An hour after midnight Jan. 1, as a small brush fire blazed across Topanga State Park, a California State Parks employee texted the Los Angeles Fire Department's heavy equipment supervisor to find out if they were sending in bulldozers.
"Heck no that area is full of endangered plants," Capt. Richard Diede replied at 9:52 a.m, five hours after LAFDdeclaredthe fire contained.
"I would be a real idiot to ever put a dozer in that area," he wrote. "I'm so trained."
The exchange between the state and LAFD employees is part of a batch of newly-released text messages and depositions from California State Parks staffers that offers new details of the state's actions and interactions with firefighters in the critical days after the Lachman fire ignited and rekindled Jan. 7 into the deadly Palisades blaze.
The Los Angeles Fire Department has faced criticism for not fully extinguishing the Lachman fire. In October, The Timesreportedthat a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the burn area Jan. 2, even though crews warned that the ground was still smoldering. The LAFD also decided not to use thermal imaging technology to detect heat underground.
ButPalisades residents have also sued the state, which owns Topanga State Park, alleging it failed in the week between the two fires to inspect the burn scar after firefighters left and make sure a "dangerous condition" did not exist on its property.
LAFD was the agency responsible for putting out the fire. But plaintiffs' attorneys allege the state should have done more to monitor the burn scar and ensure the area was safe.
Read more:Failed emergency alerts during L.A. firestorms eroded public trust. How to fix a broken system?
Testimony and texts from state environmental scientists show that California State Parks' initial concern when the fire broke out was whether the fire was on park land and whether firefighting efforts and equipment would harm federally endangered plants and artifacts.
However, it remains unclear whether the state significantly influenced the LAFD from containing and mopping up the fire. LAFD decided early on not to use bulldozers, but has not explained why. LAFD announced it had contained the fire at 4:46 a.m. Jan. 1, less than 20 minutes after the first state parks official arrived at the command post.
California State Parks says no one from its agency interfered with fire suppression or mop up or influenced LAFD's decision to not use bulldozers. Making sure the blaze was out, the agency said, was the responsibility of the fire department. The LAFD did not respond to questions from The Times for this story.
Immediately after the fire ignited, California State Parks staffers exchanged worried notes via text and a park ranger was dispatched to the command post. But once they determined the burn scar did not include sensitive areas, they pivoted to other concerns: asking firefighters to cover a section of a fire break they cut through unburned vegetation with freshly cut brush and urging them not to wait too long before removing hoses.
The first park ranger on the burn scar Jan. 1 testified that she saw smoldering and that wildfires can smolder for days. But state employees who visited the site later that day and after LAFD left Jan. 2 said in depositions they did not walk the perimeter of the burn scar to inspect the site.
Ultimately, the courts will decide whether the state should have done more to monitor the Lachman burn scar. But in January the public could have a deeper understanding of why firefighters stopped mopping up the fire Jan. 2 and whether the state influenced its decisions: Up to a dozen LAFD firefighters are expected to be questioned by attorneys next month about why they decided to not deploy bulldozers to contain the fire and stop mop up the next day.
Until then, this is what we know about what happened on the Lachman burn scar, based on records and depositions:
Minutes after the Lachman fire ignited, environmental scientists with California State Parks swapped notes in group texts.
"So I imagine they are cutting at least some (astragalus) with those hand crews," texted Noa Rishe Khalili, a senior environmental scientist, referencing the plant also known as Braunton's milkvetch. "Probably trying to improve the fire road. It's badly overgrown just south of the fire. We will hold for now until I hear Heavy Equipment is being deployed."
Employees pulled maps showing sensitive areas as a park ranger was dispatched to the command post. Rishe Khalili texted Diede, a firefighter she had worked with during a 2021 fire in the Palisades area. Attorneys for Palisades fire victims claim these exchanges indicate that the LAFD could have already known from prior fires that there were endangered plants in Topanga State Park and that certain equipment might harm the environment.
Balancing the prevention of wildfires with protectingfragile environmental resourceshas led to some recent tension between L.A. and California staffers.
Read more:Palisades fire victims claim a state park official restricted efforts to fight earlier blaze
In 2020, the city of Los Angeles agreed to pay$1.9 million in finesas part of an agreement with the California Coastal Commission afterL.A. Department of Water and Power crews bulldozed hundreds of federally endangered plants in Topanga State Park. The city had been working to replace aging wooden power poles to make the power lines more resistant to strong winds and fire.
In 2021,LAFD deployed bulldozersto anotherPalisades fire. According to testimony from Rishe Khalili, firefighters' use of bulldozers to put a contingency line around that fire ended up harming astragalus.
"That activity results in extensive suppression damage," she testified, noting that part of her role is to "advise the location of the contingency lines to provide options to go around or avoid sensitive natural and cultural resources."
The first state employee to respond to the Lachman fire in person was Sgt. Christy Araujo.
After getting a call from dispatch just after midnight, the state park ranger spent several hours driving across the region to pick up her work truck, long guns and a binder of maps showing sensitive "avoidance areas."
When Araujo arrived at the command post, LAFD Fire Station 23, at 4:29 a.m., she testified, she informed the first firefighter she saw that she had materials for their review and waited to see if they wanted to use them. About 10 minutes later, she texted a colleague to say no heavy equipment had been used in fighting the fire.
Soon after, the LAFDannouncedto the public that firefighters had "completed the hose line around the perimeter" of the fire and it was "fully contained." "Some resources will be released as the mop up operation continues," it added, "to ensure no flare ups."
