No Accountability/Liability for Prescribed Fire Starters

The saga continues: there is a bill being proposed that will allow a person/company to apply for a prescribed burn permit, to pay $250 for said permit, never have to renew, and be 100% free and clear exempt from any liability . The committee that reviewed this were concerned that $250 was too high of a permit cost. :faint: If you think this is #@*%$% up like I do, it's time to get pissed off and write our reps and tell them to fix this bill. Here's what one of my lovely friends has just submitted and to whom and a copy of the actual bill is posted below that:


Madame Chair, Senator Nicholson, representatives Gerou and Levy, and Director Davis,

Director Cooke will be reviewing the issues discussed in the attached email with the sponsors tomorrow, hopefully after the morning session. I've asked the JeffCo Commissioners to get involved with making sure the public is adequately protected. Please give consideration to these crucial requirements for broadcast burns. Thanks for your time and consideration.
Peace

Good Day Paul Cooke,

I didn't get an opportunity to hear the Division's plans for enforcement, compliance and penalties for broadcast burns in Colorado during last Tuesday's Senate Interim Committee hearing on SB83.

In anticipation of upcoming discussions about the 2013 Prescribed Burn Act, I'm hoping you'll let me review the draft rules/regulations for prescribed broadcast fire in Colorado. These rules will coexist with SB83 when it passes, and I would review them with a full understanding of the draft nature of the information. Help me understand how community meetings and local authority involvement, among other things, are to be required for future prescribed burns, by sharing the draft regulations with me now.

NO CIVIL LIABILITY TO CERTIFIED BURNERS
SB83, Section 6, (3)(b)(II) should not provide immunity from damage caused by any private landowners or their designee just because they obtain a CO Prescribed Burner Certification. Without strict non-compliance requirements and language, as well as penalties and consequences, like permanent revocation of prescribed fire permits and hefty fines, SB83 does not require enough change in Colorado's broadcast burning process to ensure the public's safety. Insurance requirements is just one way the Division can make burners more accountable, responsible and safer.

REQUIRE INSURANCE OF BURNERS
Last Tuesday you remarked that you had not considered requiring insurance of private burners. Will the Senate bill include any such insurance requirements? SB83's current 2.8.13 draft doesn't contain the 'potentially affected neighbors' which we discussed on Tuesday. Will that change? As I explained the people who died in the escape of the LNFF were not adjacent landowners. Widening the requirement to include those in the path of a potential escape is prudent and effective. Requiring written notification letters to be part of the permitting process either by APCD or FPC will keep burners accountable for their actions and keep the people in the burn's area safe.

Having seen none of the specific proposed rules I remain hopeful, but questioning, that all necessary requirements for adequate protection, appropriate safety and involvement of the pubic will be required and included in what a burner must do to receive FPC approval to proceed with prescribed fire activities.

WHAT LICENSE, PERMIT, PLAN WILL FPC ISSUE FOR PRESCRIBED BROADCAST BURNS
What type of issuance will FPC Division provide to burners? A permit, license or Prescribed Burn Plan?

SB83 LACKS PATROL UNTIL FIRE OUT, ENFORCEMENT, NON-COMPLIANCE PENALTIES, WRITTEN NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS
The proposed bill needs to change because it lacks:
- a commitment to have all prescribed fires manned by a patrol until they are out (Director Davis is the person who stated CO's standard would include remaining onsite until fire is out);
- a tiered system for severity/risk of burn;
- written notification to nearby potentially affected neighbors;
- consequences for non-compliance;
- local fire and law enforcement involvement in and approval of a burn;
- oversight to ensure safety and protection of the pubic; and,
- a requirement that burners carry and provide proof of insurance.

WHAT OVERSIGHT IS PLANNED AND WHO PROVIDES IT
What regulations or plan are proposed to ensure future prescribed fires maintain a working RAWS weather instrument on site, or that the fire location's access roads have been evaluated, surveyed and marked, or if weather forecasts and predictions are within the prescription, or whether neighbors most likely affected by the fire's escape have been notified and given contact information, or if emergency notification systems' personnel can accurately identify a prescribed fires' location and the correct burner involved, and lastly, how do the draft regulations and SB83 ensure that if a fire escapes and exceeds the MMA, that incident command procedures are known by and adhered to by all burners? Penalties for non-compliance, especially for high risk fires, are needed.

APCD PRESCRIBED FIRE WEBSITE
Colorado's citizens' ability to locate and track prescribed fires through a website provides transparency, accountability and an efficient dissemination that allows emergency notification systems to remain free of hundreds, if not thousands, of calls. If Colorado's Air Pollution Control Division provides a website with prescribed fires and burning locations, durations, and burners' contact information you can be assured the public will use it. Please request that the USFS begins this same type of database to be shared publicly, for its prescribed burns in Colorado.

You remarked that APCD's smoke management permitting process has not changed as far as you know. Can additional oversight by APCD aid in protection of the public with more stringent prescribed burn smoke management permits? Can they address fines and penalties?

