Welcome to Victoria’s Bushfire Risk Management Report 2022–23. This is the 11^th annual report on Victoria’s bushfire risk and the second to be delivered by the Office of Bushfire Risk Management (OBRM).

Bushfires are a natural part of the Victorian environment and managing bushfire risk is everyone’s responsibility. Victoria is one of the most bushfire-prone areas in the world and the last two decades have seen a dramatic increase in the number, size, extent, and severity of bushfires. The Victorian Government recognises that bushfire risk cannot be eliminated. It also acknowledges the significant threat that climate change poses to communities, the economy and the environment through more frequent and severe bushfire emergencies and acts to manage this threat accordingly.

Following the 2019-20 bushfires, the Victorian Government established OBRM within the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA). OBRM is responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of an end-to-end framework for evidence-based bushfire risk management (including policy, practice, assurance, and reporting) across all public and private land in Victoria, with a primary focus on fuel management. OBRM is supported by an advisory panel and works in partnership with Victorian Government agencies, local government, landholders, and communities to reduce the likelihood and impact of bushfires over the long term.

OBRM’s role does not extend to seasonal preparedness, readiness and response activities, or the on-ground delivery of bushfire risk reduction activities. Statutory authorities remain accountable for their statutory functions. Land managers and landholders retain primary responsibility for delivering bushfire risk reduction activities on their land.

The report

The seasonal bushfire outlook for summer 2023 indicates that government, communities and individuals across Victoria will need to prepare for bushfires as Australia’s climate transitions from a phase of abundant vegetation growth supported by wetter La Niña conditions to El Niño conditions where rainfall usually reduces during summer. This climate outlook and the information in this report should be taken into consideration and bushfire risk mitigation strategies adjusted as appropriate.

This report provides information on bushfire risk management delivery and outcomes at state, regional and district levels across both public and private land for the financial year 2022–23.

While this report largely focuses on fuel management activities, it includes data not captured in previous reports. Future iterations of the report will continue to expand to provide a more comprehensive overview of the activities undertaken by the sector to manage bushfire risk. New inclusions in this report include fire ignition controls and community education, awareness, and engagement to prevent and respond to bushfires and smoke. This year’s report also includes more detailed reporting from the County Fire Authority (CFA).

Bushfire risk

In Victoria, vegetation, climate, and dispersed communities mean that there will always be a need to live with the risk of bushfires. This means that it is necessary to understand what creates bushfire risk, where it exists in the landscape and what the government, communities and individuals can do to reduce the likelihood and impact of bushfires.

Bushfire risk refers to the likelihood and consequence of something being impacted by a bushfire. It includes the likelihood of a bushfire starting, growing and spreading across a landscape, and the likelihood of things being in the path of the fire (such as people, houses, farms, critical infrastructure, and wildlife habitat). Victoria is particularly susceptible to large and intense bushfires that can spread rapidly across vast distances in the landscape due to the state’s naturally flammable vegetation, and frequent exposure to hot, dry and windy weather. Bushfire risk is affected by factors including the weather, the type and condition of fuels in a certain place and its topography, the location of people and assets, and the ability to prevent fires from igniting and suppressing them once they ignite.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk is the component of bushfire risk that is attributable to bushfire fuels, that is, vegetation that influences fire behaviour, such as the speed and intensity of a bushfire.

Fuel is a key element of fire behaviour, and therefore is a major component of overall bushfire risk. However, fuel is not the only factor that affects fire behaviour, or the likelihood and consequence of bushfires impacting people and the things we care about. Topography and weather, particularly wind and temperature, are two other key elements of fire behaviour. As weather conditions become more severe, the influence of fuel on fire behaviour decreases. That’s why it’s important to manage bushfire risk using a wide range of interventions.

Who manages bushfire risk in Victoria?

Victoria’s approach to bushfire risk management is underpinned by shared responsibility and brings together land and fire agencies, councils, landowners, and the community to deliver tailored bushfire risk reduction approaches that draw on our collective knowledge and strengths and reflect local needs. These partnerships continue to be vital in enabling effective on-ground delivery.

How is bushfire risk managed?

Victoria takes a risk-based approach to bushfire management, meaning that resources are invested in bushfire management activities where they will have the greatest impact in protecting human life, property and the environment. This approach has been repeatedly reviewed by experts and inquiries, and consistently found to be leading practice both nationally and internationally. However, a level of risk will always remain.

Bushfire risk is managed through a wide range of interventions, including planned burning and non-burn fuel treatment, construction and maintenance of strategic fuel breaks and fire access roads, community education, fire ignition controls, early detection and aggressive first attack to bring bushfires rapidly under control while they are still small.

Forest Fire Management Victoria (FFMVic) on behalf of the sector models what impact fuel management activities have on reducing fuel-driven bushfire risk to inform fuel management planning and performance evaluation. This approach focuses on the role that planned burns have in moderating the severity of bushfires at large scales and the consequential likely reduction in impacts.

FFMVic is made up of staff from DEECA, Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water and VicForests and is responsible for managing fuel-driven bushfire risk in State forests, national parks and other protected public land in Victoria under the Forests Act 1958. The CFA works with land managers – including local councils and private landholders – to support the delivery of fire prevention works on other land tenures. FFMVic and CFA also work together to deliver burns on both public and private land (cross-tenure burns) and burns on the private-public interface.

While the majority of the state’s annual fuel management program focuses on reducing the risk of bushfires to human life and property, the Joint Fuel Management Program (JFMP) also includes burns that are undertaken for ecological purposes, and cultural burns which are nominated and led by Traditional Owners.

In addition to pursuing strong partnerships with Traditional Owners to manage bushfire risk, the Victorian Government and its land and fire management agencies are committed to supporting self-determination, including supporting Traditional Owners to implement the Traditional Owner Cultural Fire Strategy and lead the reintroduction of cultural fire on Country.

What does managing bushfire risk look like on the ground?

Victoria’s bushfire management sector takes a year-round approach to reducing bushfire risk. All year, sector partners:

• plan and deliver planned burns and non-burn fuel treatments,
• construct and maintain strategic fuel breaks,
• maintain and improve strategic fire access road networks,
• undertake other bushfire risk-reduction activities, such as using predictive weather and fire behaviour advice to strategically position air and ground resources on days when bushfire risk is increased,
• engage with the community to support placed-based programs to reduce bushfire risk at the local level and to increase community understanding of bushfire risk,
• conduct research to improve risk reduction approaches,
• declare and enforce fire danger periods, manage a system of permits for burning during the fire danger period and determine total fire bans, and
• manage fire danger rating signs, warnings and advice.

Fuel management is a key strategy for reducing bushfire risk and one of the key activities to protect communities from bushfires. Fuel is any grass, leaf litter, twigs, bark and other live vegetation that can burn. Fuel builds up at different rates in different areas depending on how fast the vegetation grows compared to how fast it decomposes. One of the major ways to manage bushfire risk in Victoria is to manage fuels.

Fuel management includes reducing the accumulation of vegetation to reduce bushfire risk, through:

• planned burning – lighting and managing planned fires in the landscape, including along roadsides and rail corridors,
• mechanical treatments – mowing, slashing and mulching,
• other non-burn treatments like spraying for weed management,
• construction and maintenance of the strategic fuel breaks, and
• removal or management of storm debris.

Managing fuels makes bushfire suppression easier and safer for firefighters and helps to reduce the impact of bushfires on communities and the environment.

The drivers for fuel-driven bushfire risk differ across the state. Variables include the types of forests, the topography and the location of communities and weather (both surface and atmospheric). The methods that the government and community can use to manage fuel-driven bushfire risk also vary. While fuel management on public land is the most effective broadscale management lever, in some areas fuel management on private land is equally, if not more important. In areas close to towns, planned burns are more frequent to protect people and the things they value. In other areas, planned burns can be used to reduce the spread of bushfires across the landscape. Some areas can be excluded from planned burning to protect sites that are sensitive to fire.

On public land, fuel management is conducted across four Fire Management Zones:

• Asset Protection Zone – aims to reduce fuel through planned burning or other methods approximately every 5 to 7 years.
• Bushfire Moderation Zone – aims to reduce fuel through planned burning or other methods approximately every 8 to 15 years. The length of time between planned burns in some areas can vary due to ecological considerations.
• Landscape Management Zone – planned burning will focus on maintaining and improving ecosystem resilience, and fuel management will also be undertaken for risk reduction.
• Prescribed Burning Exclusion Zone – no planned burning. These are primarily areas that do not tolerate fire, such as rainforest areas.

Although the name of the zone indicates its primary purpose, it is recognised that multiple goals can be achieved when undertaking activities in each zone, as shown in Figure 1.

Fire management zones

Numerous different methods are used to reduce the amount of fuel and bushfire risk in a landscape. Importantly, these methods vary between Fire Management Zones. Methods used include planned burning, slashing and mowing, creating and maintaining strategic fuel breaks, and managing storm debris.

While in many parts of the State fuel management on public land can achieve significant risk reduction, this is not the case in all areas. For example, in the Port Phillip Region, which covers the forested areas to Melbourne’s north and east, there is a greater opportunity to reduce fuel-driven bushfire risk by treating fuels on private land compared to public land.

Both the IGEM Phase 1 Inquiry into the 2019-20 Victorian fire season and the VAGO Reducing Bushfire Risk Audit recognise and recommend the need to increase the management of fuels on private land and that this should be done in tandem with fuel management on public land.

While effective fuel management is a critical part of how bushfire risk is managed in Victoria, as the climate changes opportunities to conduct planned burning safely and effectively are increasingly becoming more limited in some parts of Victoria. More frequent extreme weather conditions mean that the moderate conditions required to deliver planned burning while mitigating the risk of escape or adverse outcomes are less frequent. The full suite of actions across prevention, preparedness, and response to reduce bushfire risk will be needed.

This includes work across agencies, across tenures and with communities to strengthen shared responsibility and activate individuals, communities, industry, and the not-for-profit sector to work together to manage bushfires. A more holistic view of bushfire risk management also allows for the development of comprehensive strategies that not only reduce risk but reduce the impacts of fire management activities such as planned burning on industry, the environment and public health. There are trade-offs from managing fuel-driven risk through planned burning.

For example, planned burning creates smoke, which can result in localised community and industry concerns about smoke impacts. Industries that may be affected include tourism, apiary and viticulture. These impacts must be weighed against the potentially catastrophic risks the community faces from bushfires, which typically release significantly higher smoke concentrations than planned burning.

FFMVic, CFA, the Department of Health (DoH), and Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) now use leading weather science, smoke forecasting models and available air quality monitoring to actively schedule and/or modify planned burning to reduce or manage the impacts of smoke. FFMVic and CFA engage closely with stakeholders and communities about the timing of planned burns to understand and help manage potential impacts. Planned Burns Victoria allows Victorians to view and receive notifications for planned burns near them.

The impact on the environment is also considered by the fire agencies. Planned burning supports the ecological and biodiversity objectives of the Code of Practice for Bushfire Management on Public Land by reducing the size and intensity of bushfires that impact environmental assets and promoting appropriate fire regimes for ecosystem resilience. FFMVic and the CFA consider the risk of fire, both bushfires and planned burning to ecological and biodiversity values through all levels of planning.

For each burn, FFMVic and CFA utilise available datasets to identify environmental values within a planned burn area and work with biodiversity specialists to incorporate mitigation actions into burn planning and delivery, to reduce potential adverse impacts arising from the planned burn activity.

When planned burns are delivered, mitigation actions (such as protection of critical habitat features) and planned burn tactics (such as particular lighting patterns) are implemented to minimise impacts to ecological values.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk

Fuel-driven bushfire risk is the component of bushfire risk that is attributable to bushfire fuels.

Fuels are a key element of fire behaviour, and therefore are a major component of overall bushfire risk. However, it is not a full measure of bushfire risk, because fuel is not the only factor that affects fire behaviour, or the likelihood and consequence of bushfires impacting people and the things they care about.

The primary determinants of fire behaviour are topography, weather and fuel. The sector models the impact that planned burns and bushfires have on reducing fuel-driven bushfire risk to human life and property by modelling fire behaviour as a function of:

1. topography as represented by a digital elevation model of Victoria
2. weather as represented by a catastrophic fire weather scenario, and
3. fuel as represented by the varying fuel load across Victoria from year to year

This impact is calculated and expressed as the percentage of fuel-driven bushfire risk ‘leftover’ after fuels have been reduced, either through planned burning or bushfires. A current constraint is that this calculation can only consider the contribution of planned burning and not non-burn fuel treatments such as slashing and mowing.

Victoria has a statewide target to maintain fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 70% of maximum levels. The level of fuel-driven bushfire risk is different across the landscape, due to variations in vegetation, topography and where houses are located. Each FFMVic region and district has a long-term planning target for reducing fuel-driven bushfire risk, which contributes to the achievement of the statewide target. Regional and district fuel-driven bushfire risk targets vary across the State, and are influenced by both the level of risk in an area (influenced by vegetation, topography and the location of houses) as well as the leverage that FFMVic has over reducing risk through fuel management on public land.

The Bushfire Management Strategy for each region sets out the strategy for achieving these long-term planning targets as well as achieving a broader range of objectives defined in the Code of Practice for Bushfire Management on Public Land 2012 These strategies have been developed with communities to:

• identify values to be protected from bushfires
• assess bushfire risk to those values, and
• set out strategies to manage this risk

Individual strategies for all Victoria regions are available on the Safer Together website.

• Barwon South West
• Gippsland
• Grampians
• Hume
• Loddon Mallee
• Port Phillip

Where bushfire risk cannot be managed through fuel management, FFMVic together with Safer Together sector partners work to ensure bushfire risk is managed through prevention, preparedness and response activities such as ignition controls, community education, community information, early detection and aggressive first attack to bring bushfires rapidly under control while they are still small.

In this year’s report, fuel management activities conducted by the CFA are included in the statewide, regional and district risk calculations. In time, advances in modelling and changes to the approach in accounting for contributions will enable the sector to report on how a broader range of prevention, preparedness and response activities – including mechanical fuel treatment – have contributed to reducing the risk of bushfires.

Joint fuel management program

The Joint Fuel Management Program (the program) is a statewide operational planning process for the management of bushfire fuels on public and private land over a 3-year rolling timeframe. The program integrates a risk-based bushfire management approach that the sector works within and shares personnel, resources, vehicles, and other equipment to maximise the prioritisation and delivery of fuel management activities.

FFMVic and CFA staff developed the program in consultation with local councils, the viticulture and tourism industries, beekeepers, and flora and fauna specialists – drawing on knowledge from local communities, including Traditional Owners, key stakeholders, local community leaders and other interested parties. Burns are nominated for a variety of reasons including:

• reducing bushfire risk
• enhancing ecological resilience
• regeneration
• supporting Traditional Owners to reintroduce cultural fire to the Country

FFMVic and the CFA welcome and encourage public involvement around the timing and scheduling of activities in local areas.

Government investment to manage bushfire risk

The Victorian Government recognises the significant threat that climate change poses to communities, the economy and the environment through more frequent and severe bushfire emergencies.

The Victorian Government allocated an unprecedented $517 million in the 2021–22 State Budget to continue advancing Victoria’s approach to managing bushfire risk under a changing climate. This included funding for our firefighters to deliver an enhanced fuel management program and expand Victoria’s network of strategic fuel breaks, as well as $133 million to upgrade the digital radio network for FFMVic staff and CFA volunteers to support safe and effective firefighting.

This was followed by a further $96 million investment through the 2022–23 State Budget to strengthen preparedness arrangements, replace and renew critical fire and emergency assets, and fund aerial firefighting that is critical for supporting safe and effective bushfire suppression.

