Opinion ID: 3033866
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Avoid the use of tractors, graders

Text: and all other ground surface breaking/modifying equipment with- out prior approval of [FWS], except when the use of such equipment is essential to protect life, private prop- erty, or prevent the spread of fire to the Hanford Site east of Highway 240. As discussed later, the particular language of the “Purpose” and “Scope” sections is important in analyzing whether the Cooperative Agreement might have changed any of the contractual responsibilities. In regards to HFD’s duties, HFD Fire Chief Don Good stated in a declaration that “the HFD has the authority, responsibility and discretion to implement HFD’s fire fighting and fire prevention management activities on the ALE.” In his deposition he testified in pertinent part as follows: AUTERY v. UNITED STATES 13009 Q. [Plaintiffs’ counsel]: . . . you’re referring to page 4.7, section 4.2.7 [of the 1993 ALE Facility Management Report]? . . . . And under 4.2.7, can you tell me where in 4.2.7 it says that HFD has the authority, responsibility, and discretion to implement firefighting and fire prevention management activities?
graph under Implementation: All firefighting is the responsibility of the Hanford Site Fire Department. .... Q. Well, that talks about firefighting though. Your statement goes on to talk about fire prevention management activities. Where in 4.2.7 does it say that? [Emphasis in original.] A. It doesn’t say that in that statement, but that’s all inclusive. Firefighting, fire prevention, fire protection is all inclusive and one’s part of the other one. It’s all inclusive. .... Q. . . . . As a term of art in your profession is fire prevention different than the term firefighting? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And is the term in your profession fire prevention different than the term fire protection? A. Yes. Later, Good was asked about the scope of HFD’s agreement for fire services: 13010 AUTERY v. UNITED STATES Q. Do you know whether DynCorp [HFD] has an agreement with FWS or DOE for reimbursement for fire services rendered? .... A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what’s your understanding? A. There’s a Cooperative Agreement that says if we provide firefighting for U.S. Fish and Wildlife, they have to reimburse costs. .... Q. For firefighting? A. Correct. Q. How about fire prevention? A. We don’t do any fire prevention for U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Q. Okay. And how about fire protection? A. We don’t do any fire protection for U.S. Fish and Wildlife. .... Q. . . . Does the HFD have an agreement with DOE for firefighting services? A. Through our contract we have an agreement. There is no agreement with HFD and DOE. We have an agreement with the contractor that we work for AUTERY v. UNITED STATES 13011 who has an agreement and contract with Department of Energy. .... Q. . . . So in 2000, as best you understand it, there was no contract between DOE and DynCorp for pro- viding fire prevention services? A. That’s correct. Q. Or fire protection services? A. That’s correct. Q. Okay. And in 2000, if I understand you cor- rectly, HFD did no fire prevention for Fish and Wildlife Service? A. That is correct. Q. And did no fire protection for Fish and Wildlife Service? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. So the reimbursement that HFD would be receiving would be for firefighting? A. And managing the fire, yes.
