Page 18 of 27

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:17 pm
by Layne Cantrell
Layne Cantrell wrote:
wrote:i took a look at the wilson cam, seems to be some smoke just south of twin peaks
Lookin' pretty good tonight as of 6:30 or so. Not sure if we'd even be able to see all the hot spots from Wilson, but right now (crosses fingers) there is a lot less smoke than there was earlier.
Okay, I'm going crazy for sure now. I swear I saw two distinct smokes from Mt. Wilson to the north - five minutes later they were gone.

Either I'm nuts, following too closely, or the firefighters are really good. Probably a combination of all three.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:47 pm
by MtnMan
after a large fire like this, small areas in the interior of the fire perimeter will often smolder for sometimes a few months, and occasionally, light up a tree or bush. I saw some smoke too for about 20 min near Chilao, but then it was gone. Usually nothing major to worry about if its well away from the line.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:28 pm
by Layne Cantrell
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... itely.html

The one remaining spot is burning so deep in the wilderness that ground crews cannot reach it.

Not that it means much - "official" containment didn't mean the fire was out. But it sure would've felt good.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:40 pm
by Layne Cantrell
MtnMan wrote:after a large fire like this, small areas in the interior of the fire perimeter will often smolder for sometimes a few months, and occasionally, light up a tree or bush. I saw some smoke too for about 20 min near Chilao, but then it was gone. Usually nothing major to worry about if its well away from the line.
Alas, apparently the one near twin peaks IS the line. Official word is "containment" will be reached when it rains. I guess that means this fire will be "controlled" and "contained" at pretty much the same time.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 8:55 pm
by AlanK
From the Los Angeles Times
Station fire's strength was miscalculated

Forest Service and L.A. County fire officials downsized the fight before the blaze intensified. Fewer water-dropping helicopters and ground crews were requested after progress was made the first day.

By Paul Pringle

8:00 PM PDT, September 26, 2009

U.S. Forest Service officials underestimated the threat posed by the deadly Station fire and scaled back their attack on the blaze the night before it began to rage out of control, records and interviews show.

In response to Times inquiries, officials for the Forest Service and Los Angeles County Fire Department said they probably will change their procedures so that the two agencies immediately stage a joint assault on any fire in the lower Angeles National Forest.

Angeles Forest Fire Chief David Conklin said his staff was confident that the Station fire had been "fairly well contained" on the first day, so it decided that evening to order just three water-dropping helicopters to hit the blaze shortly after dawn on its second day -- down from five on Day One -- and prepared to go into mop-up mode with fewer firefighters on the ground.

The Forest Service realized overnight that three helicopters would not be enough, and brought in two more later in the morning, Conklin said. More engine companies and ground crews were also summoned, but it would prove too late.

"We felt we had sufficient resources," Conklin said. "There's always that lesson. We'll always have that in the back of our minds."

On the second day of the blaze, which started Aug. 26, the county Fire Department lent the Forest Service a heli-tanker, but denied its request for another smaller chopper. Chief Deputy John Tripp, the No. 2 official in the department, said he made that decision because he did not believe the fire was endangering neighborhoods near its suspected ignition point above La Cañada-Flintridge, and because the county must hold on to some helicopters for other emergencies. Helicopters are often key to corralling wildfires early on.

"If there was a threat that morning to the community of La Cañada . . . we would have dispatched more helicopters," Tripp said.

In the future, he said, setting up a joint command with the Forest Service as soon as a fire breaks out -- including possibly at high elevations -- should make it easier for the agencies to muster each other's helicopters, engines and ground crews. Currently, joint commands are established only if a blaze presents an imminent threat to foothill communities.

"We have to be that much more robust in our response," Tripp said. "That's what, on a personal note, I have learned from this."

On the first day, the Forest Service determined that the Station firecould be controlled by the following afternoon, with no buildings lost and with minimal harm to the natural treasures of the San Gabriel Mountains, according to documents and officials.

By nightfall on Day Two, the fire was burning nearly unchecked into the forest, despite low winds. The conflagration would become the largest in the county's recorded history, blackening more than 160,000 acres of chaparral and centuries-old trees, destroying dozens of dwellings and killing two county firefighters, who died when their truck fell off a mountain road.

The county department bolstered the Forest Service's first-day response in the belief that the fire imperiled county territory. The county sent five helicopters -- one a command ship that directs the drops -- five engines and four hand crews, officials said. Once it became clear that the fire was within the Forest Service's jurisdiction, the officials said, the county was required to await requests from the federal agency for help on subsequent days.

