Kinglake & Toolangi

Fieldwork Report

by
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 1

HYPOTHESIS 1.1 2
INTRODUCTION & LOCATION 1.2 2/3
IMAGES OF THE FIELD 1.3 3/4

SECTION 2 4

DATA COLLECTION 2.1 4

EXAMPLES OF DATA COLLECTION/ RESULTS - PRESENTATION 2.2 5
RESULTS - ANALYSIS 2.3 6/7

SECTION 3 7

CONCLUSION 3.1 7/8

EVALUATION 3.2 8

1
HYPOTHESIS | 1.1

Unburnt forest is more likely to cause an unpreventable bushfire than a regenerated forest:

The idea that unburnt forest is more likely to cause an unpreventable bushfire than a regenerated forest is
theoretically correct in many aspects but may not necessarily be true in a real-life situation. A fire is influenced by three
main factors, fuel, weather and topography. The type of fuel available directly correlates to the amount of heat that can be
produced and the ability to successfully fight the fire. In theory, a regenerated forest would provide a smaller fuel load for
a bushfire than an unburnt forest, due to the difference in vegetation growth and the time for a forest to grow back after a
fire. Overall, an unburnt forest would provide a larger fuel load and a higher density than a regenerated forest, therefore
making it much more likely to cause an unpreventable bushfire as lots of forest litter will cause a more intense fire than
minimal forest litter. Through studies carried out during the fieldwork excursion to Toolangi and Kinglake, it has become
evident that an unburnt forest can have the same likeliness to cause an unpreventable bushfire as a regenerated forest, by
analyzing the Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment Guide, fuel load and plant transects of two differing locations. One of the
main locations was an example of an unburnt messmate forest, located in Toolangi, and the other a regenerated messmate
forest in Mason Falls, Kinglake. By observing both locations, adequate data taken can be used to determine a final answer
to this hypothesis and determine whether or not a regenerated forest is less likely to cause un unpreventable bushfire than
an unburnt messmate forest.

INTRODUCTION/LOCATION | 1.2

A bushfire is a fire which burns uncontrollably in grassland, bushland or forest areas. Bushfires are classified as
hydro-meteorological hazards and occur annually around Australia, many of which, occurring in Victoria and southern New
South Wales. Both the Toolangi State Forest and surrounding Kinglake areas have been assessed by the Country Fire
Authority (CFA) and both have been given an extreme, meaning that if a fire were to take place, it would be uncontrollable,
unpredictable and fast moving. Spot fires will likely start, move quickly and come from many directions. The group visited
three main locations during the fieldwork excursion, Mason Falls, located in Kinglake, the Toolangi State Forest and the
Frank Thompson Reserve. These locations helped to gather information regarding the risk and danger of a possible fire
occurring and also the vegetation growth in an unburnt area in comparison to a recently burnt location.

Fig. 1.1 - Mason Falls, Kinglake in relation to Melbourne Fig 1.2 - Toolangi State Forest in relation to Melbourne

In Fig. 1.1 and 1.2, the locations of Mason Falls and the Toolangi State Forest are shown respectively, along with
their relative location to Melbourne. Mason Falls sits roughly 45km North East of Melbourne, and has an exact coordinate

2
of -37.4954167S,145.2421724E. The Toolangi State Forest on the other hand lies approximately 69.5km East North East
of Melbourne, with an exact location of -37.5376789S,145.5167139E. Both the Toolangi State Forest and Mason Falls area
were messmate forests with similar vegetation being found in both sites. The group also visited the Frank Thompson reserve
shown below in Fig. 1.3 which is situated approximately 46km from Melbourne with an exact coordinate of -

37.5215182S,145.3185865E. The Frank Thompson Reserve gave a clear overview of the topography of the Kinglake and
Toolangi region, with an idea of the distribution of forest areas and clearings.

Fig. 1.3 – Frank Thompson Reserve in relation to Melbourne

IMAGES OF THE FIELD | 1.3

Fig. 1.4 –Toolangi State Park canopy (Primary) Fig. 1.5 – Mason Falls and the Kinglake canopy

