Prescription Burning: the Recipe, and Post-fire Treatments

1. Prescription Burning: the Recipe, andPost-fire Treatments ESPM 181 Spring 2006

2. Where we’re going: • The how & why’s of setting up a prescribed fire in California • Why, and hows, of post-fire treatments • Expected take-homes: • Questions for your final • No lab write up.

3. Prescription fire • The Background (what the man behind the curtain has been doing)

4. Reasoning • Effective fuels reduction in plantations of the Russell Experimental Station (RES) • Fire-Safe University Property • Those little 8000 sq ft ‘starter castles’ in the LaMorinda metropolitan area…staring at the Oakland fire scenario • Training • ESPM 181

5. Land Management Descision • Center for Forestry (C4F) needed to acknowledge the need for management, after that: • Designate Forest officer for oversight • Designate IC – Site representative

6. Permitting • In our case, controlled by: • BAAQMD: • Bay Area Air Quality Management District • Contra Costa County • Contra Costa Fire & Cooperating Fire districts, structure protection • 911: need to be informed of burn ops. • Agriculture Permit Division: Burn Permits • California Division of Forestry • Wildland Fire Unit Standby, Structure Protection • BAAQMD controlling agency variable: • Boils down to size, and what’s burning: • <10 acres • >10 acres • Native or Non-native vegetation

7. BAAQMD • Regulates all burning; • Major limitation to all operations in California • Regulations vary by air basin; San Joaquin Valley is strictest re: forest Rx fire (most Sierra Nevada forests, YNP, SNP all have to deal with these guys) • Smoke Management Plan • Requires Environmental Impact Statement • Required on: • Any burn from May 1 to October 31 • Any burn over 10 acres • Any burn in native vegetation, including WFU

8. BAAQMD: • November 1 to April 30: • Burning in less than 10 acres of non-native vegetation can occur without Smoke Plan • RES: • Regulation 5 exemptions used: • < 10 acres • Plantation, non-native vegetation suite • Training

9. RES Calendar: • Convincing C4F that prescribed fires can be included in management: May to December 2005 • Actual decision to proceed with burn permitting: December 2005 • Contact (Everett) of regulating agencies: January 2006 • Fuels Vegetation Workup start • Final C4F ‘nod’ for equipment, manning: February 2006 • ICS • Equipment Committal • Manning Committal • Fuels (181) • March 2006: • Felling • Line construction • Equipment relocation (PPE, hose, handtools)

10. What really happens: • March 2006: record month with most days with measurable precipitation in East Bay records (not total amount record, though) • April 2006: • -Standby • Rotate to stand down if conditions don’t improve by 15 April • Gear up for November application: • Add 2-3 acres in the target • Not too unusual: • PW03: Western Yosemite National Park burns: • Planned since mid-1990s • Permitted 1998, pending limits by SJAQMD • Partially ignited 2001, 2003, shut down by SJAQMD • Partially ignited 2005, seasonal shutdown

11. Why mitigate post fire effects? • Waterman Canyon, Christmas Eve 2003 • Two months after ‘Old’ Fire, October 2003 • 34 Years, 1 month after Panorama Fire • Ryegrassed by CDF & USFS • Waterman Canyon has a slide, in one form or another, within a year of every fire since 1932 • Other Hillslope scenarios very similar throughout the western US

12. Most of southern California (and huge portions of Bay Area flatlands) are built on alluvium from surrounding hills • Large % derived during post-fire storm events Harrison Canyon Catchment Basin (1983) & Spring Creek Debris Flow (1999). Both San Bernardino County, both are from USGS SCAMP director Doug Morton.

13. Sources • Robichaud, Beyers & Neary, 2000. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire Rehabilitation Techniques. RMRS-GTR-63 • Web Reading # 6 • Biscuit Fire, 2002: • http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/biscuit-fire/index.shtml

14. B.A.E.R.:Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation • Formal Authority: 1974 • Originally for • 1) Threat Reduction, • 2) Soil & Water Loss, • 3) Water Control & • 4) Water Quality • Reassessed 1998: • Addition assessment for needs concerning: • Evaluation of Run-off control • Minimization of Downstream post-fire effects • Assess impacts on ecosystems’s ability to recovery • Compare Hillslope v. Channel mitigation effects • Assess economic, social and environmental costs & benefits (including no treatment) • Treatment Transfer: How can one successful treatment be employed elswhere • Identification of information gaps

15. Process: • BAER initiates during Type 1 project fire events • Requested by Type 1 Overhead • Own Authority • On request by Area-of-concern managers (usually Forest level) • Team is in-place well before ‘containment & control’; begins immediately on soil & water rehabilitation, usually during suppression activities

16. Staff • Team Leader (just like a Type 1 Incident Commander) • Disciplines: • Hydrology • Soils • Timber Management • Wildlife • Engineering • Range Management • Archaeology • Fire Management • Geology

17. BAER • Primary Objectives: • Health & Human Safety • Watershed Stabilization • Both fire-affected area & downstream • Should address both alluvial & colluvial mass movement • Secondary ‘Big’ question: • Is there any treatment that could be performed which will significantly increase the ecosytem recovery?

18. BAER • Limited to rehab work and ‘significant improvement over natural recovery’ • For instance: • Cannot build new facilities with BAER $ (but you can repair old ones) • Cannot alter long-term silvicultural goals (but can provide for some seeding, if ‘significant improvement’ is indicated) • Can’t set up tasked, event-specific research

19. BAER • GTR-63 provides: • Fire effects review • How to acquire & analyze data • How to describe results of assessment & monitoring • Discusses BAER assessments & treatment effectiveness • Makes conclusions regarding BAER process • Makes recommendations about BAER process

20. Hillslope Treatments (“First line of defense”): • Broadcast seeding, including grasses • Exotics: cheap, fast growth • Natives: Expensive (20x to 50x), slow growth • Most BAER treatments are shying away from inexpensive seeding, but Private, County & State agencies (except CDF) not. • Mulching • Contour trenching • Contour felling • Fencing & contour check-dams • Lopping & scattering of slash • Hay, straw wattles, Jute meshing, etc

21. Channel Treatments • Within any ‘order’ stream • Check dams: • Logs • Hay Bales • Rock Dams, Rock Cages, Weirs • Tend to fill w/ debris

22. Road Treatments • Target: increase the water and sediment ‘capabilities’ of roads & road structures • Culverts • Outsloping • Overflows • Crossings • Bridges

23. BAER • Biscuit Fire, 2002: • Provides a real-life example of the BAER process • Records of Decision • Final E.I.S.’s: • Environmental Impact Statements • The alternatives, including the ‘no treatment’ alternative

24. Willow Fire (SBNF 1999) • BAER Team identified, addressed: • Slope erosion problems • Meadows • Streams With Chubb, Trout populations • North Face (Steep Terrain) Check Dams & Trenching • Some Reseeding • Atriplex & Artemesia populations • NO GRASSES (Even the haybales were suspect…T&E species problems)

25. Hmmmm: Interesting questions: • Be able to briefly discuss the Fire Impacts that GTR-63 is concerned with. • What are the three primary types of erosion control treatment categories? • Why isn’t broadcast seeding such a good idea anymore, and what vegetation community is most affected by this treatment? • Are ‘no treatment’ costs more or less than specific treatment alternatives? Why or why not?