Ryan Gulch fire, and how the ranchers won their case against the state of Montana

Fall River Forest Fire FlamesOn April 20 Wildfire Today covered the jury verdict following a trial that awarded $730,000 to the owners of a Montana ranch, part of which burned in the Ryan Gulch wildfire in 2000 during a period that saw numerous fires burning across the state. The heart of Fred and Joan Weaver’s case was their contention that firefighters used poor judgement in selecting and implementing an indirect strategy of backfiring, rather than constructing direct fireline on the edge of the fire. In the process, they argued, more land burned than was necessary, including 900 acres of their ranch. The jury decided that of the monetary award, $150,000 was for the loss of timber, $200,000 was for the rehabilitation of pasture land, and $350,000 was to compensate them for the mental suffering and anguish of seeing their ranch threatened by the fire.

In the 18 hours since we posted the article, seven comments have been left by our readers, including two from the Weaver’s attorney, Quentin Rhoades. Mr. Rhoades is not your typical barrister. He worked as a wildland firefighter for eight seasons between 1987 and 1994, serving on the Helena Hotshot crew and later as a smokejumper at West Yellowstone and Missoula. He told Wildfire Today that he was in the first planeload of jumpers on the South Canyon fire in Colorado in 1994, the fatal fire on which 14 wildland firefighters were entrapped and killed.

The Ryan Gulch fire was managed by a Type 1 Interagency Incident Management Team from the southeast, the “Red Team”, with Mike Melton as Incident Commander working under a delegation of authority from the state of Montana.

The list of witnesses for the State of Montana included:

  • George Custer, the Type 1 Operations Section Chief on the fire, who recently retired as the Incident Commander of a National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) Team.  (As this is written on April 21, 2012, Mr. Custer is still listed on the NIMO web site as the IC of the Atlanta NIMO team.
  • Three firefighters who work for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation — two initial attack firefighters, Mark Nenke and Todd Klemann, and Jonathan Hansen, who according to Mr. Rhoades “was in charge of the Red Team for the State”.
  • Stephen Weaver (no relation to the Plaintiffs), the Planning Operations Section Chief for the Red Team on the fire. Mr. Weaver has been working for the U.S. Forest Service for 38 years.
  • Ron Smith, who was a Division Supervisor for the Red Team, presently working as a USFS District Ranger in Mississippi.
  • Shelly Crook, retired from the USFS, served as the State’s expert witness as a Fire Behavior Analyst
  • Chuck Stanich, retired from the USFS, was the State’s Type 1 Incident Commander expert. He is a former Fire Management Officer for the Lolo National Forest and Type 1 Incident Commander.
  • Red Team members who worked on the fire but did not testify included the Incident Commander Mike Melton, retired from the USFS; Tony Wilder, the Night Operations Section Chief; and Keith Wooster, the Fire Behavior Analysist, now retired from the USFS.

The Plaintiffs called one expert witness, Dick Mangan, who retired from the U.S. Forest Service Technology & Development Center in Missoula, Montana in 2000 with more than 30 years of wildfire experience. He is a past president of the International Association of Wildland Fire and currently works as a consultant in wildland fire, instructs fire courses, and raises black angus cattle in Montana.

Mr. Rhoades told us that local firefighting resources from the area staffed some divisions on the fire, and they employed direct tactics, not burning out or backfiring, and never used a drip torch or a fusee for igniting vegetation. He said they offered their local expertise to the Red Team but it was refused. Instead, the Red Team “planned and used all kinds of firing operations from day one”.

According to Mr. Rhoades, the firing operations were approved by the Incident Commander and were planned by the Day and Night Operations Section Chiefs, and the Planning Operations Section Chief, who consulted the fire behavior forecasts prepared by the Fire Behavior Analyst. However, no records could be found in the incident files that any backfires were ever lit or that there were any written planning or oversight documents related to backfires. While 272 pages of Unit Logs were found in the incident records, none of them were completed by Division Supervisors. George Custer, one of the Operations Section Chiefs on the fire, testified that Unit Logs were not necessary for Division Supervisors, but the 1998 Fireline Handbook uses the word “must” when talking about Division Supervisors completing Unit Logs. Members of the Red Team said the Fireline Handbook was “not authoritative”.