Hanford and the ALE had a history of wildfires. In particular, a large (200,000 acre) fire, the Hanford Range Fire, occurred in 1984. That wildfire led to much discussion and direction regarding establishing and maintaining firebreaks along roadways at the Hanford Site. Since 1985, and prior to 13012 AUTERY v. UNITED STATES the 24 Command Fire, maintenance of firebreaks along ALE roadways (and SR-24 in particular) was complicated by a number of factors. SR-24 itself is a Washington State roadway. The DOE granted Washington an easement in 1985 for the road. The easement provided that “The [State of Washington] shall maintain the property in good condition and make necessary repairs.” Over the years, firebreak maintenance near SR-24 on ALE borders was done in several ways: (1) “discing,” which involved “turning over the earth using machinery to break up vegetation”; (2) spraying herbicide; (3) mowing vegetation; and (4) performing controlled burns of vegetation and vagrant tumbleweeds. Discing, however, creates dust.3 In 1994, Washington State or Benton County clean air authorities notified HFD and the DOE that, as a matter of state law, landowners must take reasonable precautions to prevent “fugitive dust.” Thus, in 1995 discing on the ALE stopped. Rather, according to a 1995 letter from HFD Fire Chief Don Good to the DOE, firebreaks were created between the roads and ALE property by applying herbicide on the easement: A plan was developed wherein site services cooperatively clear the right-of-way between the highway fence and the road shoulder, after which the state will keep this additional space mowed. The existing firebreaks, which are now crusted over, will be left to develop ground cover. A fire break will then be created between the road and the fence which matches or exceeds the distance of the old fire break. The state will continue to spray herbicides about six to eight feet on each side of the hard surface roadbed and the short grass will keep the dust under control. 3 Bulldozing also was discussed before 1984, but it also apparently creates its own set of environmental problems. AUTERY v. UNITED STATES 13013 Washington State or Benton County also regulates burning of tumbleweeds, and thus the last “controlled burn” before the 24 Command Wildfire occurred in 1995. And so, the record indicates that after 1995 — and before the 1997 MOU transferring management from the DOE to FWS — neither the DOE nor FWS nor HFD actually “maintained” firebreaks (at least by discing or by controlled burns) on the ALE near SR24. Such maintenance was done, if at all, by the State on its easement. Maintenance, apparently by the State, consisted of spraying herbicides, perhaps some controlled burning (until 2000), and mowing vegetation. These limitations, whether real or self-imposed, on firebreak maintenance near state roads were apparently a source of frustration for some in the DOE and HFD. Indeed, in an internal email of May 2000 — only a month before the 24 Command Wildfire — Craig Christenson, the DOE’s fire prevention engineer for Hanford, wrote the following prescient comment when asked about a controlled burning policy at Hanford: . . . We have not done any control burns in the past few years due to environmentalist concerns and enforcement actions given down by our Local [County] (Benton County) Clean Air Authority. We can’t even cut fire breaks anymore! All we can do is use [sprayed] on herbicide to kill off weeds in their early growth and that has a very limited effect. Since we have not been able to manage (do effective burns) the wildland fuel growth along natural and man-made fire breaks (like roadways), I predict we will ultimately have a very large wildland fire in the near term future similar in size to the 1984 Hanford Range Fire. The record also indicates that a moratorium was placed in June of 2000 restricting or halting the use of “controlled burns” on DOE lands, after such a prescribed burn led to a 13014 AUTERY v. UNITED STATES large uncontrolled wildfire in the southwestern United States. The record presumably refers to an uncontrolled wildfire in Los Alamos, New Mexico, that burned in the Spring of 2000.
After the 24 Command Fire, both the FWS and DOE con- ducted internal investigations and issued detailed reports4 to “evaluate the actions taken to manage the wildfire, present findings, and offer constructive recommendations,” as well as to “provid[e] information for use in improving DOE response to fire incidents across the agency’s national complex.” The reports contain disclaimers regarding their use.5 They were obviously prepared for remedial purposes. But they do make some conclusions that Plaintiffs point to as some indication of negligence and responsibility. The FWS Report made a general finding that “[t]here were not adequate agreements or operating plans in place to enhance safe, effective, and efficient fire protection.” It found: Agreements were unclear or were inadequate. Local fire districts appear to believe that [FWS] philosophy and policy restrict the use of certain tactics and that Federal wildland fire suppression activities would cease at the Federal land boundary. Both of these perceptions were unfounded based on review of 4 An “FWS Interagency Fire Team Report of September 2000” and a “DOE Type B Accident Investigation Report of October 2000.” 