This presentation from Dan Pederson discusses how there is scope to use fire to assist rehabilitation on mine sites, however, there are significant constraints to using fire as a management tool on mine sites in NSW. Through identifying the constraints, the industry could target solutions and gain confidence in this important land management activity (i.e. risk management and fire control capacity building). Presentation from Nature Conservation Council of NSW 2015 Bushfire Conference - Fire and Restoration: working with fire for healthy lands.

1. Constraints to using fire as a land
management tool
Dan Pedersen
Kleinfelder
Bushfire Planning and Design/Ecologist
NCC's 10th Biennial Bushfire Conference
Fire and Restoration – working with fire for healthy lands
Surrey Hills, NSW
27th May 2015

3. Why does fire interest me as a land
management tool?
• Background in farming, which is essentially land management
• Manage land health to increase productivity and resilience
• Fire for farmland restoration was common, burn off old grasslands
for sheep ‘green pick’, weed and soil management
• Farmers demonstrated confidence with burn practices
• Timing is critical (cool season)
• Limited individual resources but greater community resources
• Community acceptance, burn off is common practice
• Can I use this in my current interests?

4. Fire in the Australian Landscape
• The Australian landscape and biodiversity has been shaped by fire
• WILDFIRE - >50,000 yrs ago (e.g. 250,000 yrs): cooling, drying and
no doubt broad scale wildfire, shaping vegetation, biodiversity,
landscapes. Likely ancient fire paths in landscape patterns
• CONTROLLED FIRE - 40,000 yrs – influencing ancient fire paths
and shaping vegetation structure, species biodiversity
• CONTROLLED FIRE – Western/European land management
<200yrs – influencing previous controlled fire landscape, shaping
vegetation structure and biodiversity
• Landscape scale fire management affects vegetation structure
and biodiversity, land productivity and soil health

5. Fire in the landscape - time
Ancient fire cycles
Aboriginal fire
management
Western/European fire
management

6. Risk Management
• In 2015 bush fire is perceived as RISK (justifiably)
• Climate change - global warming and greenhouse effect are
bringing unknown, unpredictable changes in the fire behaviour
• Bushfire is a natural disaster and considered a key factor in
emergency management (wildfire = loss of life and assets)
• The lack of understanding of fire behaviour and the perception of
risk has reduced the use of fire as a land management tool in a fire
dependent landscape
• Risk is quantifiable and manageable
• What is at risk from bushfire?
• What are some key constraints to land managers using fire?
• What are practical land management solutions??

7. Scope of Study
• My role in mine rehabilitation and monitoring, natural resource
management, and Bushfire Planning and Design = exposure to
broad range of land managers
• Land management influence and exposure = interest in identifying
use for fire as land management and land restoration tool
• Interview a selection of land managers to look at common
understanding, constraints and possible solutions to use fire in
landscape

8. Scope of Study
• Land Rehabilitation
• Mining rehabilitation, often broad rehab of open cut
• Gas/oil drilling and well pad rehabilitation, many small (1ha) areas
• Linear easement (for gas, water, transport services).
• Land Restoration
• Councils have large land portfolios that need fuel load and weed management
• Biodiversity offsetting (through Biobanking NSW), EPBC requirement to offset
development when natural landscapes are disturbed
• Residual land acquired through mine leases by mining companies
• Defence Forces (ADF) large land portfolio

9. Rehabilitation
• Landscape functionality
• Safe, stable, self sustaining and equivalent productivity
• Functional ecosystems (grazing, native vegetation, fauna habitat)
• Resilient ecosystems to natural disaster
• Expectations from regulator
• Consent conditions (Safe, stable, self sustaining and equivalent productivity)
• Release criteria (e.g. for mine closure)
• Demonstrated long term functionality and resilience?
• Expectations from community
• Environmentally Sustainable Development
• Land use post mining
• Aesthetic values

10. Impact of Woody Debris in Rehabilitation
• Woody debris has demonstrated improved fauna
recolonisation.
• Woody debris is an asset on rehabilitation.
• Woody debris and woody vegetation should be
protected from high intensity fire…perhaps by
using controlled cool fire.

11. Monitoring of Rehabilitation
• Woody Debris had a positive impact on invertebrates
abundance and diversity
• Invertebrate abundance and species richness in
rehabilitation is comparable to control sites
• Invertebrate monitoring is potentially a measure of
rehabilitation resilience, including fire

12. Rehabilitation as Biodiversity Offsets
• Recent advances in NSW biodiversity offsetting
has included accepting mining rehabilitation as a
part of the biodiversity offset portfolio
• This places significantly higher expectations on
rehabilitation expectation parameters
• Resilience to fire and vegetation/fauna response
should be quantified

