Analysis of Disturbance by Fire On Public Land in Victoria

ANALYSIS OF DISTURBANCE BY FIRE
ON PUBLIC LAND IN VICTORIA
This report was commissioned

by the
Fire Ecology Working Group,
Department of Natural Resources & Environment and Parks Victoria.
March 2002
Published by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Level 6, 240 Victoria Parade

P.O. Box 500
East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australia
© The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 2002.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for private study, research,
criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this
publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior
permission of the copyright owner.
http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/fires
ISBN: 1 74106 050 8
Note: 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 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.
II
FOREWORD
In 1998 those responsible for the management of Victoria’s parks and forests embarked on a program that
was designed to improve the understanding, by key land management agency personnel, of the role fire
plays in the maintenance of biodiversity.
That program, which was largely without precedent in Australia, involved a range of related initiatives.
Included among them was the need to develop relevant, meaningful and accessible databases that could
be used by park and forest managers to better inform their day to day land management activities.
The general approach being adopted in Victoria has been set out in several publications including the May
1999 Management of Fire for the Conservation for Biodiversity – Workshop Proceedings and in the
September 1999 Interim Guidelines for Ecological Burning on Public Land in Victoria. Presentations have
also been made at several national and international conferences. Feedback from individuals and agencies
outside Victoria continues to be welcomed in relation to the approach being adopted.
Last year, as part of a related project that was aimed at assisting with the setting of Statewide priorities for
the use of prescribed fire for ecological purposes, an analysis of disturbance by fire on public land in
Victoria was undertaken.
The study, which used the ‘fire history’ database developed over recent years in Victoria (and which was
enhanced considerably during the ‘Regional Forest Agreement’ process) analysed fire disturbance across
the public land estate at two scales:
• The Statewide scale using ‘Ecological Vegetation Classes’ (EVCs) which were subdivided according to
public land tenure; and
• The bioregional scale using Victorian Bioregions, as described in the Victorian Biodiversity Strategy
(NRE 1997a and b).
The study also compiles spatial information on time since fire from EVC and fire history data, lists critical
information on 'vital attributes' of 'key fire response' plant species across EVCs, and develops spreadsheets
for calculating actual and ‘ideal’ age class distribution graphs. Finally, the study examines priorities for the
use of prescribed fire at the EVC Group and bioregional levels across the State.
The study contains a wealth of detail that will require careful consideration by the managers of the State’s
parks and forests, and by the ‘Fire Ecology’ Working Group and the associated Regional Reference
Groups.
Clearly, the quality of the data that informed the study is of critical importance and we recommend that the
data be re-evaluated in two years time, in conjunction with a review of the situation in individual parks and
forests following subsequent wildfires and the continued use by managers of prescribed fire.
Finally we would like to thank Mike Wouters (now with Parks Victoria at Mildura), the principal author of this
most valuable study, and Drs Kevin Tolhurst (from Melbourne University/NRE’s ‘Forest Science Centre’),
Sally Troy (Parks Victoria) and Gordon Friend (NRE, Parks Flora and Fauna Division) who assisted with
project design and with later versions of the report.
Ian Christie Ian Miles

General Manager Director
National Parks Policy and Strategy Forest Management Branch
Parks Victoria Natural Resources and Environment
Rod Gowans Gary Morgan

Director Chief Fire Officer
Parks, Flora and Fauna Natural Resources and Environment
Natural Resources and Environment
Members: Fire Ecology Steering Committee
III
CONTENTS
FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................................III
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... VI
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1
Management Context..................................................................................................................................1
New Approaches.........................................................................................................................................1
Vital Attributes and Key Fire Response Species ............................................................................................1
Age-class Distribution Analysis ...............................................................................................................2
The ‘Interim Guidelines’ Approach..............................................................................................................3
Objectives of this Report.............................................................................................................................3
METHODS......................................................................................................................................................4
Scale ...........................................................................................................................................................4
Statewide ................................................................................................................................................4
Bioregions ...............................................................................................................................................4
Data Sources and Analysis Methods ..........................................................................................................5
Vital Attributes .........................................................................................................................................5
Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................................5
Disturbance .............................................................................................................................................7
Benchmarks ............................................................................................................................................7
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................9
Fire Cycles ..................................................................................................................................................9
Statewide Scale ..........................................................................................................................................9
Bioregions .................................................................................................................................................13
Little Desert ...........................................................................................................................................13
DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................................14
Data and Analysis Limitations...................................................................................................................14
EVC-species data .................................................................................................................................14
Vital Attributes .......................................................................................................................................14
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................14
Disturbance types .................................................................................................................................15
Data Durability and Access.......................................................................................................................15
Fire and Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................15
Setting Priorities........................................................................................................................................16
Departure from the ‘Ideal’......................................................................................................................16
More Effective Planning ........................................................................................................................16
Priorities ....................................................................................................................................................17
Further Research ......................................................................................................................................19
CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................................20
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................21
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................22
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................................24
IV
Tables and Figures
Table 1 State Priorities for Addressing Fire Regime – All Public Land.................................................. VII
Table 2 State Priorities for Addressing Fire Regime – By tenure ......................................................... VIII
Figure 1 Example of Benchmark ...............................................................................................................8
Table 3 Fire Cycles by EVCGroup ...........................................................................................................9
Table 4 Conformity with ‘Ideal’ Age Class Distribution for Bioregion by EVCGroup ..............................10
Table 5 Conformity with ‘Ideal’ Age Class Distribution for State by Land Tenure ..................................12
Table 6 Conformity with ‘Ideal’ Age Class Distribution for Little Desert..................................................13
Table 7 Priority Bioregions and EVCGroups for vital attribute data collection .......................................14
Table 8 EVCGroup ‘Urgency’ (based on Fire Cycle)..............................................................................17
Table 9 State Priority for Addressing Fire Regime – All Public Land .....................................................18
Table 10 State Priority for Addressing Fire Regime – Protected Area .....................................................18
Table 11 State Priority for Addressing Fire Regime – State forest ...........................................................19
Table A1. Methods of persistence through a disturbance ......................................................................25

Table A2. Suitable conditions for establishment ....................................................................................25
Table A3. Longevity values for critical life stages (years) ......................................................................25
Maps (Maps 2–5 located in back pocket)

Map 1 Extent of EVC mapping on Public Land in Victoria (as at September 2001)...................................6
Map 2 Statewide Priority
Map 3 Priority for Protected Areas
Map 4 Priority for State Forests
Map 5 Priority by Bioregion
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In Victoria, the State Government agencies responsible for the management of fire - both wildfire and the
use of prescribed fire - on all public land (the Department of Natural Resources and Environment1 and
Parks Victoria) have long recognised the need for a holistic and scientifically-based approach to the
management of fire. Such an approach needs to embrace using fire both for the protection of human life
and property through reduction of wildfire hazard, and as a tool for managing ecosystems to maintain
biodiversity. The past decade has seen significant advances in our understanding of the role of fire in the
Australian environment. It has also seen the development of processes and data to enable fire to be used
for the ecologically sustainable management of ecosystems. A key outcome has been the recognition that
fire is inextricably linked to the structure, function and sustainability of Victoria’s (and Australia’s)
ecosystems and if used inappropriately, will lead to their irreversible change or collapse.
In 1998 this realisation led to the formation of a series of cross-business/ cross-tenure committees across
NRE and Parks Victoria to address the management of fire for the conservation of biodiversity. A major
outcome has been the development of a sound scientific basis on which to set clear and relatively simple
ecological objectives and to develop ecologically sound fire regimes which could be monitored for their
achievements of the desired outcomes. The process has been documented in the Interim Guidelines and
Procedures for Ecological Burning on Public Land in Victoria (Fire Ecology Working Group 1999).
The key principle of the Interim Guidelines approach is that of using the life history characteristics (vital
attributes) of constituent flora and fauna species to determine appropriate, ecologically-based fire regimes
for an area. The approach is based upon the use of fire history records to determine the known age-class
distribution of a particular vegetation type in an area. This distribution is then compared to an ‘idealised’
age-class distribution, developed from a synthesis of the vital attributes information of the key fire response
species in the area together with determination of ecologically tolerable fire intervals (the upper and lower
limits) and a fire cycle. Age classes which are over or under-represented compared with the ideal are thus
highlighted for management (prescribed burning or fire exclusion, as appropriate). Through this process
recommended ecologically-based fire regimes can be developed for key vegetation types. This approach
can be used for any area of land, at any scale, for which it is possible or meaningful to determine fire
requirements and thereby set priorities for management.
The setting of strategic priorities for ecological burning across public land in Victoria was soon recognised
as a key issue to address in furthering this approach. The project reported here aims to identify and
prioritise areas across the state where fire needs to be either introduced or excluded in order to achieve
ecological sustainability or desired ecological outcomes. It achieves this through the use of the above
Interim Guidelines approach to compare ‘idealised’ age class distributions with known age class
distributions (derived from fire history data) for major vegetation types throughout Victoria and thus
determine those areas which are most at variance and in need of active management.
The study analyses the pattern of fire disturbance across the landscape at two scales:
• the Statewide scale (i.e. Victoria-wide) using Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) or groups of like EVCs
(EVCGroup) data which was subdivided according to public land tenure as either Protected Area
Estate, State forest or Other Public Land;
• the bioregional scale using Victorian Bioregions described in the Victorian Biodiversity Strategy (NRE
1997a and b).
1
Hereafter refered to as NRE
VI
The study also compiles critical information on vital attributes of plant species across EVCs, lists of key fire
response species, spatial information on time-since-fire from EVC and fire history data and develops
spreadsheets for calculating actual and “ideal” age class distribution graphs. In order to examine priorities
the study set a benchmark for the degree of acceptable variance from the idealised age class distribution
for vegetation types across EVCs and bioregions as: at least half of the existing age classes are within
50% of the ‘ideal’ for that EVC/EVCGroup in the area or bioregion of interest. This benchmark is a
relatively coarse one, which is designed to identify those vegetation types that are most divergent from their
‘ideal’ state.
Results from this analysis indicate that at a Statewide scale, there is one EVCGroup which satisfies the
benchmark. Analysis by land tenure shows that there is also only one EVCGroup which satisfies the
benchmark across Protected Areas, and none across State forest and other public land. There are
however, a number of EVCGroups which have 40% of their age classes within 50% of their ‘ideal’: viz. Dry
Foothill Forests, Dry Heathy Woodlands and Forest, Herb-rich Woodlands, and Lowland Forests for State
forest; Heathlands and Wet/Damp Heathy Woodland and Forest for Protected Areas (i.e. these vegetation
types are least divergent from their ‘ideal’ state). These same EVCGroups also generally have the highest
and most consistent proportions of their age classes within 50% of the ideal across all categories of land
tenure.
At a bioregional scale, no bioregion satisfied the benchmark for all vegetation types and only four
bioregions (East Gippsland Lowlands, Glenelg Plain and Greater Grampians and Northern Inland Slopes)
out of the total of 22 analysed contain individual EVCGroups which satisfy the benchmark. The EVCGroups
meeting this benchmark are Heathlands in the Glenelg Plain and Grampians, Riparian Scrubs, Forests and
Rainforests in the East Gippsland Lowlands, Dry Heathy Woodlands and Forest in the Northern Inland
Slopes, and Wetlands in the Grampians.
From this analysis, the following priorities have been developed for ecological burning at the EVCGroup
and bioregional levels across the State (Tables 1 and 2). These priorities are based on broad criteria and
need to be overlayed with rarity/significance and other disturbance histories (principally logging) to allow
priorities to be determined with more confidence.
Table 1 State Priorities for Addressing Fire Regime – All Public Land (EVCGroups in Cat 1)
Mallee
Moist Foothill Forests
Heathlands
Box Ironbark Forest & Woodland
Moist Montane Forests
Herb-rich Woodlands
Coastal Grassy Woodlands
Wet/Damp Heathy Woodland & Forest
Less Urgent
Dry Heathy Woodland & Forest
VII
Table 2 State Priorities for Addressing Fire Regime – By tenure (EVCGroups in Cat 1)
Protected Areas State forests

