A framework for prioritising prescribed burning on public land in Western Australia

Abstract

A risk-based framework for targeting investment in prescribed burning in Western Australia is presented. Bushfire risk is determined through a risk assessment and prioritisation process. The framework provides principles and a rationale for programming fuel management with indicators to demonstrate that bushfire risk has been reduced to an acceptable level. Indicators provide targets for fuel management that are applicable throughout the state and can be customised to meet local circumstances. The framework identifies eight bushfire risk management zones having broad consistency of land use, fire environment and management approach, which combine to create a characteristic risk profile. Thirteen fuel types based primarily on structural attributes of the vegetation that influence fire behaviour are recognised and used to assign models for fuel accumulation and fire behaviour prediction. Each bushfire risk management zone is divided into fire management areas, based on the management intent. These are areas where fuels will be managed primarily to minimise the likelihood of fire causing adverse impacts on human settlements or critical infrastructure, to reduce the risk of bushfire at the landscape scale or to achieve other land management outcomes. Indicators of acceptable bushfire risk are defined for each fire management area and are modified according to the distribution of assets and potential fire behaviour in the landscape. Risk criteria established in the framework can be converted to spatially represented targets for fuel management in each zone and can be reported against to measure the effectiveness of the fuel management program. In areas where the primary intent is to reduce the risk of bushfire at the landscape scale, managers have flexibility to apply prescribed fire in ways that maintain and enhance ecosystem services, nature conservation and landscape values through variation in the seasonality, intensity and scale of planned burning.

Corrigendum to: A threatened ecological community: research advances and priorities for Banksia woodlands

“…Although unplanned ignitions dominated the number of fires, the majority of area burned was from planned managed fires (Plucinski 2014). DBCA's risk-based framework elaborates bushfire management objectives across four Fire Management Areas (FMAs) and 13 broad fuel types (Howard et al 2020). BWs are recognised as one of these fuel types, but, noting the absence of a specific fuel accumulation and fire behaviour model, the framework adapts the Dry Eucalypt Forest Fire Model (Cheney et al 2012) for BWs.…”

“…BWs are recognised as one of these fuel types, but, noting the absence of a specific fuel accumulation and fire behaviour model, the framework adapts the Dry Eucalypt Forest Fire Model (Cheney et al 2012) for BWs. Public lands within each fuel type are classified into four FMAs 'defined by the primary intent of fuel management, which is a function of potential fire behaviour and the type and distribution of assets characteristic of the area' (Howard et al 2020). Based on fuel accumulation and fire behaviour models, the framework identifies a threshold fire intensity that precludes effective suppression action under the 95th percentile fire danger conditions to derive management objectives within each FMA.…”

“…These objectives are expressed as proportion of FMA area with treated fuels that will not support a head fire of intensity above that threshold. This results in objectives of 60% for the Settlement-Hazard Separation FMA (within 1 km of settlements), and 30% in the Landscape Risk Reduction FMA within 5 km of private property for BWs (Howard et al 2020). Five-year-old fuel is indicated as a representative intensity threshold for open eucalypt forest, but Howard et al (2020) do not provide a value for BW.…”

Adaptive prescribed burning in Australia for the early 21st Century – context, status, challenges

“…-or is it the case that we need to move on from generic area-based targets to location-specific risk-based assessments and strategic zoning approaches informed by contemporary predictive fire behaviour and ecological modelling tools (e.g. Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2012; Burrows and McCaw 2013;Howard et al 2020;Morgan et al in press)? How do we address the public perceptions of residents living in extreme fire hazard situations, especially in the leafy fringes of our major cities, that fuel reduction burning has little or no value -when, in fact, except for terrifying instances where infernos, once unleashed, explode through eucalypt canopies and spot kilometres in advance under catastrophic fire weather conditions, substantial evidence is available to show that, to the contrary, pre-emptive prescribed burning is typically effective in reducing fire intensity and aiding fire suppression activities (e.g.…”

“…In establishing a national precedent, for the State of Western Australia, Howard et al (2020) describe the development of a comprehensive adaptive management and monitoring framework, albeit untested, for prioritising prescribed burning targets and indicators on public lands throughout that vast state. For relatively densely settled south-east Queensland, and the very sparsely settled rangelands covering two-thirds of Australia, Eliott et al (2020) and Russell-Smith et al (2020) respectively utilise contemporary fire history mapping products to explore the extent to which targets and indicators, even if loosely defined, currently are being met.…”