Backfire, Not Controlled Burn, Sparked New Mexico Inferno
fe...@mscd.edu
Backfire, Not Controlled Burn, Sparked New Mexico Inferno
By Keith Easthouse
May 26, 2000 - A risky fire suppression tactic-not the ignition of the
prescribed burn-sparked the crown fire that swept through Los Alamos
and grew into the largest wildfire in New Mexico's history, federal
investigators told Forest Magazine.
John Robertson, Dan O'Brien and Joe Stutler, all fire experts with the
U.S. Forest Service, said that the prescribed fire set by the National
Park Service would have died out on its own had it been left to burn.
Instead, they said, it was a backfire set by firefighters that erupted
into an out-of-control forest fire.
The trio said the backfire was set in an area where the chance of
flames escaping into a tinder-dry, thickly wooded canyon was high.
Stutler said that fire managers directed crews in the field to bring
fire down slowly into that area from a moister and higher elevation, in
accordance with the original prescribed burn plan. In addition, the
crews were to use mechanical means to remove flammable deadwood and
brush from the area, near New Mexico State Road 4 a few miles southwest
of Los Alamos. But due to a lack of personnel, the fateful decision was
made at the scene to immediately burn the area instead.
Robertson, who confirmed this scenario, said he believes firefighters,
in an urgent bid to create a firebreak, "were trying to beat the
winds." Instead, high winds hit the tinder-dry area precisely when it
was being ignited, the investigators said.
According to Stutler, the decision to set the backfire was made by Park
Service personnel who were managing the firefighting efforts on the
ground at the time.
Stutler, Robertson and O'Brien participated in the federal government's
investigation of the Cerro Grande fire.
The blaze forced 25,000 people to flee, scorched 47,000 acres, left 405
families homeless and damaged Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
storied nuclear weapons research facility.
The investigators' findings are clearly detailed in a little-noticed
appendix of the exhaustive government report on the Cerro Grande fire
issued last week by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. But their basic
conclusion about the immediate cause of the fire is clearly stated in
the main body of the report: "Once the prescribed fire was declared a
wildfire, additional fire (was) introduced that ultimately produced the
source of spotting and escape when high winds developed."
The investigators' findings do not change the fact that the National
Park Service, by igniting the fire, set in motion the chain of events
that led to the disaster. At a press conference in Santa Fe last week,
Babbitt said that the Park Service was taking full responsibility for
the blaze.
But the investigators' determination that the deliberate setting of a
backfire caused the inferno is at odds with the basic conclusion of the
larger report and with the overriding message that has been given to
the public: that the Cerro Grande fire was essentially a prescribed
fire run amok.
Firefighters have lost control of backfires before-and those backfires
have burned private property. A backfire set by firefighters battling
the series of blazes that hit Yellowstone National Park in 1988 nearly
burned down the Montana town of Cooke City.
In New Mexico, "it wasn't the planned prescribed fire, but the
unplanned reactive emergency fire suppression backfire that blew out
the project area," said Tim Ingalsbee of the Western Fire Ecology
Center in Eugene, Ore. In the wake of the Cerro Grande fire, serious
questions have been raised about whether prescribed burning should be
used in the future. Wallace Covington, a fire expert from Northern
Arizona University in Flagstaff, has gone so far as to suggest that the
forests of the West have become so overgrown that setting prescribed
burns is too risky. The best alternative to reduce the fire hazard,
Covington says, is to mechanically remove trees-in other words, to log.
While the Cerro Grande fire was still raging earlier this month,
Babbitt imposed a thirty-day moratorium on prescribed fires that is
still in effect. Itis widely anticipated that the moratorium will stay
in place longer.
If prescribed burning is banned, its advocates say, or if its use is
seriously restricted, fire management officials would be deprived of a
critical tool in the on-going effort to reduce the widespread
catastrophic fire hazard in the West-a hazard directly due to almost a
century of fire suppression.
Robertson's, O'Brien's and Stutler's investigation, however, raises the
question of whether the storm of controversy and criticism aimed at
prescribed burning in the wake of the Cerro Grande fire is justified.
Robertson, O'Brien and Stutler, in separate interviews this week with
Forest Magazine, made the following points:
• If it had been left to burn of its own accord, the prescribed burn
would have eventually burned out.
The trio bases this conclusion on the fact that the prescribed burn was
set in a high-elevation (close to 10,000 feet) area that was relatively
moist. It was so moist, Robertson said, that Bandelier prescribed burn
personnel were having difficulty coaxing the fire to burn hot enough to
clear the area of underbrush-one of the main goals of setting the fire
in the first place.
