Satellite photo of Las Conchas fire shortly after it started

Las Conchas fire, photographed by NASA satellite.
Click to enlarge. Las Conchas fire, photographed by NASA satellite, June 26, 2011.

Here is the caption provided by NASA for the photo above:

==========================================

High temperatures, low humidity, and strong winds allowed the Los Conchas Fire, burning near Los Alamos, New Mexico, to grow very quickly on June 26, 2011. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)on NASA’s Aqua satellite captured this image about an hour and a half after the fire started. Within that short time, the fire had already become intense enough to send a towering plume of smoke east over Los Alamos, about 12 miles (19 kilometers) to the northeast. The active fire region is outlined in red.

By the morning of June 27, the fire had burned 43,597 acres (17,643 hectares or 176 square km), bringing down power and phone lines. The fire forced about 100 people out of their homes in the communities of Cochiti Mesa and Los Conchas and closed Bandelier National Monument and Los Alamos National Laboratory. As of about 10 a.m. local time, the fire was about a mile from the southwest boundary of the lab.

The image also shows the smaller Pacheco Fire burning in the Santa Fe National Forest east of the Rio Grande. The Pacheco Fire started on June 18 and has burned 9,334 acres (3,777 hectares or 38 square km).

Download large image of the photo above (2 MB, JPEG)

===========================

Wildfire Today posted more information about the Las Conchas fire on June 29.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

13 thoughts on “Satellite photo of Las Conchas fire shortly after it started”

  1. As I see already noted.. the numbers one gets are usually a wee bit out of date. The other thing is that tankers have been flying ever since late on Monday — when the winds have allowed them.

    0
    0
  2. I am a local resident and very familiar with the area where the fire started. Pictures have been posted that were taken about 30 minutes after the fire started. It had gone from a grass fire to a crowned fire in that time. Short of a slurry tanker circling overhead before the fire started there was no way it was going to be stopped. You could have had multiple engines and a bunch of hotshots there in less than an hour and it would not have mattered.

    Anyone with even a basic understanding of wildfire knows that a crowned fire on a windy day is not going to be stopped by even the most aggressive initial attack. It is nice to think that we can control a force of nature like that, but reality is that we can’t. Fires and floods of a given size are not stoppable and only sometimes manageable.

    0
    0
  3. I originally asked if Las Conchas fire was fought aggressively enough. My question was based on what I know about how fire used to be fought. That has changed with time and with fatalities on fires. Safety has become #1 priority, not fighting fire. For better and worse. In my experience (admittedly limited), getting on a fire fast is key to getting it out. Las Conchas moved fast and started remotely, as most forest fires do. I have heard that firefighters were and perhaps are still sitting in camp, never having set foot on a fire. Stats for Las Conchas were that there are less than 350 people on the fire, no tankers and not many other resources. My question is still why?

    0
    0
    1. Keep two things in mind with these reported numbers. First, they are often 24 hours behind. This morning’s national sit report shows over 750 people on the fire, and that is likely actually yesterday’s data, reported last night, for this morning’s report. So the 350 reported yesterday is probably really from the prior day. Also keep in mind that in many cases, folks are coming from a long way away. AZ and NM have had very high fire activity and heavy commitment of resources. At other times, they could have had a lot more folks there quicker, but there simply AREN’T a lot of fire folks sitting around doing nothing in the southwest right now. I know they’re trying to get folks here quickly, because I got ordered for this fire yesterday, then canceled when they learned I couldn’t get there across 4 states and arrive in 4 hours. They’re trying!

      0
      0
  4. I used to live in Los Alamos, and know the terrain of the area fairly well, including the traffic on the nearest road.

    The probable timeline based on the location would involve a 5 to 10 minute wait for the next car to come by on the major road after the fire became noticeable from the road – which is apparently about a half mile to a mile from the ignition point (as shown on several maps I have seen). Then the person that noticed the problem has to either drive to their destination (a half hour to 45 minutes away for most trips in the area) or drive to someplace that has cell phone coverage (cell phone reception is not very good in many places up there). Once the fire department had been notified, it would take at least a half an hour to get a truck up there. While this is occurring, the fire is blowing up rapidly. Realistically, the earliest any fire equipment is likely to arrive on that location is about 45 minutes to an hour. In the first 5 hours, the fire grew from ignition to 3500 acres. Given that, there is no initial action possible that is going to bring this fire under control as it is likely that the fire was well over 100 acres before the first equipment could have arrived on the scene.

    Note that the place I have seen marked on maps for the initial ignition point looks like it might be reached by hoses from a place that a truck could drive to. It looks like it is a half mile from a highway, and a couple hundred yards from a private road. However, the truck would be relying on internal water only.

    Heavy equipment (dozers and such) would take a couple of hours to get there from Santa Fe because of the steep, winding, mountain roads. Crews would take somewhat less time. This assumes, of course, that the crews and equipment are in Santa Fe, and ready to go, and not in the fire line someplace else (like the Pacheco fire near Santa Fe).