5 The DOE Report states: The discussion of fact, as determined by the [Accident Investigation] Board, and the views expressed in the report do not assume and are not intended to establish the existence of any duty at law on the part of the U.S. Government, its employees or agents, contractors, their employees or agents, or subcontractors at any tier, or any other party. This report neither determines nor implies liability. AUTERY v. UNITED STATES 13015 existing policy, current agreements, and actions taken during the incident. The FWS report thus could be alluding to the reasons for the lack of maintenance of SR-24 firebreaks (i.e., HFD leaving matters to the State after 1995 as a result of the creation of “fugitive dust”). The DOE Report was more specific. It indicates, among other things, that the Board found that the lack of maintenance of defensible firebreaks along state highways allowed the fire to spread quickly onto the ALE Reserve. The Board found that RL [Richland DOE office], ORP [DOE Office of River Protection], and the contractors need to engage and coordinate with local clean air authorities, state regulators, the DOE-HQ Office of Environmental Health (EH), and the WSDOT [State Department of Transportation] to evaluate the most effective means of establishing defensible space along state right-of-way shoulders between State Routes 24 and 240 and the DOE fenceline. It made the following analysis regarding fire barriers: While [a precut fire break between SR 24 and the DOE fenceline] was last time in place in 1995, it was not maintained along the entire lengths of SR 24, and vegetation reseeded enough to yield readily available fuel. . . . Maintenance of this barrier may have prevented the fire that started on the highway from igniting the natural vegetation on the ALE Reserve.6 6 HFD Fire Chief Good disagreed with the conclusion, indicating that it was speculation. He testified in his deposition that “there’s no way to tell whether that fire would have been stopped by that firebreak being maintained or not being maintained. . . . I’ve seen fire jump the [Columbia] River, I’ve seen fire jump the Yakima River, I’ve seen fire jump four-lane highways.” His observations may well be sound, but this litigation never reached a stage to decide issues regarding causation. 13016 AUTERY v. UNITED STATES Plaintiffs point to these reports as indicating that the DOE or FWS (or both) was negligent in failing to maintain firebreaks around SR-24. As a further indication of DOE control or responsibility for firebreak maintenance around SR-24, Plaintiffs also point to an easement granted shortly after the 24 Command Fire (in November of 2000) by DOE to Touch America for fiber optic cables. That easement requires Touch America to conduct certain “fire stabilization measures:” [Touch America] agrees to complete the following fire stabilization measures along State Highway 24 . . . 1) smooth soil surface where disturbed by the installation of fiber optic conduit bundle, 2) mow vegetation on both sides of State Highway 24 from fence to shoulder of road, 3) apply a one time application of herbicides on both sides of State Highway 24 from fence to shoulder of road. . . . The type of herbicides and method of application will be determined by DOE. [Touch America] agrees to contact the DOE to coordinate installation of the fiber optic conduit bundle and fire stabilization measures. According to Don Good, the HFD was not involved in negotiating any aspect of that easement. Finally, as another alleged indicator of DOE control of the firebreaks near SR-24, Plaintiffs point to a post-wildfire internal DOE memorandum discussing fire recovery actions and plans. The memorandum discusses firebreaks along SR-240 and SR-24, indicating that “[t]he firebreaks [on SR-240] have been neglected since 1995 contributing (in the opinion of some investigators) to the most recent fire spread.” It goes on to indicate an “immediate plan” of herbicide applications. As for SR-24, the memorandum states “the 32 miles of SR 24 represents a bigger problem at this time. Mostly unburned, but also neglected, it accommodates a heavy fuel load in both our AUTERY v. UNITED STATES 13017 [DOE] view and in the view of [FWS].” The DOE memorandum recommends: 1. . . . that the Firebreaks be maintained annually and in the future budgeted properly by the Landlord organization. . . . As long as the U.S. DOE has responsibility for SR 240 and SR 24, this will amount to about $400,000 to $500,000 per year. . . . 2. The US DOE needs to seriously consider divest- ing itself of SR 240 and SR 24 while still ensuring that the Firebreaks are properly maintained[.] Plaintiffs essentially contend that the memorandum indicates that DOE (not the HFD as indicated in the relevant contracts) still had substantial responsibility for SR-24 firebreak maintenance, and that such maintenance was not solely contractor responsibility.