Mallee Mallee
Heathlands Moist Foothill Forests
Sub-alpine Woodlands & Shrublands Box Ironbark Forest & Woodland
Moist Foothill Forests Moist Montane Forests
Lowland Forests Heathlands
Plains Grassy Woodlands & Forests Wet/Damp Heathy Woodland & Forest
Box Ironbark Forest & Woodland Herb-rich Woodlands
Coastal Grassy Woodlands
Herb-rich Woodlands
Wet/Damp Heathy Woodland & Forest
Less Urgent
Riparian Scrubs, Forests & Rainforests Wetlands
Dry Heathy Woodland & Forest Dry Heathy Woodland & Forest
Inappropriate fire regimes (and in particular too-frequent fire) is commonly regarded as a significant threat
to biodiversity in Victoria and indeed, high frequency fire has recently been nominated as a threatening
process under the Flora and Flora Guarantee Act (1988). The results from this analysis indicate, however,
that over-burning is not occurring at either a Statewide or at any bioregional scale. These results suggest
that the threat which fire frequency poses to species composition and community conservation in Victoria is
in fact from under-exposure to fire; i.e. fire frequency is too low across the landscape.
Neither frequent fire nor the absence of fire are desirable; rather a diversity of fire regimes (of varying
intensities, scales, seasons and fire intervals) is needed to maintain the biodiversity of these communities.
The continued survival of these vegetation communities on a broad scale will rely on the active
management of fire across the landscape. While at a single location fire may occur in a vegetation type too
frequently, the overwhelming proportion of EVC Groups with age class distributions far from their 'ideal’
clearly indicates that there is a need to promote and target the active use of fire as a tool for ecological
management on public land in Victoria.
Research
Further research and monitoring needs have also been identified as part of this analysis. The implementation
of improved ecological management of fire will be greatly enhanced by attention to the following areas:
• collection of additional vital attribute data.
• incorporation of EVC significance/rating with the priorities determined here.
• creation of a more comprehensive ‘disturbance’ layer, that includes timber harvesting.
• development of comprehensive and character species lists for all EVCs.
• further consideration of the stochastic nature of wildfire spread on the theoretical age-class distribution
curves.
VIII
Analysis of Disturbance by Fire on Public Land in Victoria 1
INTRODUCTION
Management Context
It is now widely recognised that fire is an integral part of the Australian environment and has operated over
geological time scales to profoundly influence the richness, composition and distribution of Australian
ecosystems. A substantial proportion of Australia’s unique biota has evolved in this fire-prone environment
and is therefore adapted to and largely dependent on fire and the attendant variety of fire regimes for its
continued existence and development. Indeed, fire is one of the oldest and most accessible tools in land
management, but is also one of the most complex. It presents ongoing management challenges to humans
to protect life and property from the threat of wildfire yet at the same time maintain ecosystem function and
biodiversity.
This management complexity is reflected in two main ways. Firstly, if fire is to be controlled on the one hand
and used to meet natural resource management objectives on the other, it needs to be approached and
understood within both an asset protection and an ecological framework. These frameworks are based on
different objectives, but are not mutually exclusive since all fires have an ecological dimension, while many
“ecological burns” may also contribute to asset protection. Both frameworks also rely on prescribed burning,
where fire is applied under specified environmental conditions to a predetermined area and at the time,
intensity of heat and rate of spread required to attain planned resource management objectives.
The second element of complexity is reflected in the serious dichotomy in our knowledge base: we have
quite reasonable levels of understanding of the principles of fire physics, wildfire suppression and
prescribed burning technology on the one hand, but relatively poor comprehension of the impacts of fire and
its role in ecosystem management on the other. In particular, until recently, we had no scientific basis on
which to set clear and relatively simple ecological objectives and to develop ecologically sound fire regimes
which could be monitored for their achievements of the desired outcomes. This conundrum, combined with
most people’s perceptions of fire as a threat, led to a marked imbalance in the use of fire as a management
tool, whereby it was used primarily to control fuel levels and protect life and property from wildfire. Little, if
any burning was therefore carried out specifically to achieve ecological benefits.
New Approaches
These serious shortcomings in the development, planning and application of fire for ecological purposes
have been largely overcome through the development of a new scientific framework to underpin this work.
This new approach combines the use of (a) the life history characteristics (or vital attributes, Noble and
Slatyer, 1980) of the key fire response species of plants to determine the maximum and minimum time
between fires (the fire interval or interfire period) needed to maintain all species in one or more vegetation
community(s), and (b) the analysis of the age-class and spatial distribution of these communities (Van
Wagner, 1978) in the landscape to identify areas which need to either be protected from fire or exposed to
fire. The underlying premise of this approach is that all species within a community should be maintained in
viable populations and this can only be achieved through the prescribed use of fire (including fire exclusion)
for ecological purposes. A more detailed discussion of the rationale behind this approach can be found in
Tolhurst and Friend (2001).
Vital Attributes and Key Fire Response Species

The vital attributes of a plant species are the characteristics of that plant which affect: 1) the method of
persistence on a site after fire, 2) the environmental conditions required for re-establishment, and 3) the
longevity of the juvenile, mature and dormant propagule store if present following disturbance (Noble and
Slatyer 1981). The vital attributes of the individual species within a particular community can be used to
deduce the past (fire) disturbance regime of the area, since the composition of the current plant community
on a site reflects the sum of the past biological and physical factors affecting it. If a species requires a
particular disturbance regime to maintain its presence, then it is argued that such a regime must have
existed in the past for it to be present in the community today.
2 Analysis of Disturbance by Fire on Public Land in Victoria
Key fire response species are those whose vital attributes indicate that they are most likely to be affected
(eliminated) by very frequent and very infrequent fires and will determine the maximum and minimum
tolerable fire intervals (TFI) and the fire cycle for a community. The shortest tolerable fire interval is set by
the species which takes the longest time to reach maturity. The longest tolerable fire interval is set by the
species with the shortest time to local extinction. The key fire response species form the basis for
developing management strategies and for on-going monitoring.
The fire cycle is the period of time over which an area equivalent to the total area of a community is burnt
and is calculated as the point approximately mid-way between the maximum and minimum tolerable fire
interval. It is not the period of time each segment of the community will be burnt. This concept allows some
communities (or segments of communities) to remain unburnt for very long periods of time, while others
may be burnt several times in the same period, but the community composition overall will be maintained
and structural diversity will be maximised.
Thus armed with the vital attributes of the key fire response plant species present in a plant community and
the determination of the tolerable fire intervals, the approach can then be used to predict the succession of
floristic changes in that community when subject to recurrent disturbance (Noble and Slatyer 1980, 1981)
and determine the historical disturbance regimes that would have occurred at a site to allow the range of
species currently present to persist. The vital attributes method thus has both descriptive and quantitative
(temporal) elements about the plants themselves which provide information about the community and site.
The classification of vital attributes is given in Appendix A.
The pilot study completed for Mallee-Heaths in western Victoria (Wouters 2000, 2001) gives an example
2
of the approach. Banksia ornata (Desert Banksia) is a dominant and keystone shrub in the semi-arid
heathlands of western Victoria. B. ornata only regenerates on recently disturbed sites, with fire (and
possibly frost) being the most widespread disturbance in its environment. B. ornata regenerates only by
seed held in the serotinous cones on the shrub and those cones only open following death of the branch
or plant and with heating from fire (Gill and McMahon 1986). It takes about 4-5 years for a shrub to first
flower and produce seed and 8 years has been recommended as a minimum fire free period for plants to
produced significant seed quantities (Gill and McMahon 1986). Shrubs have a maximum longevity of
about 50 to 60 years and seed does not persist in the soil (Cheal et al 1979; Specht 1981; Gill and
McMahon 1986). Hence for these heathlands to exist, fires should not be any more frequent than every
8 years and should be no less frequent than every 60 years. In this simple example, we have deduced
that for B. ornata to be present in this heathland, fire intervals must have been between 8 and 60 years
in the past and so we have a guide as to how frequent fires need to be in the future.
Age-class Distribution Analysis

Spatial age-class distribution analysis was first attempted for a large area by Heinselman (1973). Van
Wagner (1978) advanced this approach by demonstrating how to determine the statistical distributions of
fire history and Reed (1994) formalised this approach by using statistical methods. Johnson and Gutsell
(1994) present an extensive review and discussion of the method. McCarthy et al (1999) and the three pilot
ecological burning case studies developed for Victoria (McCarthy 2000, Tolhurst 2000 and Wouters 2000)
appear to be the only published Australian examples of the approach, although other states (eg, WA, SA
and Queensland) are now also beginning to use these methods.
The approach considers the landscape as being divided into a large number of small patches. The
probability of a patch burning in any one year may be uniform or may be dependent on the time since the
last fire, but if fires are allowed to occur randomly across the landscape, then all of the mathematical
models indicate that the resultant age-class distribution over a long period of time will approximately follow
a negative exponential distribution (Johnson and Van Wagner 1985). This distribution occurs irrespective of
variance in flammability (or hazard of ignition) with time and characteristically trends from relatively high
proportions of young age-classes to relatively small areas of very old age-classes over time. Given the
2
A ‘keystone’ species is a species which has impacts on other species or upon which other species are dependent (often to a
degree far beyond what might have been expected considering their biomass or abundance) (Simberloff 1997).
urgent need to progress the use of fire for ecological management in Victoria, the negative exponential age-
class model has been adopted as a model for vegetation community management in Victoria, until further
research offers a more sound and practical alternative model (Fire Ecology Working Group 1999).
The ‘Interim Guidelines’ Approach

