Firefighters deny setting 'burn-out'

PALMER -- A firefighter accused by some of lighting a burn-out fire that got away seven years ago and left hundreds of people without homes took the stand this week in the lawsuit ignited by the Miller's Reach fire of 1996.

Attorneys defending the Alaska Division of Forestry have reportedly denied -- and brought witnesses who denied -- that a burn-out fire was lit by Forestry personnel on the evening of June 3, 1996, the day the fire escaped. Plaintiff's witnesses have alleged that a burn-out was lit while Forestry firefighters were having dinner and away from their positions working mop-up. A burn-out is a controlled burn that firefighter's use to eliminate unburned fuel in an area that has been burned over and could re-ignite.

Tuesday the state called Greg Scully, an Alaska Division of Forestry fire boss who was at the fire that day and assigned the task of evaluating Chuck Thomas, a crew boss in charge of Forestry's Copper River crew. Like the other Forestry employees before him, Scully denied knowing anything about a burn-out. Toward the end of Scully's turn on the stand, defense attorney Tim Lamb asked Scully to speak directly to the allegation.

Lamb wanted to know if Scully's memory of the fire might be confused.

"No confusion. I didn't do it," Scully said.

Lamb asked if Scully knew anybody who lit a burn-out on June 3.

"No," Scully replied.

Lamb asked if Scully knew anything about any burn-out fire that day.

"No," was Scully's answer.

"You've been accused of burning down the Valley, do you know that?" Lamb asked.

"I was aware of certain allegations over the years," Scully said.

The plaintiffs case isn't built solely on the burn-out theory. They have also argued that the Division of Forestry was simply ill-prepared and didn't throw enough fire-fighting resources at the fire in the first two days. Forestry sent local volunteer firefighters home on June 2, which confused some volunteers and rankled others.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have also built an argument on claims that Forestry firefighters should have known that Miller's Reach was volatile during mop-up on June 3, even though the weather service only predicted winds of 7 to 10 miles per hour. Prior to the above Lamb/Scully exchange, plaintiff's attorney John Hinderacker asked Scully about black spruce trees as fuel for a wildland fire.

Hinderacker asked Scully if the black spruce was "the number-one fuel type" in Alaska.

"Not necessarily," Scully said. "I've seen early season grass burn just as fast."

Hinderacker then played a segment from a video-taped deposition made by Scully. The segment was an excerpt from Jan. 23, 2002, and part of a deposition that had Scully sworn-in from 9:25 a.m. to 6:54 p.m. that day.

"Black spruce is the number-one fuel type in Alaska. It's susceptible to spotting," Scully said on the video taped.

On Tuesday, Hinderacker also asked Scully to confirm his opinions about black spruce and spotting distances. The state has claimed that winds came up suddenly at Miller's Reach on June 3, 1996, and those unpredicted winds caused the fire to spread out of control. Hinderacker used light wind speeds in his questions to Scully Tuesday.

"Isn't it true that with 10-mph winds in black spruce you can expect spotting distances of 100 to 200 feet?" Hinderacker asked.

"I've seen it," Scully said.