Here are two VCAT decisions that involve the BMO and bushfire protection, one in which I was involved in 2013 and a more recent decision that has come to my attention.
In both cases people were wanting to build a home on their land and had much to lose. Would the two examples meet a fairness test or would they fit a definition of 'kangaroo court'?
If you have an opinion feel free to express it in the comments provision at the foot of this posting.
The basis of dealing with the BMO as part of a planning permit application should be understanding fire behaviour, lacking in much of the community, and seemingly in part of corporate CFA when it comes to dealing with BMO referrals.
CFA promulgates its attitude toward the BMO at this time in a one-size-fits-all set of bushfire protection conditions, regardless of the actual conditions that contribute to fire behavior likely to affect a dwelling the subject of a specific planning permit application.
This attitude seems to be premised on a statement on the first page, penultimate paragraph, second sentence of the standard planning permit conditions: "Any justification for a tailored response should be included in the application". Why, who makes the decision and on what basis? More about this attitude later, but back to trees and wildfire now.
In the standard planning permit conditions there is a one-size-fits-all requirement under the heading Defendable Space stating that "the canopy of trees must be separated by at least 5 metres".
An arbitrary five metres canopy separation usually generates a planning permit condition requiring offsets that can be very costly to someone trying to establish a new home — many thousands of dollars, approximately $120,000 in one situation I'm aware of. Imagine the impact of that extra cost on a young couple trying to establish their dream home.
Raises the question, why would the CFA require a blanket canopy separation, is it because canopy or crown fire is not well understood by some CFA people making policy and dealing with BMO referrals? Hopefully the following will help.
Some examples to get the subject started.
In a blog posting on 23 April 2016 I included the following photographs from Wye River in the aftermath of the Christmas Day fire where crown fire was virtually non-existent. Observe the unburnt vegetation virtually to ground level.
And, what better than some examples from Ash Wednesday 1983. The following are from my collection photographed in the Lerderderg State Park a few days after the Trentham East fire. They show the effect of the fire at the time it was still heading in a generally southeasterly direction towards Bacchus Marsh and prior to the wind change to the southwest much later in the day forcing it towards Mount Macedon.
Above is a view of Firth Park in the Lerderderg State Park showing an absence of crown fire in the forest in the background. Note the singed trees or shrubs in the foreground.
The following two photographs are further south from Firth Park towards Bacchus Marsh.
What is particularly significant about these two apart from the lack of crown fire? Observe the unburnt shrubs/suckers at the base of the trees!
Below from my blog posting of 22 June 2014 are two examples of trees and shrubs in the path of the 9 February 2014 Gisborne fire as it travelled northeast towards Riddells Creek after the wind change.
The fire weather conditions this day were described as being the worst since 7 February 2009 (Black Saturday). Again, observe the vegetation close to the ground left unburnt when the fast moving grass fire passed.
The evidence is that crown fire is a relatively rare occurrence.
To quote Professor Julius Sumner Miller, "Why is it so?" The answer is in the fire triangle.
I will continue this theme in my next posting. Meantime, those of you who have or are still grappling with the BMO as part of a planning permit application may find the BMO Amendment VC109 July 2014 Explanatory Report of interest — ninth dot point on page 2 "remove their veto power" read the "CFA". It does not seem to be working in the manner then Planning Minister Guy intended, or maybe it is?
People grieving over the loss of trees in Wye River-Separation Creek may also find this posting of interest and it raise some questions.
I’m back with more to say on wildfire management after a break in Scandinavia and Scotland, with a few days in Berlin to learn about the rise and fall of the Wall or as the now defunct East German government or GDR named it, the "Anti-Fascist Protective Wall".
On the GDR side in a somewhat macabre outdoor museum and memorial to those who lost their lives trying to escape to the west.
While in Berlin I also took the opportunity to visit the Stasi Museum, formerly the Stasi headquarters. Stasi was the GDR's very secretive security organisation that had wives spying on husbands and vice versa, etc, etc and virtually everyone reporting on someone.
Chilling in many respects and I can relate the behaviour of the dictator Eric Honecker and his predecessors and their unelected functionaries to the behaviour of some “public servants” back home, but maybe a little more about this later. However, I imagine there are “victims” of Victoria’s Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) and other aspects of wildfire management or I should say mismanagement in various areas of Australia, who would see some connection.
