Prescribed burning liability: New potential policy to support prescribed fire in California

SB332 is a new bill introduced by Senator Dodd that would tie a gross negligence standard to CA’s state-certified burn boss program.

To learn more about this bill review the factsheet here >.

If you’d like to support this effort, you (or your organization) can mail a letter of support to Les Spahnn, Senator Dodd’s Leg Director: Leslie.Spahnn[at]sen.ca.gov.

Here is some sample language for a letter of support:

[ORGANIZATION’S LETTERHEAD]

[DATE]

Senator Bill Dodd

State Capitol, Room 2082

Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB 322 (Dodd) – SUPPORT

Dear Senator Dodd:

[ORGANIZATION] is pleased to submit this letter in support of your SB 332. By reforming the

liability standard for certified burn bosses, this legislation will remove a major disincentive that

currently prevents highly trained prescribed fire practitioners from applying ‘good fire’ to the

landscape. The additional liability protection provided to certified burn bosses under SB 332 will

enable burn bosses to expand the application of controlled burns throughout the state, improving

California’s wildfire resilience and aiding in averting catastrophic fire seasons like those experienced

by the state in 2018 and 2020.

Under current law, prescribed fire practitioners are subject to a ‘simple negligence’ standard for

escaped fires—that is, they may be found liable for property damage or personal injury if they fail to

exercise the care of a ‘reasonably prudent person.’ While less than 1% of prescribed fires escape

their intended burn area and property damage and personal injuries are exceedingly rare, concerns

over potential liability nevertheless severely disincentivize the application of prescribed fire. As a

result, practitioners engage in fewer burns and/or smaller, less-complicated burns, providing less

wildfire resilience than would a robust prescribed fire regime. Additionally, the simple negligence

liability standard impacts the availability of liability insurance for practitioners.

SB 332 would apply a ‘gross negligence’ liability standard to certified burn bosses, holding them

liable only for damages resulting from reckless or willful misconduct. There is little reason to believe

that this change in law would significantly increase damages from prescribed fire, particularly

because the gross negligence standard would only apply to highly qualified, well trained prescribed

fire professionals certified as burn bosses under a curriculum developed by the State Fire Marshall.

But the benefits of the gross negligence standard would be significant, improving access to liability

insurance, increasing the state’s wildfire resilience through preventative application of ‘good fire,’

and expanding the suite of ecological benefits that prescribed fires provide.

Experts believe that California should burn upwards of 1 million acres per year via prescribed fire to

avert another catastrophic wildfire season, but current levels are only about 125,000 acres per year.

Because it will promote the application of prescribed fire by reforming the liability standard for the

state’s most qualified prescribed fire practitioners, your SB 332 will make measurable improvements

in the state’s wildfire resiliency. Consequently, [ORGANIZATION] is happy to support SB 332,

and we thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,

[SIGNATURE]

[PRINT NAME, TITLE & ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION]

Aspen Leaf Diseases- Are you seeing these signs?

After hearing some reports about aspen losing their leaves early from the Tahoe and seeing a lot of damaged stands on the Lassen, Modoc and Plumas , I wanted to share these publications on aspen leaf diseases.

Most aspen stands that I have visited appear to be suffering from Marssonina Leaf Spot (or Blight).  This is the disease that is causing most of the trees to lose their leaves right now.  I have also observed leaf and twig blight (Venturia sp.) and aspen/poplar rust.  

As far as rust is concerned, most NE California areas also have willow species that are heavily infected with rust, causing yellow foliage and foliar dieback.

All of this is related to our wet spring and summer that has created ideal conditions for these foliar pathogens to thrive.  The good news is that these types of diseases generally do not cause tree mortality and affected aspen (and willow) will likely survive and look normal next year (unless we experience the same conditions again). The potential bad news is that some of these stands are already in a poor condition, or are growing on drought impacted sites,  and this is just one more stressor.  That being said, please let me know if you see any additional health problems next year in some of your disease impacted stands.

Download Marssonina Leaf Blight PDF >
Download Willow Rust PDF >
Download Leaf Spots PDF >

Daniel R. Cluck
Forest Entomologist
US Forest Service
Forest Health Protection
NE California Shared Service Area

Aspen Ecology and Restoration Management in California Workshop

On Oct 28-29th, 2014 over 70 participants representing a diverse set of backgrounds and interest met to discuss all-things-aspen in South Lake Tahoe. The presentations included topics from restoration, fire recovery, climate change, birds, and even genetics. Presenters were mostly from the Tahoe area but a number of them traveled from out of state to share their aspen knowledge.  
 

