Phase Two Engagement Summary - Amazon S3 · 2019. 6. 3. · 3 Grampians Region Bushfire Management Planning Phase Two Engagement Summary Figure two: Distribution of respondents according

1

Grampians Strategic Bushfire Management Planning

Phase Two Engagement Summary

Background

The Grampians region Strategic Bushfire Management Planning (SBMP) process has been informed by land and fire managers, local government and the community.

We have built on the extensive knowledge and experience that exists within bushfire management agencies and communities. Our engagement activities are testing what we know and seeking new ideas from a range of stakeholders to understand how we can all work together to improve bushfire management on private and public land.

This document provides a quantitative and qualitative summary of the community feedback received during stage two of our engagement on the Engage Victoria website.

The summary of the feedback received in the phase one of the online consultation can be found on Engage Victoria at https://engage.vic.gov.au/bushfire-planning

Engagement Process Bushfire management strategies for the Grampians region are being reviewed. This process will help determine where risk reduction activities such as planned burning take place. Planning and managing the risk of bushfire in the Grampians region is an ongoing and shared responsibility. The goal is to design a long-term plan that reflects what communities value and want to protect in their towns and favourite places.

This is the second planned opportunity for the community to provide online feedback on elements of the Grampians SBMP process. In phase one you asked us to focus on protecting people’s lives from bushfire. You also told us that you valued major infrastructure, plants and animals and water supply facilities. We used this feedback to develop alternative fuel management strategies.

Engagement Approach

A survey was developed to collect feedback from the community about bushfire fuel management on private land and four public land strategies for the Grampians Strategic Bushfire Management Planning process.

Engage Victoria is a way to give the widest possible opportunity for the community to have input into the planning process. Members of the public were given four weeks to complete the survey from 18 February to 18 March 2019. See Appendix 1 for the full survey questions as shown on the Engage Victoria website.

Promotion

The Engage Victoria survey was promoted on social media of partner agencies involved in the planning process such as DELWP, CFA, Parks Victoria and local government. An email link was sent to known community groups and individuals with an interest in bushfire management that had provided their details to agencies for this purpose. A media release was sent to media outlets throughout the Grampians region footprint and postcards encouraging people to complete the survey were circulated. The survey was promoted at local markets, neighbourhood houses, community events and community group meetings.

https://engage.vic.gov.au/bushfire-planning

Grampians Region Bushfire Management Planning Phase Two Engagement Summary

2

Figure one below shows how respondents heard about phase two of this community consultation. From the information provided social media was the most common method of finding out about the survey.

Only three respondents indicated that they heard about the survey through a flyer/ postcard or advertisement. This information will be used to guide promotion of future online surveys and engagement approaches.

Figure one: How did you find out about this community consultation reposonses.

Participants

66 surveys were completed for the Grampians region. 50 surveys were completed by people who live in the area. 7 respondents to phase two provided feedback for the previous phase of engagement (phase one).

The map below (Figure two) shows the distribution of respondents by postcode. Out of the 66, there were 62 responses that provided postcode information, from 29 different postcodes. The map below shows where respondents were from, less respondents shown as blue / green, through to orange / red indicating where most respondents were from.

Planning for the West Wimmera area is being considered as part of the Barwon South West region plan. Refer to the Barwon South West Engage Victoria page for more information.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Participated in Phase 1

Advertisement

Agency website (DELWP, CFA, Safer Together or local gov)

Email

Flyer/postcard

My CFA email

Other

Regional media – newspaper or radio story

Social media

Word of mouth

Number of Responses

3


Figure two: Distribution of respondents according to postcode.

Engagement Outcomes Four strategies were presented in this survey, being:

• Strategy 1 – focused burning around townships with limited burning elsewhere.

• Strategy 2 – an increased amount of burning around townships, still with limited burning elsewhere.

• Strategy 3 – the increased amount of burning around townships (as per strategy 2) with burning away from townships focused on reducing the risk to roads, infrastructure, tourism and agriculture.

• Strategy 4 - the increased amount of burning around townships (as per strategy 2) with burning away from townships focused on maintaining or enhancing a healthy environment.

The questions relating to these four strategies were presented as the respondents’ preferences, and whether they accept, dislike or can accept the strategy.

The outcome from both questions was similar in that most of the respondent’s preference was for strategy 3 and 4. This aligns with the outcomes of phase one survey. Part of this project, respondents indicated that life and property, infrastructure, water supply, main roads and plants and animals were the highest priority management objectives (aligning with the intent of strategies 3 and 4). Interestingly, only 7 people responded to both phase one and phase two surveys, meaning that both surveys were largely from a different group of people.

Another outcome is that few people preferred a strategy with limited burning around communities.

INTERESTING FACT

Most respondents were from Ballarat and

surrounds.