For some, the agony goes on. Shortly after returning home I came across this story "Single mother with five children forced from home after Yarloop bushfires has nowhere to go".
Wye River–Separation Creek (Vic) and Yarloop (WA) both succumbed to the spread of embers or firebrands into the settled areas and in some cases house-to-house spread, an issue I've already mentioned in an earlier blog posting that refers to the role of "spot fires" in fire spread. How did fire enter Wye River–Separation Creek?
The four following photos courtesy of Mark Strachan, Tony Maly, Matthew Stoios, Channel 7, ABC and Hamish Blair show the fire entering the residential areas of Wye River and Separation Creek and an example of its effect. They are very instructive!
This photograph shows many small fires commencing in Wye River. The green arrow at bottom left indicates Wallace Avenue with the Great Ocean Road the prominent white-lined bitumen strip. The yellow arrows indicate "spot fires" caused by embers or firebrands falling out of the convection column forming above the area. The red arrow indicates 'Tottie's Place at Wye River' (see below) about to succumb to ember or firebrand attack.
This photograph shows houses already lost due to ember or firebrand attack in the Mitchell Grove area of Separation Creek indicated by the green arrow.
Tottie's Place at Wye River prior to the fire.
and following the fire. Note the virtually unaffected trees, and 'singed' garden plants in the foreground.
The following two photographs were taken at ‘Narmbool’, near Elaine, on 24 December 2015, a few days after the Scotsburn fire ran across the property.
The photos show the effect of embers landing in isolated patches of garden and under plantation shrubs and trees. A couple of issues to note:
1. A hot fire in vegetative mulch under garden shrubs that extended to the gate before being extinguished by people who remained to defend the structural assets. The mulch under the shrubs around the house became involved, too, and it’s not hard to imagine the outcome if there’d been no one there to extinguish the initially small fires.
2. Fires under shrubs that can only have extended into that area by ember attack. Note how the fire was not sufficiently hot to ignite the shrubs, as was the situation in much of Wye River–Separation Creek .
On staying to defend a dwelling, this video was recorded as fire travelled across a property at Anglers Rest in 2003 . Note that the passage of the fire is a series of spot fires that then move forward to spot again and eventually burn into already burnt ground, and no tree canopy or crown fire. Nothing special about this building, which now has a timber dwelling added to it.
Also, note the conditions inside the building. The man operating the hose to wet down around the building moves inside for a short period when the convective heat outside becomes too uncomfortable. All done without fire brigade assistance and a very instructive video that I'll refer to in a forthcoming posting. Suffice at this stage to say that this property was in forest or woodland, hence a lot more difficult to handle than spot fires occurring in Wye River–Separation Creek residential areas.
It is well known within within the rural fire service community or should be that most houses are lost due to ember or firebrand attack — Dr Caird Ramsay, CSIRO and Justin Leonard, CSIRO.
Why then the BAL–FZ and BAL–40 nonsense being inflicted on the people of Wye River–Separation Creek seeking to re-establish themselves after the losses of the Christmas Day wildfire? Maybe a damages class action offers an opportunity to put the state and local government people involved into the witness box and question them on their fitness for the roles they are playing and reasons for their positions. It may be that all that glitters is not necessarily gold.
Convection Heating
While not usually a direct source of ignition, preheating of flammable materials occurs when those surfaces are exposed to several hours of hot wind consistent with a north wind during a period of Total Fire Ban or are subjected to hot gases generated by a fire. Simplistically, this preheating — hot air — serves to aid ignition of an unprotected building.
The diagram below from Bushfires in Australia, Luke, R.H and McArthur, A.G 1978, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, illustrates flames, radiant heat from those flames, and convection beyond the radiation from the flames.
An example of convection heating is a gas fired domestic heater in the family home. The heater below from the Jetmaster website utilises two methods to heat the building, radiation from the gas flames and glowing coals and heating of fan-forced air passing over a register or heat exchanger inside the body of the heater.
The temperature of bushfire flame is finite — 1,000° to 1,100° Celsius according to Project Vesta — and the radiation from those flames decreases over distance. The distance from the predominant vegetation (defendable space) tables in Australian Standard AS 3959—2009 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas provide separation from harmful radiant heat.
The temperature of the air above a bushfire, convective heating, depends on the size of the fire, the larger the fire the warmer the air. Convective heating (warm or hot air) likely to be felt at ground level requires very strong wind to keep it down and alone will not be of a temperature that exceeds the fire resistance capability of a building constructed the requirements of AS 3959—2009.