Mr. Rhoades got Chuck Stanich, a witness from the State, to admit under cross-examination that from studying the documentation, it was clear that no backfires were ever lit. Mr. Stanich and Mr. Mangan both held the opinion that if backfires were ever lit, they were done without adequate planning, documentation, and oversight. But locals, as well as George Custer, the Operations Section Chief who planned the backfires, testified that backfires were used on the fire. Apparently, the jury was convinced that backfires were used on the fire, but since there were no written records of planning or approval of them in the incident files, then they must have been conducted without adequate planning and oversight.

The jury also heard testimony about two near misses on the fire which were not documented or investigated. One involved two volunteer firefighters, and the other involved a Division Supervisor and two dozer operators. Regarding the second incident, Mr. Rhoades wrote in a comment on Wildfire Today April 20:

I stood on the spot, on the ridgetop, with one of those who nearly died. We could see right down to the Clark Fork from where they were about to be burned over. They would have all three died if a Type 1 helicopter had not been already operating within a mile of the blow-up. It dropped load after 2000-gallon load from the river right on top on them or they’d be dead, as they hurried their dozers down 40 and 50% slopes. Not to mention the 9,000 extra acres of land that burned.

These incidents may have helped to create in the minds of the locals serving on the jury that the Incident Management Team from the southeastern United States, where fires burn differently than in the west, was out of their element in Montana.

It may also be difficult to convince a jury pulled in off the street that setting fire to more vegetation can be a successful strategy of wildfire suppression, especially if local volunteer firefighters say they did not use that technique. There could also be an us-versus-them attitude, with rural Montana residents failing to see the benefit of the Federal Government’s fancy-dancy team from the other side of the country coming into their area and doing their own thing without adequately respecting ranchers and the expertise of local firefighters.

What can firefighters and Incident Management Teams learn from this?

  • First, do all the damn paperwork that’s required, especially Unit Logs. It’s not the most fun part of the job, but grow up. You can’t ignore this. Some teams attach a blank Unit Log form to every Incident Action Plan.
  • Document all major decisions, especially those that could be controversial.
  • *Conduct outreach with locals, have town meetings, personally interface with landowners that are directly affected by the fire, use web sites and social media, including but not limited to InciWeb and Twitter, updating them many times a day. Provide updated maps once or twice a day.
  • Talk with local firefighters. Become informed about local weather and fuel conditions, as well as local firefighting tactics that have been successful in the past.
  • Ensure that the final incident paperwork package is complete.
  • Follow-up on near misses. Document and investigate as necessary and required.
  • If the Fireline Handbook, Red Book, or other manual says something must be done, don’t interpret that as a tip, hint, or suggestion.

*Over the last few years, especially in 2011 in the Southwest, I observed that some Type 1 IMTeams really suck at stakeholder outreach and keeping the public informed. During the fatal Lower North Fork fire near Denver in March the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office did a wonderful job before the Type 1 IMTeam assumed command of the fire. They updated their web site numerous times a day, briefed the media on a regular schedule, held briefings for local residents after the media briefings, and used Twitter, providing a great deal of information to their community of very concerned citizens. They did not use InciWeb, but plenty of information was available on their own web site. Organized IMTeams could learn a lot about public information from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office.

UPDATE April 23, 2012:

The Ryan Gulch fire was 30 miles west of Missoula and 8 miles east of Drummond, Montana. The trial was held in Philipsburg, MT (map), a town with a population of 930 in 2009.