A veteran county fire official who took part in the first day's battle said he was disheartened that his department was not brought back at similar strength the next morning.

"There was a real window of opportunity that wasn't recognized or acted on," said the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. "Every brush fire starts out small. Either you extinguish the damn thing or it goes a few days and you have a major disaster."

Conklin said that, after the county rejected the request for the second chopper on Day Two, the Forest Service began diverting helicopters from a fire near Morris Dam in the San Gabriels. It also ordered a heli-tanker from the Los Angeles Fire Department, officials said.

City Fire Capt. Steve Ruda said his department had more helicopters available on the second day. "I can't tell you why they weren't needed . . . why they didn't ask for the city birds," he said.

The state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection also had helicopters on hand, but was asked only for a tactical observation plane on the first two days of the Station fire, according to officials.

"They didn't really hit us up for heavy resources until the morning of the third day," said Janet Upton, spokeswoman for the state agency.

As the morning of Day Two unfolded, the fire spread up and down a steep canyon, and ground crews had trouble safely confronting it, officials said. "You just couldn't put people down-slope to fight that fire," Conklin said.

The Forest Service called in several more helicopters as well as heavy air tankers, but the fire already was multiplying in size, he said.

Some residents of the fire zone said they were baffled by the diminished air assault after sunup the second day.

"There were some decisions made that I would love to know," said Adi Ell-Ad, who lost his Big Tujunga Canyon home to the fire. "We really haven't gotten answers. We want to know what happened."

The suspected arson fire broke out at 3:20 p.m. on a Wednesday along Angeles Crest Highway. It took its name from the nearby Angeles Crest Ranger Station.

According to a Forest Service summary of the first day, the fire had been kept to 15 acres and was expected to be controlled by 1 p.m. the next day.

The summary is detailed in a document called an Incident Command System 209. The forms are snapshots of an emergency response and thus can convey inaccurate tallies of equipment and personnel over a longer period of time, especially when more than one agency is involved. The first 209 for the Station fire, for instance, does not include the five county helicopters that officials say were sent on Day One.

The 209 for the morning of the second day says the fire had grown to 40 acres, and threatened two ranger stations, an outdoor school, homes in the Arroyo Seco area and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It also lists as "critical resource needs" more helicopters, engines and ground crews.

But the morning summary still estimated that the blaze would be contained within three days, by Aug. 30, and it noted that the total number of personnel on the line -- from the Forest Service, county and other agencies -- had been reduced to 191 from 231 the day before.

An evening 209 for the second day is more dire. It says that the fire had swelled to 500 acres, that 510 firefighters were at the scene, and that the critical needs included heavy air tankers, in addition to more helicopters, engines and ground crews.

Even so, the document pushed back the expected containment time by just two days -- to Sept. 1.

The fire is still burning.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:57 am
by EManBevHills
What we all sensed was the case from the beginning, unfortunately.
Kudos to the LA Times for ferreting out this unfortunate truth.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:17 am
by RichardK
This story is a perfect example of why America needs daily, local newspapers. Neither CNN nor the weekly news magazines have the resources or the contacts to dig into an event like this one.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 11:40 am
by HikeUp
A veteran county fire official who took part in the first day's battle said he was disheartened that his department was not brought back at similar strength the next morning.

"There was a real window of opportunity that wasn't recognized or acted on," said the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. "Every brush fire starts out small. Either you extinguish the damn thing or it goes a few days and you have a major disaster."

Conklin said that, after the county rejected the request for the second chopper on Day Two, the Forest Service began diverting helicopters from a fire near Morris Dam in the San Gabriels. It also ordered a heli-tanker from the Los Angeles Fire Department, officials said.
I'm having a hard time reconciling these comments. The veteran county official was disheartened his department wasn't called back. But Conklin says the county rejected the request for a second helo. What am I missing that would make this make sense?

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:14 pm
by AlanK
The second day effort was obviously downsized, and the County was not called in at the levels of the first day. I don't see any contradiction between that and a request at some point in the day for a helicopter. We are obviously missing some important details, though.
HikeUp wrote:
A veteran county fire official who took part in the first day's battle said he was disheartened that his department was not brought back at similar strength the next morning.

"There was a real window of opportunity that wasn't recognized or acted on," said the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. "Every brush fire starts out small. Either you extinguish the damn thing or it goes a few days and you have a major disaster."

