Lower North Fork Fire & Prescribed Fire Review

jf1acai wrote:

Science Chic wrote: What I see is a huge disconnect between what the authorities are saying and what the residents want/need to hear.

Surely you are not saying that the authorities should make something up in order to make the residents feel better? Are you implying that the authorities are covering something up? IMO, what the residents need to hear is the true facts regarding the origin and handling of the Lower North Fork Fire, by all parties involved.

Good God, no, man! lol All I'm saying is that not one person in a position of authority has stood up and taken on any accountability. And I understand that they probably can't, due to impending litigation, but that's the main thing that I've taken away from speaking with those most directly impacted by the fire (and I could certainly be wrong about that). Yes, they want the facts as well, but to know that steps will actually be taken to help prevent some of the mistakes made this time, and accountability by someone as this was not a naturally started fire. www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30910596/detail.html

Let me explain what I mean by human error. In the lab, when an experiment failed, it was due to one of only two things: equipment error or human error. 99.9% of the time, it was human error. Either the experiment was designed poorly, the reagents used improperly or not maintained properly so they'd gone bad, the equipment set up wrong, contamination of samples, etc. The purpose is not to assign blame, rather to discover the source of the problem and correct it.

Many errors are obvious to me, and this isn't an exhaustive list:
● the decision to not patrol Sunday, and be more aggressive in squelching hot spots. From the Denver Channel article which Becky cited a few pages back:

A federal official who investigated the controlled burn cited the decision to not patrol on Sunday as an error in an otherwise thorough plan.
"(The engine boss) decided not to go up to Unit 4 (the area of the controlled burn) on Sunday, 03/25/12 because the site looked good the previous day, the weather prediction was favorable, and he intended to visit the site on Monday (03/26/12)," the JeffCo Sheriff's Office said in its report.

"Without the wind, I think it would have just sat still and gone out," Bass said.

"You know the accuracy (of the weather forecast) that we usually can rely on, particularly this time of year, is about two-and-half, maybe, maybe three days (out)," he added. "You always err on the side of, if you have something dangerous predicted, it's a no go ... On Thursday, they did not have a no go."

Fine, 4 days out they were good to go, but the day before the "weather prediction was favorable"? when a Red Flag Warning was issued, with high winds predicted and embers which had escaped a previous prescribed burn in a similar area? Running out of water? Not calling for more firemen?

In the governor's report Bass said the contributing factors that combined to create a "cascading effect" that caused the fire include limitations in the weather projection and fire behavior projection, unburned fuel, residual heat at the time of the "wind event" and operational actions.

● emergency alert notification calls that didn't reach those it should have, or improperly reached those who didn't live in the area - for a good explanation of why, listen to Sheriff Mink's presentation during the Town Hall Meeting. I'm sorry, but if it's my company coding address locations for people for emergency purposes, I don't just place people in "an area" (in this case, the city mailing address) if I don't have a good geo code, or assume that my software has it right, but do quality control on them to make sure they're properly pinpointing homes' physical locations - cross-reference with Google maps, heck even MapQuest. It's supposedly been corrected, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place - human error.
● hours elapsing between calls for evacuations and the official evacuation notice going out - yes, these are subjective judgement calls, but with all the communication issues they'd been having, and in light of the weather conditions they were experiencing that day, this seems an obvious error.
● 911 operators giving absolutely improper information. Wildfires are not uncommon in this area, and even city operators should have better training for how to handle questions about possible fire danger, I heard casual dismissals and an overwhelming lack of concern on the admittedly small subset of calls that have been made public. One of the residents I met told me that she was told that she couldn't keep calling "just because she smelled smoke" - they barely made it out in time. Another news story says a resident was told the fire was "under control" - maybe that's not exactly what they said, or maybe it was, but he had the impression that everything was fine and he left his house to go eat, and lost everything.
● Not having updated maps. www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30822273/detail.html

McLaughlin said he was attempting to mobilize the initial response on the ground, but only had access to outdated topography maps.

"So, when we look at those maps, we don't know where homes are and we don't know where roads are in a lot of cases that have gone in since the last time those maps were updated, which was 1994," said McLaughlin.

Inexcusable. You can call it complacency, I call it error. If your job requires that you must reach people under less than ideal conditions, in places where there are no alternative exits, there's no excuse for having outdated maps, much less ones that are almost 20 years out of date. I'm sure that many of the firefighters know these areas well and don't even need maps, but what about new people who join the department? They too are placed in danger if they don't learn the roads before an emergency such as this and don't have accurate maps.

Action? I'd like to see Bill McLaughlin's call to coordinate with individual neighborhoods/representatives from neighborhoods come to fruition. It's not in anyone's best interests to wait for the FD to contact the residents, why don't the residents of each area get together with neighbors and proactively reach out to the FD? Lean on those neighbors who think that mitigation isn't necessary, put together plans of action on how to help disabled or elderly neighbors out - who's responsible for whom, additional contact phone numbers that aren't home #s, alternate escape routes if available, where to meet after being scattered, who has pets/livestock to be rescued who works away from home and can't get back, etc. It seems daunting thinking of all the neighborhoods, and how spread out they can be, but this can be the motivation to take on more proactive roles!

I definitely agree that road conditions need to be improved, and mitigation done along the roads/on public land. Gas lines are being installed improperly? That's a big problem if so. Who has the authority to check on that?

I'm sure there's more that can be done, but it's late after a busy day. I will ponder what else I can do.