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) and Parks Victoria (PV) are the primary
managers of public land in Victoria and have a responsibility to manage fire to protect and conserve
biodiversity. Using the scientific framework above for determining how often and where to burn for
ecological management purposes, NRE and PV developed the Interim Guidelines and Procedures for
Ecological Burning on Public Land in Victoria3 (Fire Ecology Working Group 1999). This document sets out
the legislation, policies and key principles relevant to ecological burning and provides a framework outlining
the information, standards, planning procedures and responsibilities involved in conducting such burns.
The combined approach advocated in the ‘Interim Guidelines’, works by using fire history records to
determine the known age-class distribution of a particular vegetation type in an area, generally using
Geographical Information Systems (GIS). This distribution is then compared to an ‘idealised’ age class
distribution, developed from a determination of tolerable fire intervals and a fire cycle using the vital
attributes information of the key fire response species in the communities occurring in the area of concern.
Through this process recommended ecologically-based fire regimes can be developed for key vegetation
types. Age classes which are over-represented compared with the ideal are thus highlighted and may be
targeted for prescribed burning and considered when developing fire suppression strategies. Similarly, age
classes which are under-represented compared with the ideal are highlighted and may be considered for
exclusion from prescribed burning and consideration given to protection when developing fire suppression
strategies. This approach can be used for any area of land, at any scale, for which it is possible or
meaningful to determine fire requirements.
Objectives of this Report

This project aims to identify and prioritise areas across the State where fire needs to be either introduced or
excluded in order to achieve ecological sustainability or desired ecological outcomes. It achieves this
through the use of the above Interim Guidelines approach to compare ‘idealised’ age class distributions with
known age class distributions (derived from fire history data) for major vegetation types throughout Victoria
and thus determine those areas which are most at variance and in need of active management. This is a
necessary first step to assist NRE and Parks Victoria to develop an integrated and strategic approach to
determining their priorities for the ecological management of fire across the landscape.
3
referred to in this Report as the ‘Interim Guidelines’
METHODS
Scale
This study analyses the pattern of fire disturbance across the landscape at two scales: 1) the Statewide
scale (i.e. Victoria-wide) and 2) the Bioregional scale.
Statewide
At the Statewide scale, as well as analysis for the whole public land complex for the State, analysis
separated the vegetation – fire age distributions into land tenure to provide more specific information for
priority setting to the public land managers in Victoria (principally NRE Forest Management and Parks
4
Victoria). Land tenures were derived from the PLMMT100 layer and have been grouped into three classes:
• Protected Area Estate (National and State Parks, Wilderness areas, Other Conservation Reserves and
Reference Areas). These areas are in general managed by Parks Victoria (although some Reference
Areas in State forest are managed by NRE Forest Management).
• State forest (Reserved Forest, Uncommitted Crown Land) which are generally managed by NRE Forest
Management.
• Other Public Land (Regional Parks, Coastal Reserves, Historic Areas, Education Areas and Water
Production areas). These areas generally do not have biodiversity conservation as their primary
management objective and some are managed by agencies other than NRE Forest Management or
Parks Victoria.
Lands in the ‘Other Public Land’ category have been included in this analysis because they do contribute
significantly to biodiversity conservation, despite their lack of reservation/management objectives for this
purpose.
Bioregions
Patterns of fire disturbance were also investigated for each of the bioregions across Victoria.
Biogeographical regions (or bioregions) capture the patterns of ecological characteristics in the landscape,
providing a natural framework for recognising and managing biodiversity values. The bioregions used in this
analysis are the Victorian Bioregions described in the Victorian Biodiversity Strategy (NRE 1997a and b).
The Victorian Bioregions are based on the Commonwealth Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for
Australia (IBRA; Thackway and Cresswell, 1995). The eleven IBRA Bioregions which occur in Victoria have
5
been further refined to delineate 21 bioregions better suited to working at a Victorian State scale.
For each Victorian Bioregion (defined spatially in the VBIOREG250 layer), the fire disturbance patterns
have been analysed for each of the same vegetation types as in the Statewide analysis. Land tenure data
have been included in the spreadsheet built to conduct the bioregional analysis, but are not presented in
this report due to their complexity.
4
All geospatial data used in this report were sourced from the NRE Corporate Geographic Data Library (CGDL).
5
In this study 22 Bioregions are used; the Strezlecki Ranges in south Gippsland are separated from the Highlands Southern
Fall Bioregion because their disturbance history appeared to be different to that of the main Victorian Highlands.
Data Sources and Analysis Methods

Vital Attributes
Vital attribute data (Noble and Slatyer 1980) for all species occurring in Victoria were sought from a number
of sources including:
• Records from NRE's Fire Research Group Vital Attribute database (source: Tolhurst and Oswin 1992,
McCarthy and Tolhurst 1997, and Tolhust 1998);
• Data from the three Pilot Studies of the ‘Interim Guidelines’ process (McCarthy 2000, Tolhurst 2000 and
Wouters 2000);
• Records from two additional Pilot Ecological Burn Strategies currently being prepared for Parks Victoria
(Parks Victoria, unpubl. a and b);
• Observations collected in similar adjacent areas of South Australia - from SA Fire Response Database
(Forward 1996, Choate 1998 and J. Choate pers. comm.); and
• Records from the National Fire Response Register held by Dr M. Gill, CSIRO Plant Industry, Canberra
(Gill and Bradstock 1992).
Much of this information has been collected using the methods outlined in NRE (1997c). The vital attribute
data from all of these sources have been combined into a draft ‘Victorian Vital Attributes Dataset’ in MS
Excel and Access. This dataset currently holds data for some 1645 species of the approximately 50006
Victorian flora species. Many species have only rudimentary data (e.g. data classified using the Gill
classification) and there is a particular paucity in maturity and extinction times.
Vegetation
The standard vegetation mapping classification now being used in Victoria for land and biodiversity
management is the Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) and this formed the basis for analysis in this study.
An ecological vegetation class consists of one or a number of floristic communities that appear to be
associated with a recognisable environmental niche and which can be characterised by a number of their
adaptive responses to ecological processes that operate at the landscape scale. Each ecological vegetation
class is described through a combination of its floristic, life-form and reproductive strategy profiles and
through an inferred fidelity to particular environmental attributes (Moorrees et al 1999). As of September
2001, all of the Public Land in Victoria has been mapped for EVCs at either 1:100 000 or 1:25 000 scale,
with the exception of the Little Desert and parts of the northern Wimmera in western Victoria
(EVC_CMP100, see Map 1). To enable inclusion of the Little Desert, a structural vegetation classification
was used to separately analyse this area (i.e. the Little Desert is treated as a separate ‘Bioregion’).
At the time of this study, complete species lists for each EVC across the State were still being finalised (D.
Parkes, pers. comm., NRE Parks, Flora and Fauna Division). For this study, species lists for each EVC
have been derived from NRE’s Flora Information System quadrat records and EVC GIS mapping. Only
quadrat data collected by the NRE Flora Survey Group (staff and contractors) were used for this analysis
since these records generally comprise the original floristic data used to derive the EVC mapping (i.e.
individual species records, Herbarium records and non-Flora Survey Group quadrats were excluded).
Quadrats falling spatially within an EVC polygon were deemed to belong to that EVC (this assumption may
be incorrect for some quadrats established before locations were recorded using GPS).
Species were combined with the vital attribute data using MS Access to produce a table of species and vital
attribute data for each EVC. Key Fire Response Species were then derived for each EVC using the
following rules (NRE 1997c):
• The species most likely to be adversely affected by two fires in quick succession are those with methods
of persistence G and C (viz. regeneration is by seed and all seed in the pool is used after a single fire).
• The species most likely to be lost if fire is excluded for an extended period of time are those species with
conditions for establishment I and R (viz. need a disturbed site with no competition or require some pre-
condition to be met before establishment; only one age class is present and may die out without periodic
disturbance such as fire).
6
Does not include taxa below species level.
6
Map 1 Extent of EVC mapping on Public Land in Victoria (as at September 2001)
Analysis of Disturbance by Fire on Public Land in Victoria
Maximum and minimum tolerable fire intervals and fire cycles were determined for each EVC where there
were sufficient key fire response species identified. In cases where there were insufficient maturity period
records, an estimate of twice the juvenile period was used to approximate this figure. The output from this
analysis was used to determine minimum and maximum tolerable fire intervals and fire cycles for 157 EVCs
for the State. Insufficient key fire response species or vital attribute data were available to determine
tolerable fire intervals and fire cycles for another 123 EVCs. EVC Mosaics and Complexes (groups of EVCs
which were unable to be separated in the aerial photography used in mapping) were treated as part of their
primary EVC.
Given that only 56% of EVCs were able to have fire cycles determined, a second analysis was conducted
using EVCGroups (i.e. groups of like EVCs). EVCs were grouped using both floristic and spatial similarities
into 19 EVCGroups (refer to Appendix B). Minimum and maximum tolerable fire intervals and fire cycles
were able to be determined for all 19 EVCGroups for the State (Table 3).
Disturbance
Ideally for this type of study, all forms of disturbance across the State should be included in the analysis to
determine the age class distribution for each vegetation type. Disturbances which impact on the vegetation
on public land in Victoria include fire, timber harvesting, severe frost, storm damage, grazing, salinity,
dieback (various causes) and the effects of encroaching urbanisation and increased public activity. Fire and
timber harvesting (in forested communities) are seen as two of the most significant forms of disturbance
currently impacting on the structure of the vegetation communities on public land in Victoria. Of these, fire is
the most widespread in its effect, with some 100 000ha being burnt annually by wildfire and up to an
additional 150 000ha by prescribed fire (Tolhurst 1999). Fire history records for public land in Victoria are
available for about the past 60 years (i.e. from 1939 onwards). All available mapped fire records have
recently been digitised as part of NRE’s Integrated Fire Information System (IFIS) project and processes
are now in place that will capture digital mapping for all fires and prescribed burning greater than 5ha on an
annual basis (A. Griffiths, NRE Fire Management pers. comm.). Logging history records in digital form (i.e.
able to be analysed using GIS) do not go back in time sufficiently to have been able to be incorporated into
this analysis. Hence only fire disturbance has been used in this study.
The spatial/time-since-fire distribution of vegetation was analysed by using GIS (ArcInfo) to intersect
vegetation (EVC_CMP100) and fire history (LASTBURNT100) data. Land tenure (PLMMT100) and
Victorian Bioregion (VBIOREG250) attributes were also attached to the dataset. Only data for Victorian
public land (i.e. land managed by NRE and Parks Victoria) were used for this analysis. Two tables of areas
for vegetation/time-since-fire (for both EVCs and EVCGroups) were produced and these tables were
imported into MS Excel to produce pivot tables. Given the large number of possible combinations (157
EVCs x 22 bioregions x 3 land tenure categories), two spreadsheets which calculate the actual and ‘ideal’
age-class distributions for any combination of EVC/EVCGroups, bioregion/State and land tenure selected
were built using the pivot table functions in MS Excel 2000. Thus graphs of the summarised data for each
vegetation type (EVCs and EVCGroups), bioregion and land tenure can now be produced on request.
Benchmarks
Clearly any single age class within any one vegetation type can (and will) vary from its theoretical ‘ideal’
depending on the fire history of the site. Hence it is the overall state of the distribution of all age classes of a
vegetation type for a particular area of interest (in this case either Statewide or bioregion) that needs to be
tested. Furthermore, given that the goal of long term management under the ‘Interim Guidelines’ approach
is to return actual age class distributions to a state (distribution) closer to their ‘ideal’ distribution and not to
exactly match it, a reasonable band of acceptability was sought.
Accordingly, the benchmark set for the degree of acceptable variance from the idealised age class
distribution (and thus for assessing priorities) for vegetation types was at least half of the existing age
classes are within 50% of the ‘ideal’ for that EVC/EVCGroup in the area of interest (this is illustrated in
Figure 1). This benchmark was considered to allow for sufficient natural variation (from both risk
minimisation and achievability points of view), while still shifting actual age class distributions closer towards
the ‘ideal’. Again, because of the exploratory nature of this analysis, the benchmark for assessing
bioregions was set similarly as a mean of at least half of the existing age classes is within 50% of the
‘ideal’ for each EVCGroup occurring in that bioregion. This average figure is used to give an indication
of the degree of conformity to the ‘ideal’ for the bioregion as a whole (i.e. for all vegetation types in the
bioregion).
Age classes of six year widths were chosen to best fit and compare distributions of vegetation types with
short and longer fire cycles. Conveniently, six years is also twice the time period covered by NRE’s Fire
Operations Plans. While more complex ‘goodness of fit’ techniques were considered, the simple measure of
percent of actual values compared to ’ideal’ values for the age class distributions fitted to ten age classes
was used.
Figure 1 Example of Benchmark

