This submission relates to the current three-year Fire Operations Plan. We believe that the decisions made for the short term have long-term implications. To think otherwise is not only naïve but also irresponsible.
The points we wish to make are as follows.
The argument made for the use of Fuel Reduction Burns (FRB) is that they reduce the risk of wildfire. However, there is little or no evidence for this, and it can be argued that FRB's have the opposite effect by drying out the vegetation which makes it potentially more fire prone. Over time the FRB's change the character of the forest from wet to dry.
According to fire history maps, Parks and Reserves, even more so than the surrounding State forest, are subject to a massive amount of FRB's in the name of "management". If any areas need a precautionary approach to management it is the reserve system.
Fire Officers have argued that fire on a regular 10 - 15 year rotation is essential for the viability of many species dependent on fire for germination. If that is the case, why are clearfelled regeneration areas not subject to the same regimes? In some forest blocks there are large areas of regenerating forest less than 10 years old interspersed with buffers and corridors of older forest. Because of the "asset protection" policies these forest blocks will not be FRB'ed for 25 - 30 years. This can be seen in many forest blocks in the Orbost and Bendoc Forest Management areas.
It seems that FRB's are undertaken on a short rotation in the same areas, so that they are burnt over and over again. The effect of this is to dry out the forest and to create an even bigger fuel load, which then in turn creates further fire risk of wildfire and further need for fuel reduction burning.
As already stated drying effect of FRB's changes the nature of the forest by reducing the build up of mulch and shrub layers that are the first step to the development of moist microclimates. It also affects the soil's ability to hold moisture, and changes the soil profile. The soil's potential to sustain vigorous plant growth is reduced.
The drying effect of the burns creates a more favourable environment for insect infestation, particularly termites. The FRB's eliminate other available food sources such as fallen and decomposing timber, and dead standers, which forces the insect population to feed on the only remaining food source, the trees.
Damage of large trees from FRB is not immediately obvious but damage to roots and the rate of hollowing out of trunks increases the rate of fallen trees after fire. Examples of young trees with developed pipes are not hard to find in many areas.
FRB's have an unknown effect on water run-off yields and overall water quality. The potential impact on watercourses of increased siltation needs further investigation. This is of particular concern to Goongerah residents as much of our catchment (Goongerah Creek) is scheduled to be burnt over the next three years.
It seems that there is a "quick and dirty" approach to fire management at a systemic level within the DSE. The management model of FRB's is firmly entrenched despite being unsupported by a quality scientific approach. The historical data is little more than a coloured pencil key in which the colours are barely distinguishable from each other. It seems that a vast amount of money is spent on fire fighting assets and precious little is given to planning.
It seems that FRB's are an old habit that remains unquestioned. Alternatives are never considered or investigated, and increased burning is a knee-jerk reaction to public misconceptions about wildfire protection. The public consultation process is window dressing designed not to force a "regime change" but to merely tinker at the edges of a flawed system.