Conklin said that, after the county rejected the request for the second chopper on Day Two, the Forest Service began diverting helicopters from a fire near Morris Dam in the San Gabriels. It also ordered a heli-tanker from the Los Angeles Fire Department, officials said.
I'm having a hard time reconciling these comments. The veteran county official was disheartened his department wasn't called back. But Conklin says the county rejected the request for a second helo. What am I missing that would make this make sense?

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:59 pm
by outwhere
HikeUp wrote:I'm having a hard time reconciling these comments. The veteran county official was disheartened his department wasn't called back. But Conklin says the county rejected the request for a second helo. What am I missing that would make this make sense?
I agree - if I'm reading this article correctly, it seems there are some contradictory statements or miscommunications at minimum between the various agencies that SHOULD be working together, something they clearly are not doing.

And if it's really true that on the second day/morning of the fire, it was only at 40 acres - something REALLY seems wrong.

Ok, and even though they surely had some different circumstances - how in the world was the Morris Dam fire put out with such relative ease and speed, yet the Station fire went wild? Weren't these fires in and around the same day, two at the most?

I'm really starting to think they realized 'city' homes weren't seriously threatened - and they just said 'fvck it' from there - who cares if those mountains burn, they're just mountains afterall. Trees, brush, ahhhhh, they will grow back :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: '

NOW I am REALLY pissed!!

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:19 pm
by AlanK
outwhere wrote:I'm really starting to think they realized 'city' homes weren't seriously threatened - and they just said 'fvck it' from there - who cares if those mountains burn, they're just mountains afterall. Trees, brush, ahhhhh, they will grow back :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
I think that anyone who has worked with wildfires knows that any sizable fire in an area as dry as ours, with temperatures as high as those that prevailed at the end of August, and as close to foothill cities as this one was from the get-go, is a serious threat to large numbers of homes and businesses. Mistakes were obviously made, but I don't think that they just let it burn.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:26 am
by AlanK
From the Los Angeles Times
Station fire victims call for U.S. probe into Forest Service's response
Residents are critical of the agency's decision to scale back an attack on the blaze on the night before it began to burn out of control. Two firefighters were killed in the wildfire.

By Paul Pringle

September 29, 2009

Big Tujunga Canyon residents and others reeling from the Station fire called Monday for a federal investigation into what they termed a poor initial response to the deadly blaze by the U.S. Forest Service .

"It was beyond irresponsibility, beyond neglect," said Cindy Marie Pain, who lost her Big Tujunga Canyon home to the fire, which broke out in the Angeles National Forest on Aug. 26.

Pain and other residents said they were outraged by a Times article Sunday that reported the Forest Service had underestimated the danger posed by the fire and scaled back an attack on the flames the night before the blaze began to rage out of control.

"When it's small, that's when you jump on it," said Bronwen Aker, a Vogel Flats resident who set up a website, www.angelesrising.org, for fire victims.

Her home was spared, but those of many of her neighbors were destroyed.

"A lot of residents are incredibly embittered about the way it was handled," Aker said.

Bob Kerstein, who lost a cabin and a house on gold-mining property that his family owns in the forest, said Congress should investigate the Forest Service's tactics.

"It's crazy what happened here," he said. "There are a lot of heroes in this -- the firefighters who were on the line. But the people who should be held accountable are the people who made the decision not to put the fire out in the 48 hours after it started."

Leo Grillo, an actor who runs an animal sanctuary that was threatened by the blaze, said any investigation should also examine the lack of a more aggressive air assault later in the fire, especially when it appeared to have flagged on Day Five.

"They had the golden opportunity to put it out and they didn't," he said.

The Times reported that the Forest Service had been confident that the fire was nearly contained on the first day, and the agency decided that evening to order just three water-dropping helicopters to hit the blaze shortly after dawn on its second day -- down from five on Day One, documents and interviews show.

The Forest Service also prepared to go into mop-up mode with fewer firefighters on the ground, according to records and officials.

Early in the morning on the second day, the Forest Service realized that three helicopters would not be enough and summoned two more later in the morning, Angeles Forest Fire Chief David Conklin said. More engine companies and ground crews were also deployed, but it would prove too late.

On Day Two, the Los Angeles County Fire Department lent the Forest Service a heli-tanker but denied a request for another smaller chopper -- an action that residents say should be reviewed. Chief Deputy John Tripp, the No. 2 official in the county department, said he withheld the second aircraft because he did not believe the fire was endangering neighborhoods near its suspected ignition point above La Cañada Flintridge, and because the county must hold on to some helicopters for other emergencies.

