As the Los Angeles Fire Department and California State Parks face mounting scrutiny over their handling of a small brushfire that reignited into the deadly Palisades blaze, a newly released document details the agencies\u2019 agreement on restricting how fires were fought and mopped up in some parts of Topanga State Park.<\/p>\n
The Wildfire Management Plan for Topanga State Park \u2014 a local operating agreement between California State Parks Angeles District, the L.A. Fire Department and other local and state firefighting agencies \u2014 outlines concerns about \u201csensitive\u201d plants, animal species and tribal sites. It states that \u201cmodified mop up for ground fuels should be utilized where possible\u201d and \u201cspading should be minimized and restricted to hot areas near fire lines.\u201d<\/p>\n
The document was released this week by the state to attorneys representing Palisades fire victims. It sets out some basic guidelines and restrictions, which fire experts say are pretty standard in agreements between land managers and fire agencies. But it remains unclear whether those procedures in any way restricted firefighters from fully extinguishing the Lachman fire.<\/p>\n
In a move that could yield answers, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Samantha P. Jessner signaled Tuesday she would sign an order as early as next week for the depositions of 12 L.A. firefighters and up to five State Parks representatives.<\/p>\n
When the firefighters and state employees are deposed, attorneys will probably question them about their personal observations responding to the Lachman fire, how the two agencies coordinated and whether the Fire Department agreed to any restrictions on tactics. <\/p>\n
The agreement says firefighters should \u201ccold-trail charred logs near the fire line with minimal tool scarring\u201d and \u201cconsider allowing large logs to burn out.\u201d In ecologically sensitive parts of the park, called \u201cavoidance areas,\u201d a \u201cNatural Resource Advisor must be consulted during wildfire suppression planning and response.\u201d But it also notes that \u201cthe final decision to modify suppression action\u201d will be based upon factors such as \u201cthe probability of threat to life and\/or property\u201d and \u201cthe availability of fire suppression resources.\u201d<\/p>\n
There remains no direct evidence that the state plan changed how the Fire Department fought or mopped up the Lachman fire. The department has not answered questions about whether state officials interfered and the state has declined to release maps indicating whether the Lachman burn scar included avoidance areas. Jessner said her order would direct the state to turn over the maps of avoidance areas.<\/p>\n
The Fire Department has faced a barrage of criticism ever since federal investigators concluded in October that embers from the Jan. 1 Lachman fire rekindled into the Jan. 7 Palisades firestorm that killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,800 structures. Last month, The Times reported<\/a> that firefighters had complained that the ground was still smoldering but they were ordered by a battalion chief on Jan. 2 to pack up their hoses and leave the burn area anyway.<\/p>\n Attorneys working on behalf of Palisades fire victims, meanwhile, have alleged<\/a> the state failed to monitor the Lachman burn scar and ensure the area was secure after firefighters declared<\/a> the fire contained. Last week, they alleged<\/a> a state park official who arrived at the scene of the Lachman fire \u201cdirectly interfered with LAFD\u2019s mop up operations,\u201d and now they are presenting California\u2019s plan for Topanga State Park as vital new evidence that the state imposed restrictions on fire crews.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the reason LAFD was restricted from performing a normal mop up of the Lachman Fire,\u201d Alexander \u201cTrey\u201d Robertson, an attorney for Palisades fire victims, argued. \u201cThe Plant Police prevented LAFD from doing their job.\u201d<\/p>\n California State Parks declined to comment, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation. A state official who declined to be identified said California State Parks does not actively engage in fire suppression or have command and control over firefighting resources, including for the Lachman fire.<\/p>\n \u201cState Parks\u2019 resource advisors support the lead firefighting agency during an incident \u2014 always prioritizing the protection of human life \u2014 and, when it is safe and feasible to do so, provide guidance on avoiding impacts to cultural and natural resource sites,\u201d the official said. \u201c To be clear: we did not direct or interfere with any firefighting or mop up activities, and any assertion otherwise is categorically false.\u201d<\/p>\n California\u2019s plan for Topanga State Park sets out to provide a framework for \u201cguiding wildfire suppression techniques\u201d in a way that protects human life, park infrastructure and sensitive resources. The goal, it says, \u201cis to protect sensitive natural and cultural resources, support healthy and fire resilient ecosystems, reduce risk to public safety, and build effective communication between State Parks and response agencies.