"If they had kept it as a prescribed burn, it wouldn't have gotten out
of control," Robertson said. That would have been true, Robertson
added, even if extra people and equipment had never been requested.
• The decision to declare the prescribed burn an out-of-control
wildfire led to the more aggressive tactics that caused the burn to get
away from the firefighters.
"Everything became more accelerated and more urgent when it became a
suppression effort," Robertson said.
The decision to switch to a fire-fighting mode was made in part because
prior to the crown fire of Sunday, May 7, a few small spotfires did
occur outside the prescribed burn area. However, according to
Robertson, those were mostly minor and were, in fact, contained-
including the largest one, which was about 20 to 30 acres in size.
But possibly because of the proximity of the prescribed burn to Los
Alamos, there was concern. When Bandelier personnel contacted the Santa
Fe National Forest for backup in the form of extra people and
equipment, Robertson said there was confusion about whether funding for
such assistance could be made available if the fire was still being
treated as a prescribed burn.
To get that aid, Robertson said, it was decided the fire had to be
declared an out-of-control wildfire-in other words, a fire that needed
to be extinguished with all means available, rather than a prescribed
fire that needed to be guided and monitored to ensure that it behaved
as intended. Once that step was taken, various options for attacking
the fire were considered. Eventually, according to Stutler, it was
decided to bring fire downhill slowly toward State Road 4 to create a
firebreak while at the same time clearing out brush and deadwood near
the road. But because of a lack of manpower that strategy was changed
and firefighters instead started burning along both sides of State Road
4, Stutler said.
That was risky for two reasons: it put fire, which burns uphill more
readily, at the bottom of a steep area; and it put fire near a thickly
forested canyon. It was from this area-where the ultimately disastrous
backfire was lit-that flames were carried by high winds across the road
and into the canyon, called Frijoles.
"It was the suppression action that put fire along Road 4 that resulted
in the escape from the project area," Robertson wrote in his report.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gordy
A backfire is a controlled burn.
Teel Adams
A back fire is started during a wildfire event to produce a fuelless
barrier.
A backfire is used to stop an existing wildfire, a control burn is a
different beasty all together.
nocr...@worldnet.att.net
Although, it is supposed to be controlled. I wonder who really made
the decision to start the backfire. I know when I was fighting forest
fires with the California Department of Forestry, those decisions came
from very high up, usually the incident commander (fire boss) who
usually a district ranger or higher. In the seven seasons I fought
fires I was probably only on two or three fires where a backfire was
ever used. They are avoided if at all possible. Of course I'm
referring to a true backfire, not just a firing out operation to widen
the line.
Craig
Don Staples
back fire is essential in applying a control, or prescribed, fire. Burning
out the down wind denial strip, extending the fire line, cleaning up pockets,
maximizing the area burned in the time frame allotted, etc.
Cannot separate the two.
John Cawston wrote:
> nocr...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:17:38 -0400, Teel Adams <col...@dcr.net> wrote:
> >
> > >No, a control burn is a routine procedure to burn off fuel.
> > >A back fire is started during a wildfire event to produce a fuelless
> > >barrier.
> > >
> > >A backfire is used to stop an existing wildfire, a control burn is a
> > >different beasty all together.
> > >
> > >
> > >Gordy wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ummm one small problem here.
> > >> A backfire is a controlled burn.
> > >
> > Although it is supposed to be controlled. I wonder who really made the
> > decision to start the backfire. I know when I was fighting forest
> > fires with the California Department of Forestry, those decisions were
> > made very high up, usually the incident commander (fire boss) who was
> > usually a district ranger or usually ever higher. And they are avoided
> > if at all possible. In seven seasons I probably wasn't on more than
> > two or three fires were a backfire was used. Now I'm referring to true
> > backfires, not just firing out the line to widen it.
>
> I don't know US conditions, but backburns (backfires) here are responses
> to a situation out of control. Unless you can get far enough away from the
> conditions that caused the fire to become uncontrollable, a backfire is
> simply another fire to contend with..
>
> Backfires have often seemed to me to be hero to zero stuff. If you get
> away with it, you're a hero.. and if it fucks up, well, often you'll be
> forgiven for trying :)
>
> I would describe a good backfire as a *controlled* burn, i.e., you are
> instigating an action on the basis of good conditions, knowledge of same,
> and having the resources to stay in control. Otherwise, it's Tom Mix
> stuff, and best saved for the direct saving of life.