4

These outcomes will guide us in selecting a preferred strategy and suggests that there is a need to implement a fuel management strategy that offers a large amount of risk reduction for communities, whilst ensuring that infrastructure, water supply, main roads and plants and animals are adequately addressed. From here, we will work to balance these objectives.

Figure three: respondent’s preferences for each strategy option

Figure four: respondent’s reaction for each strategy option

2 2

3024

914

1420

12

30

7 8

34

117 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4

Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3 Preference 4

610

34 3627

37

1720

31

15 138

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4

I like this strategy option I can accept this strategy option I dislike this strategy option

5


INTERESTING FACT

The views expressed in this survey strongly align with those expressed in phase one engagement of this project.

We also asked about preferences in areas outside of high frequency burning areas, meaning areas that we are not targeting primarily to reduce the risk to communities, infrastructure, etc. This question was specifically about the Grampians and Little Desert National Parks, as these are areas where we are undertaking more detailed analysis of how to get the balance right away from high risk areas. This question asked people to rank each proposed objective from 1 (highest preference) to 11 (lowest preference).

The results are shown below (Figure 5) in terms of the respondent’s highest preferences (ranked 1 and 2). The question split managing for plants and animals into six sub themes.

Respondents highest preferences were similar to questions 1 and 2 (figure three and four above) in that people and homes, critical infrastructure and combination of impacts to plants and animals were the highest priority. This question divided the theme of plants and animals into six different categories to get an understanding of which aspect of managing for plants and animals we should consider as a higher priority. The preference in this theme was to use planned burning to have a positive long-term influence on plants and animals, rather than reducing the risk from bushfires, or impact from planned burning.

6


30

52 1 1

52 1 2

8

4

22

11 2

4

31 2

11

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Reducing therisk to people

and homes

Reducing therisk to criticalinfrastructure

Reducing therisk from

bushfire to theeconomy

Reducing therisk to

Aboriginalculturalheritage

Reducing therisk to historic

buildings

Reducing theimpact of

bushfires onthreatened

flora and fauna

Reduce theimpact of

bushfires on allplants and

animals

Reduce theimpact ofplanned

burning onthreatenedplants and

animals

Reduce theimpact ofplanned

burning on allplants and

animals

Use plannedburning to havea positive long-term influence

on animalhabitats

Use plannedburning to havea positive long-term influenceon the number

anddistribution of

plants

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es

Ranked 1 Ranked 2

Figure five: in areas outside of the high frequency burning areas, participants were asked to rank what they believe the following factors should influence planning

7


Managing vegetation on private land

The feedback from the private land section of the survey will inform the direction of bushfire management approaches on private land and how fire agencies and land managers can better partner with community to reduce bushfire risk. It is very important to note that under the CFA Act, nothing can occur on people’s property without their informed consent.

Figure six shows the actions respondents undertake currently to reduce bushfire fuels on their property.

Figure six: what activities, if any do you currently undertake to reduce bushfire fuels on your property?

• 46 respondents indicated that they undertake some sort of bushfire fuel management on their property

• 20 indicated they undertake all four actions

• 29 undertake mechanical activities, burning and control weeds

• Grazing is never the only activity

• Only 1 respondent uses burning without other activities

• Only 3 respondents undertake mechanical activity on its own

Questions 6 and 7 asked respondents whether they were likely to reduce fuels on their property, and whether they expect others to reduce fuels on their property. The response to these questions was clear. The majority of people were likely to reduce fuels on their property and that they also expected others to. Figure seven and eight shows what support respondents need to manage bushfire fuels on their own property. There were a similar number of respondents who indicated they would not need any advice or support as those that would need advice from the CFA.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Burningvegetation

Mechanicalactivities

Grazing orbrowsing by

animals

Controllingweeds

I do not managebushfire fuelsmy property

I do not havebushfire fuels

on my property

Num

ber o

f Res

pons

es


8

Figure seven: what support, if any would you need to manage bushfire fuels on your property?

The following shows the extent to which respondents feel various people / agencies are responsible for managing bushfire fuels on private property, including their own property. This shows that more than half the respondents see themselves solely responsible, with the community, fire agencies and local council being mostly or somewhat responsible. Those that indicated that they were not solely responsible also expressed a reasonably even split between my community, fire agencies and local council when considering who was mostly, or somewhat responsible. From these responses, this indicates that there is not a commonly held view about which group are responsible, and that it is a shared responsible.

Figure eight: to what extent do you think the following people are responsible for managing bushfire fuels on private property including your own property?

0 10 20 30

I need advice from CFA

I need advice from my local council

I would like self service information (e.g. a guidancepamphlet, online fact sheet)

I need physical help and equipment

I need support to navigate regulations and permits

I am a neighbour to public land and I am interested inpossibly including my property in public land fuel…

I would not need any advice or support

Number of Responses

3

20 25157

34

54

58

34

39

1819

56

7 3 8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Myself My community Fire agencies (e.g. CFA,FFMVic)

Local Council

Not at all responsible Somewhat responsible Mostly responsible Solely responsible

9


INTERESTING FACT

Partnering with Indigenous groups on traditional burning techniques

was mentioned in the comment section numerous times.

