(UPDATE, October 1, 2015: we further analyzed this incident in a new article, including additional information.)
According to a report filed on SAFENET, a private landowner in Idaho armed with a weapon aggressively accosted firefighters and interfered with fire suppression operations in several other ways. Law enforcement officers had to be called more than once and two hot shot crews refused an assignment ordered by the incident commander.
This occurred on the Tepee Springs Fire which is three miles east of Riggins, Idaho on the Payette National Forest. As of September 24, 2015 the fire has burned over 95,000 acres.
The “event start date” in the report was September 2, 2015 but the harassment apparently occurred over multiple days.
Records show that the Great Basin Incident Management Team #2, led by Incident Commander Chris Ourada, was assigned to the fire from August 28 until September 12, 2015.
It is not clear what person or position on the fire filed the report. This may be just one side of the story, but we will be interested to see if the charges in the report hold up, and what corrective actions will be taken, if there is a need for any, other than “[we are] looking in to this matter”, and “thank you”.
Below is the Narrative from the report. Following that is the “Immediate Action Taken”, and the “Corrective Actions”.
****
Narrative:
On Division Delta on the Tepee Springs fire a “turn down” of assignment occurred where two IHC’s refused an assignment due to numerous safety concerns that were not mitigated. These safety concerns will be addressed below. The IC of the incident responded to this turn down by stating “I am the boss, you work for me and you will do what I say. And I am saying go in there and go direct!” In response to this the crews still refused the assignment and were sent to another division the following day and remained on those divisions for the remainder of the assignment.
Division Delta on the Tepee Springs fire featured large tracts of private land mixed with State, Forest Service, and BLM land. A large elk ranch lay in the middle of the division and was the epicenter of the issues. The land owners, on multiple occasions expressed frustration towards fire fighters with their suppression actions which ranged from verbal threats to aggressive posturing. LEO’s were called on multiple occasions and the incident eventually resulted in two of the land owners verbally accosting a BLM employee while armed with a weapon. The land owners made multiple unsafe demands to fire fighters such as downhill line construction in extremely rugged terrain with fire below them, attempting burnouts on mid-slope dozer lines with no escape routes or safety zones, and to drop water from helicopters with personnel in the work zone (the land owners).
During at least one documented occasion the land owners took it upon themselves to attempt a burnout and began igniting fire below crews without any communication or warning. Crews had to be pulled to safe areas during this. Other unsafe suppression actions by the land owners were extremely fast driving, attacking fires at the head, felling trees in the middle of crews, and operating dozers on federal and state land with no communication with fire resources. In addition to the ill-advised suppression actions their continued harassment of fire line personnel in an attempt to force their own initiatives distracted important leaders from their primary jobs of managing people as well as the entire division and the fire as a whole.
These issues were brought to the land owner’s attention and were met with little to no regard for fire fighters safety as long as we stop the fire where it was at. On countless occasions attempts were made to explain the reasons behind our tactics and the safety guidelines that we operate under. The issues with the land owners were passed up the chain of command on multiple occasions.
The night of the armed verbal assault by the land owners the entire division was evacuated and night resources were instructed to not enter the area. The decision was made by Operations, Branch, and DIVS that no personnel would be re-engaged on the division due to the escalating violent behavior shown by the land owners. Government equipment and supplies would be retrieved under LEO escort at a later time and no personnel would be exposed to the serious safety issues present. In the meantime, the IC met with the landowners regarding suppression activities on their property and the adjacent land. The IC was joined by the IC (T), Branch I, and the Liaison officer as well as local law enforcement. The IC did not request to speak to any of the agency individuals involved in the incidents of the prior days, but rather told the land owner that four hotshot crews would put in a “check line” on their property less than 24 hours after the owners assaulted an employee while armed with a pistol. He also made this promise without including Operations, who was still under the understanding that the division would go forth with the plan agreed to in the morning. No representation from Safety was present, either.
The IC, IC (T), Branch, Liaison, DIVS, DIVS (T), and leadership from 4 IHC crews met to discuss the plan. The directive was to put in a “check line” on the land owners property and end the line somewhere out in the green at an undetermined location. A liaison officer would be used to talk to the land owners. Two of the IHC’s turned down the assignment due to safety concerns with the land owner’s erratic and escalating behavior as well as doubts about the tactical sense of the plan as compared to its political purposes. Two crews agreed to attempt the plan, citing that they had not been personally exposed to the land owner’s actions, but added that they will disengage if they felt threatened at all. Upon hearing the denial of his plan the IC responded angrily with “I am the boss, you work for me and you will do what I say. And I am saying go in there and go direct!” He showed little regard for the safety concerns brought up and could not promise that the land owners would behave appropriately.
The liaison officer who was present stated several times that he had been shot at and his house and work had been bombed, but you had to give it a try. He said he could not guarantee that the land owners would not take their anger to the next level, but you have to try. The two IHC’s again turned down the assignment.
After the IC, Branch, Liaison, and IC (T) left the crews discussed their plan of action and the two IHC’s that turned down the assignment stayed at camp while the other two crews engaged on the “check line.” The use of an LEO at the work site was denied because in the words of the IC “we brought guns a few days ago (by ordering an LEO after being verbally threatened) and that made them (owners) bring guns to show us they had them too.” During the next 3 shifts the crews engaged on the check line with no reported injuries. The land owners at times worked between the crews mopping up and felling trees (on federal property) and the crews mitigated this by assigning a crew member with a radio to alert the crew of falling trees and other hazards.
Crews were put in hazardous and volatile situations without proper mitigations allowed to be implemented, such as mandatory evacuations and LEO’s. Political pressures were put in front of on the ground decisions and fire line personnel safety. Ego was put ahead of common sense and crew safety. Finally, leadership was non-existent to poor from numerous positions in the chain of command.
Immediate Action Tanken. Reporting Individual: please describe actions you took to correct or mitigate the unsafe/unhealthful event.
I gave crews the option to engage or not engage and to disengage if they felt uncomfortable. I requested LEO presence, but was only allowed to stage them at a spike camp 40 minutes away. Avoided land owners by locating myself at a parking spot on federal land and out of the way. Staged medics at various areas with quick response times to crews. Worked with Liaison officer to explain to land owners our intentions and limitations. Spoke to IC about his inappropriate actions and lack of leadership.
Corrective Actions. Taken by Beth Lund, 9/18/2015:
Region 4 (Beth Lund–Acting Director, FAM) the Great Basin Coordinating Group takes firefighter safety very serious, is looking in to this matter further and will provide further response and follow-up. Thank-you!