Convective heat compared with radiant heat
When considering the bushfire threat to the safety of the occupants of a building it is important to understand the difference between radiant heat and convective heating or “hot air”.
Under the heading “Duration of the passage of the fire front – how bushfires spread”, I sought to explain how fire moves across the land. The diagram is there to illustrate how quickly the fire intensity rise and fall occurs with the passing of a typical bushfire front. As I comment in the fourth paragraph, the time it takes for “the temperature to fall behind the fire front depends on the amount of heavier fuel available to burn out”.
Radiant heat
Radiant heat decreases over the distance that the heavier fuels behind the fire front are from a building and will normally not be sustained at the temperature associated with the passing of the actual fire front through surface fine fuel comprised of leaves, twigs and dry grass.
Below is an extract from the Manual of Firemanship Book 1, Elements of combustion and extinction, on radiation:
All forms of radiant energy travel in straight lines at the speed of light. The intensity [heat] falls off inversely as the square of the distance from the source of radiation [in this case fire]. This means at twice the distance the intensity is one quarter; at three times the distance, the intensity is one-ninth, and so on. The inverse square law can be understood by looking at Fig. 4.5.
The square with 1 metres sides is placed at, say, 2 metres from the source will throw a shadow with 2 metres sides on a second sheet placed 4 metres from the source. Thus the energy falling on 1 m² is the same as that which would have fallen on an area of 2 metres x 2 metres = 4 m² at a distance of 4 metres. So the energy per square metre at 4 metres is one quarter that at 2 metres, i.e. that is one quarter at twice the distance. This is important when considering the effect of radiation from the heat source such as a fire.
An example of the reduction of radiant heat over distance is the depth of defendable space required to achieve a particular bushfire attack level (BAL), in this case not exceeding 29 kW/m² at the outer edge of the building across 26 metres on a downslope not exceeding 10 degrees below the dwelling to satisfy BAL–29 according to Table 2 Defendable space and construction, Clause 52.47 Victoria Planning Provisions (below) with “woodland” as the predominant vegetation.
Following the arrival of the fire front the level of radiant heat behind the fire front will rapidly become less than 29 kW/m² over the width of the defendable space to achieve BAL–29 in this case. Of course this is dependent on effective implementation of the specified defendable space vegetation management requirements for the subject land.
Referring to the explanation beneath the heading “Convection Heating”, regardless of the size of the fire further back in the “heavy fuel”, in the aftermath of the arrival of the fire at the dwelling it will increasingly become convective heat — hot air — that reaches the building. And, that “hot air” will dissipate at a rate influenced by that hot air normally rising close to where it is being generated, but of course dependent, too, on the slope of the ground involved — see the slope diagram under the heading “Convection Heating”.
Finally, referring to my 24 March 2016 posting "Bushfire attack levels and windfall financial gains" there are two photos associated with a BAL–29 dwelling on the high side of Karingal Drive, Wye River, showing dry but unburnt shrubs and tree canopy.
Following are two other examples in Wye River in the aftermath of the fire that are consistent with the effect of convective heat or radiant heat from low level flames, but certainly not sufficiently severe to warrant BAL–FZ or BAL–40 throughout the Township Zone if the Colac Otway Shire Council and the CFA had met their statutory fire prevention responsibilities.
Fuel reduced buffer zones
Questions remain to be answered by the Victorian government. Why was the privately owned land around much of the settled areas of Wye River–Separation Creek ignored pre-fire and continue to be ignored in township redevelopment arrangements? The fire hazard removal provisions in the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 exist to help achieve the fuel reduced buffer zone sought by the property owners, and earlier put to the Colac Otway Shire Council.
Why didn’t the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer Colac Otway Shire Council or the CFA Chief Officer "form the opinion" that the serving of fire prevention notices was necessary to protect life or property from the bushfire threat to Wye River–Separation Creek?
What losses and suppression costs could have been avoided if the powers available in the Country Fire Authority Act had been exercised?
Again, BAL–FZ and BAL–40 in a Township Zone as protection from ember attack and "hot air"??? What was the government thinking when it accepted that bushfire attack level assessment or was it a case of "pay the piper and call the tune"?
Having regard to the reconstruction bushfire attack levels (BAL) recently imposed on the people of Wye River–Separation Creek, my opinion that the Victorian government and some councils only reinforce bushfire mythology is strengthened.