The “Benchmark” is the percentage of age classes that fall between the two ±50% error lines
(in this case 70%)
RESULTS
Fire Cycles
Appendix B and Table 3 set out the minimum tolerable fire intervals, maximum tolerable fire intervals and
fire cycles calculated for EVCs and EVCGroups using the available vital attribute data and the methods
discussed. The number of records underpinning these calculations are also shown to give some idea of the
reliability of these results.
Table 3 Fire Cycles by EVCGroup
EVCGroup Min TFI Max TFI7 Fire Cycle

BOX IRONBARK FOREST & INLAND SLOPES WOODLAND 10 50 30
COASTAL GRASSY WOODLANDS 10 50 30
COASTAL SCRUBS & GRASSLANDS 5 40 25
DRY FOOTHILL FORESTS 6 50 30
DRY HEATHY WOODLAND & FOREST 6 60 35
HEATHLANDS 10 50 30
HERB-RICH WOODLANDS 10 50 30
LOWLAND FORESTS 10 50 30
MALLEE 8 50 30
MOIST FOOTHILL FORESTS 10 50 30
MONTANE MOIST FORESTS 8 50 30
MONTANE WOODLANDS 10 50 30
PLAINS GRASSLANDS 3 10 6.5
PLAINS GRASSY WOODLANDS & FORESTS 6 50 30
RIPARIAN SCRUBS, FORESTS & RAINFORESTS 10 50 30
RIVERINE GRASSY WOODLANDS & VALLEY GRASSY FOREST 10 50 30
SUB-ALPINE WOODLANDS & SHRUBLANDS 8 50 30
WET/DAMP HEATHY WOODLAND & FOREST 3 40 25
WETLANDS 10 60 35
TFI = Tolerable Fire Interval

TFI based on < 10 VA records - use with caution
TFI based on 10 - 20 VA records - use, but more records desirable
TFI based on > 20 VA records - OK to use
Statewide Scale
The results from this analysis indicate that at a Statewide scale, there is only one EVCGroup which has at
least half of its age classes within 50% of its ‘ideal’ age class distributions and thereby satisfy the
benchmark. Analysis by land tenure shows that there is also only one EVCGroup which satisfies the
benchmark across Protected Areas, and none across State forest and 'other public land’. There are
however, a number of EVCGroups which have 40% of their age classes within 50% of their ‘ideal’: viz. Dry
Foothill Forests, Dry Heathy Woodlands and Forest, Herb-rich Woodlands, Lowland Forests for State
forests; Heathlands and Wet/Damp Heathy Woodland and Forest for Protected Areas (i.e. these vegetation
types are least divergent from their ‘ideal’ state). These same EVCGroups also generally have the highest
and most consistent proportions of their age classes within 50% of the ideal across all categories of land
tenure. These results are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
7
Maximum Tolerable Fire Intervals have been derived using vital attributes and known fire history; as fire history records do not
go back further than about 60 years, the Maximum Tolerable Fire Intervals and Fire Cycles of EVCGroups such as Montane
Forests and Rainforests are likely to have been under-estimated.
10
Table 4 Conformity with ‘Ideal’ Age Class Distribution for Bioregion by EVCGroup
EVCGROUP
BOX IRONBARK
FOREST &
INLAND SLOPES
WOODLAND
COASTAL
GRASSY
WOODLANDS
COASTAL
SCRUBS &
GRASSLANDS
DRY FOOTHILL
FORESTS
DRY HEATHY
WOODLAND &
FOREST
HEATHLANDS
HERB-RICH
WOODLANDS
LOWLAND
FORESTS
MALLEE
MOIST
FOOTHILL
FORESTS
BIOREGION/TENURE % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha)
Central Victoria Uplands 0% 2739 n/a n/a 10% 108103 30% 56640 0% 29 10% 2660 30% 1598 n/a 10% 39271
Dundas Tablelands 0% 1642 n/a 0 0% 0 10% 140 0% 9746 20% 365 0% 2607 n/a n/a n/a
East Gippsland Lowlands n/a 30% 4633 20% 4633 40% 45521 10% 382 30% 11368 0% 307 40% 285571 n/a 40% 67168
East Gippsland Uplands 10% 603 n/a n/a 30% 247725 0% 5412 30% 695 n/a 30% 46546 n/a 20% 281938
Gippsland Plain 20% 143 0% 15727 0% 15727 0% 655 40% 25484 10% 8347 10% 7965 20% 22381 n/a 10% 3230
Glenelg Plain 0% 154 n/a 8315 0% 8315 40% 2612 40% 74806 50% 16466 30% 21480 40% 6445 n/a 0% 10
Goldfields 10% 143316 n/a n/a 0% 18767 0% 34498 0% 2 0% 8940 n/a 0% 17614 n/a
Greater Grampians 20% 7146 n/a n/a 20% 34007 40% 81475 70% 14462 30% 14614 30% 10674 n/a 0% 4868
Highlands Northern Fall 20% 3310 n/a n/a 40% 723061 30% 85421 n/a 0% 48 10% 615 n/a 10% 137771
Highlands Southern Fall 0% 1528 n/a n/a 30% 372552 30% 54675 20% 2629 0% 8 20% 45912 n/a 10% 446203
Lowan Mallee n/a n/a n/a n/a 20% 1438 0% 134450 n/a n/a 0% 857691 n/a
Murray Mallee 10% 51 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10% 117 n/a n/a 10% 515318 n/a
Northern Inland Slopes 10% 24240 n/a n/a 30% 38944 50% 17573 0% 16 10% 241 n/a n/a 0% 74
Otway Plain n/a n/a 3795 0% 3795 20% 1959 30% 18157 40% 1597 10% 100 0% 18381 n/a 20% 3373
Otway Ranges n/a n/a 1081 30% 1081 10% 5154 20% 406 0% 197 10% 291 20% 1986 n/a 30% 76106
Strezlecki Ranges n/a 0% 2 0% 2 0% 900 0% 3 10% 258 n/a 10% 2183 n/a 0% 22107
Victorian Alps n/a n/a n/a 30% 3601 10% 1744 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0% 12919
Victorian Riverina 0% 2349 n/a n/a 0% 8 0% 144 n/a 0% 437 n/a 0% 904 n/a
Victorian Volcanic Plain 10% 11 n/a 392 0% 392 40% 7373 30% 1972 10% 2564 20% 11183 30% 31152 n/a 0% 3
Warrnambool Plain n/a n/a 2867 10% 2867 10% 5272 0% 197 10% 1304 10% 614 20% 4113 n/a 20% 717
Wilsons Promontory 0% 3923 0% 1758 0% 1758 0% 224 10% 3273 10% 10019 0% 110 0% 3841 n/a 0% 12017
Wimmera 0% 1828 n/a n/a 0% 155 40% 42717 10% 1404 30% 2950 n/a 0% 187 n/a
% = percent of age classes within 50% of ‘ideal’ distribution
Table 4 Conformity with ‘Ideal’ Age Class Distribution for Bioregion by EVCGroup (continued)
EVCGROUP
MONTANE
MOIST FORESTS
MONTANE
WOODLANDS
PLAINS
GRASSLANDS
PLAINS GRASSY
WOODLANDS &
FORESTS
RIPARIAN
SCRUBS,
FORESTS &
RAINFORESTS
RIVERINE
GRASSY
WOODLANDS &
VALLEY
SUB-ALPINE
WOODLANDS &
SHRUBLANDS
WET/DAMP
HEATHY
WOODLAND &
FOREST
WETLANDS
Bioregion Mean
BIOREGION/TENURE % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) % Area (ha) %
Central Victoria Uplands n/a 0% 17 0% 1 10% 1993 10% 5137 20% 8683 n/a 0% 11 0% 1 9%
Dundas Tablelands n/a n/a 0% 18 0% 16701 0% 921 0% 643 n/a 10% 1663 10% 421 4%
East Gippsland Lowlands n/a 0% 3 n/a 10% 11 60% 29996 30% 3289 n/a n/a 0% 618 22%
East Gippsland Uplands 10% 7812 10% 20478 n/a 0% 22940 10% 18076 20% 7573 20% 922 n/a 0% 0 14%
Gippsland Plain n/a n/a 0% 287 20% 15553 0% 4217 0% 630 n/a n/a 0% 10101 9%
Glenelg Plain n/a n/a 0% 87 20% 1806 30% 3163 10% 406 n/a 10% 1017 20% 2736 19%
Goldfields n/a n/a 0% 0 10% 18360 0% 200 20% 2097 n/a 0% 0 0% 216 3%
Greater Grampians n/a 20% 1896 0% 0 10% 1811 40% 5419 20% 6849 n/a 30% 2479 50% 1004 25%
Highlands Northern Fall 10% 64490 40% 139750 n/a 20% 3426 10% 27808 20% 1594 20% 3771 n/a n/a 18%
Highlands Southern Fall 10% 61358 10% 98538 n/a 10% 3787 10% 43028 0% 2215 20% 5536 n/a n/a 12%
Lowan Mallee n/a n/a 20% 2351 n/a n/a 0% 9193 n/a n/a 0% 6644 6%
Murray Mallee n/a n/a 0% 5494 0% 35128 n/a 0% 31064 n/a n/a 0% 6809 4%
Northern Inland Slopes n/a 0% 56 n/a 0% 2605 30% 371 10% 3543 n/a n/a 0% 78 12%
Otway Plain n/a n/a 0% 28 10% 292 10% 4163 10% 1049 n/a n/a 0% 718 12%
Otway Ranges n/a n/a n/a n/a 10% 9525 0% 178 n/a n/a 0% 51 12%
Strezlecki Ranges n/a n/a n/a n/a 0% 650 n/a n/a n/a 0% 1 2%
Victorian Alps 10% 58075 10% 113492 n/a 10% 13 0% 2656 n/a 0% 115276 n/a n/a 8%
Victorian Riverina n/a n/a 0% 45 0% 12053 0% 0 0% 47565 n/a n/a 0% 6062 0%
Victorian Volcanic Plain n/a n/a 10% 308 0% 2399 10% 1045 10% 498 n/a 10% 86 10% 584 13%
Warrnambool Plain n/a n/a n/a 0% 0 20% 509 0% 229 n/a 0% 16 0% 81 8%
Wilsons Promontory n/a 0% 115 n/a n/a 0% 3395 n/a n/a n/a 0% 251 2%
Wimmera n/a n/a 0% 0 10% 11363 0% 602 0% 184 n/a 20% 1296 0% 836 8%
11
Table 5 Conformity with ‘Ideal’ Age Class Distribution for State by Land Tenure
LAND TENURE
EVCGROUP Other Protected State forest Total
Public Land Areas
BOX IRONBARK FOREST & INLAND % 0% 20% 10% 10%
SLOPES WOODLAND Area (ha) 14952 48773 132290 196015
COASTAL GRASSY WOODLANDS % 0% 30% 10% 30%
Area (ha) 163 4082 21 4265
COASTAL SCRUBS & GRASSLANDS % 0% 0% 0% 0%
Area (ha) 3440 40730 290 44460
DRY FOOTHILL FORESTS % 10% 30% 40% 40%
Area (ha) 65852 634304 1185383 1885539
DRY HEATHY WOODLAND & FOREST % 30% 50% 40% 50%
Area (ha) 2579 14472 18808 35860
HEATHLANDS % 40% 0% 20% 10%
Area (ha) 1727 158152 38433 198313
HERB-RICH WOODLANDS % 40% 40% 40% 30%
Area (ha) 7217 52247 14421 73886
LOWLAND FORESTS % 40% 10% 40% 40%
Area (ha) 22739 133496 324861 481095
MALLEE % 0% 0% 0% 0%
Area (ha) 16567 984301 230247 1231115
MOIST FOOTHILL FORESTS % 10% 10% 10% 10%
Area (ha) 24183 292772 797589 1114543
MONTANE MOIST FORESTS % 20% 10% 10% 10%
Area (ha) 2316 69971 119491 191778
MONTANE WOODLANDS % 20% 20% 20% 20%
Area (ha) 6092 163933 204295 374321
PLAINS GRASSLANDS % 0% 10% 0% 10%
Area (ha) 305 8301 88 8694
PLAINS GRASSY WOODLANDS & % 0% 10% 0% 0%
FORESTS Area (ha) 7832 77864 67057 152754
RIPARIAN SCRUBS, FORESTS & % 10% 20% 10% 10%
RAINFORESTS Area (ha) 5866 65650 88866 160382
RIVERINE GRASSY WOODLANDS & % 0% 10% 0% 0%
VALLEY GRASSY FOREST Area (ha) 10278 64257 54527 129062
SUB-ALPINE WOODLANDS & % 10% 0% 10% 0%
SHRUBLANDS Area (ha) 837 105716 19021 125574
WET/DAMP HEATHY WOODLAND & % 40% 40% 20% 40%
FOREST Area (ha) 879 6108 13795 20783
WETLANDS % 0% 0% 20% 0%
Area (ha) 6245 28499 3415 38159
Bioregions
At a Bioregional scale, only four (East Gippsland Lowlands, Glenelg Plain, Greater Grampians and Northern
Inland Slopes) out of the total of 22 analysed contain EVCGroups in which at least half of the existing age
classes are within 50% of their ‘ideal’ distributions. The EVCGroups meeting this benchmark are
Heathlands in the Glenelg Plain and Greater Grampians, Riparian Scrubs, Forests and Rainforests in the
East Gippsland Lowlands, Dry Heathy Woodlands and Forest in the Northern Inland Slopes and Wetlands
in the Grampians (see Table 4).
Little Desert
Results for the Little Desert area (part of the Lowan Mallee Bioregion) which was analysed separately are
set out in Table 6. No structural vegetation community in the Little Desert meets the established benchmark
for age class distributions.
Table 6 Conformity with ‘Ideal’ Age Class Distribution for Little Desert
Little Desert % within 50% of 'ideal' Area (ha)