Since 2020, the Victorian Government has invested $35 million to build 1,489km of strategic fuel breaks in high-priority locations across Victoria, close to townships, key assets, water catchments and sensitive environments, and in areas where we want to reduce the size of fires. Through the 2023-24 State Budget, the government committed a further $3.755 million over four years to the ongoing maintenance of the strategic fuel break network.

The government also invested $14.3 million a year to fund the transition of 100 fixed-term Forest Fire Operations Officers to ongoing, while $7.4 million is funding 54 fixed-term Forest Fire Operations Officer roles in 2023-24.

Victoria’s risk-based approach to bushfire management means that the resources invested in bushfire management are directed where they will have the greatest impact in reducing risk to Victorians and the things they care about most.

Bushfire risk management reform

The Victorian Government and key land and fire agencies committed to a major program of reform in response to recommendations of the Inspector-General for Emergency Management’s Phase 1 Inquiry into the 2019-20 Victorian fire season and the Victorian Auditor-General Office’s Reducing Bushfire Risks audit.

Key commitments including the establishment of OBRM and its advisory panel, expanding the membership of the Safer Together program, and commencing the expansion of this report to include a broader range of agencies and activities involved in bushfire risk reduction have already been acquitted.

Key projects to be delivered over the coming 12 months include:

• a new bushfire management strategy for Victoria and accompanying monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework
• a review of the fuel management legislative framework
• a review of the fuel management targets that guide the delivery of FFMVic’s fuel management program
• a roadmap to expand targets to other agencies and tenures

In addition, OBRM is working with its advisory panel and broader sector to identify other opportunities to:

• more effectively reduce bushfire risk across all public and private land
• better allocate resources and investment
• improve credibility and assurance with respect to bushfire risk management

OBRM is also working towards a review of Victoria’s bushfire management planning arrangements including the Joint Fuel Management Program, identifying opportunities to enhance fuel systems to support cross-sector fuel management, and strengthening how the sector communicates and works with the community to manage bushfire risk.

Working with Traditional Owners to enable them to undertake cultural fire practices and supporting biodiversity recovery through revegetation and reseeding activities are also key priorities.

The Victorian Government recognises the important role that harvest and haulage contractors play in FFMVic’s emergency and fire prevention and response work, by providing critical capacity and capability with their specialist plant, equipment and skilled personnel. As part of the transition arrangements following the announcement by the Victorian Government that all commercial timber harvesting in Victoria’s State forests would conclude by 1 January 2024, Victoria’s forest contractors will remain engaged by VicForests until 30 June 2024 ensuring their availability for this bushfire season. Planning is also progressing which will see forest contractors offered alternative work in forest and land management across Victoria, which will also secure their critical skills, experience and specialised equipment for use in bushfire prevention, response and recovery.

Data and model output improvements

The best available evidence-based models and data are used to calculate the results presented in this report each year. Models for metrics, such as fuel-driven bushfire risk or reported costs, are updated regularly when technology improves, better data becomes available, the research program provides new knowledge or mapping accuracy improves. Modelling and data improvements can cause information reported in previous years reports to change. For example, improved fire history and severity mapping may result in a recalculation of fuel-driven bushfire risk in a particular region. Appendix A explains these specific changes.

Despite the data and model improvements described above, limitations to the modelling remain. For example, the current method for calculating fuel-driven bushfire risk can only consider fuel reductions that occur due to planned burning or bushfires. This means that the method cannot account for the risk reduction benefits of the broader fuel management program, such as mechanical fuel reduction and smaller treatments like roadside vegetation management. Further, the calculation does not currently account for bushfire risk management activities beyond fuel management, such as reducing potential sources of ignitions or increasing the success of fire suppression. Lastly, the fuel-driven bushfire risk metric is currently limited to expressing risk reduction to human life and property, and not the full spectrum of values that may be impacted by bushfire.

Improving the data and science behind decisions happens continuously and is reflected through updates to reporting. Consequently, direct comparisons between this report and past or future reports cannot necessarily be made. For the most accurate view of current and historical figures, always consult the most recent report.

Bushfire risk management is everyone’s responsibility.

The Bushfire management sector works together with Traditional Owners, industry, communities and private landowners to reduce risk across public and private land.

Whether through the reduction of bushfire fuels on public land, private property or roadsides, construction of strategic fuel breaks, delivery of community education programs, conducting patrols for unattended campfires, or suppressing bushfires – everyone has a role to play.

Individuals, households, and communities play an important part in managing their bushfire risk. By preparing and practicing a fire-ready plan, reducing bushfire fuels on their property, participating in bushfire management planning processes, and listening out for community warnings – every Victorian can take active steps to further reduce the risk of bushfires to themselves, their families, and their communities.

This year’s report includes information on bushfire risk reduction activities and outcomes delivered by FFMVic and the CFA.

Over time, the report will continue to expand to include bushfire risk management activities and outcomes delivered by a broader range of agencies.

Overview of the 2022-23 bushfire season and the suppression effectiveness

Bushfires are a natural part of the Victorian environment and although fire agencies prepare for and respond rapidly to suppress bushfires with aggressive first attack, it is often not possible to control every bushfire at a small size.

The area burnt during bushfires can contribute to a temporary reduction in fuel-driven bushfire risk for the specific areas affected. This can therefore contribute to a reduction in the state and respective regional and district risk profiles, which consider the areas burnt by bushfires.

The 2022–23 fire season had a lower-than-average number of fires, due to the wetter-than-usual conditions associated with a La Niña climate pattern.

During the 2022–23 bushfire season, FFMVic and CFA crews’ response involved (Table 1):

• FFMVic attended 838 fires impacting 4,280 hectares,
• CFA attended 1,949 fires impacting 6,605 hectares.

FFMVic attended 444 unattended campfires. This was just over half (53%) of all fires attended by FFMVic.

FFMVic contains 98% of fires at first attack and 92% of fires within 5 hectares exceeding bushfire suppression performance targets.

CFA also contained 92% of fires it responded to within 5 hectares.

Table 1: FFMVic and CFA response information

Mitigation and prevention – key highlights

The bushfire sector mitigated bushfire risk through a wide range of prevention and preparedness activities including ignition controls, community engagement, planned burning, non-burn fuel treatment, strategic fuel break construction, and maintenance of the strategic fire access network.

Fire danger periods and total fire ban days

A Fire Danger Period is when the CFA restricts the use of fire during hotter times of the year. The rules help prevent fires from starting by limiting the types of fires that can be lit and restricting or imposing conditions on some high-risk activities. The CFA declares the Fire Danger Period for each municipality (shire or council) at different times in the lead-up to the fire season – depending on the amount of rain, grassland curing rate and other local conditions. The Fire Danger Period may be declared as early as September in some municipalities, and typically remains in place until the fire danger lessens, which could be as late as May. Within the Fire Danger Period, authorised officers issue permits for igniting fires for specific purposes. The permits stipulate the appropriate conditions under which fire can be ignited.

A Total Fire Ban is a period when all fires are banned, and people working outside (such as farmers harvesting) are asked to reconsider their activities. These are called for one or more days when the fire risk is Extreme and the CFA Chief Officer considers there to be a considerable risk that if fires start they would be difficult to control or would have a significant impact on communities. In the 2022–23 reporting period, 4 Total Fire Ban (TFB) days were declared. No TFB days were revoked (Table 2). The details on the restrictions for both the Fire Danger Period and a Total Fire Ban are listed on the CFA’s website.

Table 2: Total Fire Bans declared in 2022–23 and 2021–22. Data aligns with the financial year.

Campfire safety

Approximately 10% of bushfires are caused by campfire negligence. FFMVic attended 444 unattended campfires in 2022–23. This is just over half (53%) of all fires attended by FFMVic.

Compliance activities carried out by the Office of the Conservation Regulator and FFMVic are a key component in reducing the risks of bushfire ignition. The risks caused by campfires are limited by:

• providing clear information about campfire regulations and campfire safety,
• raising awareness of campfire regulations at customer centres, during patrols and through media campaigns,
• analysing intelligence from reports of unsafe behaviours and high-risk times and locations,
• conducting surveillance and patrols in high-risk locations, during fire hazard days, and targeting high-risk behaviours,
• initiating (and publicising) enforcement actions.

Authorised Officers reported 542 fire-related offences in the public land estate of fire protected area during the 2022–23 reporting period.

The Victoria Police enforce the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 and Summary Offences Act 1966 provisions regarding fire prevention.

Community education, awareness and engagement

Community-based bushfire management is a community-led approach that supports communities and agencies to connect and make better-informed decisions. It includes working with communities to identify local priorities, develop mutual goals and solutions, build relationships and use locally tailored processes before, during and after bushfires. The Safer Together Community-Based Bushfire Management (CBBM) program has 25 CBBM communities with 80% classed as high functioning due to the recent onboarding of new communities and recruitment required to fill resource vacancies.

FFMVic held 13 stakeholder and community forums on bushfire management and planned burning during 2022–23. An additional engagement forum was delivered to better partner with impacted stakeholders to reduce the potential for smoke taint resulting from planned burning activity.

Fuel management

In 2022-23, CFA completed 123 planned burns across 3,084 hectares (including 570 kilometres of burning across road and rail corridors) and 60 non-burn fuel treatments across an additional 323 hectares (note the planned burning figures include cultural burns delivered by Traditional Owners supported by the CFA).

FFMVic constructed 235km of strategic fuel breaks, and improved 2,155km of strategic fire access roads.

FFMVic delivered 214 planned burns across 75,500 hectares and 1,602 non-burn fuel treatments across an additional 16,757 hectares.

Statewide fuel-driven bushfire risk was 65%, which achieves the target of maintaining risk at or below 70% of maximum levels.

While 3 FFMVic Regions and 11 Districts maintained fuel-driven bushfire risk within long-term planning target levels, and 3 Regions (Grampians, Hume and Port Phillip) and 5 Districts ( Midlands, Metro, Yarra, Latrobe and Ovens) exceeded their targets.

For further information on the statewide, regional and district fuel-driven bushfire risk levels, reasons why some regions and districts are above long-term planning targets and specific actions being taken by FFMVic to respond to elevated fuel-driven bushfire risk in these areas is provided in Section 5 and Section 6.

Relative contribution to risk reduction by planned burning and bushfires

Modelling can be used to determine the relative contribution of planned burning and bushfires to risk reduction realised through the reduction of bushfire fuels. Presenting the contribution to risk reduction from planned burns and previous bushfires as a 10-year rolling average is a more meaningful and accurate way to view this data compared to doing it as a year-to-year contribution. The reasons for this include:

• the persistence of a year-to-year variability in risk reduction contribution. For example, in years with very large bushfires, such as the 2019-20 fire season, the majority of risk reduction would be attributable to bushfires, whilst in years with minimal bushfire activity, almost 100% risk reduction is attributable to planned burning, and
• although there is considerable variation from year to year, planned burning accounts for more risk reduction than bushfires. This is despite bushfires impacting a substantially greater area than planned burns over the last 10-year period.

From July 2014 to June 2023, planned burns accounted for approximately 21% of the total burnt area across the State, with bushfires contributing to the remaining 79%. However, planned burning accounted for 59% of the total risk reduction across Victoria, compared to 41% risk reduction from bushfires.

This is a result of using the best available science and data to identify and target areas for planned burning in strategic locations (such as close to high-value assets) to reduce the risk to life and property, whereas bushfires are indiscriminate and may occur anywhere in the landscape.

For more information on statewide, regional and district fuel-driven bushfire risk levels, refer to Section 5 and Section 6.

Ecosystem resilience – key highlights

Fire is a natural and vital process for many of Victoria’s ecosystems. Many plants rely on fire to reproduce. In the context of bushfire management planning, ecosystem resilience is an ecosystem’s capacity to absorb natural and management-imposed disturbance but still retain its basic structure – in terms of species abundance and composition – function and identity over space and time. It is desirable to minimise the total area burnt while vegetation is below reproductive maturity, known as the minimum tolerable fire interval because it might affect the vegetation’s ability to successfully regenerate after bushfires in the immediate future. Burning areas below minimum tolerable fire interval is sometimes unavoidable, to reduce fuel-driven bushfire risk to human life, property or other important values.

To understand the effects of both bushfires and planned burning on the environment, FFMVic measures and monitors the timing and number of fires in different types of vegetation.

These are measured relative to:

• the time taken for vegetation types to reach reproductive maturity following fire – referred to as the tolerable fire interval (TFI), and
• the age classes of different types of vegetation – referred to as the growth stage structure (GSS).

There have been some areas of improvement in the TFI status of vegetation on public land across Victoria since the 2021–22 report. Vegetation below minimum TFI, is now at 50% of Victoria’s public land estate, while the area within TFI increased to 28%.

The proportion of vegetation on public land in the mature (34%) and adolescent (27%) growth stages increased while the proportion in the juvenile stage (15%) decreased. The area of vegetation in the oldest growth stage (4%) remained the same.

FFMVic also partners with universities and other academic institutions to conduct research that improves how ecosystem resilience is represented and measured.

For more detailed reporting, refer to Section 5 and Section 6.

Support for cultural burning – key highlights

In 2022–23, 6 Traditional Owner groups led the delivery of 23 cultural burns on Country.

The CFA supported the delivery of 3 cultural burns by Traditional Owners covering 49 hectares and FFMVic supported Traditional Owners to deliver 20 cultural burns covering 369 hectares.

In 2022–23, Traditional Owners led the delivery of 23 cultural burns on Country. There were 6 Traditional Owner groups that led these burns across four FFMVic regions (Loddon Mallee, Grampians, Hume and Barwon South West) and one CFA region (South West) with planning, delivery, and post-fire management support from FFMVic and the CFA.

Cultural burns are led by Traditional Owners for a range of land management and cultural outcomes. They are supported by the fire agencies, and while they may have risk reduction benefits this is not generally the primary purpose.

Over the past 12 months, there has been a notable increase in the number of cultural burns supported by FFMVic and the CFA, increasing from 14 in 2021–22 to 23 during this reporting period, a 39% increase across the state.

Cultural fire grants

With funding secured through the Cultural Fire Grants Program many Traditional Owner groups have now employed dedicated cultural fire staff enabling the groups to develop or further define their Cultural Burning Strategies, effectively plan for their burn programs, and provide training opportunities for their staff and communities. The Cultural Fire Grant funding has provided many groups with the financial confidence to establish fire-specific roles within their organisations and has resulted in a notable increase in the number of burns delivered. Given the foundational work that many of the groups have been doing it is projected that the number of cultural burns will continue to grow over the coming years.

In response to the growing demand from Traditional Owner groups to reintroduce cultural fire on Country, FFMVic has employed 5 Cultural Burn Officers to work closely with groups and support them in delivering their cultural burn programs. The Cultural Burn Officers also work closely with CFA to share work programs and activities that assist fire agencies to support Traditional Owners.

Cultural fire strategy

The Victorian Government is committed to reconciliation and a Treaty for Victoria’s Traditional Owners.

In response to the needs of Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians, DEECA developed Pupangarli Marnmarnepu(opens in a new window) 'Owning Our Future’ Aboriginal Self-Determination Reform Strategy 2020-2025 (the Strategy). The Strategy is a 5-year roadmap that enables self-determination at DECCA by fostering an environment that honours the rights and dignity of Traditional Owners and Aboriginal Victorians. The Strategy is founded on cultural authority that sets the strategic direction and actions for us to advance Aboriginal self-determination.

DEECA acknowledges the diversity of ways Traditional Owner groups want to use cultural fire and participate in land management. FFMVic continues to build partnerships with Traditional Owner groups to deliver cultural burning on public land, build capacity through the Cultural Fire Grants Program, and provide operational support for the implementation of the Victorian Traditional Owner Cultural Fire Strategy.