BAL–FZ and BAL–40 in a Township Zone??? What was the government thinking when it accepted that bushfire attack level assessment or was it a case of "pay the piper and call the tune"?
Why this was done needs consideration, including the adequacy of a risk assessment that should be the basis of the town protection plan, but first some facts about bushfire behaviour — if the community is to challenge government decisions they consider unfair, dictatorial or just require more explanation at least a basic knowledge of bushfire behaviour will help.
Knowledge of bushfire behaviour is also important in deciding whether to stay and defend a property or leave early and risk losing the family home or not being allowed back to deal with ember attack immediately after the fire has lost its intensity — see the pecuniary interest provision in Section 31(4) Country Fire Authority Act 1958.
Fire Triangle
When considering the threat of bushfire it is important to understand how fire occurs and spreads.
Of the three components required to have fire: fuel, oxygen and heat, in the bushfire environment the availability of fuel (vegetation) is the only component of the “triangle” that can be managed to inhibit the spread of fire and reduce its intensity.
I will refer to the availability of “bushfire fuel” as it will affect the threat to a building in the next posting.
Duration of the passage of the fire front – how bushfires spread
To introduce realism when considering the exposure of a building to bushfire it is important to be aware of how long the building will be exposed to an actual fire front.
Basically, bushfire spreads through an environment by flames at the fire front directly igniting fresh fuel (unburnt vegetation) in its path or in the case of a building, fracturing window glass thereby allowing the fire, usually in the form of sparks and embers, to enter the interior of the building, radiation from the fire front sufficiently high enough to ignite fresh fuel, including the exterior of vulnerable buildings due to a low flammability rating of the exposed materials.
The diagram below from Flame temperature and residence time of fires in dry eucalypt forest by B M Wotton, J S Gould, W L McCaw, N P Cheney and S W Taylor, 2011, International Journal of Wildland Fire that published a report on CSIRO Project Vesta, bushfire research in Western Australia that is relevant to Victorian conditions.
The trace in the diagram shows the very limited time that the fire peaks as it passes a given point. The time it takes for the temperature to fall behind the fire front depends on the amount of heavier fuel available to burn out.
Significant in assessing the bushfire threat to the dwelling it is important to understand that a fire only lasts as long as the fuel (vegetation) available to burn — grassland will burn out much faster than forest having a heavy understory of shrubs, ferns, grasses and fallen leaves and twigs.
Ignitability of the fuel is an issue; the fine fuel such as dead fallen leaves, twigs, dry grass and fine dead shrubbery close to the ground generally contribute to the passage of the fire front — the higher relative humidity (atmospheric moisture) and lower temperature that prevail over much of the summer months will inhibit the ignition of fine fuels and subsequent fire development by increasing its moisture content and raising the ignition temperature in a run to the building.
The heavier fuels such as sticks greater than six (6) mm in diameter, fallen branches, logs and hollow trees may be ignited by the fire front but don’t actually contribute to the fire front.
Again, the trace in the diagram above shows the very limited time that the fire peaks as it passes a given point. The time it takes for the temperature to fall behind the fire front depends on the amount of heavier fuel to burn out.
Effect of slope influencing fire intensity at the building site
Slope is a significant influence on fire behaviour. Simply, fire travels upslope faster than over flat ground. Conversely, a fire will be slowed as it traverses a lengthy downslope. The diagram below from Bushfires in Australia, Luke, R.H and McArthur, A.G 1978, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, illustrates the effect of slope on rate of spread of a fire.
Other contributors to bushfire behaviour
Sparks, Embers and Firebrands
The most significant method of fire spread is the ignition of fresh fuel ahead of the main front due to burning wind borne material — known as “spotting”, as in the lighting of “spot fires”. To be a threat, this burning material must be sufficiently light in weight to be carried by wind while continuing to flame or smoulder sufficiently long enough to ignite fresh fuel.
I categorise “spotting” as follows:
Embers
The transmission of light burning or smouldering material generally horizontally above ground out to a distance of 100 metres and usually in the form of burning dead eucalypt leaves and other material of a similar weight picked up off the ground, and possibly the larger forms of grass seed heads or burning stringybark from tree trunks.