13. Land Restoration
• Restoration is improving the environmental outcomes of landscapes
• Maintain or improve principal associated with biodiversity offsetting
• Habitat management for flora and fauna (perpetuity)
• Biodiversity offsetting includes identification of appropriate fire
regimes
• Mine leases include large areas of residual lands, often disturbed
land-use, that have capacity to be included as offsets for mining
• Restoration when grazing pressures are removed.
• In NSW there is >60,000 ha of land either retired for biodiversity
offsetting, or currently available for offsets
• Councils have inherent land that needs maintenance or restoration

14. Biodiversity Offsets and Burn Planning
Under the NSW Biobanking Methodology and assessment process,
land managers must burn areas of bushland to maintain ecological
processes
Bushfire thresholds and burn plans are prepared for offset areas as
part of the approval process
The estimated cost for conducting an ecological burn is included as
long-term costing and retained within the Biodiversity Trust Funds
The first BB offset was established in 2006
Many more offsets have and continue to be approved
The requirement to burn large areas of bushland for ecological
processes is increasing annually
Within the next 10 years, thousands of hectares will need to be burnt
under this requirement

15. NSW Biodiversity Strategy Fire Management Guidelines

16. Land Managers Understand Benefits
• Rehabilitation security bond, Mine leases and land taxes cost mines
annually.
• Releasing land holding such as biodiversity offsets and rehabilitation
have financial incentives.
• Council rates.
• Land tax, Annual rent and administration
• Security deposit for rehabilitation
• Annual and ongoing land management costs (weed, pest control)
• Protecting community:
• Broad scale fuel reduction reducing risk of wildfire across landscape
• Mosaic burns affect wildfire continuity, provides for fire control advantages
• Protecting infrastructure assets
• Managing land in proximity to at risk assets by reducing fuel loads

17. Land Managers Understand Benefits
• Protecting natural assets:
• Threatened species habitat management
• Vegetation community and vegetation structure management
• Providing diversity of habitat (mosaic burning)
• Method for gaining control of weeds, pest and disease management
• Soil chemical, physical and biological management through
controlled burning
• Nutrient cycling (nutrients made available rapidly)
• Nitrogen and phosphorous availability (to manage post fire)
• Biological properties (soil microbiology)
• Retain (sequester) carbon
• Impacts water infiltration (manage erosion post fire)

18. When An Opportunity Arises
Annual monitoring of Sand Mine
rehabilitation (Wallum Heath) in
Port Stephens
Fire prone vegetation, 7-10yr fire
cycle
Rehabilitation targeting fire
resistant species (re-sprouters;
obligate seeders)
March 2015, fire impacts the 5-6yr
old rehabilitation area, including a
permanent monitoring plot
Land manager recognises
opportunity to study resilience for
purpose of demonstrating land
resilience

19. Land Managers Constraints
• $$ Cost. Cost of planning, designing, conducting a burn and monitoring
• Rural fire services often used to reduce cost and good for public perception = feasible but what about
Capacity??
• $$ Cost of additional monitoring to ascertain resilience (where is the financial return?)
• Capacity. Fire suppression - vehicles and plant, experienced staff or suitably qualified
contractors,
• The need to burn on prime days (e.g. 30 days / yr) does not coincide with available staffing capacity
• Capacity for RFS to prepare burn plans limited
Element of risk management
• Risk of burning = losing control and direct litigation for asset loss (is this manageable??)
• Risk of not burning = fuelling (or not providing control mechanisms) a landscape wildfire
• Public perception
• Divided public opinion to ecological and risk management

20. Land Managers Constraints
• Not a formal requirement to burn rehabilitation or residual lands under conditions of
consent (generally)
• If not a requirement, then why add extra costs to management?
• Cooperation when Rural Fires Authority requests burn for hazard reduction.
• No current recognition of land restoration values (quantified land functionality)
• No current demonstration that financing an ecological burn program will assist in mine closure procedures
• Coal Mine rehabilitation can have carbonaceous (combustible) foundations
• From coal production byproducts (coal rejects and accumulated coal fines, capped tailings dams etc).
• These have potential to ignite/combust as result of heat transition on surface
• This would be difficult and costly to manage
• Raises question, does this require wildfire risk mitigation??

21. Land Managers Solutions
• Design a methodology or identify an existing methodology to quantify fire resilience in
rehabilitation areas
• Biobanking calculator modification to quantify value of demonstrated fire resilience
• Use existing Carbon sequestration monitoring models to quantify C and N sequestration
• Regulators demonstrate acceptance of fire resilience quantification
• Land managers will use fire management for land restoration on rehab if they can identify financial
incentives through secure mine closure recognition
• Reward system for demonstration of:
• Wider community wildfire protection (community approval)
• Effective ecological and risk management burn plans (reduce financial impact on business)
• Green house gas abatement, carbon sequestration (Carbon/green house gas credits)
• Academia is useful, but practical (broad scale) land management benefit
demonstration is required
• Increase the fire management (fire control) capacity specific for broader scale mosaic
burning
• Potential for developing a new industry for land management and natural resource management