>
> BTW, do Officers in Charge of "Black Forests" seem to be preferred for
> advance in the ranks as they seemed to be here? :)
>
> JC
Mike Hagen
burns) were desperate attempts to stop major capitol improvements from
being overrun. Still, they were done very "scientifically" and I have
to admit - none got away. And yes, Rangers got promoted, as they
should for pulling it off in a white knuckle situation.
nocr...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:17:38 -0400, Teel Adams <col...@dcr.net> wrote:
>
> >No, a control burn is a routine procedure to burn off fuel.
> >A back fire is started during a wildfire event to produce a fuelless
> >barrier.
> >
> >A backfire is used to stop an existing wildfire, a control burn is a
> >different beasty all together.
> >
> >
> >Gordy wrote:
> >
> >> Ummm one small problem here.
> >> A backfire is a controlled burn.
> >
> Although, it is supposed to be controlled. I wonder who really made
> the decision to start the backfire. I know when I was fighting forest
Larry Harrell
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3938FD57...@ihug.co.nz...
> nocr...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
<snip>
>
> BTW, do Officers in Charge of "Black Forests" seem to be preferred for
> advance in the ranks as they seemed to be here? :)
>
> JC
>
Often Ranger Districts, after a big fire, get a moderate shot in the arm
with funding, temporary promotions and opportunities to shine in a time of
panic. I have been involved in several large-scale rehab/salvage projects in
the west see that there will be worse fires down the line with fuel buildups
and drought-related mortality reaching incredible levels in the west.
However, I think that Los Alamos and similar incidents are a big black mark
on wildland fire suppression. The Sierra Nevada Framework seeks to
accelerate this process towards inevitable repeats of burned houses, acres
of habitat, reduced water quality and barren landscapes. Alternating between
light timber harvests and cool burning will safely reduce the fuel load and
keep people working while gently steering our eco-systems towards natural
and self-sustaining forests.
Larry
--
Larry Harrell Fotoware
Making software out of Fotos for over five years now
New version of "Virtual Yosemite"!!
Downloadable demo available at http://www.lhfotoware.com/virtual.htm
Check out my web site at http://www.lhfotoware.com
John Cawston
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:17:38 -0400, Teel Adams <col...@dcr.net> wrote:
>
> >No, a control burn is a routine procedure to burn off fuel.
> >A back fire is started during a wildfire event to produce a fuelless
> >barrier.
> >
> >A backfire is used to stop an existing wildfire, a control burn is a
> >different beasty all together.
> >
> >
> >Gordy wrote:
> >
> >> Ummm one small problem here.
> >> A backfire is a controlled burn.
> >
> Although it is supposed to be controlled. I wonder who really made the
> decision to start the backfire. I know when I was fighting forest
> fires with the California Department of Forestry, those decisions were
> made very high up, usually the incident commander (fire boss) who was
> usually a district ranger or usually ever higher. And they are avoided
> if at all possible. In seven seasons I probably wasn't on more than
> two or three fires were a backfire was used. Now I'm referring to true
> backfires, not just firing out the line to widen it.
I don't know US conditions, but backburns (backfires) here are responses
to a situation out of control. Unless you can get far enough away from the
conditions that caused the fire to become uncontrollable, a backfire is
simply another fire to contend with..
Backfires have often seemed to me to be hero to zero stuff. If you get
away with it, you're a hero.. and if it fucks up, well, often you'll be
forgiven for trying :)
I would describe a good backfire as a *controlled* burn, i.e., you are
instigating an action on the basis of good conditions, knowledge of same,
and having the resources to stay in control. Otherwise, it's Tom Mix
stuff, and best saved for the direct saving of life.
BTW, do Officers in Charge of "Black Forests" seem to be preferred for
Gordy
> A backfire is used to stop an existing wildfire, a control burn is a
> different beasty all together.
If the backfire was lit to stop this control burn, than it was a component
of the control burn. Even so, by itself the backfire is still a controlled
burn.
My point being that this article is nothing but spin doctoring.
fe...@mscd.edu
Gordy <gordy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8hg7d...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Really???? And why are your not the revisioinist Spin Doctor = Since
people there IDed what caused the run away fire! It was not a planned
part of the Controlled Burn!
http://www.abqtrib.com/fire/052700_report.shtml
Analysts: Suppression fire,
led to N.M. inferno
Report says it was a fire meant to contain the original prescribed burn
that led to flames hitting Los Alamos
By John Hughes
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The wildfire that raged out of control and burned
down part of Los Alamos resulted from a fire deliberately set to try to
control a prescribed burn -- not the prescribed burn itself, Forest
Service analysts have concluded.