Fire Expediters was extremely generous and donated the use of their fire bus to help us get such a large group of people out to the woods.

A special thanks to all our presenters who travelled from near and far to share in this workshop.

A pile burn in the newly restored Aspen stand.

Download PDF presentations here:

• Remembrance of David Burton - Hugh Safford
• Natural range of variability of aspen - Becky Estes
• Current state of western aspen - Dale Bartos
• How climatic variability can increase or decrease the amount of aspen in the landscape - Dominik Kulakowski (or download the Journal Article)
• Aspen genetics (and why a manager should care) - Karen Mock
• Aquatic ecosystem response to timber harvesting for aspen restoration - Ken Tate (or view the Journal Article)
• Fire regimes of quaking aspen in the mountain west - Doug Shinneman
• Forest ecosystem health & aspen restoration - Dave Fournier
• Aspen restoration treatments and community response - Bobbette Jones
• The Western Aspen Alliance: Promoting sustainable aspen ecosystems - Bobbette Jones
• Aspen restoration on the Tahoe National Forest - Craig Wilson
• Tahoe National Forest aspen restoration: A 20-year journey - Tina Mark
• California State Parks aspen restoration projects and monitoring Sierra district - Silver Hartman
• Vegetation response to restoration thinning and slash pile burning in aspen - Pascal Berrill / Christa M. Dagley
• Perspectives on bird-aspen relationships from the Tahoe region - Will Richardson
• Avian community response to mechanical aspen restoration in the Sierra Nevada - Ryan Burnett
• Lake Tahoe aspen education - Joy Barney
• How does the LTBMU monitor if management objectives are met with current burn pile practices in aspen? - Shana Gross

Yosemite National Park: Backpacking through fire

On the last weekend of June, I had the opportunity to backpack through the forests of Yosemite National Park and see these ecosystems through the lens of fire. The purpose of the trip was to provide information to Amy Quinton, a reporter for Capitol Public Radio. The station is putting together a series of radio programs and other resources about wildland fire in California.  The trip was guided by Kate Wilkin, a PhD graduate student at UC Berkeley. With years of experience doing research in fire and frequent backpacking trips for field work, we were in very capable hands. 

Over 3 days we traveled ~16 miles by foot through the forests of the Illilouette basin. Frequent stops were made to record Kate’s knowledge for the radio program and to get images of the landscapes being discussed. 

Why was this area of Yosemite so important to showcase in the story of California Wildland fire? Forest here are considered fire resilient or fire restored. Here, when a wildland fire begins, it is allowed to burn (given certain conditions) rather than rapidly suppressed. This “fire use” has been going on here for decades now and is beginning to be modeled elsewhere. Walking through this slightly blackened but living forest was quite the contrast to the aftermath of some fires I've seen with acres of blackened snags and limited regeneration.  While there were areas of high severity along our hike, these were often small patches  just a leap and hop away from a low or moderate burn severity area. Kate explained how these represent the fire mosaic.  It is this variation or “quilt-work” that is so important, to wildlife, biodiversity, and future fire behavior.

As I am still new to the ecosystems of California, I learned a lot on this trip. But I won't spoil the radio story,  you’ll just have to wait for more! Amy Quinton is still developing the radio programs and expects this and other fire stories to become available sometime in the fall. A website with photos and videos will also be available at that time. I’ll include the information about its release in the newsletter/social media when it’s ready.  But for now, here are a few more amateur photos from the trip, taken by yours truly.

Managing Forests for Future Resilience: Field trip summary

By Stacey Sargent Frederick
California Fire Science Consortium Program Coordinator
ssfrederick@berkeley.edu 

On May 14, 2014 a diverse group gathered to visit sites throughout the UC Center for Forestry’s Blodgett Research Forest. The “Managing Forests for Future Resilience” field trip sponsored by the California Fire Science Consortium featured a variety of forest treatment activities that could be used to promote forest resilience. The treatment activities were implemented and monitored with the results on this handout. You can also check out the map of the sites. The field trip was joined by a group of foresters from Israeli which prompted some interesting discussions throughout the day.

