Sprague Fire investigation completed

A “lessons learned” report released last week commends the firefighters who fought the Sperry Chalet blaze, noting they worked tirelessly in an ember storm stoked by high winds from the Sprague Fire last summer, but it also found that firefighters thought they could have hemmed in the wildfire in Glacier’s backcountry early on.

On Aug. 12, when the fire was 21 acres in size, a group of firefighters hiked into the blaze as it burned on the south slope not far from Crystal Ford, a popular spot where hikers get water on the Gunsight Pass Trail, miles below the chalet.

“The (firefighters) believed with cooperative weather there was a chance that they could stop the fire using handline, at least on three sides of the fire. The southern edge of the fire was located on an extremely steep slope and handline would not hold the fire there due to the potential for roll out,” the report noted. “... The recommendation from the WFM leader was to have two Type 1 Interagency Hotshot Crews begin constructing handline.”

But because of the number of fires across the West at the time, the fire management officer determined that the likelihood of getting a hot shot crew was low, and the order for the hot shots was never placed.

When the Sprague Fire started on Aug. 10, there were 80 large fires burning across the West, with 15,294 people on fires, which limited resources, the report noted.

The fire, over the next few days, would continue to grow, doubling in size on several occasions.

Meanwhile, crews continued to work on structure protection and a plan to defend the chalet.

On Aug. 19, a maintenance man from the Park Service got up on the roof of the chalet and put a sprinkler system on it. Firefighters also put down hose lays and wrapped the buildings with fire resistant material. The lower portion of the chalet was wrapped, but not the upper eaves. It was deemed too dangerous. They had a portable water tank on the scene, known as a pumpkin and water was available from Lake Nelson to the south. Sprague Creek was nearby as well, but the hose lays would have been in the fire’s path, so it wasn’t used. In short, there was not an abundance of water.

Lake Nelson is just a small pond, not really a lake at all.

There was also confusion about what trees could and could not be cut down.

Crews thought they couldn’t cut down live green trees, but apparently, they were allowed to, if need be.

The trees weren’t the problem on Aug. 31, the report notes, the embers were. Stoked by 25 to 30 mph winds, by 3:30 p.m. on Aug. 31, four firefighters and the maintenance man were fighting multiple spot fires.

“With winds continuing to increase, embers were funneled upward toward the eaves of the dining hall and the dormitory,” the report noted.

Then a corner of the dining hall roof was smoking.

Using a Pulaski, they ripped open the soffit and a “rat-sized” pile of debris fell out and out was quickly extinguished.

An hour later, crews had extinguished multiple spot fires, with each person assigned to a specific area of the complex, which includes multiple buildings, including the main chalet, also known as the dormitory.

Fire activity increased all around the chalet.

At about 5:30 p.m., the firefighters grouped around the chalet. It seemed, they thought, the worse may have been over. Three helicopters were in the air, doing water drops and the fire seemed to have slowed. They had soaked buildings with water using hoses.

But just before 6 p.m. a firefighter spraying water on the chalet saw smoke coming from under an eve of the second story. Then smoke was seen coming out of the chimney. The building had been closed and shuttered days ago.

“They removed the shutter from the door beneath the dormer that was smoking and opened the door ‘terrible brown smoke’ filled the building from floor to ceiling,” the report found.

“It was so thick you could barely see your hand in front of you,” the division leader told investigators.

Even so, they took a few couple of steps inside to try to fight the blaze, but to no avail. They tried to access through another door, but it was the same — smoke from floor to ceiling.

Within five minutes, flames could be seen coming out of the dormer window.

In a half hour, the fire grew in intensity. A fire resistant wall that was added in the 1990s between the north and south half of the building, designed to withstand fire for an hour, failed, and the chalet was gutted.

Helicopters were called in to make bucket drops on the structure, not to put it out, but to keep shingles and embers from flying around and starting other fires. Firefighters also had another risk they didn’t even know about — the dining hall was wrapped with fire resistant material, but underneath it were about 12 tanks of propane that were in storage.

Fortunately, those tanks did not catch fire.

“Had crews not been able to suppress the fire in the dining hall, then a major life safety hazard existed,” the report found.

Crews continued to work through the night, putting out spot fires and doing patrols. By 3 a.m., the chalet was a complete loss. The Sprague Fire had ballooned to just under 5,000 acres.

The report noted that the chalet’s location also played a role in its demise.

“Sperry was located to provide the guests with a view of the valley below. The unintended consequence of the Sperry Chalet’s location is that it placed the dining hall and dormitory in direct alignment with embers from the Sprague wildfire,” the report concluded.

It found that even a stone building is susceptible to fire.

“Sperry Chalet was defensible, but at least one ember found a small gap in the eaves. When a structure is susceptible to ignition, there will always be some probability that prevention and protection efforts will not be successful. What we do know is that the structural protection plan the park had written and the incident management teams implemented enabled the firefighters at Sperry Chalet Complex that day to safely defend the structures,” the report concluded.

It also spoke to the use of retardant, claiming that the terrain around the chalet and conditions made a drop unsafe.

“Retardant drops had been considered to assist in the protection of the Sperry Chalet complex. However, several factors made the use and availability of retardant and the application unrealistic and extremely dangerous. The terrain alone would make effective retardant drops extremely difficult and dangerous to the pilots. The smoke that blanketed Sperry causing very low visibility coupled with 20-30 mile per hour winds, made retardant drops unrealistic and unsafe,” the report said.

The report did have several criticisms and suggestions. It noted, among other things, that the risk to the chalet was underestimated.

“There was so much lead time that confidence was high in regards to being able to defend it,” the report found.

The Park Service and the incident command team assured the public at the time that the chalet was safe.

“Prior to the event, there was a lot of emphasis on the park social media page, and in public meetings, about how well protected the structures were; there was no mention of the fact that despite taking solid measures to protect the values at risk there are no guarantees firefighters will be able to successfully protect every structure,” the report noted. “The messaging issued prior to the burning of the dormitory appears to have given an indication to the public there were fail-safe protections in place and the entire Sperry Chalet Complex would be saved no matter what during the fire event.”

The report also found that Park Service firefighters and staff should have more training in structure protection fires.

“NPS should consider enhanced training for wildland firefighters, especially wildland fire modules, assigned to protect structures from wildfires. Enhanced training should include, but not be limited to: effective structure wrapping, implementing water systems, and collapse zones,” the report found.

Collapse zones are areas near a building where a firefighter could be crushed if the building fails. The firefighters had hoses in those zones, it found.

Park Superintendent Jeff Mow and Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke both commented on the report in a press release.

“I and the park staff want to thank the review team. We appreciate their work and professionalism while reviewing this difficult event. We also deeply appreciate the work of the firefighters who tirelessly fought the fire throughout the night on August 31 at the Sperry Chalet Complex, saving the historic dining room and multiple other important buildings. We now turn our attention to restoring the Sperry Chalet experience for the next 100 years,” Mow said.

Zinke called for more forest management, among other things.

“Growing up near Glacier National Park, I have a special appreciation for the cultural significance of the Sperry Chalet,” Zinke said. “I applaud the great work of the firefighters who responded so bravely to the flames, and I look forward to rebuilding the Sperry Chalet as part of President Trump’s focus on our American infrastructure. Still, the size and scope of the Sprague fire reminds us that aggressive fuels management is necessary to keep Americans safe from wildfires, particularly in the West. We need to continue removing the dead and dying timber from our forests so that we can truly address this problem.”

The complete report can be downloaded at www.wildfirelessons.net then search for Sperry Chalet.

The chalet is now being rebuilt in a $12 million project that should start its first phase next week.