(Structural Vegetation Community)
Black Box-Yellow Gum Woodland 0% 56
Heathland 10% 24631
Mallee 10% 63
Stringybark Woodland-Mallee 10% 1305
Black Box Woodland 20% 489
Mallee-Broombush 20% 30062
Red Gum Woodland 30% 167
Stringybark Woodland 30% 69391
Yellow Gum Woodland 30% 4072
DISCUSSION
Data and Analysis Limitations

EVC-species data
A more botanically accurate list of species occurring in each EVC would greatly enhance the confidence in
the vital attributes approach to determining tolerable fire intervals for each vegetation type. The derivation of
such lists from non-GPS spatial data for quadrat locations does lead to species list for EVCs being incorrect
(both additional and missing species occur). This is a fundamental dataset for any analysis or management
based on EVCs and as such should be a high priority for action, now that EVCs are mapped and defined
across most of the State.
Vital Attributes
The number of species with vital attribute data used to determine fire cycles is at the lower end of what
would be desirable. Many EVC/EVCGroups are based on less than 10 records (see Appendix B & Table 3).
Even those EVC/EVCGroups where greater than 20 records are used have produced low fire cycles (lower
than would have been expected, particularly for the wetter forest groups). This highlights the need for
increased vital attribute data collection, particularly with respect to maturity and extinction times. The current
8
dataset holds data for some 1645 species of the approximately 5000 Victorian flora species. Most of these
data are drawn from work in only a few areas: Wombat Forest, the Grampians, East Gippsland, the Alps
and the Mallee (particularly the Big Desert). Improving this dataset will increase the confidence in the
results of any future analyses. Additional vital attribute data need to be collected in all areas and vegetation
types. Highest priority areas (for Bioregions and vegetation types) for this data collection include:
Table 7 Priority Bioregions and EVCGroups for vital attribute data collection (in descending order)
Bioregion EVCGroup
Dundas Tablelands Coastal Scrubs & Grasslands

Gippsland Plain Dry Heathy Woodland & Forest
Glenelg Plain Heathlands
Goldfields Herb-Rich Woodlands
Highlands Northern Fall Mallee
Highlands Southern Fall Wet/Damp Heathy Woodland & Forest
Murray Mallee Wetlands
Clearly the vital attribute component of this approach should be re-calculated for any vegetation type or
area of interest when additional vital attribute data relevant to that vegetation type/area become available.
Data Analysis
Confidence in any data analysis can only be as great as the confidence in the input data – the data of least
confidence/reliability defining the limitations of the resultant output. In this study spatial data from several
datasets in the NRE Corporate Geographic Data Library (CGDL) were used to create the fire disturbance
layer from which the area statements which form the basis of this analysis were derived.
The Land Tenure data in the Public Land Management data layer (PLMMT100) is not perfect. At the broad
scale of this analysis (i.e. Statewide and Bioregional scales), this is not believed to be significant (1 - 5%
error). If the fire disturbance layer created for this project is to be used at a local scale (as is
suggested/desired), a careful check of the land tenure data and mapping should be conducted to ensure
that these errors do not become significant in area and unduly influence the results.
8
Does not includes taxa below species level.
The vegetation layer (EVC_CMP100) used in this analysis was completed in September 2001. This data
layer is a compilation of all previous EVC mapping projects with some minor corrections made for
overlapping areas. The underlying data are the product of a number of different projects over fifteen years.
The completion of this layer is a very significant step forward for both GIS analysis and conservation
planning in Victoria (this analysis would not have been possible without it).
The derivation of EVCs is complex (Moorees et al. 1999) and their applicability to conservation planning is
still subject to some debate. However from a spatial analysis point of view, the dataset is extremely useful
and powerful. Even (as was the case with this study) if the detail of mapping and number of classes
appears too great, grouping can occur based on this layer to produce a useable map and classification.
This grouping from below is spatially far easier to manage (and repeat) than attempting to split groups from
above. This derived layer has the additional advantages over using BVTs of being spatially more accurate
(mapped at 1:100 00 or better versus 1:250 000) and able to be directly related to EVCs. It would be a
relatively simple task to re-calculate the priorities from this analysis should any modification to the grouping
of EVCs into EVCGroups be suggested. Indeed, the development and formalisation of a EVC grouping
concept, based on a more considered and consistent set of criteria than used here, would have been of
great use to this project and would greatly benefit similar Statewide vegetation analyses in the future.
Disturbance types
This study has only examined fire as a disturbance factor. There is a need to compile a more complete
(digital) disturbance layer that includes other disturbance types (particularly timber harvesting). The
digitisation of logging history records need to be completed before this can occur.
Data Durability and Access

The fire history data layer used in this study will be updated annually at the end of each fire season (i.e.
after June each year). Given that age class widths for this analysis were set at six years, the fire
disturbance data layer created for this project should be sufficient to conduct local scale analyses for most
areas over this time period. (This is on the proviso that there are no significantly large fire events (i.e.
greater then 10% of any vegetation type) in the area of interest over this time frame).
The data analyses conducted for this study are not complex, but were difficult due to the exploratory nature
of these methods and the extremely large datasets involved (e.g. Statewide EVC spatial data alone is over
500Mb). Because of this it is suggested that the fire disturbance layer created should be acceptable to use
for local planning for at least three years and possibly up to five years (depending on significant changes in
land tenure and fire history). If this approach is to be continued, the fire disturbance layer will need to be
refreshed every three to five years, or when significant changes to the PLMMT100, EVC_CMP100 or
LASTBURNT100 data layers occur. The relevant areas of the layer need to be made readily available to
Forest and Park managers who have GIS access and are planning ecological burning using the ‘Interim
Guidelines’ approach. This will give field managers access to the necessary spatial data. The layer can be
queried for EVC/EVCGroup-time since fire areas with a basic GIS knowledge and without the need for high-
powered computers.
Fire and Biodiversity

Inappropriate fire regimes (and in particular too-frequent fire) is commonly regarded as a significant threat
to biodiversity in Victoria (DEST 1996, NRE 1997a) and indeed, high frequency fire has recently been
nominated as a threatening process under the Victorian Flora and Flora Guarantee Act (1988). The results
from this analysis indicate that in Victoria, however, over-burning is not occurring at either a Statewide or at
any bioregional scale. Only four bioregions contain EVCGroups in which at least half of existing age classes
are within 50% of their ‘ideal’ distributions. In many cases an individual age-class may have large areas
burnt (and hence be over the ‘ideal’), but all distributions have many more age classes with areas well
under rather than over their ‘ideal’ age class. These results suggest that the threat which fire frequency
poses to species composition and community conservation in Victoria is in fact from under-exposure to fire;
i.e. fire frequency is too low across the landscape.
While overly-frequent fire may occur at a single location in any vegetation type, the continued survival of
these vegetation communities on a broad scale will rely on the active management of fire across the
landscape. Neither frequent fire nor the absence of fire are desirable; rather a diversity of fire regimes (of
varying intensities, scales, seasons and fire intervals) is needed to maintain the biodiversity of these
communities. The overwhelming proportion of EVCGroups with age class distributions far from their 'ideal’
clearly indicates that there is a need to promote and target the active use of fire as a tool for ecological
management on public land in Victoria.
Setting Priorities
This overwhelming imbalance of actual versus 'ideal’ age class distributions cannot be addressed in the
short term, even with increased resource allocation. Clearly priorities are needed to assist NRE and PV to
direct resources to have best effect. Priorities based on threat and value are among the key tools
recommended for use in conservation planning in Victoria (NRE 1997a and 1997b, and PV 1998).
Departure from the ‘Ideal’