Resilience

So what is resilience? During the first site visit, this concept and its application were described. Beyond being a popular buzz-word of the day, it’s a way of thinking about how much a forest system can change and still be a forest; a forest with similar functions and characteristics. For example, a severe fire could convert that a non-resilient forest into a shrubland.  However, fuel reduction may create a more resilient forest that will still burn, but will remain a functional forest. The analogy of “a ball in a trough” was discussed (for a quick explanation of resilience, watch this video).

History

Around 1915, areas of this forest were “blitzed” logged using a railroad system constructed for the purpose. This was a common logging practice during this time in the Sierra Nevada area. In some areas, as few as six trees per acre were left.

Then came the era of fire suppression, which created the overly dense forests and heavy fuel loads (estimated: 35 tons/acre) in fire prone ecosystems. This fuel situation now creates high fire risk for human resources and forest ecosystem functions in some cases.

Discussion points and take-home message from each site

 Control:

 With no treatment and no wildfires, the forest regenerated to a very high stocking level. With over 450 trees per acre currently on the site. The biomass in these areas continues to increase over time despite some mortality and fuels continue to accumulate in the understory.  

The importance of surface fuels on fire behavior was strongly stressed here. The risk that any wildfire in the area would kill most of the trees continues to increase from these fuels and fuel ladders formed by all the suppressed trees.

Mechanical only:

 This treatment removed  merchantable logs with a feller – buncher. Then a  large piece of machinery (masticator) ground up sub merchantable material with diameter less than 10 inches into smaller chips.

 The “mechanical only” treatment seemed to be the biggest winner of all the treatment types. Though a lot of material was removed, growth of biomass on the site (mostly in larger trees) continues to increase . Masticated material was very deep on the site (at least 18 inches deep in some areas) but was almost completely decomposed within 7 years, further reducing the fire risk. The moisture and fungi at this site were unusual for the region, causing faster chip decomposition than may be found in some areas of the Sierra Nevada.

Mechanical and prescribed burn site:

 This treatment involved similar harvest as the mechanical site (with removal of logs and mastication of sub-merchantable material), but then the remaining activity fuels were burned within the same year. Because of the deep layer of masticated material, the fire was quite hot, with 6 foot high flames,  and long fire residence times which scorched tree cambiums causing higher than desired tree mortality (especially to oaks). Tree vigor had not recovered at this site and biomass was not increasing. If researchers were to redo this treatment, they would wait several years between treatment and burning to allow the slash and masticated material to decompose and reduce prescribed fire intensity.

The shrub regeneration was extraordinary here.  The group had a discussion on the pros and cons of shrub regeneration. While shrubs are additional fuel and can increase fire risk (especially as they mature) they provide important wildlife habitat and forest diversity.

Prescribed burn only:

The prescribed fire only treatment was burned twice, once in 2002 and again in 2009. “Putting a fire in the first time isn't restoration, its reclamation” said Scott Stephens, fire science professor at UC Berkeley and the study’s lead investigator.  The first fire killed some of the standing trees. The second consumed the fire-killed trees that had fallen to the ground by that time. The second burn is more like restoration. Even though the tree vigor might be reduced by fire, it may be worth the price to lower risk.

A discussion of grazing as part of the fuel reduction was prompted by the herd of cattle chased off during this site visit.

Knowing the season and type of day to burn is vital to attaining the desired result.

The "prescribed burn only" area was burned twice during the treatments and made a great spot for lunch.

Slash burn pile and biofuel:

 Blodgett forest managers worked with Placer County Air Quality to monitor the emissions from this massive slash pile burn. This showed that black carbon (one of the most damaging forms of emissions to climate change) was being released.

Five other fuels piles were instead taken to a biofuel plant. The benefits and issues with biofuel were documented in a study commissioned by Placer County:

Over 40 homes worth of energy was generated and the emissions (including black carbon) from the biofuel plants were far lower than a pile burn.

The drawback is the cost of getting the material to the plant. To break even, biofuel plants need to be within 20-30 miles from the treatment site, this slash was sent to one over 75 miles away.

Ways to subsidize the cost were discussed and the need for market mechanisms to encourage biofuel use of fuel reduction activities.

This short video describes the outcome of the bio fuel and smoke emissions project.

Conclusion: Which forest treatment is the best?

The answer is….

….it depends (you probably saw that coming). Most treatments kept the forest as a functioning ecosystem (created resiliency) and successfully reduced fuels. With each of these alternatives, other considerations such as cost, management objectives, time between treatments, site constraints, public opinion, etc. would factor into the determination of a “best” treatment.