Tree World - View Single Post - N.S.W., R.F.S -Planning for Bushfire Protection, N.S.W., Australia

azrael · 20th December 2007, 10:37 PM

Sean
I am much more familiar with the 2001 version of this document. The 2001 document was a double barrel approach to Bushfire Protection.
The requirement was to the adopt the prescribed Construction Level PLUS undertake vegetation removal/culling.
I have found there is much area for negotiation with the Bushfire Consultant.. for example...I now have one trained to include the phrase ...."accept the presence of mesophliic types within an A.P.Z." Theoretically, mesophylls present low-fire risk, AND can slow the progress of fire.
Our local R.F.S has produced a leaflet of low-fire risk plants...which always cite if there is a case.

The 2006 document allows for more of an AND/OR approach..ie if construction levels are implemented then vegetation culling requirement is backed off. The diagram mentioned in my 2nd post does not show all trees ONLY the ones acceptable to keep...you counld imagine that in this example that ~90% of the trees have been removed.

As to your question..... and the ember capture...there is a particularly good book re: vegetation and property layout (The Complete Bushfire Safety Book, Joan Webster, 3rd Ed, 2000, Random House, ISBN 1 74051 034...but it is heavily copywrited).
If I am doing a Riparian Landscapre Plan and there is contiguity with an A.P.Z...I always suggest using swathes of Lomandra to capture bowling embers.
And then there are radiant heat barriers. An acceptable radiant heat barrier cannot be vegetation...it needs to be a colorbond fence or stone wall or the like.
Hope that helps.....

20th December 2007, 10:37 PM	#4 (permalink)
azrael Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Earth Australia Posts: 335	Re: N.S.W., R.F.S -Planning for Bushfire Protection, N.S.W., Australia Sean I am much more familiar with the 2001 version of this document. The 2001 document was a double barrel approach to Bushfire Protection. The requirement was to the adopt the prescribed Construction Level PLUS undertake vegetation removal/culling. I have found there is much area for negotiation with the Bushfire Consultant.. for example...I now have one trained to include the phrase ...."accept the presence of mesophliic types within an A.P.Z." Theoretically, mesophylls present low-fire risk, AND can slow the progress of fire. Our local R.F.S has produced a leaflet of low-fire risk plants...which always cite if there is a case. The 2006 document allows for more of an AND/OR approach..ie if construction levels are implemented then vegetation culling requirement is backed off. The diagram mentioned in my 2nd post does not show all trees ONLY the ones acceptable to keep...you counld imagine that in this example that ~90% of the trees have been removed. As to your question..... and the ember capture...there is a particularly good book re: vegetation and property layout (The Complete Bushfire Safety Book, Joan Webster, 3rd Ed, 2000, Random House, ISBN 1 74051 034...but it is heavily copywrited). If I am doing a Riparian Landscapre Plan and there is contiguity with an A.P.Z...I always suggest using swathes of Lomandra to capture bowling embers. And then there are radiant heat barriers. An acceptable radiant heat barrier cannot be vegetation...it needs to be a colorbond fence or stone wall or the like. Hope that helps.....