The CFA is working with Traditional Owner groups and First Nations communities to enable more cultural fire, linking in with the Victorian Traditional Owner Cultural Fire Strategy and CFA Koori Inclusion Action Plan.

Cultural burning activity

In 2022–23, the CFA supported the delivery of 3 cultural burns by Traditional Owners covering 49 hectares and FFMVic supported Traditional Owners to deliver 20 cultural burns covering 369 hectares.

These Traditional Owner cultural burns were additional to planned burning undertaken by FFMVic and the CFA for bushfire risk management purposes. While cultural burns may reduce fuel-driven bushfire risk (and are included in risk calculations), the objectives of cultural burns are varied and are defined by the Traditional Owners leading the burn.

The groups who undertook cultural burns were the:

• Barengi Gadjin Land Council Aboriginal Corporation
• Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation
• Eastern Maar
• Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation
• Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation
• Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation.

Table 3: Traditional Owner cultural burns by region, Victoria, 2022–23.

Case study - Wadawurrung Cultural Burns and the Western Treatment Plant

Wadawurrung people continue to care for Dja (Country) and Nyubitj (Water) today and aim to restore Country and its Murrup (Spirit). Their cultural burning program and the nominations of Point Wilson (T-Section Grassland) and Lake Borrie (Zone 11) burns at the Western Treatment Plant align with the Wadawurrung Country Plan Paleert Tjaara Dja (Let’s Make Country Good Together 2020-2030). These burns also achieve on key deliverables within the Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation / Melbourne Water Corporation Partnership Agreement WunggurrwilNgitj (Strong Together), the CFA and DEECA Statement of Intent, the CFA Koorie Inclusion Action Plan and DEECA’s Pupangarli Marnmarnepu Self-Determination Reform Strategy.

CFA and DEECA worked closely with the land manager Melbourne Water to support the planning and delivery of 2 cultural burns nominated by Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation within the Western Treatment Plant. Some of the area that surrounds the Western Treatment Plant not only contains high-quality critically endangered volcanic plains grasslands but also many culturally significant species for the Wadawurrung people. These are highly significant sites for Wadawurrung Traditional Owners, and the cultural burns provided an opportunity to renew cultural and spiritual connections to Country.

CFA, DEECA and Melbourne Water worked together to support Wadawurrung’s nominations, including supporting the delivery of 2 burns at Point Wilson (T-Section Grassland) Burn and Lake Borrie (Zone 11) in 2023. While government agencies are there to support the burns the final decision on where, when and how the burns occurred rested with the owner of the burns, Wadawurrung. The delivery partners, including Wadawurrung all meet in the lead-up to the burns, discussing and working through the burns, Wadawurrung’s preferred approach and all other operational and safety considerations.

Better collaboration between government agencies and land managers is critical to provide greater opportunities for Traditional Owners like Wadawurrung to deliver on their cultural obligations. Agencies are constantly learning from each other at these burns and continue to modify their approaches to ensure they are enabling groups such as Wadawurrung to deliver their burns the way they want them delivered.

It is also important to acknowledge that some of the previous burns and the first of the 2 Western Treatment burns described here have not always gone to plan. At the start, Wadawurrung did not always feel empowered, and at times the number of agency staff who attended the burns didn’t align with Wadawurrung aspirations and mitigation measures required to protect a threatened species didn’t align with Wadawurrung’s more holistic approach to land management. Learning from these early challenges and building on them and other successful collaborations demonstrates how agencies can acknowledge different approaches and continue to work together to support Traditional Owners to deliver on the Victorian Traditional Owners Cultural Fire Strategy and Wadawurrung’s cultural fire goals.

The Country Fire Authority Act 1958 authorises the CFA to conduct fuel management activities in the country area of Victoria.

CFA’s fuel management activities are undertaken on private land and public land that is not managed by DEECA (for example, roadsides and rail corridors), at the request of the landowner or land manager.

Additions to the report for this year include a description of the values-checking process CFA undertakes before any fuel management activities take place and more detail on the vegetation types in which bushfires were suppressed.

Mitigation and prevention

Fuel management

The CFA conducts fuel management activities at the request of the landowner or manager. It does not manage land and must work closely with landowners and managers such as local government, and road and rail authorities to conduct planned burning or non-burn fuel treatments. Table 4 outlines the treated area, and the number and location of all fuel management treatment activities led by the CFA during 2022–23, and the previous reporting year of 2021–22 for comparison.

In total, 3,406 hectares were treated across the state, through 183 activities in the 2022–23 year (note these figures include 3 cultural burns covering 49 hectares led by Traditional Owners which CFA supported, and 1 cross-tenure burn of 1.4 hectares led by the CFA). The largest areas treated were in the South West CFA region (1,909 hectares) and West CFA region (1,075 hectares). Many of the areas treated on behalf of land managers were long linear strips, such as road and rail corridors, with a small hectare footprint, but totalling 570 kilometres of vegetation treated to reduce fuel-driven bushfire risk.

The area treated and number of treatments for the current year were slightly lower than the last reported year of 2021–22, except for the roadside distance treated which was higher. The totals for 2021–22 were 3,619 hectares (213 more hectares than 2022–23) treated across the state, through 219 fuel treatments (36 more than 2022–23) with 494 kilometres of vegetation treated (76 less kilometres than 2022–23).

Table 4: CFA fuel treatment activities by treatment type in 2022–23, and previously reported in 2021–22

Fuel treatment activities 2022-23

*Note the 1 cross-tenure burn and the 85 roadside and rail corridor burns are included in the total fuel reduction figures.

Fuel treatment activities 2021-22

*Note the 1 cross-tenure burn and the 85 roadside and rail corridor burns are included in the total fuel reduction figures.

Planned burns reduce risk by providing critical access for firefighters to suppress bushfires, facilitating safe egress routes for communities, and protecting assets by reducing fuels next to residential areas and critical infrastructure. These treatments help deliver on joint bushfire management strategy approaches, including more effective fire suppression, reduced bushfire spread and severity, and reduced impacts of bushfires on people and property.

The CFA fuel management program is often driven by local communities and as a result, has positive flow on effects for communities in understanding their own bushfire risk and the role fire can play in reducing risks and maintaining ecosystems. However, due to the smaller size and linear characteristics of these planned burns, they are less represented in the calculations used to monitor fuel-driven bushfire risk due to modelling limitations.

All planned burns led by the CFA were incorporated into the fuel-driven bushfire risk calculations conducted by FFMVic, were included in the joint agency prioritisation for delivery and contributed towards approaches to treat risk as identified in the regional Bushfire Management Strategies.

The CFA’s fuel treatments for the year 2022–23 are presented and compared to the previously reported year (Table 5). Most of the fuel management completed in 2022–23 was through planned burning (90.5%), with non-burn fuel treatment accounting for 9.5% of the CFA’s program. Non-burn fuel treatments included various mechanical treatments, such as spraying, slashing and mulching. This compares to 2021–22 where similarly most treatment was delivered through planned burning (89%).

Table 5: CFA fuel treatment activities, by region 2022–23 and previously reported in 2021–22

The total area treated in 2022–23 and 2021–22 was relatively similar, though a reduced number of treatments was delivered in 2022–23 (the average treatment area was larger). The 2022–23 window for delivery of planned burns was shorter than in previous years with some activities converted to a non-burn fuel treatment, such as a linear roadside. The sites converted to a non-burn fuel treatment will be revisited in the coming year to burn.

This year's reporting is broken down into further detail showing what treatment types were undertaken across a region (Table 6). Where a region did not undertake a certain treatment type, such as a particular type of non-burn or planned burn treatment the treatment type has not been included in the regional statistics. Non-burn fuel treatments can be broken down into 2 sub-categories of mechanical and biological treatments. Mechanical treatments include slashing/mowing, mulching, pruning and spraying whilst biological treatment refers to grazing.

Table 6: Detailed breakdown of regional treatments for 2022–23

*Note that no hectare figure is reported against roadside and rail corridor treatments as these treatments are linear corridors better represented by kilometres

**Note that number of the total number of roadside and rail corridor treatments, and cross-tenure burns, is included in the number of fuel reduction treatments

In 2022–23, the CFA had an increase in the number of non-burn fuel treatment activities delivered. In some cases, this was due to areas intended for planned burns being converted to a non-burn fuel treatment due to unsuitable conditions to safely and effectively deliver a planned burn.

These areas were treated with non-burn fuel treatment to change the fuel structure and arrangement with the intention to return in the coming year and burn to remove the fuel. The change in structure can influence fire intensity.

The delivery of linear burns on roadsides and rail corridors was predominately implemented in the South West and West regions through the large grassland and grassy woodland corridors.

Due to their remnant nature, these grasslands are often of high conservation importance and are protected under State and Federal legislation. Managing appropriate fire regimes is important to maintain ecological health and function within these grasslands with burn planning and delivery undertaken in consultation with land managers and stakeholders.

Biodiversity and Aboriginal cultural and historical heritage checks

In 2022–23, 741 sites were checked by Biodiversity Advisors and the Cultural Heritage Advisor within the CFA for biodiversity, cultural heritage and historical heritage values (Table 7). The advisors work with regional teams, land managers and specialists to do values assessments. The values assessment process can be broken down into a few key steps:

• All Year 1 and 2 JFMP fuel treatments were values checked during the 3-month JFMP build process to ensure all treatments had checks completed before the JFMP was endorsed. Burns were deferred to Year 3 of the JFMP if required to enable further values checking and permit processes to be undertaken.
• CFA Biodiversity Advisors and the Cultural Heritage Advisor checked all sites in Years 1 and 2 of the JFMP initially through online databases. Where values were identified, and particularly for listed species, on-ground site visits were undertaken. This was often with the landowner or manager.
• Where values were identified the CFA engaged with the landowner or manager about the value(s) and required mitigations to minimise impact or harm to a value. These mitigations are incorporated into the planning and delivery phases of a treatment.

Table 7: Biodiversity and heritage checks undertaken as a total, and per region, in 2022–23.

The difference between the total fuel treatments and total treatments checked differs as additional treatments were added to the JFMP as an amendment and assessments completed by the land manager. For due diligence, the CFA checks the land manager’s assessment. However, in the financial year 2022–23, 2 treatments were checked by the land manager only.

Biodiversity values were the most readily identified value as shown, however, for Aboriginal cultural heritage the number of values identified is only for known values and assets.

Many sites checked for cultural heritage contained known sensitivity, such as around water bodies, where the likelihood of a value being present is increased. In cases where sensitivity is identified the CFA Contingency Plan – for Discovery of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage is enacted. The contingency plan has an escalation process if a value is found.

Fire suppression

During the 2022–23 year, the CFA suppressed 1,949 fires, impacting 6,605 hectares with 1,794 (92%) of them suppressed with a fire size under 5 hectares (Table 8). The period from January to March 2023 had the highest number of fires. Suppression under 5 hectares is more difficult in the summer and autumn months due to increased temperatures and drier vegetation and fuel loads, as well as more fires needing to be managed with the available resources.

The 2022–23 season required CFA to respond to significantly fewer fires than in 2021–22, when CFA crews attended 2,875 fires impacting 18,221 hectares with 93% of fires kept to less than 5 hectares in area

Table 8: Total CFA fires suppressed and those suppressed with a fire size under 5ha over different months of the year.

Most of the vegetation fires attended by the CFA in 2022–23 were in grassland (70%) (Table 9).

There are multiple reasons crop fires start and may be difficult to suppress, including:

• crop fires typically start from machinery leaving a trail of multiple ignition sources that can lead to rapid-fire acceleration,
• crop fires are difficult to suppress due to the fuel load, height and continuity, which all act to increase flame length and fireline intensity,
• the definition of a crop fire – whether or not it is harvested or unharvested,
• the size of the fire may have been over-estimated if it had not been mapped using GPS or other means, and
• many farms are not in close proximity to CFA resources, which may delay turnout times.

This year’s percentage is consistent with previous years at 55% for 2019–20, 47% for 2020–21 and 53% for 2021–22.

Table 9: Total CFA fires suppressed on public and private land in 2022–23.

Performance against key bushfire risk management measures

The Government funds FFMVic to reduce the impact of major bushfires on people, property and the environment. Performance is measured against objective indicators which are captured in Table 10.

In 2022-23, FFMVic met or exceeded each of its key performance measures for bushfire risk management on public land.

Table 10: Budget Paper 3 Service Delivery Results, 2022–23.

*The lower 2022–23 target reflects the remaining activities required to complete the Building Strategic Fuel Breaks program target of 1,447 kilometres of fuel breaks over the life of the program

**Note that the total distance of strategic fuel breaks has been recalculated with more accurate GIS data and therefore differs from the number documented in the DEECA Annual Report 2022-23.

Fuel management performance

Planned burning and non-burn fuel treatment

Under the Forests Act 1958, DEECA is responsible for the planned prevention of fire in State forests, national parks and other protected public land in Victoria. It does this through FFMVic, which is led by DEECA and draws on partnership arrangements with Parks Victoria, VicForests and Melbourne Water.

The Code of Practice for Bushfire Management on Public Land 2012 specifies the objectives of fuel management and informs the planning and delivery of fuel management on public land. Fuel management is a key strategy for reducing bushfire risk and is one of the key activities used by FFMVic to protect communities from bushfires.

FFMVic’s fuel management target is to maintain statewide fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 70% of Victoria’s potential maximum level through fuel management in State forests, national parks, and other protected public land. Statewide fuel-driven bushfire risk on 30 June 2023 was 65%, which achieves the target.

Table 11: Snapshot of FFMVic statewide outcomes and delivery, 2022–23.

*Note that the total area treated with fuel management reported in this table does not include the area of Traditional Owner-led burns supported by FFMVic and therefore differs to the number documented in the DEECA Annual Report 2022-23.

An overview of FFMVic’s statewide outcomes and delivery for 2022–23 is shown above (Table 11). The year-round FFMVic fuel-driven bushfire risk reduction program treated 92,257 hectares, with 214 planned burns across 75,500 hectares and 1,602 non-burn fuel treatments across 16,757 hectares.

The majority of burns (144 burns) were undertaken for the primary purpose of risk reduction, however, 28 burns were primarily delivered to improve ecological resilience outcomes.

Table 12: Statewide fuel reduction treatments.

*Includes treatments to manage storm debris

Figure 2 indicates that if the Joint Fuel Management Program is implemented in full, and there is no bushfire activity, fuel-driven bushfire risk will remain below 70% (projected to be 59% by 2026).

In the absence of fire (from planned burning or bushfires) the modelling indicates that fuel-driven bushfire risk would rise to 76% over the next three years.

Planned burn ignition opportunities

FFMVic considers when conditions are favourable to deliver planned burning safely and effectively and utilises appropriate burning windows to deliver the planned burning program.

Most of the planned burning program continues to be delivered in the late summer and autumn, when weather conditions are typically more stable, there is a lower risk of extreme fire danger days, and the fuel conditions are appropriate to achieve the desired burn objective.

Under these conditions, fire behaviour is generally more manageable and predictable.

In 2022–23, FFMVic planned 381 burns for delivery as a part of Year 1 of the JFMP. Of the 381 burns, 234 (61.4%) burns were delivered (including 20 Traditional Owner-led cultural burns). This compares with the 2021–22 year when 505 burns were planned to be delivered in Year 1 of the JFMP but only 194 (38%) were delivered.

From 381 burns listed on Year 1 of the JFMP for 2022–23, FFMVic identified 166 priority planned burns, with the state and regions identifying which burns would reduce risk the most.

This prioritisation focuses FFMVic’s efforts on the burns that deliver the greatest risk reduction when weather conditions that suit those areas are predicted. In 2022–23, 76 (46%) of the identified 166 priority burns went ahead.