    High winds grounded any aircraft on both Sunday afternoon and Monday.

    I would like to remind people that in 2000 with a fire crew on hand, the conditions worsened so fast that a prescribed burn got out of hand and burned through 45,000 acres over the next couple of weeks – in pretty much the same area.

    0
    0
  5. I’m not talking about how firefighters fight fire. Most bust their butts. I’m talking about politics. I have been closely associated with fire fighting for 40 years and I see a HUGE change in that time. Fires used to be suppressed with initial attack. Not anymore. Because policy has changed. Liability seems to be the number 1 priority. In the past firefighters recognized and accepted the risk factor. Not anymore. The reason resources are stretched then is because decision makers do not train adequate numbers, do not budget appropriately. Used to be firefighters from across the country could be mobilized and deployed within hours. Yeah there’s alot of fuel out there, but that didn’t happen overnight, not even in the last 70 years which is about how long we’ve been fighting fires. I think regulations governing logging and fire fighting policy is not at fault, just an excuse. I am NOT faulting firefighters, I’m married to one. I also know that for the last 25 years or so his job has been a frustrating one cause management doesn’t do their job.

    0
    0
    1. Kathy – a few questions & comments about your latest post. You state that you “have been closely associated with fire fighting for 40 years.” My question: in what capacity: as an on-the-ground FFT1 or FFT2? Maybe as a District Fire Management Officer? Or on an IMT? if so, in what capacity? Later, you refer to your spouse: is that your total involvement in wildland fire? You state that “fires used to be suppressed with initial attack.” Right – about 98% over the past 30-40 years; we’ve always had fires escape IA and go “project” on us: remember “Dude” in 1990? How about the Southern Oregon fires in 1987 or the Easter Oregon bust in 1986? And don’t forget the SoCal fires in the 1950s and 1960s. I disagree that “policy change” has anything to do with fires escaping IA – prove your point!You state that “liability seems to be the number 1 priority.” I disagree: SAFETY is the #1 priority, but the legal liability issues that resulted from the deaths on Thirtymile have everyone looking over our shoulders, not because of the actions by the USFS and other Feds, but because of the actions of politically ambitous lawyers in the US Attorneys Offices.You throw a general punch at “decision makers” and “management” for not doing their jobs: again, please be more specific? I’ve had 40+ years in wildland fire management, many of those years as a “manager” and a “decision maker”: I asked for the people and $$ I wanted, sometimes got it and sometimes not! Still did the best job possible under the circumstances to hire, train, equip and supervise my folks, and we ALWAYS tried to catch fires on IA when that was the resource objective for the area. There are a lot of tired and frustrated folks out there today, and it’s not even July. We’ll be better able to deal with our problems in the coming months if we can deal with specific examples rather than throwing out vague and unfounded generalities. We’ll leave that to the Congressional hearings that are bound to occur this Fall and Winter – if the Congress actually decides to be in session!

      0
      0
  6. And one more point —

    Wildfire fighting resources in New Mexico…

    The forest service fire fighters are stretched might thin —
    Wallow fire
    Raton fire
    Pacheco fire
    Socorro Bosque fire etc.

    One just can’t jump off one fire line and go to another fire — especially given the 50 to 200 mile drive involved in a state like New Mexico.

    0
    0
    1. Why do you assume it was not fought agressively? A small percentege of fires escape Initial Action, this percentege increases when firefighters are confronted with drought conditions and dynamic fire behavior. Do you have some information the rest of us do not that would lead you to believe the IA was not handled appropriately?

      0
      0
    2. If you knew where this fire was at you’d quickly realize that it’s start point is quite difficult to access. By latest reports it was started by a downed power line.

      Additional factors —
      1. while it’s now near Los Alamos, a town of about 20,000 people, it’s start point is a good 20+ miles away in an area with extremely few people, and essentially no local fire fighting resources. From Santa Fe, it’s a good 20-30 miles. From Los Alamos, you essentially can’t get down to where that fire started (unless you are riding a mountain bike on single track trails).

      2. These national forests are allowed to grow unchecked, uncut, and untended for decades. This fire had unbelievable amounts of fuel to work with. From Albuquerque (45 miles away), I could actually see the glow of the actual flames on Sunday night. Only after the fact is it obvious that’s why it ballooned from 400 acres to 43000 acres in one night.

      3. Conditions. We haven’t had rain
      in this area in well over 3 months;
      and had a dry winter to boot. Humidity levels are less than 10% daily, and winds daily are 10-20 mph with gusts to 40.
      Light a fire somewhere with immense amounts of fuel, and these conditions — and guess what — it grows really fast.

      0
      0
      1. Thanks Jeff. I was going to reply to Kathy in a similar manner, but you covered it VERY well. 🙂

        0
        0

Comments are closed.