USFS to buy thousands of satellite emergency notification devices

SPOT
Example of a Satellite Emergency Notification Device. Photo by Bill Gabbert

The U.S. Forest Service has issued a solicitation indicating that they intend to purchase thousands of Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SEND). The specifications listed by the USFS require that the device be able to:

  • Determine location using GPS.
  • Send via satellite an emergency message containing the device’s location after pressing an “SOS” button. A monitoring facility would then notify a nearby emergency services agency.
  • Track location by sending the device’s location via satellite every 10 minutes, minimum, if activated by pressing the TRACK button.
  • Display the tracked locations on a map on the internet.
  • Send a pre-programmed HELP message including the device’s location.
  • Send a “check-in” message, including the location, after pressing a “check-in” button.

I have used one of these for years. In fact, the photo is my “SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger“, which is a second generation SPOT device. I always carry mine when I am on an extended motorcycle trip, or sometimes on a 4-wheeled vehicle trip. The two features that I like best about it are the SOS which works via satellite even when there is no cell phone service, and the tracking feature so that my family or friends can know where I am. If I’m running late, they can check the map on the web site and know that I’m still on the road and moving… or not.

On the solicitation the USFS says they want the devices because:

Forest Service employees routinely work in the wilderness. Their main mean of communication while in the wilderness is 2 way radios. Normally the employees use mobile and handheld radios to communicate their locations and status to the dispatch center. Approximately 20% of the forest is outside of the area of coverage of radios because of terrains.

It will be interesting to find out if they can use this device to track multiple wildfire suppression resources on one map. Will a dispatcher be able to see where all of their engines and crews are? Could it even be displayed on a smart phone? Will an Incident Commander or Branch Director have access to a map that shows where their firefighting resources are? This could add an element of safety. At times like this I think of the Esperanza fire, and wonder if it would have made a difference if the Operations Section Chief or Division Supervisor had had maps in front of them that displayed the location of Engine 57 at the top of that drainage before the fire overran their location. Could five lives have been saved?

Actually, using this little portable device for mass resource tracking is a half-assed approach, rather than putting professional-quality location-tracking devices in all wildfire suppression rolling stock and radios…like many professional-quality fire departments, police departments, and ambulance services have been doing for years.

I am not entirely fluent in translating contracting-speak into English, but it appears that the USFS has $1.2 million burning a hole in their pocket and they want to use all of it over the course of one year to buy as many devices as they can, to include a year of service — monitoring, mapping, and satellite messaging. A SPOT Personal Tracker is listed for $60 to $170 on Google, and a year of service costs $99. There are other brands out there with different pricing. The government would no doubt get a deal if they buy a few thousand, so picking some numbers out of the air, if they pay a total of $120 per device for a year, that would be 10,000 units. WOW. Even if they pay retail at Best Buy for a SPOT device, on sale now for $60, then pay retail for service, $99, that’s 7,500 of the little things.

Here is another excerpt from the USFS solicitation:

4.3 Minimum delivery requirements shall be 1,000 units 30 days ARO; 3,000 units (or the balance of the total) 60 days ARO; 5,000 units (or the balance of the total) 90 days ARO; and the balance 120 days ARO.

This technology is evolving rapidly, and since the SPOT is on sale at Best Buy, maybe the company is about to introduce a third generation device. DeLorme has an inReach device that can apparently do most if not all that a SPOT can do, but can also send AND receive text messages… anywhere. It’s a little pricey, costing several times more than a SPOT.

UPDATE, January 14, 2014: The U.S. Forest Service bought 6,000 of the devices. There is a discussion of them in the report of an ATV accident that occurred on the Schoolhouse Fire in New Mexico in 2013.

 

Thanks go out to Robert

Infrared video of wildfire in North Carolina

Michael Crouse saw our “one liner” from April 17 about a photo gallery of multiple master streams and a tower-ladder being used on a brush fire in North Carolina and sent us a link to the video below shot from what appears to be a police helicopter in Wilmington, North Carolina. The photo gallery and the video are of the same April 16 fire.

