States adopted a national fire danger rating scale. It is reflected below. The Bureau of Meteorology forecasts the rating each day during the fire danger season. The fire danger rating is determined by the Fire Danger Index. A Fire Danger Index of 0 (Fire Danger Rating of Low-Moderate) means that a fire is unlikely to burn, or will burn so slowly, that control will not be difficult. A Fire Danger Index of 50 (Fire Danger Rating of Severe), means that the fire is likely to ‘crown’ in the top of trees and will be difficult to control. Direct attack of the fire is not likely to be possible. A Fire Danger Index in excess of 100 (Fire Danger Rating of Catastrophic), means a fire will burn so fast and hot that it will be impossible to control. These ratings need to be combined with the topographical and vegetation information provided above. The combination of topography, vegetation, seasonal conditions (affecting curing of vegetation) and current weather conditions, (specifically wind, humidity and temperature), provide a detailed insight into the fire risk on any given day. Across the urban landscape and increasingly on the urban edge, houses are being built and people are living and working in areas that previously had no infrastructure. Fires that did burn had less impact and fewer losses. With increased urbanisation, this has changed and is why the urban rural interface zone, is the area of greatest risk for bushfires across Australia. Total Fire Bans are introduced when the Fire Danger Index reaches 50. On days of predicted ‘Severe, Extreme or Catastrophic’ fire conditions, CFS imposes a Total Fire Ban which on average occurs 10 times per year in the Plan Area, which is in the Mount Lofty Ranges Fire Ban District. Fire Danger Season. The fire danger season is generally in operation from 1st December to 30th April although in recent years it has been extended to commence in November. In 2006, the Mt Lofty fire danger season commenced on 15 October. Total fire bans can be imposed outside of the designated fire danger season of required. The CTTG is in both the Adelaide Metropolitan and Mt Lofty Ranges fire ban districts. Because of the amount of native vegetation in the urbanised area of the City, it would be appropriate for the entire Council area to adopt the Mt Loft Ranges fire ban requirements, even though strictly this is not a legislative requirement. Following the 2009 Victorian ‘Black Tuesday’ bushfires, all states and territories adopted a national classification for fire danger ratings depicted on the following page. In 2010 it is being reviewed, although at the time of printing, any adjustments have not been advised.


48

Table 2: Fire Danger Ratings

4.16 Fire History The significance of fire history is that given similar ignition opportunities, bushfires often burn over areas burnt previously. While the interval may be 10, 25 or 50 years, relatively stable factors such as topography, prevailing winds, temperatures, humidity and rainfall vary slowly. Vegetation changes may occur more quickly, and in the Plan Area this can be seen through the introduction of exotic species such as Coolatai Grass. However, on the Adelaide Hills Face, existing restrictions limit changes to native vegetation. What is likely to change most of all are expansions in human habitation. This fire history, albeit over extended time frames, is instructive as it highlights the importance of:

• reducing possible ignitions; • rapid and weighted response to fire sightings • managing, and where necessary, modifying fuel loads; and • future planning decisions to ensure development is not exposed unnecessarily

exposed to previous fire paths.


49

While fire locations may not be able to be predicted with certainty, authorities can certainly study where fires have burnt previously and what assets now exist in previous fire grounds. What the fire history maps below do not reflect are the numerous ignitions that potentially could have led to larger fires. In the last 15 years CFS has increasingly focussed on responding to all fires during the Fire Danger Season with significant resources including water bombers and ground crews. For interface fires, MFS has adopted a similar approach. In the last five years, aerial response has been further enhanced with resources from National Aerial Firefighting Committee – which coordinates aerial assets nationally beyond what are directly contracted by States. This has meant that fires which previously may have developed into major blazes are generally controlled quickly. However, should these occur on acute bushfire risk days, and if there are numerous incidents, the level of required response to contain all going fires may not be possible and the result could be a major blaze across the Plan Area. The maps of previous fire scars depicted on the following page illustrates the typical fire run with a north-westerly wind pushing the fire to the southeast, followed by a south-westerly change causing the fire front to shift to the north-east.

Figure 16: Depiction of the effect of a wind change on a fire. The fire history mapping highlights that given this scenario, fires from the north-west of the Plan Area are likely to be most threatening. A fire in the Cobble Creek Recreation Park or the Para Escarpments under these prevailing winds could be swift and destructive. Fortunately such prevailing winds are likely to direct any fire in Anstey Hill Recreation Park or Black Hill Recreation Park to the south away from the City. However, this scenario also needs to be considered for much smaller holdings in the City’s urban areas. What is not included in this most likely scenario, is the less common but not infrequent easterly winds, particularly at night or early morning – the ‘gully wind’ phenomena. Should fires have occurred the day before to the east of the City, if not totally blacked out, they could lead to fires developing from the Adelaide Hills Face, moving west into the urban areas of Plan Area.