3
Fig. 1.6 – A panoramic view from the Frank Thompson Reserve lookout, displaying the topography of the land (Primary)

DATA COLLECTION | 2.1

During the excursion to the Toolangi State Forest and Mason Falls area of Kinglake, multiple methods of data collection
were exercised to help evaluate both the Overall Fuel Hazard of any particular site or area. One of these methods was an
Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment where the bark fuel, elevated fuel, litter depth and surface fuels were measured and
assessed to give an Overall Fuel Hazard rating to the area. These fuel hazard ratings assist in determining the chances of
successfully containing a fire in its first attack in these given areas so that this information can be calculated and relayed to
give accurate fire warnings and risk assessments. The other method of data collection were plant and vegetation transects.
Plant transects are used to make observations of vegetation growth, and compare them with observations of either the same
site over time, or a different site. In the case of the excursion, the groups compared the observations of a site which was
unburnt to a site which had burnt recently. These transects involved running a measuring tape 10 metres in a straight line
and observing the presence of plant specimens running either underneath or adjacent to the measuring tape. The plants were
then identified using a Specimen Guide and all plants seen were recorded on a horizontal axis of a graph, and their height
recorded along the vertical axis. This was undertaken in both locations, and provides a clear observation of the similarities
and differences in vegetation and plant life in both sites. Both of these methods of data collection are primary sources, as
the work was undertaken and information collected first hand. An example of secondary sources of data given on the day
was Jan’s (one of the guides) commentary of the destruction suffered by the Kinglake region during the Black Saturday
bushfires. Such information gave the group an idea of how a messmate forest burnt and recovered during and after a bushfire
as well as the impact it had on the communities.

Primary Source? Secondary Source? Why was this method used/how

was it helpful?

Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment Yes No Used to evaluate chances of

successfully containing a fire

Used to measure the risk possessed

by a fuel load

Plant Transects Yes No Used to make observations of

vegetation growth, and compare
them with other observations

4
 Jan’s Commentary No Yes Helped by giving an idea as to the
scale of the destruction as so to
demonstrate the regenerative
capabilities of messmate forests

Fig. 2.1 – This table shows the classification of the data collections taken during the fieldwork excursion

EXAMPLES OF DATA COLLECTION/RESULTS - PRESENTATION| 2.2

Below, is the fieldwork task undertaken to measure fire fuels and the Overall Fuel Hazard. This is a primary
source as it is constructed from information collected first hand on the day.

FIELDWORK TASK: MEASURING FIRE FUELS

Site One Site Two

Site Description Messmate Forest, Toolangi Messmate Forest, Kinglake

Bark Fuel Hazard L M H VH E L M H VH E

Elevated Fuel Hazard L M H VH E L M H VH E

Average Litter Depth (mm) 160 290 200 225 180 10 10 30 50 40

Average: 182.2mm Average: 28mm

Surface Fuel Hazard L M H VH E L M H VH E

Overall Fuel Hazard L M H VH E L M H VH E

Fig. 2.2 – This table shows the Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment (Primary)

FFDI (Forest Fire Danger Overall Fuel Hazard Chances of First Attack
Index) Assessment Success

Site One 20 Extreme 49% - 10% (Fire will fail most

times)

Site Two 20 Very High 49% - 10% (Fire will fail most
times)

Fig. 2.3 – This table shows the FFDI being used in conjunction with the OFHA to calculate the chances of successfully containing a fire during
the first attack (Primary)

5
 Underneath are the two plant transects constructed from info ration collected during the excursion. These are
primary sources as they are constructed from information collected first hand. (Apologies for the images, there was no
option for a plot graph)

Fig. 2.4 – The Toolangi State Park plant transect Fig. 2.5 – The Mason Falls/Kinglake plant transect

Both Secondary Sources – Jacob Zieba

RESULTS - ANALYSIS | 1.3

From the results gathered during the fieldwork exercises, it has been observed that both the unburnt site in the
Toolangi State Forest and the recently burnt site in Mason Falls were very similar in vegetation growth and distribution,
while being different in regards to fuel hazard levels. From the Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment (Fig. 2.2), it can be seen
that there is a reasonable difference in the fuel loads and risks of each site, with the Toolangi messmate forest being
seemingly more hazardous due to its bark, surface and overall fuel hazard rating as well as its average litter depth being
over 6.5 times deeper than Mason Falls at 182.2mm. The extreme overall fuel hazard for the Toolangi site can be explained
through the areas prolonged time without a bushfire. As the area hasn't experienced a fire in quite some time, the trees and

6
bark have grown old and begun drying up, creating weak, fibrous and easy to remove bark which provides perfect fuel for
a fire due to the low moisture content. The surface and elevated fuel hazard and average litter depth can also be explained
by this lack of fire. Due to the extended amount of time since the last fire, fuel has been able to accumulate given it’s had
decades to grow. The accumulation of vegetation on the ground becomes thick and dense, but also dies over time, leaving
vegetation with little to no moisture content abundant on the forest floor. The canopy on the other hand will grow thick and
dense, but will also occasionally drop a few branches and/or leaves, adding to the surface fuel. This is shown in Fig 1.4 in
comparison to the canopy in Fig 1.5. Due to the area being burnt recently in Mason Falls, the vegetation hasn’t been given
this time to build up and grow as much as the Toolangi site. The only similarity regarding the fuel hazard assessment is the
chance of successfully controlling a fire (Fig. 2.3) after its first attack, with both sites having a 50%-10% chance of a fire
becoming uncontrollable. The Toolangi site was also densely covered in green vegetation, in comparison to the twigs bark
and short grass at Mason Falls, which is evident of a higher moisture content, making it more difficult for a fire to start.
From these results, it can be determined that in this example, an unburnt messmate forest has a significantly larger fuel load
for a fire than a recently burnt messmate forest, but it may not always change the risk of a bushfire burning out of control.
In theory, a larger fuel load would mean a higher fire risk, but paired with the FFDI, the chance of an uncontrollable bushfire
is subject to change.