During 2022-23, of the 381 burns planned to be delivered, 335 were scheduled at some point. On average, each of the burns that were scheduled were rescheduled 6 times. There was no suitable scheduling opportunity for 46 burns.

This is due to constraints such as unsuited fuel and weather conditions, as well as FFMVic's prioritisation approach leading to higher priority burns being the focus for scheduling and delivery in years where windows for delivery are limited.

Table 13: Snapshot of planned burn planning, scheduling, and delivery, 2022–23.

In 2021, FFMVic released a prototype tool (the Burn Opportunity Reporting Tool) to track ignition opportunities on a day-by-day basis and assess weather conditions providing an opportunity to ignite each burn as originally planned. The tool is partly automated and requires some manual review for accuracy. The tool does not report on Traditional Owner cultural burns or heap burns (small debris pile burns at point locations), so numbers in this section will differ slightly from figures stated elsewhere in the report.

Table 14 indicates the reasons why burns were not ignited as recorded in BORT.

Table 14: Factors influencing the delivery of planned burns in 2022–23.

In most cases, ignition opportunities were limited by:

• weather conditions being unsuitable
• planning or preparation of the burn having not been completed in time, or
• fuels (vegetation) not being suitable to meet the objectives of the burn.

In 5.4% of cases, BORT recorded a possible missed opportunity for a burn ignition, based on consideration of weather conditions being within prescription and burns being listed as ‘Ready’ (planning and preparation complete).

This figure primarily arises from the automated assessment of opportunities, with low levels of manual interpretation to ensure accuracy. While some opportunities are likely to have been missed, it is likely lower than 5.4%. Increased manual interpretation of automated data will be a focus for improvement in future years.

BORT indicates that in 24% of cases when conditions were suitable, burns were not ignited due to planning and preparation having not been completed.

This is likely an overestimate of the automated assessment, however is still an important factor impacting burn ignitions, particularly early in the autumn season when conditions are more suited to burn delivery. In 2022-23, planning and preparation were impacted by spring weather conditions.

Spring brought heavy rain and floods across large parts of the state, resulting in a significant number of FFMVic resources being directed to support the October 2022 flood event. This diverted resources away from planning and preparation of the bushfire risk reduction program.

These wetter-than-average conditions also made forests inaccessible to crew and machinery, further delaying FFMVic from completing preparation activities. Despite these impacts, 81% of the burn program was Ready for delivery by the beginning of the autumn planned burning season in March 2023.

Where planning and preparation capacity was restricted, FFMVic focused on ensuring the highest priority burns were planned and prepared.

For FFMVic to consider a burn to be Ready for delivery all planning and preparation works need to be completed including track works, hazardous tree treatments, contingency planning, risk assessments, mapping, and community engagement, amongst other things.

In many cases, much of this work was close to completion, but final hurdles such as legal agreements with partnering landholders or identification of cultural heritage sites during preparation delayed the finalisation of all necessary tasks. In these cases, a burn will not be recorded as Ready until these final issues are resolved.

BORT assesses every burn on Year 1 of the JFMP each day for suitable weather conditions for delivery. In many cases, narrow opportunities are identified which may not be sufficient for the size of the operation. In others, while there may be a weather window, fuel conditions on the ground may be too wet or too dry.

The reporting system automatically considers this a missed opportunity, requiring manual interpretation of whether in fact, the weather conditions were suitable for a particular burn. If the burn has not reached a standard where it’s considered Ready then the reason for the missed opportunity is recorded as ‘Weather prescription window occurred before completion of burn planning or preparation’ regardless of whether the weather conditions were suitable.

This reason can be manually overwritten in BORT, but with large numbers of staff deployed to fires, floods or delivery of planned burns this data validation step can be missed. This is an area of improvement for future versions of the reporting tool.

FFMVic reschedules burns frequently to optimise burn delivery across the State. Staff can schedule burns out to nine days from planned ignition. Burns may be added to the forward schedule to be considered as options for delivery or to provide scheduling flexibility to account for weather variability, resource availability or local community concerns.

A rescheduled reason is recorded for any burn once it is within four days of the planned ignition day. This provides a balance between allowing flexibility in operational burn scheduling and recording accurate and relevant details for public reporting. Table 15 indicates that weather and fuel moisture were the primary reasons that burned within 4 days of the planned ignition being rescheduled.

In 50% of cases this year, burns were rescheduled beyond that 4-day window (5-9 days out from planned ignition) and no reason was recorded. Because of the higher level of uncertainty this far out from a delivery window, it’s not practical or accurate to record a single reason for rescheduling so this data is reported as No reason given.

Table 15 indicates the reasons scheduled burns were rescheduled in 2022-23.

Table 15: Reasons the delivery of scheduled burns were rescheduled, Victoria, 2022–23.

FFMVic worked closely with communities, stakeholders, and other government agencies – including the Environment Protection Authority and Department of Health – to minimise the smoke impacts of planned burns on communities.

This included scheduling burns in weather conditions that minimised impact, or rescheduling burns to outside peak holiday times.

FFMVic has indicated it will continue to improve the information captured about burn planning, scheduling and operational delivery in 2023–24.

Cross tenure burning

FFMVic’s fuel management program is strengthened by the Victorian Government’s Safer Together program, which ensures FFMVic works in partnership with the CFA, Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV), the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP), local government and other sector partners to support integrated, evidence-based bushfire risk management across all public and private land in Victoria.

In 2022–23, 22 cross-tenure planned burns were delivered by FFMVic and the CFA, including on large areas of private land. Most of these burns were regionally critical due to them being aligned with regional Bushfire Management Strategies and providing high levels of risk reduction value.

All cross-tenure planned burns are included in the fuel-driven bushfire risk calculations.

There was less cross-tenure burning activity in 2022–23 (in terms of both the number of burns and hectares treated) than last financial year (Table 16).

Table 16: Cross-tenure planned burns, by region, Victoria, 2022–23 and 2021–22.

Strategic fuel breaks

FFMVic’s Strategic Fuel Breaks program maintains and expands the network of strategic fuel breaks across Victoria to reduce the risk and impact of bushfires near high-priority locations close to townships, key assets, water catchments and sensitive environments, and in parts of the landscape advantageous to support bushfire suppression and reduction in the size of fires.

Strategic fuel breaks are a strip of land where vegetation has been permanently modified to reduce the rate of spread and intensity of fire for the direct protection of assets and/or assist fire suppression.

In 2022–23, FFMVic invested $7.2 million in constructing 235 kilometres of strategic fuel breaks, bringing the total construction over the past three years to 1,489 kilometres (exceeding the Government’s target of 1,447 kilometres).

Table 17: Total kilometres of strategic fuel break construction in each region.

*Note that the total distance of strategic fuel breaks has been recalculated with more accurate data and therefore differs from the number documented in the DEECA Annual Report 2022-23.

In addition, FFMVic invested $21 million in improving 2,155 kilometres of the strategic fire access road network, including upgrading or replacing 10 bridge crossings.

Ecosystem resilience

The state’s fuel management program recognises the need to manage the impact of major bushfires on human life and property and to maintain the resilience of natural ecosystems over different temporal and geographic scales.

This is achieved by conducting burns to promote ecosystem resilience and minimise negative impacts.

Vegetation communities are assumed to have thresholds for tolerating time between fire disturbances, known as tolerable fire interval (TFI) which allow regeneration. Growth stage structure (GSS), a mix of growth stages and habitat structures, is another measure of ecosystem resilience.

Fire is a natural and vital process for many of Victoria’s ecosystems. By using TFI as a guide for when to burn, ecosystem health can be promoted. Ecosystem resilience reflects this natural relationship between fire, regeneration and ecosystem health.

In 2022-23, FFMVic conducted 28 planned burns for the primary purpose of improving ecological outcomes.

Tolerable fire intervals across the state

For any given plant community, the minimum and maximum tolerable fire interval (TFI) between successive fires are determined by the time required for key fire response species to mature and set seed, as well as their time to extinction without fire disturbance.

TFI thresholds provide minimum and maximum time intervals of fire frequency to ensure ecosystem resilience. However, sometimes burning below the minimum TFI is unavoidable, to reduce fuel-driven bushfire risk to human life, property or other important values.

There have been some areas of improvement in the TFI status of vegetation on public land across Victoria since the 2021–22 report. There were 367,781 fewer hectares of vegetation below minimum TFI, and the area within TFI increased to 28%.

Understanding the impacts of planned burns and bushfires on TFI is useful to inform regional-scale decision-making. However, when considered in isolation, TFI may not account for finer-scale vegetation responses to fire, or the differing severity and patchiness of planned burn operations.

Regional Bushfire Management Strategies aim to minimise areas burnt while below minimum TFI while delivering on other priority objectives.

Victoria continues to improve:

• its understanding of TFI by monitoring the responses of vegetation to fire and investing in research that improves the ability to predict these responses, and
• the accuracy of TFI mapping by updating distribution models for key flora species on which minimum TFIs are based.

Growth stage structure across the state

Growth Stage Structure (GSS) measures and tracks the distribution of the age classes of different types of vegetation from juvenile to old across the landscape, to ensure an optimal mix of plant developmental stages is maintained.

These different growth stages provide important resources and habitat structures for species.

Vegetation's GSS depends on when it was last burnt or otherwise disturbed. Maintaining a desirable mix of GSS across the landscape is an important component of ecosystem resilience.

It can take many years before the proportion of vegetation in older growth stages recovers to the levels it was before major bushfire events. Some vegetation communities can take more than 50 years to reach maturity.

Figure 3 indicates changes in state-wide GSS since 1980. It indicates the proportion in 2022–23 of vegetation on public land in the:

• juvenile growth stage decreased from 24% in 2021–22 to 15% in 2022–23
• adolescent growth stage increased from 19% to 27%
• mature growth stage increased from 33% to 34%
• old growth stage remained at 4%.

The proportion of public land with no recorded fire history remained at 20% in 2022–23. This area has been declining steadily since 2003.

Figure 4 indicates the TFI status of vegetation on public land across Victoria since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23, the proportion of vegetation:

• below minimum TFI was 50%, down from 55% in 2021–22, showing an improvement with 367,781 fewer hectares than the previous year in this category, because of the impacts of the 2019–20 bushfires
• within TFI increased to 28% (up from 23% in 2021–22)
• above maximum TFI remained at 2%, and with no fire history data to enable assessment remained at 20%.

Figure 5: Area of public land burnt while below minimum TFI, Victoria, 1980-2023. Data aligns with the financial year.

Burning areas below minimum tolerable fire interval is sometimes unavoidable, to reduce fuel-driven bushfire risk to human life, property or other important values. Figure 5 indicates the area of public land in Victoria burnt by bushfires and planned burning while below minimum TFI since 1980.

It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 8,971 hectares of vegetation on public land was burnt by planned burning or bushfire while below minimum TFI, which is a decrease of 3,478 hectares burnt under minimum TFI in 2021–22, and
• of this, 8,708 hectares were burnt through planned burns; this represents less than 0.15% of Victoria’s public land.

Figure 6 indicates the area of each fire management zone treated by planned burning while below minimum TFI, since 1980.

In 2022–23:

• 704 hectares in Asset Protection Zones
• 2,921 hectares in Bushfire Moderation Zones
• 5,057 hectares in Landscape Management Zones
• 5 hectares in Planned Burn Exclusion Zones
• 21 hectares in ‘Non-Fire Protected Area’ land and ‘Unknown Zones’ (note this is not depicted in the Figure).

Figure 7 indicates the proportion of the total hectares in each fire management zone treated by planned burning while below minimum TFI, since 1980. In 2022–23 there were:

• 0.9% of Asset Protection Zone
• 0.2% of Bushfire Moderation Zone
• 0.1% of Landscape Management Zone
• 0.0% of Planned Burn Exclusion Zone

Victorian Bushfire Monitoring Program

In 2022–23, the Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Framework for Bushfire Management on Public Land continued to be delivered through the Victorian Bushfire Monitoring Program (VBMP). This included monitoring fuel levels, ecosystem resilience measures, research projects and location-specific activities to support improvement.

The data from monitoring enables FFMVic to understand how effectively planned burning reduces bushfire fuels, and evaluate performance in reducing fuel-driven bushfire risk.

Fuel Hazard monitoring

Fuel hazard monitoring provides important information about:

• planned burns, including the severity and coverage of each burn
• how each planned burn has reduced fuel hazard
• the success of each planned burn in achieving ecological burn objectives where appropriate, and
• whether follow-up actions are required.

Burn objectives are set to achieve a balance between fuel reduction and preserving important values. For example, a burn objective may be to achieve 70% burn coverage within the footprint of a planned burn to ensure that sufficient refugia, habitat and food sources are left for flora and fauna.

When evaluating a planned burn, a series of plots are measured. In 2022–23 a total of 1,382 sites were monitored for fuel hazard pre- and post-burn, and an additional 200 permanent plots were monitored in Gippsland.

Funding for fuel management research totalled $1.5 million.

Table 18: Fuel hazard sites monitored, by region, Victoria, 2022–23

¹ This includes 200 permanent monitoring sites located in Asset Protection Zones in Gippsland. These sites are monitored whether they are burnt or not. Of these sites, 54 were in the Black Summer fire area.

Ecosystem resilience monitoring

Additional monitoring and improvement activities

To understand the effects of both bushfires and planned burning on the environment, FFMVic measures and monitors the timing and number of fires in different types of vegetation. FFMVic’s fuel management program considers how best to meet the 2 primary objectives of minimising the impact of major bushfires; and maintaining or improving the resilience of natural ecosystems.

FFMVic also partners with universities and other academic institutions to conduct research that improves how ecosystem resilience is represented and measured. In 2022–23, FFMVic continued to deliver the statewide ecosystem resilience monitoring program in partnership with Natural Hazards Research Australia (previously the Bushfire Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre), La Trobe University, Deakin University and the University of Melbourne.

In the 2022–23 financial year, $9 million was spent on monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

Victoria now has data for 4 of the 11 identified highest-priority ecological fire groups, providing opportunities to replace expert datasets with empirically derived data in models and decision-making. Another 4 ecological fire groups are well underway, with the remaining 3 commenced.

This monitoring program provides scientific evidence and recommendations for fire management and planning, improving the ecological basis underpinning Victoria’s ecosystem resilience metrics and future monitoring and research.

Investment

FFMVic invested $141.1 million on fuel management in 2022–23, a 6.6% decrease from $151 million in 2021–22.

Table 19 provides a breakdown of this investment by region and type of investment. Direct investment totalled $24.1 million, and indirect investment $117 million.

Direct investment in 2022–23 was significantly less than that in 2021–22 ($37.3 million). The reduction in direct fuel management costs was largely due to a shorter planned burn season, conditions being too wet to burn, and reduced investment in the construction of strategic fuel breaks.

Appendix 1 summarises year-on-year costs.

Table 19: FFMVic fuel management investment, by region and group, Victoria, 2022–23.

*Current reporting methods do not allow for separation between types of grants allocated for research and are calculated and reported manually as a stand-alone figure.

Table 20 provides a further breakdown of indirect investment. A large proportion of the indirect fuel management costs are associated with resource management (41%) and equipment and infrastructure (16%).

Table 20: Indirect fuel management investment, by items, Victoria 2022–23.

*Current reporting methods do not allow for separation between types of grants allocated for research and calculated and reported manually as a stand-alone figure

Table 21: Cost of strategic fuel breaks by region.

Table 22: Comparison of FFMVic direct investment in fuel management treatments 2021–22 and 2022–23.

Barwon South West

Regional Overview of the 2022-23 fire season

Conditions for autumn burning were heavily influenced by the prolonged La Niña conditions over the previous years and average rainfall over the summer of 2022–23.

This resulted in the Otways coming into autumn slightly wetter than average, whereas the Far South West district was slightly drier than average.