Stringybark eucalypts (below), where the bark has not been given a recent “haircut” — singed by fire and leaving the bark tight against the trunk with little or no fine fibres available to be ignited — will shed sparks and embers as fire travels up the bark. In strong wind stringybarks can be a prolific source of embers over a relatively short distance until all the aerated bark has been consumed.
Firebrands
Spotting over greater distances commonly involves the bark from gum species eucalypts. Some of the gum species shed their bark in the form of long ribbons (below). Some of these ribbons hang over higher branches, are relatively light and will burn readily. As they are relatively light they are susceptible to being carried aloft in the convection column — updraft above the fire and remain alight in the column for some time before falling to the ground and starting new fires, sometimes several kilometres distant from the main fire.
In my next posting I will cover how fire entered Wye River–Separation Creek, building loss and the "adequacy" of the township bushfire protection plan.
Meanwhile the the Government ramps up its political damage control and the economic damage to the State continues — now an "expert panel" appointed, so who signed off on accepting the bushfire attack level (BAL) assessment the cause of much distress in the community? And, the economics of the Victorian government's current approach to bushfire management is an important subject in itself.
The failure of the bushfire management agencies to implement an aggressive attack to make safe a lightning strike that should have been a 'bread and butter' issue for DELWP cost and continues to cost Victorians dearly, and not only financially. And what was government's response? A naked attempt to cover up failure due to mismanagement that can easily be seen through.
A case of subterfuge?
Or is there more to it? Was the fire started by the lightning strike seen by the land manager as an opportunity to undertake some fuel reduction burning under the guise of work to make safe a going fire, but not really necessary if an aggressive and well-resourced attack had been mounted on the initially relatively small fire from its very beginning on 19 December?
A disturbing thought given the government bluster over the October 2015 breakaway from the Cobaw Ranges fuel reduction burning undertaken north of Lancefield.
At the time of the fire, fuel reduction burning planned by DELWP for the Otways between Lorne and Wye River–Separation Creek had not been undertaken and maybe the lightning strike fire was seen as an opportunity to sneak in some otherwise contentious fuel reduction burning. Is this what the Victorian government is trying to hide?
And what of their future as the Wye River–Separation Creek community face yet another hardship inflicted on them by the emergency management bureaucracy and the insurance industry?
Where will be next in Victoria to be abandoned to the ravages of bushfire under the 'leave and lose' policy: Lorne, Daylesford, Hepburn, Eltham North–Eltham–Research–North Warrandyte–Warandyte and further south as wind-driven embers from house-to-house spread a fire further south with no one at home to save their homes?
When I hear utterances from the Victorian emergency management bureaucracy about the need for "surge capacity", I think of the costly failure to recognise that a potentially enormous "surge capacity" exists in the form of citizens, who with some training, could safely defend their homes from ember attack that if left unattended grow to cause damage and loss as experienced at Wye River–Separation Creek, Vic. And no doubt the same can be said for Yarloop, WA, in the aftermath of the fire that devastated that community.
Unfortunately, in Victoria, and it seems in Western Australia, the bushfire emergency management authorities prefer to frighten people rather than properly resource and implement an ongoing community partnership-based prevention/mitigation approach to minimising bushfire loss, with emergency response one aspect of a balanced approach to loss prevention. Here, I find the following from Mr Lonergan's paper particularly appealing:
It would recommend to the Federal government what conditions should be placed on funding for the States and Territories for their bushfire administrations. It would achieve the application of Force to bring those administrations to heel.
Food for thought, are the public servants who head up our fire and emergency management agencies and those who are supposed to monitor performance suitably qualified and experienced for the positions they hold? Could they lead firefighters at the fire front to achieve the performance we their clients should be able to expect? If they can't then they should go.
Then there’s the Colac Otway Shire Council and the CFA Board when it comes to neglecting statutory fire prevention responsibilities that increased the threat faced by Wye River–Separation Creek.
More to address at CFA than just internal bullying. Will Minister Garrett be up to this on our behalf?
High time for change folks, and it won't come easily from the fire and emergency services industry or the politicians that industry has in tow.
Given the evidence of the result of the breakout that finding by the IGEM is nonsensical. I'm reminded of a saying associated with the American forces in the Vietnam conflict, “the village had to be destroyed to save it”.
In understanding what happened at Wye River–Separation Creek on Christmas Day, there are a number of issues needing consideration that extend much broader than the IGEM’s very limited coverage of his review. Raises an important question, how can we learn from the experience when Minister Garrett sent such a limited brief to the IGEM? Maybe the government knew from the outset that a full exposure could be very embarrassing and selfishly was more concerned to protect itself than allow all of us to learn from the experience.