Michael said:

…It has our (NCFS) scout plane, A star helicopter, and the contracted Fire Boss all working the fire. It was shot with a FLIR camera from a helicopter. They switch over to the thermal and it is amazing footage.

At the 2:43 minute mark, the video switches to thermal infrared and suddenly the extent and perimeter of the fire are very, very obvious.  The video also catches water drops from a single engine air tanker and a helicopter.

Thanks Michael.

And below is more video, this time shot from the ground by a Captain in the Wilmington Fire Department, of the same fire burning intensely on both sides of 17th Street.
Continue reading “Infrared video of wildfire in North Carolina”

Rancher wins suit, says backfires ruined his land

GavelA Montana rancher who said firefighters’ backfires ruined his ranch won a suit against the state of Montana on Wednesday. A jury awarded Fred and Joan Weaver $730,000 in a trial over the strategy and tactics that were used on the Ryan Gulch fire in 2000 — $150,000 was for the loss of timber, $200,000 for rehabilitation of pasture land, and the balance was for the mental suffering and anguish of seeing their ranch threatened by the fire. About 900 acres of the Weaver’s land burned during the fire.

Here are some excerpts from an article in the Missoulian:

…“I hope it will make the state think twice about these operations,” attorney Quentin Rhoades said after the Granite County jury delivered its verdict on Wednesday. Rhoades represented Fred and Joan Weaver and their daughter, Vickie Weaver.

Although the state was the defendant, much of the fire crew came from Florida and elsewhere in the Southeast under a federal interagency management team. Rhoades said the evidence indicated the crew appeared unaccustomed to working in windy mountainous terrain.

[…]

Witnesses at the scene reported firefighters setting “backfires,” where one blaze is used to divert or control another. They are different from “burnouts,” where firefighters ignite the green foliage between their defensive fire line and the flame front to deprive a forest fire of fuel.

[…]

“The state said we saved structures, the power line, the highway and the railroad with backfires,” Rhoades said. “Our argument was it would have been a lot easier to save that stuff if you hadn’t gone around lighting fires everywhere. They said they had plans to light fires eight or nine days in row, but that was the documentation that was missing. The jurors found that particularly troubling.”

[…]

“I believe this outcome is unprecedented in Montana history,” Rhoades said. “I don’t think there’s been a verdict against the state for negligent forest firefighting. There haven’t been many verdicts on that anywhere.”

This could be worrisome for wildland firefighters, if they have to be thinking that a jury of people off the street may second-guess their tactics in a trial 12 years down the road. It makes a person wonder to what extent these jurors were educated during the trial about wildland fire behavior, the advantages and disadvantages of employing different tactics, and the reality of fighting fire during a major fire bust when firefighting resources are spread very thin, as they were in 2000 when this fire was burning.

The way the Missoulian article is written seems to imply that the difference between a backfire and burn out is significant. It may or may not have made a difference in the trial, but the definition of a backfire in the article does not agree with that listed in the National Wildfire Coordinating Group’s Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology.

Backfire: A fire set along the inner edge of a fireline to consume the fuel in the path of a wildfire or change the direction of force of the fire’s convection column.”

Burning out: Setting fire inside a control line to consume fuel located between the edge of the fire and the control line.”

UPDATE on April 21, 2012: Ryan Gulch fire, and how the ranchers won their case against the state of Montana
Thanks go out to Dick

MAFFS training in Wyoming

MAFFS training at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming,
Wyoming Air National Guard MAFFS training at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming, April 16, 2012. Photo by Mr. Dewey Baars.

Last month the two Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) air tankers based at the Channel Islands Air National Guard base in Port Hueneme, California participated in training for wildfire assignments. This week the two Wyoming Air National Guard MAFFS C-130s based in Cheyenne did the same thing. On Monday through Thursday they loaded the 3,000-gallon tanks with water instead of retardant, and flew 100 miles to practice dropping on the rolling terrain of Camp Guernsey in southeast Wyoming.