These background moisture conditions are reflected in reduced treated area numbers for the Otway Fire District (2,530 hectares) and Far South West Fire District (1,340 hectares) compared to the previous season (13,503 and 5,646 hectares respectively).

A strong feature of the autumn period was the short burning windows with the absence of long periods of stable weather. These weather features contributed to 3 burns along the Surf Coast proving challenging to manage in mid-March 2023 as weather conditions deteriorated after ignition had occurred.

These 3 burns were ultimately declared as bushfires, and although none escaped their boundaries the impact of the incident on local communities was considerable – particularly for parts of the Kennett River community.

Continued winter burning was a feature in both districts. This provided opportunities for Traditional Owner burning as well as ecological burns in heathy fuels.

This proactive use of burning windows continues to be a point of growth in Barwon South West (BSW) with annual planning and delivery of Landscape Mosaic Burning (LMB) operations continuing to evolve.

This evolution extends to monitoring with bespoke LMB monitoring methods currently being trialled in the Otways.

Fuel management delivery

The positive trends in fuel-driven bushfire risk reduction and ecosystem resilience in the BSW Region reflect carefully considered bushfire management strategies – including ecological burning.

The strategies aim to minimise both fuel-driven bushfire risk and the impacts of fuel management activities on ecosystem resilience.

During 2022–23, the BSW Region’s fuel management program focussed on planned burning, treating 3,854 hectares with planned burning and non-burn fuel treatment. FFMVic delivered 14 cross-tenure burns with the CFA.

Of the total hectares treated with fire, 20% were ecological burns.

The number of non-burn fuel treatments was more than double the number of planned burn treatments, with slashing or mowing being used for the majority of individual works.

However, while spraying was only used for 2 treatments, this method of fuel management treated 30% of all hectares treated by non-burn fuel works. The total cost of the BSW Region fuel management program in 2022–23 was $10.8 million.

Table 23 summarises the BSW Region’s fuel management activities in 2022–23.

Table 23: Fuel management activities, Barwon South West region, 2022–23.

Of the fuel reduction burns conducted across the region, 83% were in APZ and BMZ and 17% in LMZ. All of the APZ burns were in the Otway District, aimed at protecting life and property.

Table 24: Fuel reduction by fire management zone, Barwon South West region, 2022–23.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk

Barwon South West’s long-term regional planning target is to maintain fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 60% of maximum levels. Districts also have long-term planning targets for the management of fuel-driven bushfire risk which assist FFMVic in meeting the statewide target and long-term regional planning targets.

Table 25 indicates the current level of fuel-driven bushfire risk in the region and how it has changed over the past 3 years.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk in Barwon's South West region remains below the long-term regional planning target at 58%.

Table 25: Fuel-driven bushfire risk, Barwon South West region and districts, 2022–23 and previously reported.

Figure 8 indicates the Barwon South West region’s risk profile for 1980 to 2023 and projected changes in fuel-driven bushfire risk until 2026.

It indicates fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Barwon South West region:

• is projected to increase to 69% by 2026 in the absence of any fuel management activity or bushfires
• implementing the entire JFMP would keep risk levels below the long-term regional planning target of 60%.

Ecosystem resilience

Figure 9 indicates the tolerable fire interval (TFI) status of vegetation on public land in the Barwon South West region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 23% of vegetation was below minimum TFI, 5% lower than in 2021–22
• 40% of vegetation was within TFI, 2% higher than in 2021–22
• the proportion of vegetation above maximum TFI remained stable at 10%.

These figures continue the positive trend of post-fire regeneration since 2015.

Figure 10 indicates the growth stage structure (GSS) status of vegetation on public land in the Barwon South West region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 7% of vegetation was in the juvenile growth stage, 2% lower than in 2021–22
• 9% of vegetation was in the adolescent growth stage, 2% higher than in 2021–22
• 16% of vegetation was in the old growth stage, which remained stable from 2021–22
• 42% of vegetation was in the mature growth stage, 1% point higher than in 2021–22.

Gippsland

Regional overview of the 2022-23 fire season

The Gippsland region has been impacted by increasingly frequent large-scale fires since 2000. These include notable fires such as in 2003, 2006/07, 2009 and the Black Summer fires which alone burnt 1 million hectares in 2019–20. As forest recovery from events such as these is slow, these areas will remain below the minimum Tolerable Fire Intervals (the minimum or maximum recommended time interval between successive fires in a vegetation community) for many years.

During this period these areas are in a state of increased vulnerability to species loss if impacted by further bushfires. In response, the Gippsland Region team undertakes adaptive strategies that aim to mitigate bushfire risk while protecting our forests and the species that live there.

The 2022–23 planned burning program focussed on 2 main objectives:

1. To strengthen fuel reduction areas immediately around communities that have been highly impacted by 2 decades of large bushfires

2. To reintroduce fire to the broader landscape to break up the reaccumulating fuel and reduce the number and extent of fires that develop in remote landscapes of Gippsland.

The return of more normal conditions to the east of the region after the higher rainfall conditions of the La Niña event in the previous year enabled the delivery of 42 burns covering approximately 36,000 ha across the Gippsland Region.

The program included many small to medium-sized burns to protect communities such as Waratah Bay, Latrobe Valley, Erica, Briagolong, Bruthen, Lakes Entrance, Nowa Nowa, Bairnsdale, Omeo, Benambra, Orbost, Marlo, Bendoc and Cann River. The program also treated 5 large landscape mosaic burns located across the remote northern parts of Macalister, Tambo and Snowy districts. Several burns were conducted to meet ecological objectives in the Latrobe and Macalister districts.

In addition to planned burning 247 areas totalling 3,800 hectares were treated by non-burn fuel treatments such as slashing and mulching. The fuel treatment program was delivered using an adaptive approach, considering the cumulative impact that severe fires have had on ecological values.

An example of this is an area in East Gippsland that has avoided bushfires and provides an important refuge for many species. This area contains Sheoak habitat for the EPBC-listed South Eastern Glossy Black Cockatoo.

It also carries significant bushfire risk for local communities. In August 2022, the Snowy District in partnership with the regional Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) team undertook a planned burn at Newmerella – Corringle Road. This burn was considered a high priority for the protection of Orbost but was also important for the protection of Glossy Black Cockatoo.

Modified burn practices including breaking up the block using a small walk-behind mulcher successfully protected the Glossy Black Cockatoo habitat while reducing bushfire fuels. As part of the MER program, the site is being monitored for juvenile Sheoak survivorship and Sheaok cone seed release, following the low-intensity planned burning undertaken. Understanding the impacts on seed release is important, as the seed is the only food source for the Glossy Black-Cockatoo.

Fuel management delivery

For the Gippsland region, the careful application of fuel treatments resulted in positive trends in fuel-driven bushfire risk reduction and ecosystem resilience and reflect carefully considered bushfire management strategies, which aim to minimise both bushfire risk and the impacts of fuel management activities on ecosystem resilience.

During 2022–23, the Latrobe District treated 1,799 hectares with planned burning, and Macalister District treated 27,053 hectares, Snowy District treated 1,581 hectares and the Tambo District treated 5,991 hectares with planned burning.

FFMVic delivered 3 cross-tenure burns with the CFA in the Gippsland region. Fuel was reduced on an additional 40,221 hectares through non-burn fuel treatments. The total cost of the Gippsland fuel management program was $23.3 million.

During 2022–23, Gippsland region fuel reduction activities were prioritised around fuel reduction burns and slashing and mowing.

Table 26: Fuel management activities, Gippsland region, 2022–23.

Of the fuel reduction burns, Table 27 indicates burns by fire management zone. LMZ burns, which includes ecological burns, was 66% of burns delivered in the Gippsland region. Macalister District had the highest hectare coverage of burns, but the lowest number of burns. The number of burns in Latrobe and Tambo Districts was 74% of all burns delivered with 32% in Latrobe and 42% in Tambo.

Table 27: Fuel reduction by fire management zone, Gippsland region, 2022–23.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk

Gippsland’s long-term regional planning target is to maintain fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 71% of maximum levels. Districts also have long-term planning targets for the management of fuel-driven bushfire risk which assist FFMVic in meeting the statewide target and long-term regional planning targets.

Table 28 indicates the current level of fuel-driven bushfire risk in the region and associated districts and how it has changed over the past 3 years.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk in Gippsland region remains below the long-term regional planning target at 46%.

Table 28: Fuel-driven bushfire risk, Gippsland region and districts, 2022–23 and previously reported.

Three of the region's four districts remain below the long-term planning target, however fuel-driven bushfire risk in Latrobe District (84%) is above the target level of 80%.

Three years of higher-than-average rainfall associated with a La Niña climatic pattern have limited the ability to deliver fuel reduction through planned burning. Despite the unfavourable climatic conditions Latrobe District has been able to marginally reduce the fuel-driven bushfire risk from a high of 86% in June 2021 to 84% in June 2023.

Unfavourable weather conditions limited the extent and effectiveness of planned burning in Latrobe District in 2022-23. The La Nina climate pattern brought above-average rainfall during winter and spring which prevented delivery of fuel reduction through the use of planned burning.

Dry conditions developed during summer and that combined with high fire danger weather prevented the commencement of the planned burning program until autumn. Weather conditions were mostly unfavourable for the remainder of the year with the exception of two windows of suitable conditions in April during which the majority of the fuel reduction program was delivered.

Despite the adverse conditions the burning program treated 1,799 ha and limited the increase in fuel-driven bushfire risk to 1% (i.e. from 83% in 2021-22 to 84% in 2022-23).

Fuel-driven bushfire risk was further reduced by mechanical treatments covering 1,000 ha in fuel breaks around smaller rural communities and strategically distributed throughout the broader landscape. The risk reduction benefits of these non-burn fuel treatment activities are not yet able to be reflected in the risk figures due to modelling limitations.

Figure 11 indicates the Gippsland region’s risk profile for 1980 to 2023 and projected changes in fuel-driven bushfire risk until 2026. It indicates fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Gippsland region:

• is projected to increase to 68% by 2026 in the absence of any fuel management activity or bushfires
• implementing the entire Joint Fuel Management Program would keep risk levels below the Gippsland region's long-term regional planning target of 71 %, and
• fell drastically in 2019–20, as major bushfires reduced fuel hazards, but these bushfires had significant impacts on property, industries, and the environment.

Ecosystem resilience

Figure 12 indicates the tolerable fire interval (TFI) status of vegetation on public land in the Gippsland region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 72% of vegetation was below minimum TFI, reflecting the significant area of public land burnt in the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires
• 4% lower than the previous reporting period
• 21% of vegetation was within TFI, 5% higher than in 2020–21
• the proportion of vegetation with no recorded fire history remained stable at 7%.

It is expected that a high proportion of vegetation on public land in Gippsland will remain below minimum TFI for years to come, due to the extensive bushfires in 2019–20 and the time it takes for recovering vegetation communities to reach their TFI.

Figure 13 indicates the growth stage structure (GSS) status of vegetation on public land in the Gippsland region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 28% of vegetation was in the juvenile growth stage, 20% lower than in 2021–22
• 41% of vegetation was in the adolescent growth stage, 19% higher than in 2021–22
• 23% of vegetation was in the mature growth stage, and remained stable from 2021–22
• the proportion of vegetation in the old growth stage remained stable at 1%
• the proportion of vegetation with no recorded fire history remained stable at 7%.

The high proportion of vegetation in the juvenile growth stage reflects the landscape-scale bushfires of 2019–20. While there were modest improvements in the proportion of vegetation under TFI, it can be expected that vegetation in the juvenile and adolescent growth stages will form a dominant component of the growth stage structure on Gippsland’s public land for some years to come.

Grampians

Regional overview of the 2022-23 fire season

Widespread rainfall associated with a La Niña event across the state led to limited opportunity for any spring burn delivery, whilst on-ground conditions severely hampered burn preparation during spring. Leading into December, drying conditions across the Grampians Region enabled access for burn preparation, with resources diverted from Wimmera District to the Midlands to prioritise the region's highest risk-reducing burns.

From December to early March, rainfall was below average for the Region which resulted in the landscape that was too dry for a large-scale program of burning to commence early. Increased focus was subsequently given to mulching and other non-burn fuel treatment works in Asset Protection Zones across the Region.

Once stable autumnal conditions arrived, resources from the Wimmera were again deployed to the Midlands to ensure focus on the Grampian's highest priority risk-reducing burns.

High-priority burns were able to be delivered in the Midlands district around townships like Daylesford, Hepburn, Smythesdale, Linton, Ross Creek, Creswick and Ballarat. A return to wetter conditions in mid-April led to a restricted Autumn burning season in the Midlands, where many smaller operations burns resulted in several part-complete treatments requiring further treatment the next season.

Focus then shifted to the Wimmera District where a larger burn program was completed, including delivery of 25% of FFMVics Traditional Owner burns across Victoria.

Opportunities to deliver a more substantial program were missed due to the limited availability of aerial drip torch operators late in the season. Wind directions were also frequently unfavourable for internal break burning that takes place in the Little Desert. Once the autumn burn window in the Wimmera had closed, targeted winter ecological burns were delivered to protect the habitat of Heath Mouse, Southern Brown Bandicoot and Long-nosed Potoroo populations in Gariwerd National Park.

Fuel management delivery

The positive trends in risk reduction and ecosystem resilience reflect carefully considered bushfire management strategies. The strategies aim to minimise both fuel-driven bushfire risk and the impacts of fuel management activities on ecosystem resilience.

During 2022–23, the Grampians region delivered a mix of planned burning activities. Ecological burns were 45% of planned burns and fuel reduction burns treated 55% of the total hectares. FFMV supported 6 Traditional Owner burns. Slashing and mowing were the most non-burn fuel treatments at 9.6% of fuel reduction activities.

However, looking at the number of treatments NBFT had completed 185 activities compared to 43 planned burns. FFMVic delivered 2 cross-tenure burns with the CFA in the Grampians region.

The total cost of the Grampians fuel management program was $12 million.

Table 29 summarises the Grampians region’s fuel management activities in 2021–22.

Table 29: Fuel management activities, Grampians region, 2022–23.

By fire management zone, LMZ burns in the Wimmera were 86% of hectares treated 72% of LMZ planned burns across the region and 37% of all burns across the region. Compared to the Wimmera, Midlands prioritised burns in APZ with 88% of hectares burned in APZ across the region 71% of APZ burns across the region and only 12% of all planned burns across the region.

Table 30: Fuel reduction by fire management zone, Grampians, 2022–23.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk

The Grampians’ long-term regional planning target is to maintain fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 70% of maximum levels. Districts also have long-term planning targets for the management of fuel-driven bushfire risk which assist FFMVic in meeting the statewide target and long-term regional planning targets.

Table 31 indicates the current level of fuel-driven bushfire risk in the region and its districts and how this has changed over the past 3 years.

Table 31: Fuel-driven bushfire risk, Grampians region and districts, 2022–23 and previously reported.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Grampians Region (77%) and Midlands District (79%) is above the long-term planning targets of 70%.

Key reasons for Grampians Region and Midlands District being above the long-term planning targets are outlined in Section 6.3.1.

In addition, the added complexity of the impact of storm debris within the Midlands District footprint has limited the capacity of FFMVic to effectively carry out planned burning in some target areas.

Mechanical debris removal works are underway which will allow this issue to be addressed as the removal program progresses.

The Midlands District has a ‘Model of Response’ - Regional Supplement for the 2023 Readiness and Response Plan, which provides District Duty Officers with guidance for enhanced response measures within the storm debris-impacted areas.

This includes but is not limited to guidance for additional plant and aircraft being activated in the first attack and readiness under elevated risk thresholds.

