Lower North Fork Fire & Prescribed Fire Review

deltamrey.....I asked you a question. Are you just ignoring it or do you not have an answer?

Quote:
However, a report by the governor's office, released on Monday, showed that the state forest service violated its own burn plan by not patrolling the area of the controlled burn on Sunday -- the day before the controlled burn blew up into the Lower North Fork Fire.


What do you think the difference would have been if they had patrolled on Sunday?

My take. They had notice when they had a rogue ember back in October. LOL Yep, akilina stupidity is not a defense. But prior notice and failing to take the appropriate action with notice of the high winds, etc. spells liability and negligence - gross. You really think they would have sent out the sacrificial lamb from the CSFS to say I am sorry if they didn't know they were culpable? All of what has transpired is an attempt to CYA (cover their A$$) and get the public to see them as the good guys, after all "we did everything humanly possible". No you didn't. You failed every which way.

That being said the wuss D.A. in the First Judicial District is all prosecutorial when it comes to crime victims by individual defendants. When it comes to a government entity, not a chance if he wants his job. And really you think he is going to take on the Sheriff's office too? Nope.

So it will end up civil with a claim of gross negligence because then the ceiling for damages can be raised and it will all settle out of court so that CSFS and Jeffco Sheriff won't have to admit to culpability. And then we will do this all again, with them saying "we did everything humanly possible".

deltamrey wrote: However, a report by the governor's office, released on Monday, showed that the state forest service violated its own burn plan by not patrolling the area of the controlled burn on Sunday -- the day before the controlled burn blew up into the Lower North Fork Fire.

The report by the governor's office, considered fully, states more than this single portion. Let's look at a bit more of what it actually says:

No patrol operations occurred on Sunday,March25. The burn was unstaffed. Leaving the burn unstaffed on the third day following ignition is not consistent with burn plan requirements.

The Extended Mop-up and Patrol plan states: “The fire will be directly patrolled and monitored for a minimum of 3 days following the initial burn, and then until significant moisture is received or the fire is declared out.”

The NWS issued a Red Flag Warning for wind and low relative humidity at 1215. This was received by Jefferson County Dispatch who forwarded an alert to CSFS personnel. CSFS personnel considered the warning and determined that their mop up standard of 200 ft. was already achieved and that additional mop up was not needed. Timing of the wind event was late enough in the day on Monday that additional patrol beyond that already planned for Monday morning seemed unwarranted. The burn plan does allow for this discretionary decision to be made after the 200 foot mop-up standard has been achieved; therefore this action is consistent with the plan.

“SPECIAL WIND NOTE: If high winds are predicted CSFS personnel will be notified via radio or pager by NWS or Jeffco Dispatch) or are actually occurring in the area, the RXB2 or ICT4 will be immediately notified. The RXB2/ICT4 will direct resources to focus mop-up efforts on the downwind edges of the unit(s). Additional resources will be ordered at the RXB2/ICT4’s discretion. Resources will remain on scene until a minimum of 200 foot mop-up has occurred and/or the wind event has subsided.”

Therefore it was within the RXB2/ICT4's discretion whether or not to patrol on the 3rd day.

Since nothing significant had changed when patrol units arrived on March 26, the 4th day, I do not see that this discretionary choice affected the final result.

Becky wrote: deltamrey.....I asked you a question. Are you just ignoring it or do you not have an answer?

Quote:
However, a report by the governor's office, released on Monday, showed that the state forest service violated its own burn plan by not patrolling the area of the controlled burn on Sunday -- the day before the controlled burn blew up into the Lower North Fork Fire.


What do you think the difference would have been if they had patrolled on Sunday?

I will answer.

One, they could have established what the condition of the fire was on Sunday after they had received the high wind warning. They violated their own procedures and you got to know the attorneys are going to nail them with this one. Homeowners saw the smoke Thursday through Sunday.

Two, they could have worked the fire and made sure unburned areas within the area were sufficiently burned before the high winds. Stupid, stupid, stupid not to show up.

Three, they could have assessed how much fire personnel might be needed based on what had and had not burn knowing that really high winds were expected. Stupid, stupid, stupid not to show up.

The perfect storm was a result of their gross negligence. Not showing up and knowledge of the previous rogue ember pretty much makes their case without all the other snafus.

Suspicious logs with the Hayman.

Lower North Fork Fire gets a rogue ember.

Still waitng for that CO Revised Statute.....

Becky - your question is a diversion IMHO. I of course have no idea and any other answer would be conjecture, of course. The issue is accountability and the confusion of info so far provided. Also I assume the DA will eventually have a position - the law enforcement people have a different role.....basically investigators providing info to the elected DA.......or other officers of the courts.

jf1acai wrote: Thanks for providing the video of the meeting last night.

So far I have watched only Chief McLaughlin's presentation. I think he made a number of good points, and I especially like the staged evacuation approach.

The suggestions regarding better communication among fire jurisdictions, especially among fire chiefs; evacuation planning; involving local community organizations; firewise; etc. are all good.

But, I have a feeling of deja vu here. Nearly 10 years ago the same subjects and approaches were discussed. Interest was fairly high for a short time, but rapidly decreased, and with some exceptions, little was actually accomplished.

How can we maintain interest in these important subjects, and ensure that something is actually done, and that the effort is maintained long term?

I believe that somehow we need to maintain citizen involvement on a long term basis. Just like mitigation of your own property requires a continuing year round effort, so does communication among fire chiefs, evacuation planning, involvement of local organizations, etc.

It is not something that can be done once and forgotten about.

How do we avoid having that happen again?

I've been moving dirt all day and I am tired. I would love to dialogue more but it isn't going to happen.

But this one is so important. That is the question jf1acai. We just saw a mountain go up in flames due to negligence. Until fire takes out homes closer together and impacts a lot more people, I doubt much will be done by individuals or govt entities. What I have been telling people and how I got my aunt to act and make a decision was to tell them, this is an example of your government at work "we did everything humanly possible". You really want to rely on that?

Becky wrote:

YIKES :VeryScared: that looks like a deck at the top of the mountain just waiting to burn.