Around 5 a.m, Araujo walked back to her truck parked in front of the station and waited outside for several hours. At 8 a.m., she drove to Topanga State Park and hiked up the hill to take photos of the burn scar for her incident report.
Araujo did not see any firefighters, she testified. The ground was smoldering, she said, but she did not report that to LAFD or anyone at state parks. She didn't think it was out of the ordinary, given the fire had just been contained a few hours earlier. LAFD hoses, she noted, were still on site.
"Wildfires tend to smolder for long periods of time," Araujo testified.
Plaintiffs' attorneys claim the state had a duty to take the smoldering as a sign of potential danger and conduct a deeper inspection, an assertion state officials reject.
Around 10 a.m. Jan. 1, John Ota, a California State Parks environmental scientist, arrived at the burn scar and sent photos to a group chat.
"Impacts seem to be south of astralagus," he texted. "Mop of hot spots in progress."
He sent a photo of a hose, texting: "Hose lay leaks are tearing up small bits of the trail."
"Can you make sure no suppression impacts at skull rock please?" someone asked, referencing a culturally sensitive area.
"Hiking there now," Ota replied.
Once Ota established that federally endangered plants and other sensitive areas were outside the burn scar, he focused on a handline that was cut through unburned brush off the Temescal Ridge Trail, his testimony and texts show.
Worried that hikers would get confused about which direction to go, he texted colleagues he would press LAFD Battalion Chief Martin Mullen to cover it when he arrived on scene.
"The southern flank line is going to be my repair priority," he wrote, later adding: "Also going to ask that they get all hose debris out. Any other big points folks can think of?"
In his deposition, Ota testified that he requested firefighters cover part of a handline with the vegetation they'd removed.
"First 50 feet of hand line completely covered with bush, pretty much all of what was visible by trail," Ota texted later, attaching photos of crews covering their handline. "Chief Mullen and his crews were very good to work with."
Ota testified he wasn't concerned about covering up the firebreak as there was already live brush on each side.
"There's unlikely to be a hot spot ... directly next to this hand line," he testified. "No, it wasn't at this point doing any containing."
Ota testified that he "was never in the burn scar" and "pretty much remained on the trail."
The Palisades fire victims' attorneys say state officials should have inspected the park, pointing to a section of the state's Department of Parks and Recreation OperationsManual: "All or a portion of a park unit may be closed when an unwanted wildland fire is threatening or burns on Department lands. Areas of a park unit which have burned will remain closed until appropriate Department staff have inspected the area and rectified any public safety, property or resource protection issues."
However, California State Parks said that plaintiffs' attorneys are misinterpreting that passage. Staffers decide to close a park based on "conditions including whether there are natural or cultural resource issues that need to be addressed before the public can recreate in the park," a spokesman said, citing examples such as downed trees along trails or roadways. "In this case, staff did not believe it necessary to close the park or a portion of the park."
Ota also testified that he suggested that firefighters make a plan to pick up their hoses, recalling a fire in the Palisades years earlier where fire crews left their hoses behind for 18 months.
Text messages obtained by The Times through a public records request indicate that LAFD commanders were already making plans early Jan. 1 to remove the hoses from the burn scar.
At 7:29 a.m. Jan 1 — long before Ota arrived on scene — fire commanders discussed in a group chat "the hose/equipment pick up operation," according to text messages obtained by The Times through a public records request.
"I imagine it might take all day to get that hose off the hill," LAFD Chief Deputy Phillip Fligiel said. "Make sure that plan is coordinated."
On Jan. 2, LAFD firefighters mopping up the Lachman fire were upset when a battalion chief ordered them to roll up their hoses and leave, even though they said the ground was still smoldering and tree stumps were hot, according to text messages reviewed by The Times.
Two more state park employees also visited the Lachman burn scar that morning to document any damage caused to the land during fire suppression, Rishe Khalili testified. (Those employees were not deposed by plaintiffs' attorneys and at least one of them no longer works for the state.)
By 1:35 p.m., Battalion Chief Mario Garcia notified commanders via text: "All hose and equipment has been picked up."
In the early afternoon — around the time Garcia texted fire commanders — another pair of state park rangers visited the site.
Greg Urban, assigned to the Topanga sector, testified that he hiked up to the site with his then-supervisor, Sgt. David Gunn, to "get eyes on" the burn scar and see if it was on state land.
"Being a public safety officer," he said, "I want to make sure there are no further threats to the public. So I want to get eyes to see if any further action needs to be taken."
After hiking up a paved trail until they reached Temescal Ridge, he testified, they walked approximately 50 to 100 yards south toward the burn scar. They were up there about 15 to 30 minutes, he testified, and did not see or smell any smoke or feel any heat.
Urban testified that they did not walk the full perimeter of the burn scar.
The state contends that was not their job.
"State Parks is not a firefighting response agency," a spokesman for California State Parks said when The Times asked why state employees did not do more to inspect the park after the fire, especially given the upcoming winds. "When wildfires occur on State Parks property, firefighting response is the responsibility of the appropriate firefighting agency."
Urban testified he was not at the burn scar to evaluate whether the park should be closed and was not trained in conducting a post-wildfire inspection. He could not recall whether he had read the relevant section in themanualon closing of fire-damaged areas.
Urban testified, in response to a question by a city attorney, that he would have reported anything he believed was a dangerous condition.
"But ... you were not trained to look for dangers to the public regarding reignition of fire," an attorney for Palisades fire victims asked later. "Correct?"
"Correct, no training," Urban said, agreeing that he was also not there to do that.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared inLos Angeles Times.
An hour after midnight Jan. 1, as a small brush fire blazed across Topanga State Park, a California State Parks employee texted the Los Ang...