The Station fire would become the largest in the county's recorded history, blackening more than 160,000 acres of the forest, destroying dozens of dwellings and killing two county firefighters who died when their truck fell off a mountain road.

Conklin and Tripp told The Times they probably will change their procedures so that the two agencies immediately stage a joint assault on any fire in the lower Angeles.

Several foothill residents have expressed suspicions that the Forest Service let the fire burn early on as a way to clear dry brush, and that the decision not to bring in more aircraft and firefighters for the second morning was based on cost concerns.

Forest Service officials have said both notions are false.

On Monday night, residents packed a Tujunga meeting hall to ask fire officials if more could have been done to save homes. The gathering became contentious at times.

Tripp said the county did the best it could without putting firefighters' lives in jeopardy.

"If anybody thinks we take this lightly, we don't," he said in an emotional voice.

But Rob Driscoll, whose Vogel Flats home burned, was not satisfied.

"We're angry and we need better answers than we've gotten tonight," Driscoll said.

paul.pringle@latimes.com

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:47 am
by AW~
I was there thinking they were going to talk about the area and roads 8)

Heres what I got from it:
Once the fire(a spotfire) went up above the Angeles Crest, there was basically no firefight until MtGleason...as in nada,zilch,zero.

The low point(as the fire approaced the SG wilderness) was when they had to seriously consider the entire forest was going to burn and plan to defend along Hwy15.

I had written a lengthy post but got caught by this forums timeout period :D It was a tough,somewhat emotional meeting. The article mentions a lack of answers, well, there are no answers that they want to give other than blame something or someone else or state false info.

In case anyone else was there, I asked them who from the forest service was in on the team to fight the fire, and the answer was the district ranger for the LA river ranger district, given as William Spyrison...well a couple of bulldozers east of MtLukens summit was all that separated the fire from MtGleason and the Big Tujunga area.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:34 am
by RichardK
AW wrote:I had written a lengthy post but got caught by this forums timeout period
Type your post into Word or Notepad. Then, just copy and paste into the message. No running into the timeout.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:12 pm
by Rumpled
As I've stated before, the Morris fire started like one day before. I don't think they wanted remove resources from the Morris fire which they thought had some bad potential.
Well, they called it very wrong.
I was pretty shocked on the news when the Station fire went from like the 40 acres to 8000 in the span of 8 hours or so.

They'll be a lot of finger pointing, someone will get reassigned, someone will get promoted.

But the forest is still burned and houses were lost.

And two firemen died and other people were injured.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:47 pm
by AW~
there were 3 presenters for a total of more than 1 hour leaving 20 mins for questions from the residents. The first presenter was David Conklin,fire mgmt officer for the ANF re: the early stages of the fire. The second was Chief Deputy John Tripp, LA county fire re: the early stages of the fire. The third was Mike Dietrich, Type 1 incident team commander re:almost the entire fire. Then there was Q&A.

Conklin was mentioning that the fire was burning below the Angeles Crest Hwy(referred to as Angeles Crest canyon) at 15 acres when the part not being handled stopped above a cliff. 5 spot fires from that then were downhill towards the Arroyo Seco and helicopters managed to snuff out 4 of them...alas one of them contoured north and back up the next drainage uphill from them. It also sneaked down to the Arroyo Seco.

When the fire came back up to Angeles Crest they were unable to tackle it uphill of the highway due to the terrain(I suppose unaware of trails in the area). The next part was never mentioned in the presentations, but moreso in the Q&A. The fire analysts had predicted a east movement of the fire(which was also happening). LA
country had positioned along those lines ,eastern LaCanada through Altadena...the command was run out of LaCanda country club and thats where the fire was going to be defended(the exit of the Arroyo Seco river).

One major subject was who was in command, and it was never quite clear. It was stated succiently that the unified command happened at 2pm(not sure if it was Thurs or Fri), anyways no one said they were in command when the fire burnt towards Mt.Lukens...it was like I wasnt in command at that time and thats all I can say....well, it was the unified command(with who knows being part of it) having just taken over.

The thing is the unified command, doesnt know the mountains. I dont mind because they fight fires. Dietrich kept on mentioning local command was key in fighting the fires, but it was obvious, local command=LA county, who they were heavily dependent on. Conklin would later answer me that LA county knows the mountains, which I strenuously disagreed with. I'll note that Tripp said Big Tujunga fires are usually benign.But the bottom line is no one put boots above the original fire like the Morris fire.
The biggest ? was when one of the dozers was somewhere near Grizzly Flats and couldnt see the fire...which is amended to 2 dozers operating along MtLukens fireroad(a very general area), which was still getting quizzical looks...it was the place where the fire at the time was not visible :D without mentioning what 2 dozers are supposed to do if it was.