The firefighters who set the high-intensity suppression fire
violated the direction of land managers and fire specialists who had
said a less aggressive, low-intensity fire should be used to try to
control the prescribed burn.
The findings were in a preliminary fire investigation report
released by the Interior Department May 18 and affirmed by the agency
on Friday.
But the role of firefighters in the fire has largely avoided
public attention in the aftermath of the fire that destroyed more than
220 homes and caused the evacuation of about 25,000 people.
Interior Department leaders have instead stressed the failure of
National Park Service officials to properly plan and implement the
prescribed burn that ultimately led to the largest fire in New Mexico's
recorded history.
But Appendix 8 of the report concludes that a fire set by
firefighters to burn brush and prevent the prescribed burn from
spreading is the one that blew out of control from high winds.
"It was the suppression action that put fire along Road 4 that
resulted in the escape from the project area," wrote John Robertson, a
fire behavior analyst for the Umatilla National Forest in Oregon, who
investigated the fire aftermath.
Elsewhere in the report, analysts said the large suppression fire
was contrary to a fire management report written by land managers and
other firefighters at the scene that had recommended a lower-intensity
suppression fire.
"This resulted in additional fire being introduced into the unit,
which ultimately produced the source of spotting and escape when high
winds developed on Sunday, May 7," the report said.
Robertson and Joe Stutler, a Forest Service fire specialist in
Redmond, Ore., who also worked on the report, said in interviews Friday
that they are not blaming the firefighters or holding them responsible
for the blaze.
"I would have done the same thing," Robertson said.
The men also said their findings should not alter a basic
conclusion in their report -- that the Park Service initiated the
series of errors by having too few firefighters at the scene of the
prescribed burn.
"They never had the resources there to do the job," Stutler said.
Robertson said the prescribed burn -- even after it had "slopped
over" past its boundary -- would have likely slowed or stopped had
there been more firefighters initially at the scene. In that case, the
suppression fire that blew out of control would not have been lit, he
said.
But once local officials declared the prescribed burn
a "wildfire," a new firefighting crew came to the scene and used the
more aggressive firefighting techniques typical for fighting large
fires, including the setting of the high-intensity suppression fire.
That fire dried out nearby trees and made them more susceptible to
fire when the winds picked up. "It was bad timing in terms of the wind
hitting," Robertson said Friday.
Andy Stahl, the executive director of an Oregon environmental
group, said Interior officials have said too little about the role of
firefighters and as a result given a negative image to prescribed
burns -- a practice that Stahl and other environmentalists view as
critical to fire prevention.
"You call in a professional, you expect them to do the job
properly, not to make the situation worse," said Stahl of Forest
Service Employees for Environmental Ethics in Eugene, Ore. "They're the
ones who turned a prescribed fire into a catastrophe."
Joan Anzelmo, an Interior Department spokeswoman, said the agency
was not trying to downplay the role of the suppression fire in the
wildfire. The investigators had, after all, included the information in
the report, she said.
"It's the combination of all of what took place that led to the
mistakes," she said.
In releasing the report, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
announced that a ban on prescribed fires in the West will be lifted
next month for most federal agencies, but will be left in place
indefinitely for the National Park Service.
Babbitt and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, who is responsible
for the U.S. Forest Service, had both said May 12 their departments
would impose a 30-day ban on prescribed burns.
The report said the prescribed burn program "is an essential tool
for good resource management" and that many are successful.
"When agencies do fail, it is generally not because of a lack of
adequate policy, standards and guidance, but a result of not following
that guidance. Agencies write a plan, but do not live the plan," the
panel said.
The group concluded by warning: "What happened with the Cerro
Grande Prescribed Fire could happen again if changes are not put into
place to ensure that agencies 'live the plan.'"
Gordy
>Really???? And why are your not the revisioinist Spin Doctor = Since
> people there IDed what caused the run away fire! It was not a planned
> part of the Controlled Burn!
Aside from not understanding your writing too well let me point out:
> WASHINGTON -- The wildfire that raged out of control and burned
> down part of Los Alamos resulted from a fire deliberately set to try to
> control a prescribed burn -- not the prescribed burn itself, Forest
> Service analysts have concluded.
To analogoze what the article was trying to point out would be like saying
that "The spin of the car is what killed the pedestrian, not the drunk
driver"
The backfire was a direct result of setting the control burn in the first
place.
Which makes me wonder...why am I defending such an obvious fact????? If the
control burn wouldn't have been started than the backfire wouldn't have been
needed. Simple algebra. And who cares since its in the past and already
happened. The only thing to argue is who's to blame.