Summary

The responses received in this survey highlighted the passion and broad range of views in bushfire management across the Grampians region.

The key themes that emerged from the responses where:

• biodiversity conservation and wildlife considerations

• roadside vegetation management

• cost considerations were used in people’s decision to rank preferred methods

• the ‘Grampians’ name as a region causes some confusion, due to the region covering such a broad area and types of communities, not just the Grampians National Park and surrounds.

The survey highlighted the need for the planning team to ensure that the final strategy offers a high level of risk reduction to communities whilst addressing and balancing other objectives.

The survey also highlighted that while many people do not need support to undertake fuel management (and are already undertaking fuel management) we, as agencies do need to provide support to the community for any fuel management activities on private land.

All efforts have been made to faithfully represent the overarching views of all the respondents across all three free-text questions. However, not all responses fell within the scope of the questions asked or answered multiple questions in one response.

Next Steps

The results of this survey will be used by the planning team in reviewing the strategy options presented and selecting a preferred strategy. The purpose of this information, and that from phase one is to directly influence the preferred strategy. A more detailed explanation of the results, and where they have been included in the planning process, will appear in the final engagement report for this project later in the year.

The Grampians Strategic Bushfire Management Planning and Engagement teams would like to thank all respondents for sharing their time, experience and expertise in responding to this survey.

More information

Online: https://www.safertogether.vic.gov.au/understanding-risk

Email: [email protected]


10

Appendix 1: Survey

Phase Two Strategy Consultation

Overview Bushfire management strategies for the Grampians Region are being reviewed. This process will help determine where risk reduction activities such as planned burning take place. Planning and managing the risk of bushfire in the Grampians region is an ongoing and shared responsibility. The goal is to design a long-term plan that reflects what communities’ value and want to protect in their towns and favourite places.

In phase one you asked us to focus on protecting people’s lives from bushfire. You also told us that you valued major infrastructure, plants and animals and water supply facilities. We have used this to develop alternative fuel management strategies and we invite your feedback on those below.

Planning for the West Wimmera area is being considered as part of the Barwon South West region plan. To comment on this area please visit the Barwon South West region page.

Strategy Options

Strategy option one

11


Strategy 1 consists of:

• highly targeted burning concentrated around highest risk towns • the lowest amount of planned burning of any of the strategy options • the lowest level of overall risk reduction and reduces risk to a lower number of towns • critical infrastructure and economic values are not the focus of this strategy • some vegetation types depend on fire for regeneration and focusing our planned burning

around towns will have mixed results for plants and animals.

Strategy option two


• a moderate level of planned burning, an increase from strategy 1 • burns concentrated around high-risk towns • increased level of risk reduction to those communities focused on in strategy 1 • reduces risk to additional communities to those focused on in strategy 1 • increased level of risk reduction for infrastructure and economic values, given some are in

or near high-risk towns (the strategy does not focus on these assets) • some vegetation types depend on fire for regeneration and focusing our planned burning

around towns will have mixed results for plants and animals.


12

Strategy option three


• high levels of burning, concentrated around towns • moderate levels of dispersed burning across the broader landscape • burning focus on townships to a similar level as strategy 2, with additional burning

undertaken in areas away from communities, focusing on roads, infrastructure, tourism, agriculture, plantations and campgrounds

• additional burning is likely to further reduce the risk to towns and adjoining private property and reduce the size of bushfires

• some vegetation types depend on fire for regeneration and focusing our planned burning around towns and assets will have mixed results for plants and animals.

13


Strategy option four


• a moderate level of planned burning, similar to strategy 2 • a focus on townships at a similar level as strategy 2 • if there are endangered/threatened species, there may be some changes so the strategy

does not increase the risk to those species • a similar level of risk reduction to strategy 2 • any additional burning outside of the high-risk areas would be based on the most

appropriate fire regime for the plants and animals in that area (based on protecting endangered/ threatened species and balancing the needs of all species)

• research and local knowledge of plant and animal requirements.


14

15



16

17



18

19



20

© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2019

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN 978-1-76077-638-1 (pdf/online/MS word) Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Accessibility If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the DELWP Customer Service Centre on 136186, email [email protected] or via the National Relay Service on 133 677 www.relayservice.com.au. This document is also available on the internet at www.delwp.vic.gov.au.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.relayservice.com.au/

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/

Documents

Phase Two Engagement Summary - Amazon S3 · 2019. 6. 3. · 3 Grampians Region Bushfire Management Planning Phase Two Engagement Summary Figure two: Distribution of respondents according