The ‘priorities’ set out in Tables 9–11 (Statewide) and Table 4 (Bioregion) are based on a simple ranking of
departure from the ‘ideal’. The EVCGroups with their age class distribution furthest from the 'ideal’ represent
those at high risk of losing species and undergoing community decline in the near future. The threat of one
or more large fire events removing some age classes (and any dependant flora and fauna) is also highest in
these cases. Hence these areas/vegetation types are recommended for priority action in relation to
developing strategies and programs for ecological burning. This priority ranking could be read to indicate
that almost all EVCGroup/Bioregion combinations are a priority (i.e. as almost all present a large departure
from their 'ideal’ any action anywhere is useful). From a Land Manager’s perspective, other considerations
may need to be considered to assist in determining priorities for action (e.g. rarity of vegetation type and
issues like differential costs, logistic issues).
More Effective Planning

In addition to targeting actions based on the greatest need, effective conservation planning must avoid the
allocation of scarce resources to areas/assets that will fail to persist regardless of actions taken to protect or
manage them (Pressey and Taffs, 2001). Myers (1979) advocates the adoption of the medical approach of
‘triage’ to managing species (and communities) under threat. The use of this approach can help managers
to obtain a clearer idea of where best to apply their limited conservation resources (in this case ecological
burning effort) to achieve the maximum long-term effect. For this analysis, a triage approach would assess
and assign each vegetation type (for each scale of analysis) into one of three categories:
• those which can be helped by action (in this case - ecological burning) at a deliverable level (Cat.1);
• those which will probably persist without action (ecological burning) at a deliverable level (Cat 2); and
• those which are likely to continue to decline regardless of the amount of action (ecological burning)
delivered (Cat 3).
The following interpretations have been used to assign vegetation types to the above categories (with this
ecological triage approach in mind):
• EVCGroups with less than 20% of their age classes within acceptable (benchmark) limits and of
relatively small area across the State are not likely to be able to brought within acceptable limits without
a very large input of resources and a significant amount of burning effort (given the small and scattered
nature of the areas to be burnt). In addition, there would be insufficient windows of opportunity (i.e.
appropriate weather and adequate personnel availability) for the additional prescribed burning of the
areas required to be achieved. Hence such combinations would be likely to fall into the third category
above.
• EVCGroups with greater than 20% of their age classes within acceptable (benchmark) limits and of
relatively large area across the State are likely to be able to remain within acceptable limits without a
significant input of resources. These areas still need to be monitored for future departures from their
‘ideal’ state. Hence such combinations would be likely to fall into the second category above.
• EVCGroups with less than 20% of their age classes within acceptable (benchmark) limits and of
relatively large areas across the State are likely to be able to brought within acceptable limits. This will
require a larger input of resources and a significantly higher amount of burning than the previous
category. Such combinations would be likely to fall into the first category above.
• EVCGroups with greater than 20% of their age classes within acceptable (benchmark) limits and of
relatively small area across the State are likely to be able to brought within acceptable limits, but will not
need a very large input of resources or a significant amount of burning. Hence such combinations would
be likely to fall into the first category above.
• Those vegetation types with longer fire cycles have a less urgent need because of the longer time frame
available for action to address any imbalance. While this proposition may appear obvious, it means that
EVCGroups with fire cycles of 30 years or greater would be likely to fall into the second class above (or
at least have less urgency). Table 8 lists the EVCGroups with high and low urgency.
Table 8 EVCGroup ‘Urgency’ (based on Fire Cycle)
EVCGroups requiring Urgent Action EVCGroups of Low Urgency

Plains Grasslands Riparian Scrubs, Forests & Rainforests
Wet/Damp Heathy Woodland & Forest Dry Heathy Woodland & Forest
Coastal Scrubs & Grasslands Wetlands
Priorities
The following Tables (9–11) set out the EVCGroups which have the greatest departure from their 'ideal' age
class distributions (less than or equal to 20% of age classes are within 50% of their 'ideal' age class
distributions), and therefore should be the focus for development and application of more appropriate
ecologically based fire regimes (see also maps 2–5 located at the back of this report).
Measures of irreplacability and significance need to be combined with departure from the ‘ideal’ to develop
a better measure of priority in relation to ecological burning. The priorities presented in this report have not
included these aspects. An initial attempt to include these factors has been made during this study, using
9
methods similar to that used by the Victorian Bioregional Network in its priority/risk assessments for
threatened species. The development of agreed weightings and methods to progress this approach are
strongly recommended. NRE Parks, Flora and Fauna are currently completing a significance/depletion
analysis and rating for EVCs along these lines. The incorporation of this system with the priorities
developed here should be the next step to refine the priorities presented in this report.
9
The Victorian Bioregional Network has developed a ‘priority/risk’ concept for threatened species across each Bioregion. The
approach assesses each species based on its significance (i.e. rarity) and risk from threats.
Table 9 State Priority for Addressing Fire Regime – All Public Land
EVCGROUP % Area (ha) % of PL Cat

MALLEE 0% 1231115 19% 1
PLAINS GRASSY WOODLANDS & FORESTS 0% 152754 2% 3
RIVERINE GRASSY WOODLANDS & VALLEY GRASSY FOREST 0% 129062 2% 3
SUB-ALPINE WOODLANDS & SHRUBLANDS 0% 125574 2% 3
COASTAL SCRUBS & GRASSLANDS 0% 44460 1% 3
WETLANDS 0% 38159 1% 3
MOIST FOOTHILL FORESTS 10% 1114543 17% 1
HEATHLANDS 10% 198313 3% 1
BOX IRONBARK FOREST & INLAND SLOPES WOODLAND 10% 196015 3% 1
MONTANE MOIST FORESTS 10% 191778 3% 1
RIPARIAN SCRUBS, FORESTS & RAINFORESTS 10% 160382 2% 3
PLAINS GRASSLANDS 10% 8694 0% 3
MONTANE WOODLANDS 20% 374321 6% 2
HERB-RICH WOODLANDS 30% 73886 1% 1
COASTAL GRASSY WOODLANDS 30% 4265 0% 1
DRY FOOTHILL FORESTS 40% 1885539 29% 2
LOWLAND FORESTS 40% 481095 7% 2
WET/DAMP HEATHY WOODLAND & FOREST 40% 20783 0% 1
DRY HEATHY WOODLAND & FOREST 50% 35860 1% 1
Table 10 State Priority for Addressing Fire Regime – Protected Area
EVCGROUP % Area (ha) % of PA Cat

MALLEE 0% 984301 33% 1
HEATHLANDS 0% 158152 5% 1
WETLANDS 0% 28499 1% 3
Table 11 State Priority for Addressing Fire Regime – State forest
EVCGROUP % Area (ha) % of SF Cat

MALLEE 0% 230247 7% 1
HEATHLANDS 20% 38433 1% 1
WETLANDS 20% 3415 0% 1
Further Research
Further research and monitoring needs to be directed to the following areas:
• collecting additional vital attribute data, particularly focussing on maturity and extinction ages and with
an emphasis on those Bioregions/EVCGroups listed in Table 7.
• incorporation of the EVC significance/rating with the priorities developed so far to develop a Statewide
strategy (i.e. formal priorities and targets) for ecological burning.
• creation of a more comprehensive ‘disturbance’ layer that includes timber harvesting.
• development of comprehensive and character species lists for all EVCs.
• further consideration of the stochastic nature of wildfire spread on the theoretical age-class distribution
curves.
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis has demonstrated that there is sufficient data and knowledge to perform the type of analysis
required by the ‘Interim Guidelines’ approach. While there are assumptions and gaps in the datasets used,
information about the state of the different vegetation types analysed in comparison to an ‘ideal’ state can
be obtained and this information used to make more informed decisions about the need for active
management of fire (i.e. planned fire suppression, prescribed burning and protection from fire) within the
broad biodiversity objective that all species within each community should be maintained in viable
populations.
Even using extremely wide benchmarks, there is an obvious and urgent need for prescribed burning outside
of the areas currently burnt for fuel reduction burning to address the large imbalance in age-class
distribution of most vegetation types analysed.
The clear finding from this study is that across the majority of public land area in Victoria, the main fire-
related threat to biodiversity conservation is from the absence of fire rather than too frequent fire. This is in
stark contrast to common perceptions as illustrated by Morrison et al (1996), DEST (1996) and the recent
nomination of 'high frequency fire’ (Item 565) as a threatening process under the Victorian Flora and Flora
Guarantee Act (1988). A significant shift in the use of fire as an ecological management tool is needed in
our public land management. The current often ad-hoc and sporadic ecological burning programs
implemented by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment and Parks Victoria need to be
significantly upgraded to address the large imbalance in age distribution of most vegetation types across
the State.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Fire Ecology Working Group of the Department of Natural Resources & Environment and Parks
Victoria commissioned this project. The research and analysis for this report was carried out by Mike
Wouters, while on secondment to the Forest Science Centre (Natural Resources & Environment / University
of Melbourne). Gordon Friend, Kevin Tolhurst, and Sally Troy played a major role in the project's design,
and Gordon Friend provided significant assistance in the preparation of the final report. The preliminary
merging of Statewide spatial data for this analysis was performed by NRE’s Land Information Group
(Melbourne). All geospatial data used in this study was sourced from the NRE Corporate Geographic Data
Library (CGDL); Flora quadrat data used in this study were sourced from the NRE Flora Information System
(FIS) (September 2001 version).
The following people also contributed to this study:

Andrew Willson NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Buronga
Anthony Griffiths NRE Fire Management, East Melbourne
Ashvin Bhikharidas NRE South West Region, Ballarat
Brian Thompson NRE Forest Management, Benalla
Darren McKinty NRE Land Information Group, Melbourne
David Cheal NRE Arthur Rylah Institute, Heidelberg
David Parkes NRE Parks, Flora & Fauna, Melbourne
Fiona Cross NRE Parks, Flora & Fauna, Heidelberg
Fiona Ferwerda NRE Parks, Flora & Fauna, Melbourne
Malcolm Gill CSIRO Plant Industry Division, Canberra
Mike Leonard NRE Fire Management, East Melbourne
Milton Smith NRE, Fire Management, Mildura
Ross Bradstock NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Sydney
REFERENCES
Cheal, P.D., Day, J.C. and Meredith, C.W. (1979) Fire in the National Parks of North-west Victoria.
National Parks Service - Victoria, Ministry for Conservation, East Melbourne.
Choate, J. (1998) South Australian Plant Fire Response Database. Biodiversity Conservation
Programs Branch, Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs - South
Australia, Adelaide.
Department of Environment, Sport and Territories (DEST) (1996) Fire and Biodiversity: The effects
and effectiveness of fire management. Paper No 8, Biodiversity Series, Biodiversity Unit,
Department of Enviromnment, Sport & Territories, Canberra.
Fire Ecology Working Group (1999) Interim Guidelines and Procedures for Ecological Burning on
Public Land in Victoria. Fire Ecology Working Group, Department of Natural Resources and
Environment - Victoria and Parks Victoria.
Forward, L.R. (1996) Managing Fire for Biodiversity in Ngarkat Conservation Park: Development of
methodology. Resource Management Branch, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources - South Australia, Adelaide.
Gill, A.M. and Bradstock, R.A. (1992) A national register for the fire responses of plant species.
Cunninghamia 2(4), 653-660.
Gill, A.M. and McMahon, A. (1986) A post-fire chronosequence of cone, follicle and seed production
in Banksia ornata. Australian Journal of Botany 36:193-203.
Heinselman, M.L. (1973) Fire in the Virgin Forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Minnesota
Quaternary Research 3:329-382.
Johnson, E.A. and Gutsell, S.L. (1994) Fire Frequency Models, Methods and Interpretations.
Advances in Ecological Research 25:239-287.
Johnson, E.A. and Van Wagner, C.E. (1985) The theory and use of two fire history models. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research, 15, 214-220.
McCarthy, G. and Tolhurst, K.G. (1997) Ecologically-based fire regimes for Gippsland. Report to NRE
Flora and Fauna Gippsland Region, Centre for Tree Technology, Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, Victoria, Creswick.
McCarthy, G.J. (2000) Guidelines For Ecological Burning In Lowland Forest And Heathland - Yeerung
Case Study. Fire Ecology Working Group, Department of Natural Resources and Environment -
Victoria and Parks Victoria
McCarthy, M.A., Gill, A.M. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (1999). Fire regimes in mountain ash forest:
evidence from forest age structure, extinction models and wildlife habitat. Forest Ecology and
Management, 124, 193-203.
Moorrees, A. Parkes, D. and Peel, B (1999) Ecological vegetation classes: The practical intersection
of a vegetation classification and planning for biodiversity conservation and ecological
management. Appendix G In: Regional Forest Agreement – East Gippsland, Environment and
Heritage Report. Available at: http://www.rfa.gov.au/rfa/vic/east/raa/envher/appg.html
Morrison, D.A. Buckney, R.T. and Bewick B.J. (1996) Conservation conflicts over burning bush in
south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation. 76(2):167-175.
Myers, N. (1979) The Sinking Ark:a New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species. Pergamon
Press,Oxford.
Natural Resources & Enviroment, Department of (NRE) (1997a). 'Victoria’s Biodiversity: Directions in
Management.' Dept. Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. 150pp.
Natural Resources & Enviroment, Department of (NRE) (1997b). 'Victoria’s Biodiversity: Sustainng our
Living Wealth' Dept. Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. 150pp.
Natural Resources & Enviroment, Department of (NRE) (1997c) Monitoring the Ecological Effects of
Fire. Fire Information Note No.2. Fire Management Branch, Department of Natural Resources
and Environment, Victoria, East Melbourne.
Noble, I.R. and Slatyer, R.O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant
communities subject to recurrent disturbance. Vegetatio 43, 5-21.
Noble, I.R. and Slatyer, R.O. (1981). Concepts and models of succession in vascular plant
communities subject to recurrent fire. In: Fire and the Australian Biota, A.M. Gill, R.H. Groves
and I.R. Noble (eds). Australian Academy of Science, Canberra. Chapt. 13, pp. 311-335.
Parks Victoria (1998) Directions in Environmental Management – Parks Victoria Environmental
Management Strategy. Conservation Division, Parks Victoria.
Parks Victoria (unpbul a) Ecological Burn Strategy – Lorne-Angahook State Park Heathlands. Report
in preparation, West Region, Parks Victoria.
Parks Victoria (unpbul b) Ecological Burn Strategy – Chiltern Box-Ironbark National Park. Report in
preparation, Central Region, Parks Victoria.
Pressey, R.L. & Taffs, K.H. (2001) Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority
areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation
loss. Biological Conservation 100:355 –376
Reed, W.J. (1994) Estimating the historic stand-replacement fire using the age–class forest. Forest
Science 40, 104–119.
Simberloff, D. (1997) Flagships, Umbrellas, and Keystones: is single species management passé in
the landscape era ? Biological Conservation 83(3):247-257.
Specht, R.L. 1981. Responses to fires in heathlands and related shrublands. In: Fire and the
Australian Biota, A.M. Gill, R.H. Groves and I.R. Noble (eds). Australian Academy of Science,
Canberra. Chapt. 13, pp. 311-335.
Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (1995) (Eds) An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia:
a framework for establishing the national system of reserves, Version 4.0. Australian Nature
Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Tolhurst, K.G. & Oswin D.A. (1992) Effects of Sring and Autumn Low Intensity Fire on Understorey
Vegetation in Open Eucalypt Forest in West-Central Victoria. In Ecological Impacts of Fuel
Reduction Burning in Dry Sclerophyll Forest: First progress report. (Tolhurst & Flinn eds.)
Forest Research Report No 349. Forest Research section, Research Development &
Assessment Branch, Forests Division, Department of Conservation and Environment, Kew,
Victoria.
Tolhurst, K.G. (1998) Towards the application of Ecologically-based fire regimes for the Grampians
National Park. Report to Parks Victoria, Centre for Tree Technology, Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, Victoria, Creswick.
Tolhurst, K.G. (1999) The Fire Effects Research Program: Wombat State Forest. In Management of
Fire for the Conservation of Biodiversity, Workshop Proceedings, Fire Ecology Working Group,
Department of Natural Resources and Environment - Victoria and Parks Victoria.
Tolhurst, K.G. (2000) Guidelines for Ecological Burning in Foothill Forests of Victoria - Mt Cole Case
Study Fire Ecology Working Group, Department of Natural Resources and Environment -
Victoria and Parks Victoria
Tolhurst, K.G. and Friend, G.R. (2001) An Objective Basis for Ecological Fire Management - A
Victorian Case Study. In: Proceedings of Bushfire 2001, Joint Bushfire/FRFANZ Conference,
Christchurch, New Zealand, July 2001. (Pearce, G. and Lester, L. (eds.)).
Van Wagner, C.E. 1978. Age-class distribution and the forest fire cycle. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research, 8, 220-227.
Wouters, M.A. (2000) Pilot Study of Guidelines for Ecological Burning on Public Land: Wyperfeld NP -
Mallee Shrublands of Victoria. Fire Ecology Working Group, Department of Natural Resources
and Environment - Victoria and Parks Victoria.
Wouters, M.A. (2001) Guidelines for Ecological Burning in Mallee Shrublands of Victoria: Wyperfeld
NP Case Study In: Proceedings of the Bushfire 2001, Joint Bushfire/FRFANZ Conference,
Christchurch, New Zealand, July 2001. (Pearce, G. and Lester, L. (eds.)).
24 Appendices
APPENDICES
Appendix A ‘Vital Attributes’ Classification ......................................................................................... 25

Appendix B EVCs and their Fire Cycles listed by EVCGroup ............................................................ 26
Appendices 25
Appendix A ‘Vital Attributes’ Classification
Table A1. Methods of persistence through a disturbance
Seedling establishment
D seed: dispersed long distances
S seed: stored, maintains viability for long period, partial germination per disturbance
G seed: stored, maintains viability for long period, single germination per disturbance
C seed: short-lived, exhausted after single germination
Vegetative mechanisms
V sprouters: all ages survive, all become juvenile
U sprouters: mature remain mature, juveniles remain juvenile
W sprouters: mature remain mature, juveniles die
Dual mechanisms
∆ (delta) dispersed seed + mature remain mature + juvenile may or may not resprout (D+ U or W)
Σ (sigma) seed store + mature remain mature + juvenile may or may not resprout (S+U or W)
Γ (gamma) seed store with one germination + mature remain mature + juveniles die (G+W)
Table A2. Suitable conditions for establishment
T tolerant, will establish in presence of adult competition (multi-aged population)

I intolerant, needs disturbed site with competition removed (single aged population)
R requires some precondition to be met before establishment, delayed establishment
Table A3. Longevity values for critical life stages (years)
Juvenile No reproductively mature material present

Mature Reproductively mature material present (possibly along with juvenile material)
Propagule Only propagules of the species remain a the site
Local extinction All vegetative and propagule material of the species lost from the site
Source: Noble and Slatyer (1981)

26 Appendices
Appendix B EVCs and their Fire Cycles listed by EVCGroup
EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

(grouped by EVCGroups in Bold) Tolerable Tolerable
Fire Interval Fire Interval
1 COASTAL SCRUBS & GRASSLANDS
9 Coastal Saltmarsh 4 50 30
12 Wet Swale Herbland 4 60 35
51 Dry Coast Complex
122 Melaleuca Complex
140 Mangrove Shrubland
154 Bird Colony Shrubland
155 Bird Colony Succulent Herbland
160 Coastal Dune Scrub 4 50 30
161 Coastal Headland Scrub 4 50 30
163 Coastal Tussock Grassland 4 60 35
181 Coast Gully Thicket
196 Seasonally-inundated Sub-saline Herbland
309 Calcareous Swale Grassland 10 60 35
311 Berm Grassy Shrubland
665 Coastal Mallee Scrub
858 Calcarenite Dune Woodland 4 50 30
876 Spray-zone Coastal Shrubland
879 Coastal Dune Grassland
880 Granitic Coastal Headland Scrub/Depauperate Coastal
Tussock Grassland Mosaic
898 Cane Grass-Lignum Halophyllic Herbland
2 COASTAL GRASSY WOODLANDS
2 Coast Banksia Woodland 4 50 30
4 Coastal Vine-rich Forest 5 60 35
3 DRY HEATHY WOODLAND & FOREST
20 Heathy Dry Forest 10 50 20
46 Heathy Foothill Foest
48 Heathy Woodland 10 50 20
94 Lowan Sands Heathy Woodland
127 Valley Heathy Forest 5 60 35
134 Sand Forest
179 Herb-rich Heathy Woodland
264 Sand Ridge Woodland
664 Limestone Ridge Woodland
670 Limestone Woodland
4 WET/DAMP HEATHY WOODLAND & FOREST
195 Seasonally Inundated Shrubby Woodland
278 Herb-rich Heathy Forest
707 Sedgy Swamp Woodland
836 Damp Heathland 3 40 25
Appendices 27