Figure 14 indicates the Grampians region’s risk profile for 1980 to 2023 and projected changes in fuel-driven risk until 2026. It indicates fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Grampians region:

• is projected to increase to 81% by 2026 in the absence of any fuel management activity or bushfires, and
• implementing the entire Joint Fuel Management Program would get risk levels below the Grampians Region's long-term regional planning target of 70%.

Ecosystem resilience

Figure 15 indicates the tolerable fire interval (TFI) status of vegetation on public land in the Grampians region since 1980. It indicates that on 30 June:

• 39% of vegetation was below minimum TFI, 3% higher than in 2021–22
• 30% of vegetation was within TFI, 3% higher than in 2020–21
• 2% of vegetation was above the maximum TFI
• the proportion of vegetation with no fire history remained stable at 25%.

In 2021–22, less than 1% of vegetation was impacted by bushfires or planned burning while under TFI, which was the same as the previous reporting period.

Much of the landscape remains below minimum TFI as areas regenerate after major bushfire events pre-2015 and slowly transition to older growth stages.

Figure 15 indicates this as an increase in the proportion of vegetation below minimum TFI, from 35% to about 50% between 2004–05 and 2014–15. This is a consequence of major bushfires in the Grampians National Park in 2006, 2013, and 2014, as well as in the region’s west in 2006 and 2012.

Figure 16 indicates the growth stage structure (GSS) status of vegetation on public land in the Grampians region since 1980. It indicates that at 30 June 2023:

• the proportion of vegetation in the juvenile growth stage decreased to 6%
• 20% of vegetation was in the adolescent growth stages, 1% lower than in 2021–22
• 40% of vegetation was in the mature growth stages, 2% higher than in 2021–22
• the proportion of vegetation in the old growth stage remained stable at 6%
• the proportion of vegetation with no recorded fire history remained stable at 28%.

The changes in growth stages show the slow recovery of vegetation from the impact of major bushfires over the past 2 decades, with vegetation transitioning out of younger age classes into the mature class since 2015–16.

Hume

Regional overview of the 2022-23 fire season

The climate and weather conditions leading into summer 2022–23 were characterised by an increase in fuel moisture levels in all fuel types across the Hume region following on from the third consecutive La Niña event.

Significant summer rain fell across the state again in January 2023 with much of the Region receiving above-average rainfall and in some northern and eastern parts, well above-average falls.

Warm and dry conditions finally returned in February, particularly to the northern and western ends of the region where the below-average rainfall allowed for some drying and the curing of fine fuels, setting up some chance to get the Fuel Management Program underway.

The eastern end of the region and along the spine of the Great Divide was a complete contrast however receiving average rainfall meaning that the already heavily saturated soils and the lack of curing would limit any chances of getting any broad-scale planned burning underway in the Upper north-east.

Towards the end of March 2023, the Murrindindi and Goulburn districts were able to make a start with the bulk of this year’s planned burning program being delivered by those 2 western Hume districts.

A succession of rainfall events then progressively restricted the availability to conduct any landscape-scale burns and saw the program transition from the larger risk reduction burns to support some smaller Traditional Owner-led cultural burns and finally to the last of the windrow and heap burns by mid-June.

Hume region also provided resources to support delivery of the program across the State particularly as burns came on towards the end of March and into April in the west of the state.

Overall 49 personnel were sent as part of 3 Task Forces to Ballarat in the Grampians region. Another half Taskforce was deployed from the Ovens district to support delivery in the Goulburn district in early April.

Fuel management delivery

During 2022–23, the Hume region undertook a mix of fuel reduction activities. The region delivered risk reduction, ecological and windrow planned burns.

The region also delivered multiple types of non-burn fuel treatments, with 64% of treatments recorded as other methods (which may include works like weed spraying).

FFMVic delivered 1 cross-tenure burn with the CFA in the Hume region. The total cost of the Hume fuel management program was $19.9 million.

Table 32 summarises the region’s fuel management activities in 2022–23.

Table 32: Fuel management activities, Hume region, 2022–23.

Of fuel reduction by fire management zone in the Hume region (Table 33), most burns were delivered in BMZ. Of BMZ burns, Murrindindi and Goulburn districts delivered 59% of the total hectares burned in the region. 13% of regional burns were in LMZ.

Table 33: Fuel reduction by fire management zone, Hume region, 2022–23.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk

Hume’s long-term regional planning target is to maintain fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 69% of maximum levels. Districts also have long-term planning targets for the management of fuel-driven bushfire risk which assist FFMVic in meeting the statewide target and long-term regional planning targets.

Table 34 indicates the current level of fuel-driven bushfire risk in the region and how it has changed over the past 3 years.

Table 34: Fuel-driven bushfire risk, Hume region and districts, 2022–23 and previously reported.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Hume Region (69%) and Ovens District (80%) is above the long-term planning targets of 69% and 55%, respectively. Fuel-driven bushfire risk in all other districts of the Hume Region is within long-term planning targets.

Key reasons for the Hume Region and Ovens District being above long-term planning target levels are outlined in Section 6.4.1.

The Hume region is focussing on getting JFMP Year 1 and selected JFMP Year 2 planned burns to Ready status to take advantage of all opportunities.

The highest priority will be given to those burns that provide the greatest reductions in risk. The region ensures that its operational and management team workforces are mobile and flexible to take advantage of localised conditions that allow burns to proceed.

Over recent years Hume has continued to undertake non-burn fuel treatments across the region. Non-burn fuel treatments can be undertaken at times and places when planned burning is unsuitable.

This program is well underway in preparation for the coming bushfire season.

Hume has also been well supported through funding for the construction of strategic fuel breaks for both landscape and asset protection. These breaks have been maintained in preparation for the upcoming bushfire season.

Response is also a critical component of mitigating bushfire risk. On the frontline, FFMVic in the Hume Region has 298 personnel including full-time firefighters and seasonal firefighters, fire lookout observers (across 16 towers) and fire support officers.

They are supported by 198 accredited incident management staff.

Hume’s firefighting equipment includes more than 81 ultralight tankers and 28 heavy tankers, as well as plant and trucks including bulldozers, tractors, graders, loaders, excavators and boats.

Additionally, a fleet of 10 aircraft will be located at airbases across the region. This fleet includes a mix of firebombing aircraft, air supervision and air intelligence gathering aircraft. Aircraft are strategically placed across the state according to risk.

To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of aircraft, a network of "dip tanks” has been constructed in remote areas to reduce turn-around times for aircraft.

The tanks have substantial water storage capacity that is accessible to helicopters fighting fires in mountainous terrain. The placement of the tanks was partly determined by historical issues where flight turnaround times were identified as a factor that, if reduced, would assist in minimising fire spread.

A number of mobile tanks, including “Heliskid”, are also in development to supplement the fixed tank network in the future.

Figure 17 indicates the Hume region’s risk profile for 1980 to 2023 and projected changes in fuel-driven bushfire risk until 2026. It indicates fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Hume region:

• is projected to increase to 82% by 2026 in the absence of any fuel management activity or bushfires, and
• implementing the entire Joint Fuel Management Program would keep fuel-driven bushfire risk levels below the Hume region's long-term regional planning target of 69%.

Ecosystem resilience

Figure 18 indicates the tolerable fire interval (TFI) status of vegetation on public land in the Hume region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23, some changes have occurred as vegetation transitions between stages for vegetation:

• below minimum TFI, at 56% down 12% from 2021–22
• within TFI, at 31% and increase of 11% from 2021–22
• above maximum TFI remained at 1%.

In 2022–23, less than 1% of vegetation burnt by bushfire or planned burning was below minimum TFI. This was the result of careful planning to minimise the potential impacts of planned burns on vegetation below minimum TFI.

Figure 19 indicates the growth stage structure (GSS) status of vegetation on public land in the Hume region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 17% of vegetation was in the juvenile growth stage, a decrease of 7% from 2021–22
• 33% of vegetation was in the adolescent growth, and increase of 6% from 2021–22
• 37% of vegetation was in the mature growth stage, an increase of 1%from 2021–22
• 2% of vegetation was in the old growth stage
• 11% of vegetation had no fire history.

Loddon Mallee

Regional overview of the 2022-23 fire season

Fuel management in the Loddon Mallee region was impacted by a strong La Niña event bringing record-breaking rainfall in spring 2022.

This rainfall resulted in the region responding to a prolonged flood event along the Murray and other rivers within the region.

As a result, the public land road network was also significantly impacted and access to some areas was restricted. As the flooding subsided burn preparation was able to commence for the autumn season, no fuel management was conducted in spring due to this.

The Murray Goldfields District had a successful autumn season and focused on delivering the highest risk-reducing burns in and around Bendigo, Castlemaine, Macedon and the Pyrenees Ranges.

In addition to these burns which focused on protecting communities and infrastructure, there were 11 Traditional Owner burns conducted to promote a healthy Country and stimulate the growth of native plants that depend on fire, increasing biodiversity.

The Mallee district had a challenging season with less than favourable wind directions due to the La Niña but also managed a good outcome despite this.

The focus for the Mallee was continuing to develop and strengthen strategic corridors through the large parks including the Murray – Sunset National Park and Wyperfeld National Parks.

Both districts delivered large, over 2,000 hectares, of mechanical fuel treatments which included slashing, mulching, chaining, pruning, spraying and ploughing.

Loddon Mallee continued to deliver fuel management programs whilst also supporting other regions with specialist staff, such as aviation and IMT roles, and taskforces.

Fuel management delivery

During 2022–23, Loddon Mallee delivered 796 fuel treatments across 9,155 hectares. The total cost of the Loddon Mallee fuel management program was $12 million.

Table 35 summarises the region’s fuel management activities in 2021–22.

Table 35: Fuel management activities, Loddon Mallee region, 2022–23.

Of planned burns undertaken in the Loddon Mallee region, 62% were prescribed BMZ burning, used to reduce the speed and intensity of bushfires and protect assets. This was highest in the Mallee District, totalling 75% of total BMZ hectares across the region.

In Murray Goldfields District, there were 12 BMZ and 13 LMZ planned burns. However, the treated hectares in LMZ were 59% less than the area treated in BMZ. BMZ burns in Murray Goldfields were 59% of planned burns for the district and 25% for the region.

Table 36: Fuel reduction by fire management zone, Loddon Mallee region, 2022–23.

Loddon Mallee’s long-term regional planning target is to maintain fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 75% of maximum levels. Districts also have long-term planning targets for the management of fuel-driven bushfire risk which assist FFMVic in meeting the statewide target and long-term regional planning targets.

Table 37 indicates the current level of fuel-driven bushfire risk in the region and how it has changed over the past 3 years.

Table 37: Fuel-driven bushfire risk, Loddon Mallee region and districts, 2022–23.

The Loddon Mallee region successfully focused on delivering fuel treatments in priority risk-reduction areas, including Heathcote and Castlemaine. The Murray Goldfields District delivered 5 planned burns, making a significant contribution to reducing fuel-driven bushfire risk in the region.

Figure 20 indicates the Loddon Mallee region’s risk profile for 1980 to 2023 and projected changes in fuel-driven bushfire risk until 2026. It indicates fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Loddon Mallee region:

• is projected to increase to 81% by 2026 in the absence of any fuel management activity or bushfires, and
• implementing the entire Joint Fuel Management Program would keep risk levels below the Loddon Mallee region's long-term regional planning target of 75%.

Ecosystem resilience

Figure 21 indicates the tolerable fire interval (TFI) status of vegetation on public land in the Loddon Mallee region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 26% of vegetation was below minimum TFI, 1% lower than in 2020–21
• the proportion of vegetation within TFI remained stable at 25%
• the proportion of vegetation above maximum TFI increased by 1 to 2%
• vegetation with no fire history has declined to 42%.

Figure 22 indicates the growth stage structure (GSS) status of vegetation on public land in the Loddon Mallee region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 3% of vegetation was in the juvenile growth stage, stable from 2021–22
• 8% of vegetation was in the adolescent growth stage, 1% point lower than in 2021–22
• 42% of vegetation in the mature growth stage, 1% point higher than in 2021–22
• the proportion of vegetation in the old growth stage remained stable at 5%
• the proportion of vegetation with no recorded fire history gradually declined over the past decade, to 42%.

Port Phillip

Regional overview of the 2022-23 fire season

Wet forests to the north and east of Melbourne drive much of the region’s fuel-driven bushfire risk, and these areas are typically too damp for large-scale planned burning.

This challenge was exacerbated by a third consecutive La Niña year resulting in challenging conditions for planned burning. During spring, fuels were consistently wet with flooding in large parts of the region.

From December to late March, there was a dry period with fuels drying out rapidly.

During this period the region delivered several ecological burns – predominantly west of Melbourne – to protect endangered native grasslands, and threatened species, as well as fuel reduction burns near Skye, Powelltown, and East Warburton for the protection of Melbourne’s water supply in the Upper Yarra catchment.

Rain in late March resulted in damp conditions which again prevented burning until late April – when districts were able to opportunistically reduce the fuel in drier sections of planned burns. This will enable more efficient completion of these treatments in the coming year.

Fuel management delivery

During 2022–23, the Port Phillip region treated more areas by non-burn fuel treatments (1,756 hectares), mainly slashing and mowing, compared to planned burning (1,531 hectares) as shown in Table 38.

Non-burn fuel treatments are an effective way of reducing fuels when conditions are not suitable for planned burning. FFMVic delivered 2 cross-tenure burns with the CFA in the Port Phillip region. The total cost of the Port Phillip fuel management program was $9.9 million.

Table 38 summarises the region’s fuel management activities in 2022–23.

Table 38: Fuel management activities, Port Phillip region, 2022–23.

Table 39 indicates fuel reduction by fire management zone. BMZ burning, which aims to reduce the speed and intensity of bushfires and protect assets, was the majority of planned burning in the region, with all but 8 hectares occurring in the Yarra District.

Table 39: Fuel reduction by fire management zone, Port Phillip region, 2022–23.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk

Port Phillip’s long-term regional planning target is to maintain fuel-driven bushfire risk at or below 85% of maximum levels. Districts also have long-term planning targets for the management of fuel-driven bushfire risk which assist FFMVic in meeting the statewide target and long-term regional planning targets.

Table 31 indicates the current level of fuel-driven bushfire risk in the region and its districts and how this has changed over the past 3 years.

Table 40: Fuel-driven bushfire risk, Port Phillip region, 2022–23 and previously reported.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Port Phillip Region (89%), Metropolitan District (96%) and Yarra District (88%) is above the long-term planning target of 85%.

Key reasons for Port Phillip Region, Metropolitan and Yarra Districts being above the long-term planning targets are outlined in Section 6.5.1.

Port Phillip Region is aware of the long-term planning targets for the management of fuel-driven bushfire risk being exceeded and has considered it in the development of the Joint Fuel Management Plan (JFMP) 2023 Strategic Guidance Document which will inform the next operational planning cycle with the aim to return fuel-driven bushfire risk to target levels. Actions include:

• prioritising areas for fuel management treatments based on what will bring about the greatest reduction in regional risk
• reviewing existing fuel management nominations to take into account recent shifts in fuel hazard and the resultant risk after the La-Niña conditions
• nominating fuel management treatments that will complement fuel management treatments being delivered in neighbouring regions, and
• planning and preparing additional burns (those nominally planned for Year 2 of the JFMP) to take advantage of conditions when they are favourable.

In addition, Port Phillip is undertaking some immediate actions to manage the increased hazard posed by this season’s weather outlook, including:

• beginning the readiness roster earlier in the season
• undertaking continuing mechanical fuel treatment (e.g. slashing and mulching). It is important to note that the impact that these fuel treatments have on risk reduction is not accounted for in the risk evaluation. These are a significant proportion of the region’s fuel treatment program. The impact of mechanical fuel treatments is planned to be taken into account in upcoming enhanced strategic risk modelling.
• Considerable pre-season engagement with partner fire agencies at the district and brigade level to strengthen local relationships and ensure an integrated approach to the first attack this coming fire season.