And surprisingly, no one on BigT road, even when MtLukens was on fire. Residents mentioned that the fire was absolutely visible and the fire dept came by saying they would be defended soon but to evacuate...but by the time the cavalry arrived it was too late and unsafe for LA county. The main fire had already moved north at about 14mph, cutting off the road and the only option left was to defend before MM 0 at a horse ranch,the slow fire part moving west towards them. A lot of the homes burned were inside the forest, something not really mentioned and how to protect structures when the fire is coming down the canyon+coming down the right side of the screen,+burning now on the left side,+no way up the canyon....

The audience mentioned there were ANF fire vehicles trying to protect the Vogel Flats ANF structures, but to no reply...I didnt mention the nice Big Tujunga dam protection(incl water dropping heli) farther upcanyon personally because it was getting real tense...and because we only know that from video and not the timeline. People were getting unnerved because they were getting answers that would later be disproven..as the audience had the timeline down to a T. They were then told to write down their questions and submit them.

As far as the tough&emotional part, I think thats what the news was there for, but they didnt get what they perhaps wanted in drama. People spoke passionately, but respectfully of losing their home&no notice before leaving in a few mins, or having a home thats about to be landslided,and recalling&correcting the presenters with what happened. After the host(a city government rep?) mentioned hopefully little rain would come this winter, the end of the meeting was close :D

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:21 am
by MtnMan
More info coming soon (check the ANF website as it will be updated later today with a map and revised closure area), but as of today, most areas NOT in the Station Fire burn area have re-opened to public use.

Fire danger is at extreme, so no campfires or BBQ's on the forest.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/angeles/

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:26 am
by mattmaxon
WAHOO!

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:44 am
by Ze Hiker
great! although I see no news of this yet...

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 1:48 pm
by MtnMan
yeah, it's fresh news, so give it a little time. They are still hashing out the specifics.

Only thing I've noticed on the website so far is the closure scrolling they had across the top web page is gone. Closure signs are still up and most gates are still closed in most areas, too, so give that some time as well.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:08 pm
by lik2hik
Spoke to the guy at the Baldy Visitors center a few minutes ago by phone, and according to him, the trails up there are open as of this morning!
I specifically asked about Icehouse Canyon and he said they are all open up there.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:14 pm
by AW~
http://www.wrightwoodfsc.com/StationFir ... 0.1.09.pdf

the closed area is closed until Oct 2010 or later.

Includes: Chantry Flats and most back frontrange trails
Highway 39(including Twin Peaks)

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:15 pm
by HikeUp
Exhibit A & B seem to have been updated to show the new extents of a closure.

Links are to pdf files found on ANF site.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:36 pm
by AW~
Just my 2 cents, but this is entirely unworkable.

The most problematic looks like the East Fork San Gabriel river will be open, west&north fork closed. That will lead to a massive headache in traffic and use.

The rest of it is like good luck with the enforcement. All I can say is Im not bringing some closure map with me on any hike.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:39 pm
by Ze Hiker
can they actually make a map with DECENT RESOLUTION? wtf

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:41 pm
by Ze Hiker
the 39 is on the boundary, but is the 39 itself actually closed?

same question with Mt Wilson Toll Road?

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:55 pm
by HikeUp
Same question with all the boundaries that follow trails or roads.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:03 pm
by AW~
wrote:the 39 is on the boundary, but is the 39 itself actually closed?

same question with Mt Wilson Toll Road?
Could use GMR if the 39 remains closed til the cows come home...but the 39 is not listed.

The MtWilson toll road 2N45, looks like its on ANF property and will be closed at Idlehour trail....

Overall looks like no glimpse of the burn area is the intention...looks like it even blocks Sam Merrill for quite a ways.

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:38 pm
by Socalhiker
wrote:can they actually make a map with DECENT RESOLUTION? wtf
X2 :?

Re: The Station Fire Thread

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:12 pm
by Layne Cantrell
Socalhiker wrote:
wrote:can they actually make a map with DECENT RESOLUTION? wtf
X2 :?
x 3!

Can anyone tell if highway two to Buckhorn is open? (heading west from Wrightwood) Looks like they left a little pocket above highway 2 and east of Cloudburst open.