Besides the four MAFFS aircraft mentioned above, there are four others in Colorado and North Carolina, for a total of eight. The military C-130s are used only when the commercial air tankers on contract are totally utilized on going wildfires.

An article at trib.com has more details about the MAFFS training, and also has this about the federal fleet of air tankers:

…The number of commercial tanker planes under Forest Service contract has declined from 44 in 2002 to 11 this year. The planes are getting old and more expensive to maintain.

Western senators have taken note. Last month, four of them asked the Government Accountability Office to look into whether the Forest Service has done a good job of assessing its aerial firefighting needs.

Last week, Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado also expressed concern about the 1950s-era Lockheed P-2Vs that compose the remaining fleet.

“I am unconvinced the USFS’s current air tanker fleet is prepared to adequately address an immense wildfire or even what is sure to be a long fire season,” Udall wrote to Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.

The U.S. Forest Service is eager to work with Congress to develop a quicker and more effective commercial tanker plane fleet, said Tom Harbour, national director of fire and aviation for the Forest Service.

The Forest Service didn’t call on the military planes at all in 2009, he said, and it’s not a certainty it will need to in the months and years ahead.

The Wyoming National Guard produced a 2.6 minute video about the training.

Air tanker with cracked wing spar may not return to service; and solicitations for more air tankers

Tanker 07, Whoopup fireThe P2V air tanker that had the 24-inch crack in a wing spar and skin, causing the FAA to issue an Emergency Airworthiness Directive in February, still has not been repaired and it may not return to service. Dan Snyder, President of Neptune Aviation which operates the aircraft, designated Tanker 10, told Wildfire Today on Wednesday that he is not sure if it will fly again as an air tanker this year. Of the nine P2V air tankers that Neptune has on contract with the U.S. Forest Service, Tanker 10 will be the last to go through their off-season maintenance cycle this year. When the mechanics get to it, they will evaluate what it will take to make it airworthy again, and then the company will make a decision about the its future.

If it can’t be repaired, Mr. Snyder said it will be replaced with another air tanker, probably a jet-powered BAe-146. He said additional BAe-146s are presently being converted from airliners to air tankers, like Tanker 40, which was converted by Tronos and leased to Neptune. When asked if the additional air tankers are being built at Neptune’s facility in Missoula or at Tronos’ hangars on Prince Edward Island, Mr. Snyder would only say they are being built in “various locations”. According to Mr. Snyder, Neptune is being proactive in acquiring additional “next generation” air tankers that are newer than the 50+ year old P2Vs, even though they do not have a contract yet for anything other than the nine P2Vs currently under contract, plus interim approval for Tanker 40.

Tanker 40, the BAe-146, is young compared to the P2Vs, but it is no spring chicken, entering service in 1986. Tronos installed a tanking system that may be a one-of-a-kind; a cabin-pressure-assisted gravity drop design. According to the official U.S. Forest Service Airtanker Drop Test Report, produced after tests in July, 2011, the aircraft uses three to six psi of positive air pressure in the cabin of the aircraft to help push the retardant out of four nozzles. Other pressurized systems, such as those used on Evergreen’s 747 and the military C-130 MAFFS, use 20 to 100 psi created by on-board air compressors. In the BAe-146, after a retardant drop, the USFS report says the lowered air pressure is slow to replenish.

The report concluded:

The system produced drops meeting all line length requirements, but failed to produce consistent results for all coverage levels with any volume released. Additionally, pattern quality generally suffered when the aircraft released all the retardant onboard; analysis indicates that the aircraft would generally produce acceptable pattern quality on the grid if the final 400 gallons of any load was not released.

During the tests ground personnel unfavorably evaluated the tank’s fill system. The Interagency Airtanker Board only gave the aircraft “interim approval”, rather than full approval as a federally contracted air tanker.