\u201d<\/p>\n Chaparral ecosystems, including the shrubby plants and oak trees that cover the Santa Monica Mountains, have historically experienced fire every 30 to 130 years<\/a> \u2014 primarily due to lightning strikes. Most chaparral plants are adapted to this fire cycle. For example, some seeds in the soil rely on heat shock or smoke<\/a> to germinate. Other chaparral plants do not rely on fire but instead simply tolerate<\/a> it.<\/p>\n The wildfire management plan between the state and fire agencies states that Topanga State Park had not experienced fire in more than 50 years. \u201cTo restore the natural fire frequency and chaparral habitats,\u201d it states, \u201cTopanga State Park should be left to burn within reasonable public safety limits and outside of fire exclusion zones.\u201d<\/p>\n But Alexandra Syphard, a fire ecologist at the Conservation Biology Institute, noted that 50 years is still relatively early in the chaparral fire cycle. Because chaparral does not pose a notably greater fire risk as it ages, letting the park burn would not accomplish any significant ecological or wildfire risk reduction goals, she said.<\/p>\n Fire experts say that such wildfire management agreements, with limitations for mop-up and suppression, are standard nationally in the fire service for areas in which a local, state or federal agency contracts a fire department at a different level of government for suppression services.<\/p>\n \u201cThe requirements are typical of what I have seen,\u201d said Shane Lauderdale, a retired Northern California fire chief who helped manage incident operations on the Thomas, Camp, Kincade and Butte Complex fires.<\/p>\n Documents published by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, a federal interagency group that sets wildfire operations standards, also indicate the restrictions outlined in the Topanga wildfire plan for areas with natural and cultural resources \u2014 such as limiting the use of heavy equipment and fire retardant during the fire fight and reducing the use of spading and chopping of burning logs during mop-up operations \u2014 are typical.<\/p>\n These strategies \u201care expected as part of your conditions of engagement on park lands, whether they\u2019re federal or state,\u201d Lauderdale said. \u201cWe are required to bring a resource advisor out whenever practical\u201d to address the land managers\u2019 \u201cparticular conditions on suppression and mop up.\u201d<\/p>\n Paul Claeyssens, a retired U.S. Forest Service archaeologist who spent more than 30 years serving as a wildland fire resource advisor, said that although policies for protecting natural and cultural resources can vary significantly between federal, state and regional wildlands, the practices outlined by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group are a \u201cstandard part of the toolkit\u201d for land managers, fire officials and resource advisors.<\/p>\n The idea that a resource advisor would be able to significantly inhibit a fire fight or a mop-up operation \u201cis a false premise,\u201d he said, \u201cin the sense that resource advisors are just that \u2014 they are advisors. They do not make decisions, they do not lead crews, they do not tell people what to do.\u201d<\/p>\n Fire experts note that, even if the state restricted mop-up in some way, firefighters did not have to leave; they could have patrolled the area longer, used thermal imaging technology and left hose lines out.<\/p>\n A former L.A. fire chief who asked not to be identified so he could speak candidly said firefighters had other options for mop-up. They could have cut lines and dug around the sensitive areas.<\/p>\n \u201cIt would be hard for me to believe that the state said, \u2018Nope, you\u2019re not doing any overhaul, just let it sit,\u2019\u201d the former chief said. \u201cOther alternatives could have been taken.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou can still overhaul. \u2026 Maybe you dig around it,\u201d he added. \u201cBut you can\u2019t chop it down.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As the Los Angeles Fire Department and California State Parks face mounting scrutiny over their handling of a…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":408220,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5123],"tags":[22608,12854,192339,1582,276,120164,17286,20781,12768,34873,2961,192338,2252,224,5337,192340,62511,290,157883,1628],"class_list":{"0":"post-408219","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-los-angeles","8":"tag-agency","9":"tag-attorney","10":"tag-avoidance-area","11":"tag-ca","12":"tag-california","13":"tag-california-state-parks","14":"tag-document","15":"tag-fire-department","16":"tag-firefighter","17":"tag-jan","18":"tag-la","19":"tag-lachman-fire-mop-up","20":"tag-life","21":"tag-los-angeles","22":"tag-losangeles","23":"tag-natural-resource-advisor","24":"tag-restriction","25":"tag-state","26":"tag-topanga-state-park","27":"tag-year"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115621457115125082","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=408219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/408219\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/408220"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=408219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=408219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=408219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}