And the government should be very embarrassed, as it failed the people of Wye River-Separation Creek and continues to fail Victorians in falling far short of efficient and effective bushfire management to minimise all forms of loss.
For a start, I’ve already learned from discussion with three Wye River property owners that certain insurers are imposing bushfire attack level assessments of BAL–40 within the township area. I’m certain of one of those assessments, due to a client of mine requesting that I challenge the insurer, in this case for a dwelling designed and constructed to BAL–29 on the high side of Karingal Drive, Wye River that is still there and virtually unaffected by the fire — despite the close-by adjoining dwelling burning to the ground.
Above is a BAL–29 dwelling on the uphill side of Karingal Drive that survived the fire due to the meticulous approach of the architect and builders in complying with the requirements of ASA 3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire–prone areas, and the diligence of the owner in maintaining the land around the dwelling according to a defendable space specification to support BAL–29.
The remains of the dwelling next door on the northern side that burned to the ground — note the unburnt tree canopies in the background.
A polyethylene water tank melted to the water line by the heat from the burning dwelling next door, but the building remained intact.
"Melted to the water line" is a significant observation of the performance of polyethylene water tanks that I'll expand on in a future posting, as the CFA's one-size-fits-all approach to the Bushfire Management Overlay excludes polyethylene water tanks, apparently with any consideration of how they actually perform in a bushfire situation. One example of unnecessary additional cost imposed on people already hard pressed with the cost of building a new home that deserves an individualised performance-based analysis of the actual bushfire threat.
If the council met its township protection responsibilities there should be no need for a bushfire attack level to exceed BAL–29 and probably be lower further inside the town boundary, where ignitions from ember attack will be the predominant cause of new outbreaks of fire. More about how fire entered Wye River–Separation Creek in a future posting.
Bushfire attack level assessments
Coming back to the bushfire attack assessment at BAL–40, and I'm aware of BAL–FZ assessments prior to the fire, and "windfall gains".
My earlier reference to a BAL–40 assessment on my client’s dwelling that survived the fire was done by a consultant based in Sydney who was commissioned by a building consultant based further north in NSW.
Examination of the photos with the assessment certificate suggests that the assessor did not visit the land, but relied on photographs taken from Karingal Drive and downhill from the land involved.
It is to be hoped that the Wye River–Separation Creek Resettlement Leadership Group is bringing some common sense and integrity to bushfire protection requirements for rebuilds and new dwellings, given earlier work commissioned by the Colac Otway Shire and funded by the Victorian government that "painted Wye River–Separation Creek residential areas red" in the draft report issued in February 2014. Fond hope?
Financial gain
It can be argued that the Colac Otway Shire Council failing to meet its township bushfire protection responsibilities substantially led to the fire entering and spreading within Wye River-Separation Creek and the resulting loss of homes and other assets.
Who benefits from the loss, the Victorian government through an increase in the fire services levy and the Colac Otway Shire Council through an increase in council rates, both based on an increase in the “capital improved value" (CIV) of the land?
Then there will be the architects, builders and building materials suppliers. Maybe there will be others in on the potential for gain not mentioned here.
Examination of the Fire Services Levy document reveals how the levy is calculated and what the levy funds. By now people reading my blog postings should be aware of my strong advocacy for a proper risk assessment based PPRR approach to minimising loss due to bushfire.
Concerning the levy, questions needs to be asked, are we receiving full value for the impost or is it being squandered by the government? The Fire Services Levy affects all Victorians and any increase will further hurt those citizens already experiencing financial hardship.
I wonder if the bureaucrats responsible for the Wye River–Separation Creek debacle have performance bonuses in their contracts and if so how performance is measured.
Opinion on how the fire actually entered and spread within Wye River–Separation Creek is the subject of future post. This knowledge is important in determining the bushfire attack levels for replacement or new buildings, rather than someone "counting trees".
Impact on citizens
What will be the increased costs and other hardships faced by citizens wanting to live in Wye River–Separation Creek, some of whom had retired there and lost their homes in the fire? Will they have the wherewith all to reestablish or will they be forced out?
While the government boasts that no lives were lost, the loss of 116 homes and other assets is inexcusable and an appalling failure of bushfire management in Victoria.