You've led me to believe that the draft regulations and rules cover many of the issues I've raise for the past few months. Please share the drafts. The second reading of SB83 happens in the Senate today. Tomorrow's introduction of the 2012 Forest Health Report should be very interesting. I'm hoping to become more familiar with Boulder County's prescribed fire procedures, as I've asked their FMO Jay Stalnacker to share their comprehensive prescribed fire plan, and burners' manual and protocols with me. The Town Hall meeting tonight is being held at the West Jeff Middle School in Conifer at 7PM. I couldn't get you or myself any time on the agenda. It would be great if you could be here to provide insight and guidance from CO's FPC Division. I know Sheriff Mink will be speaking, as well as legislators and commissioners who will present also. Thanks for your help and time. Please let me know where you stand on my requests for the draft rules.
peace


***
Letter to Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
12:39 PM

to commish,
Dear Faye Griffin, Casey Tighe and Don Rozier,

Thanks for participating in tonight's Town Hall. I look forward to your updates.

I have been following the proposed Senate and House bills regarding prescribed fire. My homes are located in the Lower North Fork Fire (LNFF) area and my neighbors deaths from the escape on March 26, 2012 remain an excellent reminder to many that more stringent requirements are needed for future prescribed broadcast burns in the state.

Your attention to and assistance with ensuring that our mountain communities remain in the forefront of the minds of those passing this legislation is greatly needed. To hold someone accountable for their actions is a simple life lesson. To ensure that both large and small scale prescribed burners are required to conduct approved, compliant, responsible and safe fires the state should include and define non-compliance and all penalties associated with it. Many of the Air Pollution Control Division's (APCD) prescribed fire plan protocols were missed by the CSFS in the LNFF and the result is horrific. Enforcement and oversight are not provided for in what is being proposed by the Senate's bill 13-83.

Four bills were proposed by the Lower North Fork Wildfire Commission relating to wildfire in our state. The main prescribed fire bill is SB13-083 which creates the CO Prescribed Burning Act of 2013. The current draft contains no mention of compliance, non-compliance, penalties or fines for non-compliance. I have suggested to Director Paul Cooke of the Fire Prevention and Control Division that insurance should be required for private burners. He liked the idea but had not considered it. More time and consideration should be given this extremely important bill before it gets pushed through the Senate. That is my hope, to get more people aware of the inadequacies and provide a call from the public for additional requirements.

I ask for your help in ensuring that our citizens are adequately protected with the new prescribed fire legislation. Senators Roberts and Nicholson are carrying two Senate bills and Representatives Gerou and Levy have two bills in the House. Please find time to discuss these issues with these representatives. We are not adequately protected with SB13-83. Written notice to nearby potentially affected neighbors is not required in this bill. As the APCD protocol requires, written notice to those living in the area of the LNFF would have created an entirely different prescribed fire result. The written notice to neighbors protocol was never followed in the LNFF; as well as - no survey and analysis of the access roads, no working weather instrument onsite the entire week of burning, no moisture content of the fuels prior to ignition, just to name a few key processes that were required of CSFS in the LNFF but never followed. Without oversight and enforcement these protocols were not followed.

Help require Enforcement, Oversight, Non-compliance definitions and related Penalties, Insurance requirements for private burners, and whatever else you find in your examination of these proposed laws that needs changing. Don't look away from this. It gravely affects us all. Attached please find a copy of the proposed SB13-83 for your own review. Thank you for your time and commitment.
Sincerely,
--
**** *************
Attached is SB13-83. See page 9, lines 14+ (no page # included) to see the extremely wrong granting of immunity to private land owners who get Prescribed Burner Certification ($250 fee). Certification grants the burner will not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith, as long as their acts weren't grossly negligent or willful and wanton.

The 5 member Senate Judiciary Interim Committee who passed this bill through last Tuesday had no questions for any persons, public or government, who testified. They were concerned the $250 fee might be too high. My remarks covered most of the issues mentioned in these letters, stressing that the $250 wasn't an issue for any responsible burner intending to burn in Colorado,. The issue is the bill lacks many things including requiring a prescribed fire to be patrolled until the fire is out cold, plus - non-compliance penalties and fines, insurance requirements, enforcement, oversight... Scott Appel also testified with some of his story and loss, and truths about what should be done with the state's forests. He is currently working a forest clearing project on Shadow Mountain that produces awesome mighty logs which he is selling at a profit. Thanks for reading on and on. More to come later this morning. So glad to see such a great turnout tonight. Thanks for your service and talents.
peace

Thank you for the clarification on that, I was wondering what her part was in this bill since her name was on it. I saw that it came out of the LNFF Commission and figured that had something to do with it.

Who do you think would be best to contact about this bill LNFFInfo?

FYI, per the TOS : For certain government documents and press releases, Fair Use Doctrine does not apply and the entire content may be copied.

You are also allowed to post the entire content of an article, email, etc if you have the author's permission to do so, which I do.

There's nothing wrong with long posts or else I would've been banned after my first post on a community forum ever! What's wrong to do is to quote more than is permitted per copyright law/Fair Use Guidelines, to not link it to the original source so they can get the traffic they deserve, or to pass it off as your own.

Back on topic, yes the media should be our advocates, but not a one of them has stayed on top of this legislation - our own community members have, and we can and should look out for, and support, our own.