5 LOWLAND FORESTS
14 Banksia Woodland 8 50 30
15 Limestone Box Forest 3 70 40
16 Lowland Forest 8 50 30
893 Lowland Herb-rich Forest 5 70 40
6 BOX IRONBARK FOREST & INLAND SLOPES WOODLAND
24 Foothill Box Ironbark Forest
54 Box Woodland
61 Box Ironbark Forest 5 50 30
69 Metamorphic Slopes Shrubby Woodland 4 50 30
72 Granitic Hills Woodland 10 50 30
80 Spring Soak Woodland
180 Lateritic Shrubby Woodland
180 Lateritic Woodland
262 Slopes Box Grassy Woodland/Box Ironbark Forest Complex
282 Shrubby Woodland 3 70 40
285 Dry Creekline Woodland
792 Stony Rises Woodland / Stony Knoll Shrubland
7 DRY FOOTHILL FORESTS
22 Grassy Dry Forest 8 50 30
23 Herb-rich Foothill Forest 10 50 30
27 Blackthorn Scrub 3 60 35
64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland
133 Limestone Pomaderris Shrubland
142 Shrubby Dry Forest 10 50 30
169 Dry Valley Forest 5 60 35
177 Valley Slopes Dry Forest
193 Rocky Outcrop Herbland 3 60 35
363 Rocky Outcrop Shrubland 10 50 30
363 Rocky Outcrop Shrubland
636 Brackish Lake
8 MOIST FOOTHILL FORESTS
29 Damp Forest 10 50 30
30 Wet Forest 10 50 30
39 Montane Wet Forest 5 60 35
45 Shrubby Foothill Forest 5 50 30
201 Shrubby Wet Forest 4 60 35
310 Wet Rocky Outcrop Scrub
316 Shrubby Damp Forest 5 50 30
28 Appendices

9 RIPARIAN SCRUBS, FORESTS & RAINFORESTS
18 Riparian Forest 5 50 30
19 Riparian Shrubland 5 50 30
31 Cool Temperate Rainforest 5 60 35
32 Warm Temperate Rainforest 5 60 35
34 Dry Rainforest 10 70 40
41 Montane Riparian Thicket 8 50 30
53 Swamp Scrub 5 70 40
59 Riparian Thicket 2 80 45
59 Riparian Woodland
82 Riverine Escarpment Scrub 3 60 35
83 Swampy Riparian Woodland 5 50 30
126 Swampy Riparian Complex 5 50 30
135 Gallery Rainforest
141 Sandy Flood Scrub 2 50 30
145 Cool Temperate Mixed Forest
185 Perched Boggy Shrubland Complex
191 Riparian Scrub 8 50 30
215 Vine-rich Damp Forest
233 Wet Sands Thicket 4 60 35
280 Floodplain Thicket
851 Stream-bank Shrubland 5 50 30
10 MONTANE MOIST FORESTS
35 Tableland Damp Forest 5 60 35
35 Tableland Damp Forest
38 Montane Damp Forest 5 50 30
11 MONTANE WOODLANDS
36 Montane Dry Woodland 10 50 30
37 Montane Grassy Woodland 5 50 30
40 Montane Riparian Woodland 5 50 30
183 Montane Shrubby Woodland
192 Montane Rocky Shrubland 5 50 30
318 Montane Swamp
319 Montane Herb-rich Woodland 8 50 30
702 Montane Grassland
12 SUB-ALPINE WOODLANDS & SHRUBLANDS
42 Sub-alpine Shrubland 2 50 30
43 Sub-alpine Woodland 8 50 30
44 Treeless Sub-alpine Mosaic 5 50 30
202 Snow Patch Herbland
206 Sub-alpine Grassland 5 20 15
207 Sub-alpine Grassy Shrubland
209 Sub-alpine Treeless Complex
210 Sub-alpine Wet Heathland 8 50 30
Appendices 29

13 PLAINS GRASSLANDS
100 Sandplain Grassland
120 Grassland
132 Plains Grassland 5 10 7.5
654 Creekline Tussock Grassland
888 Plains Saltmarsh Complex
888 Plains Sedgy Wetland
14 PLAINS GRASSY WOODLANDS & FORESTS
25 Limestone Grassy Woodland
55 Plains Grassy Woodland 5 50 30
65 Sedge-rich Woodland
66 Low Rises Grassy Woodland
68 Creekline Grassy Woodland 4 70 40
103 Black Box Chenopod Woodland 5 50 30
113 Gypseous Plain Woodland
124 Grey Clay Drainage Line Complex
128 Grassy Forest 4 70 40
151 Plains Grassy Forest 4 70 40
168 Drainage Line Complex
175 Grassy Woodland 5 50 30
235 Gilgai Plain Woodland/Wetland Mosaic
274 Shrubby Granitic-outwash Grassy Woodland
283 Plains Sedgy Woodland
640 Creekline Sedgy Woodland
642 Basalt Shrubby Woodland
649 Stony Knoll Shrubland
651 Plains Swampy Woodland
652 Lunette Woodland
657 Freshwater Lignum Shrubland
659 Plains Riparian Shrubby Woodland
663 Black Box Lignum Woodland
674 Sandy Stream Woodland
676 Salt Paperbark Woodland
679 Drainage Line Woodland
705 Basalt Creekline Shrubby Woodland
709 Scree-slope Grassland/Woodland
776 Plains Woodland
855 Riverina Plains Grassy Woodland/Lignum Wetland Mosaic
857 Stoney Rises Pond
868 Pine Box Woodland
889 Wimmera Plains Grassy Woodland/Plains Grassland Mosiac
895 Basalt Escarpment Shrubland
30 Appendices

15 RIVERINE GRASSY WOODLANDS & VALLEY GRASSY
FOREST
26 Rainshadow Woodland
47 Valley Grassy Forest 10 50 30
56 Floodplain Riparian Woodland 5 50 30
57 Conifer Plantation
105 Drainage Line Grassy Woodland 8 50 30
106 Riverine Grassy Forest 5 50 30
130 Riverine Forest
198 Sedgy Riparian Woodland 4 60 35
199 Sedgy Swale Shrubland
251 Rainshadow Grassy Woodland /Valley Grassy Forest Mosaic
295 Riverine Grassy Woodland 5 50 30
298 Riverine Sedgy Forest
863 Floodplain Reedbed
16 HERB-RICH WOODLANDS
67 Alluvial Terraces Herb-rich Woodland 5 25 15
70 Hillcrest Herb-rich Woodland
71 Hills Herb-rich Woodland 5 50 30
129 Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland 5 50 30
153 Aquatic Herbland 5 70 40
157 Buloke Herb-rich Woodland
164 Creekline Herb-rich Woodland 5 70 40
203 Stoney Rises Herb-rich Woodland
644 Cinder Cone Woodland
785 Heathy Herb-rich Woodland / Damp Sands Herb-rich
Woodland
878 Deep Freshwater Marsh
894 Scoria Cone Woodland 6 50 30
17 HEATHLANDS
5 Coastal Sand Heathland 3 60 35
6 Sand Heathland 4 60 35
7 Clay Heathland 4 50 30
8 Wet Heathland 4 50 30
50 Coastal Heathland
89 Sand Plain Heathland 5 50 30
90 Tea-tree Scrub
156 Blockstream Coniferous Heathland
165 Damp Heath Scrub 4 40 25
184 Montane Wet Heathland
204 Sub-alpine Damp Heathland
205 Sub-alpine Dry Heathland
279 Heathland Thicket
304 Mountain Epacrid Scrub
625 Damp Heathy Woodland
Appendices 31

18 MALLEE
62 Sandstone-rise Broombush
63 Gravelly-sediment Mallee
75 Gravelly Sediment Broombush Mallee/Heathy Woodland
Mosaic
85 Chenopod 5 50 30
86 Woorinen Sands Mallee 5 50 30
87 Lowan Sands Mallee 5 50 30
88 Mallee Heathland 5 50 30
91 Loamy Sands Mallee 4 50 30
92 Scrub-pine Woodland 2 50 30
93 Broombush Mallee 5 50 30
95 Red-swale Mallee 3 50 30
96 Big Mallee
97 Pine Buloke Woodland 5 50 30
98 Belah Woodland 5 50 30
101 Saline Shrubland 3 50 30
102 Alluvial Plains Shrubland 10 50 30
114 Loamy Sands Mallee/Scrub-Pine Woodland Mosaic
118 Savanah Woodland
119 Savanah Mallee
158 Chenopod Mallee
19 WETLANDS
10 Estuarine Wetland 4 50 30
13 Brackish Sedgeland
74 Wetland Formation
104 Lignum Wetland 5 70 40
107 Lake Bed Herbland 5 50 30
125 Plains Grassy Wetland
136 Sedge Wetland
197 Sedge-rich Drainage Line Shrubland
200 Shallow Freshwater Marsh
281 Sedge-rich Wetland
284 Claypan Ephemeral Wetland
289 Moira Plain Wetland
290 Channel Wetland
291 Cane Grass Wetland
292 Red Gum Wetland
300 Reed Swamp
334 Lagoon Wetland
520 Shallow Sands Woodland 5 50 30
643 Brackish Drainage Line Herbland/Sedgeland
648 Saline Lake Verge Herbland/Sedgeland
656 Brackish Wetland
32 Appendices

19 WETLANDS (cont.)
677 Inland Saltmarsh
680 Freshwater Meadow
683 Semi-permanent Saline
875 Blocked Coastal Stream Swamp
891 Plains Brackish Sedge Wetland
899 Plains Freshwater Sedge Wetland
984 Dune Soak Woodland
994 Dunes 10 60 35
994 Escarpment Shrubland
11 Coastal Lagoon Wetland 3 60 35
20 OTHER
117 Herbland
148 Montane Sedgeland
149 Plantation (Softwood and Weedy Hardwood)
170 Feldmark
171 Fen
853 Ferny Woodland
0 No EVC
0 No EVC

Analysis of Disturbance by Fire On Public Land in Victoria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Disturbance by Fire On Public Land in Victoria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALYSIS OF DISTURBANCE BY FIRE

ON PUBLIC LAND IN VICTORIA

This report was commissioned

Level 6, 240 Victoria Parade

© The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, 2002.

ISBN: 1 74106 050 8

Ian Christie Ian Miles

Rod Gowans Gary Morgan

Members: Fire Ecology Steering Committee

Table A1. Methods of persistence through a disturbance ......................................................................25

Maps (Maps 2–5 located in back pocket)

Protected Areas State forests

Vital Attributes and Key Fire Response Species

Age-class Distribution Analysis

The ‘Interim Guidelines’ Approach

Objectives of this Report

Data Sources and Analysis Methods

Figure 1 Example of Benchmark

Table 3 Fire Cycles by EVCGroup

EVCGroup Min TFI Max TFI7 Fire Cycle

TFI = Tolerable Fire Interval

Little Desert % within 50% of 'ideal' Area (ha)

Data and Analysis Limitations

Dundas Tablelands Coastal Scrubs & Grasslands

Data Durability and Access

Fire and Biodiversity

Departure from the ‘Ideal’

More Effective Planning

Table 8 EVCGroup ‘Urgency’ (based on Fire Cycle)

EVCGroups requiring Urgent Action EVCGroups of Low Urgency

EVCGROUP % Area (ha) % of PL Cat

Table 10 State Priority for Addressing Fire Regime – Protected Area

EVCGROUP % Area (ha) % of PA Cat

EVCGROUP % Area (ha) % of SF Cat

The following people also contributed to this study:

Appendix A ‘Vital Attributes’ Classification ......................................................................................... 25

Table A1. Methods of persistence through a disturbance

Table A2. Suitable conditions for establishment

T tolerant, will establish in presence of adult competition (multi-aged population)

Table A3. Longevity values for critical life stages (years)

Juvenile No reproductively mature material present

Source: Noble and Slatyer (1981)

Appendix B EVCs and their Fire Cycles listed by EVCGroup

EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

EVC EVC Name Min Max Fire Cycle

You might also like