Planning and Prescribed Burning Tim McNaught Executive Manager - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Tenure Blind Complexities Planning and Prescribed Burning

Tim McNaught

Executive Manager Office of Bushfire Risk Management Department of Fire and Emergency Services

8 – 11 August 2017, Busselton, Western Australia

What’s this workshop about?

To understand issues that participants perceive to be inhibiting tenure blind planning for burning activities.

How are we going to get there?

• Three presentations (35 mins)
• Workshop

– Table group work (25 mins)

• Scenario 1
• Scenario 2

– Table individual solutions (10 mins) – Table feedback to workshop (16 mins) – Individual priorities (4 mins)

Current Western Australian Legislative Tools

8 – 11 August 2017, Busselton, Western Australia

Michelle Smith

A/Manager Legal and Legislation Department of Fire and Emergency Services

Firebreak Notices

Bush Fire Risk Treatment Standards

Bush Fire Risk Treatment Standards

Tenure blind mitigation

What might utopia look like?

Katie MacWilliams

Policy and Projects Officer Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Parks and Wildlife Service

8 – 11 August 2017, Busselton, Western Australia

All entities that undertake prescribed burning are able to participate in a manner which doesn’t unreasonably restrict their capacity to perform their statutory (or other) functions

Overview

• Legislative framework
• Shared standards
• Planning is risk appropriate
• Resourcing

Legislative Framework

Shared standards

Photo: O Donovan / DBCA

Photo: O Donovan / DBCA Photo: O Donovan / DBCA Photo: R Boykett / DBCA

Photo: PICA / DBCA

Photo: PICA / DBCA

Photo: P Blechynden / DFES

Photo: P Blechynden / DFES

Planning is risk appropriate

Photos: DBCA Photo: DBCA Photo: M Pasotti / DBCA

Photos: O Donovan / DBCA

Photos: O Donovan / DBCA

Resourcing

Photo: DBCA Photo: M Pasotti / DBCA Photo: DBCA

Photo: L Sage / DBCA Photo: PICA / DBCA

Photo: O Donovan / DBCA

“All entities that undertake prescribed burning are able to participate in a manner which doesn’t unreasonably restrict their capacity to perform their statutory (or other) functions”

NSW Framework for Risk Management and Prescribed Burning

Dr Simon Heemstra Manager Community Planning

NSW Rural Fire Service

8 – 11 August 2017, Busselton, Western Australia

Coordination Framework Rural Fires Act 1997

Fire Agencies Local Government Crown Lands Forestry Farmers Association Primary Industries Police & Emergency Services Environmental Agencies & Groups

STATE Bush Fire Coordinating Committee LOCAL Bush Fire Management Committee

Planning Framework Bush Fire Risk Management Plans

• Prepared by the local BFMC
• Tenure Blind risk assessment
• 5 year treatment plan including

SFAZ and APZ maintenance. Risk managed by a suite of treatments including

• Community Education
• Property Planning
• Preparedness

Implementation Framework

• BFMC prepares Annual Works Program.
• Bush Fire Mitigation & Resilience Funding Program
• Bush Fire Environmental Assessment Code
• Multi Agency burn plans & operations

Private Property & Development Control

• Planning for Bush Fire Protection
• 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice
• Hazard Complaints Process

Future Directions for BFRMP

Current Model – Asset centric

Asset Threat x Vulnerability = Consequence x Likelihood = Risk Treatments

• Inherits risk (priority from

asset)

• Described only

Zones

• Mapped or described
• Not linked to assets or

treatments

Future Model – Treatment centric

Future Directions for BFRMP

Assets

• Has a value & vulnerability
• Exposure from landscape

modelling

• Risk assigned to each asset

Zones Spatially linked to landscape treatments Landscape Treatments

• Mapped
• Priority from risk

reduction to all assets Vulnerability Treatments Alter the vulnerability of the asset, people or environment

results

1 2 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 26 21 - 30 31 - 50 51+

Wind Profiles

40%

Phoenix Modelled

House loss vulnerability

Number of times an individual house is impacted by different ignitions

results

Phoenix Modelled House loss from ignition source

Number of houses impacted from source of ignition

30 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 500 500 – 1,000 1,000 – 2,000 2,000 – 5,000 5,000 + 1 - 30 Property

Wind Profiles

40%

Asset Impact Maximum Fuels

BFMC

• No. Assets Impacted

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.4

Asset Impact

Asset Impact Current Fuels

BFMC

• No. Assets Impacted

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 - 0.6 0.7 - 1.4

HR Completed

Asset Impact

The Workshop

Workshop Session

Scenario 1. (17 minutes)

Having no knowledge of the tenure what are the issues you may be confronted with in planning for this proposed burn in Western Australia? As a table group list the issues and rank the four most significant issues inhibiting a tenure blind approach.

Workshop Session

Scenario 2. (8 minutes)

• Tenure management

arrangements have now been determined.

– Purple area is DFES – Green area is P&W Service – Blue Area is private property – Brown Area to E is Main Roads WA

Knowing the tenure arrangements, reconsider the list of issues. What is the new priority of your issues (one to four)?

Format of the Butchers Paper

Issue 1 – (one to two sentences to describe it) Issue 2 – (one to two sentences to describe it)

Workshop Session

Brainstorm - Individual Solutions. (10 minutes)

• Individually consider the top four issues identified at

your table and using the post-it notes write down a solution or solutions for each of the issues.

Workshop Session

Table Summary to Workshop Group (2 minutes per table)

• Summarise the four issues and briefly discuss if there

was any change in prioritisation.

Workshop Session Thankyou!

Individual priorities

• Place a coloured dot beside the four issues you think

are the greatest issues facing a tenure blind planning approach in WA.