Figure 23 indicates the Port Phillip region’s risk profile for 1980 to 2023 and projected changes in fuel-driven bushfire risk until 2026. It indicates fuel-driven bushfire risk in the Port Phillip region:

• would increase to 91% by 2026 in the absence of any fuel management activity or bushfires, and
• implementing the entire Joint Fuel Management Program would keep risk levels below the Port Phillip region fuel-driven bushfire risk target of 85%.

Ecosystem resilience

Figure 24 indicates the tolerable fire interval (TFI) status of vegetation on public land in the Port Phillip region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 48% of vegetation was below minimum TFI, 1% lower than in 2021–22
• 38% of vegetation was within TFI, stable from 2021–22

the proportion of vegetation above maximum TFI remained stable at 1%

Figure 25 indicates the growth stage structure (GSS) status of vegetation on public land in the Port Phillip region since 1980. It indicates that in 2022–23:

• 12% of vegetation was in the juvenile growth stage, stable from 2021–22
• 30% of vegetation was in the adolescent growth stage, stable from 2021–22
• the proportion of vegetation in the mature growth stage remained stable at 43%
• the proportion of vegetation in the old growth stage remained stable at 2%
• the proportion of vegetation with no fire history remained stable at 12%.

Actions to address elevated fuel-driven bushfire risk in some regions

Fuel-driven bushfire risk levels in some regions and districts are currently exceeding long-term planning targets due to climate and weather conditions for the past three consecutive years making it challenging to find opportunities to deliver a broad-scale program of planned burning.

The third consecutive La Nina event for Australia in 2022-23 brought record rainfall in Spring 2022 which further increased the amount of moisture in an already wet landscape across much of Victoria.

Significant summer rain fell across the State again in January 2023 with almost the entire state receiving above-average rainfall, and in some instances over 400% of long-term averages. While February was dry across much of the state, improving conditions for delivery, March and April were relatively unstable for autumn with reduced forecast confidence, and again saw the return of above-average rainfall for much of the State with some areas recording over 200% of long-term averages.

Additionally, the added complexity of the impact of storm debris within the Midlands district footprint has limited the capacity of FFMVic to carry out planned burning in some target areas effectively. Fuel management in the Grampians Region was also limited by unfavourable wind conditions and reduced availability of aerial drip torch operators.

Actions being taken to reduce fuel-driven bushfire risk

FFMVic developed a three-year Joint Fuel Management Program (JFMP) which sets out the statewide program of fuel management works on public and private land.

Each region designs a JFMP with the intent of meeting the objectives of the regional Bushfire Management Strategies, including meeting long-term regional and district planning targets for managing fuel-driven bushfire risk. All FFMVic regions developed JFMPs in 2022-23 which were modelled to meet long-term regional risk planning targets by 2024-25.

While rainfall variability challenges the delivery of the planned burning program, FFMVic works to ensure that fuel-driven bushfire risk is being driven down to the greatest extent possible.

FFMVic’s approach to modelling the risk-reducing effectiveness of each burn ensures that they are always targeting burns that provide the greatest risk-reduction outcomes. Their flexible workforce management approach supports the deployment of resources across the State to take advantage of conditions that allow burns to proceed.

FFMVic will continue to prioritise the delivery of burns based on what will bring about the greatest reduction in risk. Burns in regions and districts with risk levels exceeding long-term planning targets will rank higher in risk modelling, ensuring that FFMVic prioritises those burns when conditions on the ground mean they are safe to deliver.

FFMVic is also focussing on getting burns on Years 1 and 2 of the JFMP to ‘Ready’ status (planned and prepared) so they can take advantage of all burning opportunities. This will help to ensure that long-term risk planning targets are met as planned for in the JFMP.

In the Midlands district, mechanical debris removal works are underway within areas of high priority which will change the structural arrangement of fuels whilst also reducing overall risks to the community in priority impacted areas.

The progression of these works will allow planned burning to be recommenced in some of these areas which will start to have risk reduction benefits.

Additionally, while the risk reduction benefits of non-burn fuel treatments are not yet captured by the modelling, FFMVic is continuing to expand its program of mowing and slashing to enable fuel management to proceed when conditions are not suitable for burning.

Additional actions are being taken ahead of the coming 2023-24 bushfire season

Planned burning is not the only way in which FFMVic manages bushfire risk. Other management actions undertaken by FFMVic support the planned burn program but are not reflected in current bushfire risk modelling.

Non-burn fuel treatments and strategic fuel breaks are effective at both improving fire agencies' ability to suppress bushfires and to successfully conduct planned burns.

Over recent years FFMVic has continued to invest in expanded non-burn fuel treatments and the construction and maintenance of strategic fuel breaks in preparation for the upcoming fire season.

Statewide, FFMVic will have close to 1,800 personnel on the frontline this bushfire season, including an additional 100 full-time Forest and Fire Operations Officers, which have bolstered year-round capability.

They are part of FFMVic’s 3,000 personnel who perform a fire or emergency role, which also include around 1,200 personnel who hold accreditations in incident management roles.

Readiness rosters commenced earlier this season to manage the increased hazard posed by this season’s weather outlook.

FFMVic firefighting equipment includes more than 500 ultralight tankers, around 100 heavy tankers, as well as more than 300 additional plant and trucks including bulldozers, tractors, graders, loaders, forklifts and excavators.

Ground operations are also supported by Victoria's aerial fleet of 51 aircraft contracted for the 2023-24 summer season. The fleet includes a mix of firebombing aircraft, air supervision and aerial information-gathering aircraft.

It is supplemented by up to 100 aircraft that can be called when needed. FFMVic’s response capabilities are also supported by a plant panel of around 400 contractors (including 19 harvest & haulage contractors) that can be called upon for bushfire suppression work using skilled personnel, bulldozers, graders, excavators, harvesters and other machinery.

Innovations including the Heliskid mobile water tank, and an improved fixed tank network will reduce helicopter turn-around times in remote areas of eastern Victoria, further increasing FFMVic’s ability to quickly suppress bushfires.

Readiness arrangements in place across the State take into consideration a range of factors including levels of fuel-driven bushfire risk, ensuring that firefighting personnel and equipment are prepositioned to optimise bushfire suppression effectiveness.

Considerable pre-season engagement with partner fire agencies at the district and brigade level has also been undertaken to strengthen local relationships and ensure an integrated approach to the first attack this coming fire season.

Additionally, the Midlands District has in place a ‘Model of Response’ - Regional Supplement for the 2023 Readiness & Response Plan, which provides District Duty Officers with guidance for enhanced response measures within the storm debris-impacted areas.

This includes but is not limited to guidance for additional plant and aircraft being activated in the first attack and readiness under elevated risk thresholds.

Steps community members can take to reduce their risk

All Victorians need to know how to plan for and respond to fire. Everyone in Victoria who lives near forest, bush, grassland, or the coast needs to prepare their property for bushfire.

There are some simple steps you can take to get ready now:

• familiarise yourself with the new Australian Fire Danger Ratings and check them every day during the fire season
• make your fire plan and talk with your family about what you will do. Just as every family or household is unique, every plan will be different, and
• if you live in a regional area at risk of bushfires or grassfires, be prepared to leave early on very high-risk days or if a fire starts. Leaving early is the safest option.

Always monitor your location conditions and follow official warnings and advice using the Vic Emergency app, the VicEmergency hotline (1800 226 226) and your local ABC emergency broadcaster.

Transfer of assurance function to the Office of Bushfire Risk Management

In July 2022, responsibility for providing assurance over breaches of FFMVic planned burn control lines was transferred to the Office of Bushfire Risk Management (OBRM) from the Inspector General for Emergency Management.

This is the second year that reporting of breaches of FFMVic planned burn control lines, investigations and assurance activities, and progress in implementing any recommendations from previous breaches have been included in this report.

In performing this role, OBRM ensures its assurance activities uphold the principles of the IGEM Assurance Framework for Emergency Management. The framework governs each of the core assurance elements of continuous improvement, collaboration and coordination, reducing burden, and adding value.

2022-23 breaches of planned burn control lines

Fire is a dynamic process and at times a planned burn will escape (or breach) its control lines. FFMVic has a well-defined process for classifying these breaches as either minor breakaways/spotovers, breaches or bushfires depending on their severity.

Planned burns that are declared as either ‘bushfires’ or ‘breaches’ require further investigation. OBRM is responsible for overseeing the prompt and thorough investigation of planned burn breaches and burns declared as bushfires.

For the period 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, FFMVic led and supported the conduct of 234 planned burns treating a total of 75,868 hectares.

In this period FFMVic declared 3 planned burns in south-western Victoria as bushfires. While these burns were declared as bushfires all of them were contained within their control lines.

No other planned burns were declared as breaches or bushfires during this reporting period.

Despite not having breached their control lines the 3 planned burns were declared as ‘bushfires’ as they met one of the required triggers under the relevant procedures. Before this event, a planned burn that had not breached its control line had never been declared a bushfire under this procedure.

FFMVic investigated these burns with OBRM participating in an advisory capacity. FFMVic’s final report made 31 findings and proposed 13 treatment options to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the future.

The FFMVic Chief Fire Officer accepted the treatment options in the investigation report and will keep OBRM briefed on progress towards their implementation.

Implementation monitoring of recommendations

As part of its assurance role OBRM – like IGEM – monitors trends and systemic risks identified in investigations of breaches of planned burn control lines and may make recommendations for improvement.

This section provides an update on the implementation of these recommendations.

In assessing the implementation progress of each recommendation, OBRM uses the descriptions outlined in the table below to define their status.

Implementation of the following recommendation was reported as ongoing (in progress) in IGEM’s Assurance of Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning breaches of planned burn control lines 2020–21 (2020–21 Assurance Report).

Recommendation 3 – IGEM 2016-17 Summary Report

This recommendation was made by IGEM in its 2016–17 Summary Report. IGEM found inconsistencies in the contingency planning among planned burns that breached their control line and noted that DELWP (now DEECA) did not provide planning staff with adequate guidance and instruction on the minimum requirements for a sufficiently rigorous contingency plan to manage a breach of a planned burn control line.

As part of IGEM's 2018–19 Assurance Report, DELWP advised IGEM that actions to address this recommendation would be addressed through the Safer Together Project 2.6 – Common Burn Risk Assessment Tool, to be implemented in 2019–20.

DELWP advised that contingency planning would be built into its new embedded risk assessment (ERA), and enhancements to eMap mapping products.

The contingencies would be recorded against desired and undesired outcomes, including the breach of a control line.

DELWP has subsequently updated and developed numerous pieces of doctrine related to contingency planning. Updates to doctrine and systems improvements were in place ahead of the 2022 autumn planned burn season and were successfully utilised during the delivery of FFMVic’s planned burn program.

IGEM provided DELWP with notification in December 2022 stating that it considered Recommendation 3 – IGEM 2016-17 Summary Report to be implemented.

Recommendation 3- IGEM 2016-17 Summary Report

Implementation monitoring of treatment options

In 2020–21, FFMVic reported one planned burn that breached control lines. The breach in north-western Victoria resulted in 767 hectares of public land being unintentionally burned and required significant additional resourcing to bring it under control.

FFMVic investigated the breach with IGEM participating in an advisory capacity. FFMVic’s final investigation report made 10 findings and recommended 7 treatment options to reduce the risk of future occurrences.

OBRM has been briefed by FFMVic on actions taken to address the 7 treatment options and has assessed their implementation.

The 7 treatment options have been implemented through a range of changes to processes and systems that aim to reduce the risks of multi-stage unbounded burns in the Mallee region.

Changes include:

• updated systems, processes, and procedures allowing tailored prescriptions for multi-stage burns
• updated procedures for burn planning improving contingency area identification for these burns using fire behaviour modelling
• updated systems and processes allowing multiple operations to be created for one fuel treatment to clarify requirements at each stage of delivery for complex burns
• updated and improved procedure for coverage assessment between operations in multi-stage burns ensuring control lines and contingency plans are appropriately adjusted.

OBRM considers all 7 treatment options to be implemented.

Treatment Options - IGEM 2020-21 Summary Report

Data and model output improvements

Victoria’s bushfire management sector continually works to improve the data and science that inform its decisions. As technology improves, better data becomes available, research programs elicit new knowledge, or mapping accuracy is enhanced, the models improve and metrics, such as fuel-driven bushfire risk or ecosystem metrics, are recalculated.

Each year, updates are made to this report to respond to these improvements – ensuring the best-available models and data inform public reporting.

Readers should compare this report and past and future reports in that context. For the most accurate view of current and historical figures, you should always consult the most recent bushfire risk management report.

Changes to reported fuel-driven bushfire risk

This year’s report includes improvements as they were made to fire history data leading to the re-calculation of fuel-driven bushfire risk across multiple years. This reflects Victoria's commitment to continuous improvement of models and datasets.

Table 41: State-wide changes to reported fuel-driven bushfire risk resulting from continuous improvement of fire history layer.

Table 42: Changes to reported regional risk levels, Victoria, 2020–21.

The accuracy of areas treated by planned burning is the primary source of fluctuation in fuel-driven bushfire risk numbers from year to year – as fire severity information is improved, this often changes the modelled risk to houses. This applies to a lesser extent to bushfires, where updated coverage and severity mapping can sometimes influence risk profiles.

Changes to reported ecosystem resilience

As with reported fuel-driven bushfire risk, the improvements in mapping and accounting of areas treated by planned burning and subsequent re-modelling influence the calculation of ecosystem resilience metrics.

Changes to reported TFI and GSS are shown in Table 43 and Table 44 respectively. There were no adjustments to the reported TFI and GSS for 2021–22, however, this does not mean improvements weren’t made.

Table 43: Changes to reported Tolerable Fire Interval, Victoria, 2020–21.

Table 44: Changes to reported Growth Stage Structure, Victoria, 2020–21.

Changes to FFMVic reported costs

Changes in the split between direct and indirect costs have been applied retrospectively in Table 45 to enable a direct comparison between the financial years shown, based on the accounting method developed in 2018–19 and applied in subsequent years.

FFMVic’s fuel management program investment is split between direct and indirect costs. Specific amendments have been made to better capture the activities related to fuel management and non-fuel management investment, possibly due to improvements made to the accounting method and categorisation of expense types over time.

The changes reported in this section for direct and indirect investment for the fuel management program from 2016–17 to 2021–22 are the result of changes made to the categorisation of costs as being direct, indirect and/or non-fuel management expenses.

Direct costs relate to investment that can be directly and reliably assigned to individual fuel management operations (such as materials, plant and aircraft hire, overtime and allowances, overnight accommodation and meals).

Indirect fuel management costs include expenses relating to base salaries, training, vehicles, equipment, planning and community engagement.

This year, indirect costs also include investment in native vegetation improvements, which are activities undertaken to offset impacts to biodiversity resulting from FFMVic’s bushfire fuel management activities.

Non-fuel management expenses are typically those relating to preparedness and fire and emergency response activities (such as fire radio network costs, systems and aviation spending). These are not reflected in Table 45.

Table 45: Changes to reported FFMVic fuel management investment from 2016-17 to 2021–22.

Area planned for treatment

The area planned for treatment is the total area in hectares of land parcels for which FFMVic and CFA have completed operational fuel management planning. A region selects the parcels in line with its regional Bushfire Management Strategy, and they become part of the rolling 3-year operational plan, the Joint Fuel Management Program (JFMP).

Area treated (by planned burning or non-burn fuel treatment)

The area treated is the area (in hectares) of land on which a fuel management treatment has been successfully undertaken to achieve a predefined fuel treatment objective. It is distinct from the Burnt area – refer to definition).

