@article {bnh-3861, title = {Launceston flood risk mitigation assessment - June 2016 floods: suburb of Newstead}, number = {339}, year = {2017}, month = {10/2017}, institution = {Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC}, address = {Melbourne}, abstract = {

Launceston is floodprone and located within the Tamar River floodplain at the confluence of the Tamar, North Esk and South Esk Rivers in Tasmania. Launceston has been subjected to 35 significant floods since records began, with the 1929 flood considered to be the worst (Fullard, 2013). A new Launceston Flood Authority was established in 2008 to design, construct and maintain existing and new flood levees. To replace the existing deteriorated levees a flood mitigation initiative was completed in 2016 to provide Launceston with reliable flood protection up to the 200 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) event (Fullard, 2013).

However, this flood mitigation initiative did not extend to Newstead, a suburb in the east of Launceston, with the suburb consequently not protected from floods. Therefore, a new levee was proposed to protect the properties in Newstead from future floods. The cost of the proposed levee was estimated to be $580,000 along with an annual maintenance cost of $10,000 (Fullard, 2016).

Geoscience Australia was funded to undertake a project to conduct a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the proposed flood levee in Newstead as a variation to its current project (BNHCRC, 2017a) within the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC (BNHCRC). The project stakeholders included the CRC, Tasmanian Department of Premier and Cabinet, Tasmanian State Emergency Service, the City of Launceston, Launceston Flood Authority and Northern Midlands Council.

This report provides the details of the CBA of the proposed flood levee along with consideration of several other mitigation options as researched within the BNHCRC flood mitigation project.

}, isbn = {978-0-9941696-8-6}, issn = {339}, author = {Maqsood, T and Martin Wehner and Itismita Mohanty and Neil Corby and Mark Edwards and Fiona L Gibson and Rogers, Michael J.} } @article {BF-2498, title = {Protecting Lives and Property in the Wildland{\textendash}Urban Interface: Communities in Montana and Southern California Adopt Australian Paradigm}, journal = {Fire Technology}, volume = {47}, year = {2011}, month = {4/2011}, pages = {357 - 377}, abstract = {Threats to people and property in the wildland{\textendash}urban interface have taken on global proportions. It is becoming increasingly rare to have a wildland fire incident that does not involve people and their homes. In addition to Australia and North America, people have died in interface fires in Europe, Africa, and Asia, including 212 people who died in the devastating forest fires in northeastern China in May 1987. The prevailing interface model is one that attempts to evacuate people away from fire areas to get them out of harm{\textquoteright}s way. This traditional approach in the U.S. has been preferred by law enforcement agencies and fire services. The problem with this model is that evacuation warnings are often late to non-existent, leading to the deaths of interface residents entrapped by fires on highways as they try to escape. For example, 16 people suffered lethal burns when the 2003 Cedar and Paradise Fires in California overran them as they were trying to evacuate. Two communities in the United States have adopted variations of the Australian model of Prepare, Go Early, or Stay and Defend (P/GE/SD). Officials in the Painted Rocks Fire District, Montana, and Rancho Santa Fe, California, were interviewed to determine how the Australian model was being implemented. Two of the authors have firsthand experience with these two case examples. P/GE/SD has been tested successfully at both locations. The Australian model, however, is under review following the Black Saturday fires of February 2009 in Victoria, Australia. The objective of this paper is to present specific ideas that can be used to reform and improve fire policy, planning, and performance in the Wildland{\textendash}Urban Interface in the United States. }, doi = {10.1007/s10694-010-0171-z}, author = {Mutch, Robert W. and Rogers, Michael J. and Scott L Stephens and Gill, A. Malcolm} }