From the results collected in the plant transects, it has been observed that both sites contain similar vegetation with
a few differing specimens, and the major difference being distribution of plant life. In both Fig 2.4 and 2.5 it can be seen
that Australian Bracken is the most common out of the specimens observed and is found densely in the Toolangi site and
Mason Falls. This information tells us that Australian Bracken is abundant in both sites, and is able to regenerate quickly
enough to densely populate a recently burnt area of land. It can also be seen that both sites contain Australian Ferns as well
as Messmate trees. However, in Fig 2.4, it can be seen that the three Messmate trees are all within 3 metres of each other,
whereas in Fig 2.5, the Messmate trees are approximately 6 metres apart, not to mention that they’re burnt as well. From
this information, we can gather and infer that at the Toolangi site, the distribution of Messmate trees was much denser than
at Mason Falls, most likely due to the time needed to regenerate a forest after a fire. It can also be seen in Fig 2.4 and 2.5,
that the Mason Falls site had generally taller Messmate trees than Toolangi. This most likely means that the Mason Falls
site had started growing/regenerating before the Toolangi site, and had reach a higher average height before being subject
to a bushfire. The Toolangi site also had higher vegetation on average, meaning it is more likely to contribute to an
uncontrollable fire as long, upright vegetation will generate more oxygen and is more likely to ignite and burn. It also had
a variety of fine and coarse fuels, with many twigs, branches, sticks and pieces of bark available, meaning that a fire would
be able to ignite and spread easily while also having fuel available which will burn slower and for longer periods.

From these two data collection methods, it is evident in both that the unburnt Toolangi State Forest had a higher
fuel load and density of vegetation than the Mason Falls area, demonstrating that an unburnt messmate forest carries a higher
risk in regards to the three main factors of fires.

CONCLUSION | 3.1

From the data collected in both the Overall Fuel Hazard Assessment and the plant transects, it can be concluded
that an unburnt messmate forest is more likely to cause an uncontrollable bushfire than a regenerated messmate forest. Based
upon the information observed, it can be concluded that due to the significantly larger fuel load and overall hazard rating, a
fire in an unburnt messmate forest is more likely to lead to a bushfire burning out of control. As stated previously, a fire in
the natural environment is influenced by three factors, fuel, weather and topography. In this case, the unburnt messmate
forest had a larger fuel load with a higher overall fuel hazard rating. Considering the two sites were subject to similar weather
and had very similar topography, the defining factor of the danger and risk presented by the sites ultimately came down to
the fuel load, and since the data collected proved to show that as hypothesized, an unburnt forest presented a greater fuel
load to feed a potential fire, it therefore becomes the most dangerous of the two. Even though it has a much higher moisture

7
content, the Toolangi State Forest had a much larger quantity of fuel with varying sizes, all of which was arranged in a way
which would be most effective for a fire to spread quickly. Therefore, in conclusion, an unburnt messmate forest is more
likely to cause an uncontrollable bushfire than a regenerated messmate forest given the circumstances are similar regarding
weather and topography.

EVALUATION | 3.2

All in all, the fieldwork exercises went reasonably well. The results recorded were fairly accurate regarding the plant
transects, and the fuel hazard assessments proved very useful when writing this report. I did feel that our results for the
transects were a little inaccurate as it was difficult to plot vegetation below 10 metres accurately as 90% of it wouldn’t have
even been a metre tall. We were all inexperienced and a little unsure as to what to do as well, especially at the first site, so
a little more assistance from Jan or Carolyn would have been appreciated to help increase in our results accuracy. The data
collection surrounding the transects may be a little off but are valid and able to provide solid evidence. The fuel hazard
assessments are also valid and more accurate than the transects as they were much easier to perform. I am unsure if any
other types of data collection would be able to help if we were to conduct the same fieldwork excursion and write another
report apart from maybe taking samples of surface litter to analyse and determine the risk of a fire igniting due to it. Apart
from that, I have no further ideas of how to improve our data.

8
BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://cfaonline.cfa.vic.gov.au/mycfa/Show?pageId=publicDisplayDoc&fname=2017/CIG-HUM-
Kinglake-7_00_77681.pdf

http://cfaonline.cfa.vic.gov.au/mycfa/Show?pageId=publicDisplayDoc&fname=2017/CIG-HUM-
KinglakeWest-PheasantCreek-4_00_77683.pdf

http://gould.org.au/our-services/our-locations/toolangi-state-forest/

https://stbernardscollege-my.sharepoint.com/personal/boetel14_sbc_vic_edu_au/Documents/Y11%20-
%20VCE%201-2/

https://www.bushfireprone.com.au/faqs/

Gould League Fuel Hazard Assessment & Plant Transect Booklet

Jan & Carolyn (Gould League)