An example treatment is:

• treatment type: planned burning
• treatment objective: to reduce overall fuel hazard to below a moderate level over at least 70% of the planned area
• planned area (on JFMP): 100 hectares
• outcome: planned burning resulted in 80% of the planned area having an overall fuel hazard below a moderate level. The fuel treatment objective was achieved in full; the fuel hazard objective was more than achieved, and the area treated area (100 hectares) was equal to the planned area.

Burn window

The burn window is the suitable alignment of appropriate fuel moisture and weather conditions (both in the lead-up to and the days following the burn ignition). Appropriate fuel moisture conditions must align with suitable weather conditions before planned burning can be safely and effectively conducted. Weather is a key determinant of when and how much-planned burning can occur.

Burnt area

The burnt area is the total area in hectares that a planned burn burns or blackens within the area treated. Following a burn, the burnt area is mapped to ensure the most accurate information for risk modelling is acquired. Refining this mapping over time can have flow-on effects for fuel-driven bushfire risk calculations, and as such, risk figures may be updated from year to year retrospectively.

Bushifre management strategy

Each of DEECA's regions has a Bushfire Management Strategy. Each strategy explains the approach to fuel management and other bushfire risk reduction interventions for the region to minimise the potential impact of major bushfires on people, property, critical infrastructure and economic activity, environment and cultural values, and maintain and improve the resilience of natural ecosystems.

The strategies set out the location of fire management zones – Asset Protection Zone, Bushfire Moderation Zone, Landscape Management Zone and Planned Burning Exclusion Zone – on public land.

The strategies also identify a cross-tenure approach, which highlights where fuel management most effectively reduces risk across public and private land.

Bushfire management sector

The bushfire management sector comprises any entity with a role or function for bushfire management as defined under the State Emergency Management Plan (SEMP).

The bushfire management sector includes Forest Fire Management Victoria (comprised of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, Melbourne Water, VicForests and Parks Victoria), the Country Fire Authority, Emergency Management Victoria, Emergency Recovery Victoria, Fire Rescue Victoria, Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Government Services (which includes Local Government Victoria, regulators (including the Office of the Conservation Regulator), water authorities and local government.

The bushfire management sector collaborates with various organisations to achieve shared outcomes. This includes Traditional Owners, industry and communities. Partnerships with Traditional Owners will evolve over time as Victoria continues to support self-determination and Treaty.

Bushfire risk

Bushfire risk is the likelihood of a fire starting, spreading, and impacting people, property and the environment. This includes houses, critical infrastructure, water supply catchments, agricultural assets, and environmental and cultural values.

Victoria is particularly susceptible to large and intense bushfires that can spread across landscapes due to Victoria's terrain, naturally flammable vegetation and frequent exposure to hot, dry and windy weather.

Bushfire risk is affected by factors including the weather, the type and condition of fuels in the location and its topography, the location of people and assets, and the ability to prevent fires from igniting, suppress them once they ignite and avoid or reduce impacts to communities.

Community-based bushfire management

Community-based bushfire management is a community-led approach that supports communities and agencies to connect and make better-informed decisions. It includes working with communities to identify local priorities, develop mutual goals and solutions, build relationships and use locally tailored processes before, during and after bushfires.

Cross-tenure burn

A cross-tenure burn describes when a burn includes both public and private land. It is not a type of burn. See ‘Planned burning’ for definitions of types of burns.

Ecosystem resilience

Ecosystem resilience is the capacity of an area to absorb natural and management-imposed disturbance, but still retain its basic structure (the abundance and composition of its species, the function of its vegetation and its types of vegetation) over time.

First attack

First attempt suppression work on a fire.

Fuels

Bushfire fuels are the leaves, bark, twigs and shrubs that are burnt by fire. The fuel type, dryness, size, moisture content and arrangement can all affect the speed, size and intensity of a bushfire.

Fuel-driven bushfire risk

Fuel-driven bushfire risk is the component of bushfire risk that is attributable to bushfire fuels, that is, vegetation that influences fire behaviour, such as the speed and intensity of a bushfire.

Fuel (vegetation) is a key element of fire behaviour, and therefore is a major component of overall bushfire risk. However, it is not a full measure of bushfire risk, because fuel is not the only factor that affects fire behaviour, or the likelihood and consequence of bushfires impacting people and the things they care about. In general, the influence of fuel on fire behaviour decreases as fire weather conditions become more severe.

The sector models (using a computer program called Phoenix Rapidfire) what impact planned burning has on reducing fuel-driven bushfire risk to inform fuel management planning and performance evaluation.

This impact is calculated and expressed as the percentage of fuel-driven bushfire risk ‘left over’ after bushfire fuels have been reduced, either through fuel management activities or bushfires (noting that currently, this calculation can only consider the contribution of planned burning and not non-burn fuel treatments such as slashing and mowing).

This approach focuses on the role that planned burns have in moderating the severity of bushfires at large scales and the consequential likely reduction in impacts.

In previous years’ reports, fuel-driven bushfire risk was referred to as residual risk.

Fuel management

Fuel management activities include:

• planned burning (see definition)
• mechanical and other non-burn fuel treatments (see definition)
• management of storm debris
• construction and upgrades of strategic fuel breaks

Fuel management activities alter the amount and structure of bushfire fuel, reducing the likelihood of ignition, helping limit their spread and intensity when they occur, making it easier for firefighters to control them, and lessen their impacts.

Fuel treatment delivery plan (Burn Plan)

Each planned burn must have an approved fuel treatment delivery plan. For FFMVic planned burns, the requirements are specified in the Code of Practice for Bushfire Management on Public Land 2012. A plan includes a land management and treatment objective, the area of the burn, the type of fire management zone (FFMVic burns), how impacts on values will be minimised, and how the outcome of the burn will be monitored, evaluated and reported.

Growth stage structure

The growth stage structure (GSS) of an area of vegetation is its mix of vegetation of different ages, from juvenile to old. Vegetation's GSS depends on when it was last burnt or otherwise disturbed. It is assumed that the diversity of GSSs and habitats across a landscape ensures a diversity of species, which helps maintain and improve ecosystem resilience. As a result, fuel is managed to ensure an acceptable mix of growth stages in the landscape and protect important areas of older growth stages.

The growth stages are:

• juvenile: from immediate post-fire renewal to establishment up to the point when the full suite of species is reproductive
• adolescent: when vegetation is relatively young, and all species are reproductive but not at the rate that characterises mature vegetation
• mature: when the dominant species are fully reproductive through to stasis when vegetation structure and reproductive capacity stabilise
• old: when reproduction of the dominant species is declining and propagule banks are decreasing; if left undisturbed, vegetation may become senescent and is then unlikely to be reconstituted after a fire.

There is more information about vegetation GSS on the Safer Together web page.

Hazard class

Hazard Class is used by the CFA to define the type of risk for a given area. Each brigade area may contain multiple hazard classes.

Hazard Class 2 (Medium Urban): Significant urban areas which are primarily residential including commercial centres, clusters of industrial and/or high-density community services e.g., schools, correctional facilities, hospitals.

Hazard Class 3 (Low Urban): All urban areas that are not included in Hazard Class 2 and include predominantly residential occupancies and small industries.

Hazard Class 4 (Rural): Primarily involves natural surroundings in terms of bush and grassland, but also involves isolated dwellings and structures within those areas.

Hazard Class 5 (Remote Rural): Covers very remote locations and very isolated dwellings

Heap

See windrow.

Joint Fuel Management Program (JFMP)

The JFMP is the statewide 3-year rolling program of fuel management works on public and private land. The JFMP includes operations managed by FFMVic and the CFA for the upcoming 3 years. It also includes cultural burns nominated by Traditional Owners. It incorporates and supersedes Fire Operations Plans.

The Joint Fuel Management Program web page has maps showing all planned fuel management activities for the upcoming 3-year period. The JFMP does not include burns managed by private landholders or industry.

Mechanical and other non-burn fuel treatment

Mechanical and other non-burn fuel treatments are used to manage bushfire fuels through activities other than planned burning. Examples include mowing, slashing, mulching, spraying, rolling and grazing.

Mechanical fuel treatments are used to maintain the network of fuel breaks or to treat small, discrete, or complex areas that may be difficult to burn safely (such as in steep gullies) or to complement planned burning where the geography (community, vegetation, terrain) is complex, and planned burning opportunities are very limited. Mechanical fuel treatments are more expensive than planned burning and the area that can be treated each year is usually much less than through planned burning.

Native vegetation improvements

Native vegetation improvements are activities undertaken to compensate for impacts to biodiversity resulting from FFMVic’s bushfire fuel management actions. These improvements are carried out in areas of high biodiversity value throughout the state, including projects to remove invasive plant species.

Scientists and local land managers provide input into selecting which projects are funded. These projects contribute to implementing Protecting Victoria's Environment - Biodiversity 2037, Victoria’s plan to stop the decline of native plants and animals and improve the natural environment.

Planned burning

Planned burning is the lighting and managing of planned fires at times of lower bushfire risk for various reasons (such as to reduce leaf litter, twigs, bark and undergrowth). Planned burns may be ignited all year round including over summer, but most are in autumn and spring.

Planned burns are classified into:

• fuel reduction burns, to reduce the amount of fuel available to a bushfire, which can reduce a bushfire intensity and rate of spread, improving opportunities for firefighters to suppress it and reducing impacts on assets
• cultural burns, led by Traditional Owners for cultural purposes
• ecological burns, to achieve ecological objectives (such as to protect environmental assets, and maintain and improve ecological resilience)
• other burns, which are ad hoc burns not included in the JFMP, but still undergo a planning and approval process. For example:
  • regeneration burns, to regenerate species or vegetation types (such as after timber harvesting)
  • windrow/heap burns at point locations, which are to burn debris piles, usually from other land management operations (such as clearing woody weed species).

You can search the Planned burning in Victoria web page by postcode, locality, park or address to see the planned burns intended to be delivered over the next 10 days, weather and conditions permitting.

Planned burn breach

A planned burn is considered to have breached the control line if it:

• spreads beyond the area designated in the fuel treatment delivery plan
• cannot be readily controlled with onsite or planned resources, or
• compromises the burn objectives.

An FFMVic planned burn that has breached the control line is classified as either a breach or a bushfire, depending on its extent and impact on the community or the environment.

A breach is defined as being beyond the type and extent that is routine, anticipated and resourced as part of the fuel treatment delivery plan, not readily controlled with onsite or planned resources and does not pose a significant threat to or have a significant impact on assets or the community.

A bushfire is declared when a breach of the control line threatens or is likely to threaten public safety or private or public assets and is likely to have a greater impact on the environment. A planned burn may be declared a bushfire even if no breach of the control line occurs.

The Office of Bushfire Risk Management is notified of all breaches of the control line from an FFMVic planned burn, including planned burns declared as bushfires, and assures the investigation process to ensure any lessons are identified and drive continuous improvement in the systems and processes FFMVic uses to deliver safe and effective burns.

Residual risk

See fuel-driven bushfire risk.

Risk-based approach

A risk-based approach is a bushfire management approach that combines in-depth local knowledge with the latest science and technology to reduce bushfire risk on both public and private land. The approach directs resources and investment to where they will have the greatest impact in keeping Victorians, and the things they value safe.

Victoria has a risk-based approach to bushfire management. This approach was adopted by the Victorian Government in 2016, and is articulated in Safer Together – a new approach to reducing the risk of bushfire in Victoria.

Safer Together marked a shift in Victoria’s approach. The Victorian Government transitioned to a risk-based approach following independent recommendations from the Bushfire Royal Commission Implementation Monitor (2012, 2013, 2014) and the Victorian Inspector-General for Emergency Management’s 2015 Review of performance targets for bushfire fuel management on public land. These independent review processes found that a hectare-based target to guide fuel management on public land was not the most effective way to deliver on the primary objective of the Royal Commission’s recommendation to maximise the protection of life.

Safer together

Safer Together is the Victorian Government’s approach to reducing bushfire risk and involves fire and land management agencies working with communities to combine in-depth local knowledge with the latest science and technology to reduce bushfire risk across public and private land.

See more information on the Safer Together website.

Sector

See Bushfire Management Sector.

Strategic Fuel Break

A strategic fuel break is a strip of land where vegetation has been modified to form a safe and effective platform for fighting and controlling bushfires. Strategic fuel breaks may be natural areas of low fuel but are typically constructed using machinery to modify or remove vegetation (such as grasses, shrubs and trees) which allows firefighters to control fires through direct firefighting methods or indirect firefighting methods (e.g., backburning).

A strategic fuel break network is currently being expanded across Victoria to provide a last line of defence to protect townships and critical infrastructure, and to break larger blocks of forest into more manageable units to help keep fires as small as possible. This network of strategic fuel breaks ensures that firefighters can respond to fires as quickly as possible, and complement a range of other fire prevention and preparedness activities.

There are 3 categories of strategic fuel breaks:

• Establishing or new construction: DEECA will build a strategic fuel break on a new footprint, where no previous fuel break was previously established.
• Upgrading or renewing: DEECA will upgrade/renew a fuel break that was previously established (such as during emergencies), which is not up to current specifications. Unlike new construction, there is already an existing disturbed footprint.
• Maintaining: This includes periodic candling of bark hazards, annual slashing, and mulching of regrowing vegetation to keep the SFBs operationally effective.

Tolerable fire interval

For any given plant community, the minimum and maximum tolerable fire intervals (TFIs) between successive burns are determined by the time required for key fire response species to mature and set seed, as well as their time to senescence without fire disturbance.

TFI thresholds provide minimum and maximum time intervals of fire frequency to ensure ecosystem resilience.

TFI status is reported as the proportion of vegetation on public land below minimum TFI, within TFI, above TFI or with no fire history.

• The proportion of vegetation on public land below minimum TFI is the percentage of land currently under the minimum time threshold recommended between successive burns for the vegetation on that land. For example, if the recommended minimum TFI is 15 years for a given vegetation type and it was last burnt 10 years ago, the land is below the minimum TFI and will continue to be for another 5 years.
• The proportion of public land above maximum TFI is the percentage of land that has not burnt for a longer period than recommended. For example, if the vegetation on that land last burnt 35 years ago, and its maximum TFI is 30 years, the land has been above the maximum TFI for 5 years.
• The proportion of public land within TFI is the percentage of that land on which the vegetation is currently recorded as being within the recommended minimum and maximum TFIs.
• The proportion of public land with no fire history is the percentage of land for which there is no record of fire, or of the land with vegetation that does not have a recommended TFI.

The larger the areas in a landscape below minimum TFI and above maximum TFI, the less resilient ecosystems are likely to be. Burning vegetation regularly while below minimum TFI increases the risk of fundamental changes in its structure and functioning. However, sometimes vegetation that is below minimum TFI is burnt to reduce risk to life and property in specific areas and to reduce potential damage to important ecosystems by major bushfires.

It is recognised that TFI is a coarse measure of ecosystem resilience that doesn’t recognise finer-scale vegetation responses to fire or the differing severity of planned burning and bushfires. But it can still help us with regional-scale decision-making. Regional Bushfire Management Strategies aim to minimise areas burnt while below minimum TFI, where feasible, without failing to deliver on other regional objectives.

There will also be instances (such as large bushfire footprints) where fuels become flammable before ecological maturity is reached. In those cases, fire will need to be applied below minimum TFI to prevent larger areas from being burnt by more intense bushfires.

There is more information about TFI on the Safer Together web page.

Total Fire Ban

Total Fire Bans are declared by the CFA’s Chief Officer on days of heightened fire danger to reduce the risk of a fire starting.

Windrow

Small debris piles burn at point locations.