We asked Mr. Snyder for more details about the BAe-146. He said “air pressure was not a factor in the delivery of the retardant. The problem was the trail off on half load drops, this is the issue we have been working at addressing the past winter.” He said he “can’t provide specifics due to the proprietary nature of the tanking system”.

Mr. Snyder told Wildfire Today that since Tanker 40 returned from a major planned maintenance at Prince Edward Island on February 26, Neptune has been working on the tank system in an effort to improve the drop performance. He said the company has also been transitioning some of their P2V crew members into the BAe-146 program, undertaking “an aggressive pilot training program which includes several weeks of ground school covering aircraft systems and operations, BAe-146 simulator flight training, in aircraft operational experience, and pilot certification with our in house examiner.”

We found nine flight plans for the BAe-146 originating from and landing back at Missoula, most lasting 17 to 49 minutes, that were filed between March 2 and April 2.

Minden Air Corp. is also converting a BAe-146 and hopes to have it flying over fires this year. Tim Christy, the Director of Flight Operations for Minden, told us that the tank system is conventional, consisting of a 3,000 gallon internal retardant tank and a computer controlled constant flow door system which will rely on gravity, rather than a pressurized system, to force the retardant out of the tank.

Air tanker list

The list of large air tankers on contract this year that we copied from the National Interagency Fire Center web site on March 24 showed 12 aircraft, including Tanker 40, the BAe-146. The latest list dated April 4, 2012, below, does not include Tanker 40. We asked Mr. Snyder why, and he was not aware of it, and he did not know why it was not on the list. We asked Jennifer Jones, a spokesperson for the USFS about the list and she said according to their aviation staff, Tanker 40 still has interim Interagency Airtanker Board approval.

But the list does include Tanker 10, which as described above, may or may not be repaired.

Federal contract air tanker list 4-4-2012

Solicitations for additional air tankers

The U.S. Forest Service expects to begin awarding contracts before the end of April from the responses they received to their solicitation for “next generation” air tankers which closed February 15, 2012. The specifications required that the aircraft can hold 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of retardant, be turbine-powered, and cruise at 300 knots.

Since the contracts for the existing 11 “legacy air tankers” expire at the end of this year, it is probable that the U.S. Forest Service will issue a solicitation for the older air tankers before the 2013 fire season. It is unlikely that a large number of next-gen air tankers can be put on contract in 2013, so we may have to keep the 50+ year old war birds flying for a least a few more years. But, it is tough to predict what the USFS will do when it comes to managing large air tankers.

The Department of Interior has contracted for two water scooper air tankers for the last few years and a similar solicitation closed on April 6. Here is an excerpt:

Requirement for two multi-engine, amphibious, water scooping, tanker aircraft in support of water application for fire suppression missions. …Services shall be for the exclusive use of the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs and U.S. Forest Service in support of wildland fire suppression in the State of Alaska and the Lower 48 States.

Another scooper?

Grumman HU-16 Albatross
Restored US Navy HU-16C, built June 1953. Wikipedia.

Marsh Aviation may be converting amphibious piston-engined Grumman HU-16 and G-111 airframes into turbo-prop, amphibious air tankers. If “Marsh Aviation” sounds familiar to you, it’s because the company converted 23 military surplus S-2 airplanes into air tankers for CAL FIRE, and eventually replaced the piston engines with turbine engines, making it possible for the aircraft to carry 1,200 gallons of retardant.

According to Wikipedia (consider the source):

Conversion will include the installation of new 1,400 US gallon (5,300 litre) retardant tank with an automated control system operating a variable quantity/constant flow release system, major titanium modifications to the load-bearing airframe, the installation of a quick-change cargo/passenger floor, new Honeywell TPE331-14GR/HR turbo-prop engines, new EFIS cockpit, new electrical system including new starter-generators, new hydraulic pumps and an upgraded hydraulic system, as well as such optional features as an APU.