50

Figure 17: History of fires in the Adelaide Hills over the last 80 years. The darker the shading, the more frequent the fires over the same area. While the size of subsequent fires has been smaller, this map identifies that many fires occur in the same area due to prevailing weather conditions and terrain. What has changed is land use, particularly habitation, leading to potentially greater impacts on infrastructure and assets. The DEH Draft Fire Management Plan - Reserves of the Hills Face Zone Mount Lofty, includes detailed mapping of fire history in the vicinity of DEH Reserves. That level of detail could not be replicated here.

Can there be greater detail around CTTGRecorded fire history over the last 80 years.


51

Figure 18: Fire history around Adelaide including the Plan Area over the period 2002-2007.


52

MFS

CFS

Figure 19: Broad depiction of MFS and CFS response areas, noting mutual aid plans ensure response from both fire services adjacent to the boundary and where required within the Council Area.

MFS/CFS legislative boundary


53

4.17 Assets What are assets is open to wide interpretation. For the purposes of this Plan, assets are defined as the infrastructure and locations that require specific review to improve bushfire mitigation. This Plan does not list all assets in the City such as specific infrastructure and/or locations such as parks or reserves. The Bushfire Prevention Plan does identify some key assets. The assets in the Plan Area are rich in value and utilisation. Nearing 100,000 people live in the CTTG and their houses, homes and lives are defined by the Council logo: ‘naturally better’. There is changing land use. Less agriculture is occurring and the availability of water is becoming an ever increasing concern. The existing water assets are increasing in value. The proximity of CTTG to the Adelaide CBD further emphasises the value of the Plan Area. The intent of this Plan is to acknowledge that infrastructure, environmental and cultural assets all have value. They warrant inspection and maintenance by owners, operators, Council FPO or CFS to assess their vulnerability to bushfire. The requirement is that each asset, where associated with native vegetation, will be assessed and the surrounding landscape ‘zoned’ utilising the DEH Zone A, B and C categories. This will then dictate what treatments are required around each asset. Applying this methodology across the Plan Area will be a consistent and constructive approach, that will enhance understanding of the fire threat and likely survivability of the asset. While not a legislative requirement, Council can be confident this action is warranted, and ensures the threat to assets across the landscape is considered and treated. In reviewing assets, the proximity to ‘high impact areas’ identified earlier (combining slope, aspect and vegetation) should be considered. Bushfire Threat Assessment. As part of the development of this Plan, the CTTG ‘Bushfire Threat Assessment proforma used for assessing bushfire threat to Reserves was reviewed. While the CTTG is to be commended for undertaking this review of Reserves, and all the information gathered is relevant to Bushfire threat, it could be further enhanced by indicating the ‘aspect’ of sloping ground. 4.18 Review of existing fire management Reviewing all relevant information in developing this Plan, an audit and analysis of existing fire management has been undertaken. The following is noted:

• CTTG is assessed as having a Medium bushfire risk that is potentially increasing. It is assessed as Medium due to:

• Its topography and location at the base of the Mount Lofty Ranges; • The combined effect of slope, aspect and vegetation in specific areas across

the City; • The existing native vegetation and numerous parks and reserves throughout

the City; • Outside the urban areas, there are no significant impediments to bushfire

moving across the Plan Area; and • The historical exposure to bushfire.

• It is assessed as potentially increasing due to the continuing drought and the prospect of higher temperatures.


54

• CTTG has a full time Bushfire Prevention Officer that has significant experience and knowledge in role. There are effective relationships with relevant stakeholders internally and externally that contribute to bushfire mitigation in CTTG. These are summarised at Appendix 9.

• CTTG has had a District Bushfire Prevention Committee that met prior to a fire season and reviewed performance after a fire season. This has recently been adjusted in the light of changed legislative requirements to be a District Bushfire Prevention Advisory Group.

• CTTG manages its parks and reserves considering the bushfire risk and has detailed records of management requirements.

• CTTG has sound records of fire tracks across the City and they are well maintained. • Fire management plans exist for most major tenures in and around CTTG. • The fire management of larger private holdings appears to be lacking. • A large number of houses within CTTG are within 100m of reserves and parks

including native vegetation. A smaller but significant number of houses are adjacent to some of these parks that have high fuel loads. The houses are vulnerable to bushfire and have a high probability of being damaged or destroyed should a fire ignite at these sites.

• The greatest risk to the City from bushfire may not originate from within CTTG. Bushfire considerations need to extend into neighbouring Council areas.

• Within CTTG, areas of greatest bushfire risk are: • Cobbler Creek Recreation Park; • Angove Conservation Park; and • Anstey Hill Recreation Park.

• The most likely bushfire loss is residential houses within 100m of areas of native vegetation or reserves.

• Small bushfires could readily occur on the most acute bushfire weather days at the numerous small parks and reserves through the City including sites such as the old aqueduct. Such fires could readily burn adjacent houses.

• While access and egress into, across and out of the City is unlikely to be problematic for local residents, CTTG may see a significant increase in traffic if a bushfire occurs in the Adelaide Hills that may require specific management.

Specific risks are detailed in Part Two.

city of tea tree gully strategic bushfire management … · 2015-10-09 · city of tea tree gully...

Documents