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\u2019s heavy equipment supervisor to find out if they were sending in bulldozers.<\/p>\n
\u201cHeck no that area is full of endangered plants,\u201d Capt. Richard Diede replied at 9:52 a.m, five hours after LAFD declared<\/a> the fire contained. <\/p>\n \u201cI would be a real idiot to ever put a dozer in that area,\u201d he wrote. \u201cI\u2019m so trained.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019s actions and interactions with firefighters in the critical days after the Lachman fire ignited and rekindled Jan. 7 into the deadly Palisades blaze. <\/p>\n The Los Angeles Fire Department has faced criticism for not fully extinguishing the Lachman fire. In October, The Times reported<\/a> that 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. <\/p>\n But Palisades residents have also sued the state<\/a>, 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 \u201cdangerous condition\u201d did not exist on its property. <\/p>\n LAFD was the agency responsible for putting out the fire. But plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys allege the state should have done more to monitor the burn scar and ensure the area was safe. <\/p>\n Testimony and texts from state environmental scientists show that California State Parks\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n California State Parks says no one from its agency interfered with fire suppression or mop up or influenced LAFD\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Until then, this is what we know about what happened on the Lachman burn scar, based on records and depositions:<\/p>\n ::<\/p>\n Minutes after the Lachman fire ignited, environmental scientists with California State Parks swapped notes in group texts. <\/p>\n \u201cSo I imagine they are cutting at least some (astragalus) with those hand crews,\u201d texted Noa Rishe Khalili, a senior environmental scientist, referencing the plant also known as Braunton\u2019s milkvetch. \u201cProbably trying to improve the fire road. It\u2019s badly overgrown just south of the fire. We will hold for now until I hear Heavy Equipment is being deployed.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Balancing the prevention of wildfires with protecting fragile environmental resources<\/a> has led to some recent tension between L.A. and California staffers. <\/p>\n In 2020, the city of Los Angeles agreed to pay $1.9 million in fines<\/a> as part of an agreement with the California Coastal Commission after L.A. Department of Water and Power crews bulldozed hundreds of federally endangered plants in Topanga State Park<\/a>. The city had been working to replace aging wooden power poles to make the power lines more resistant to strong winds and fire.<\/p>\n In 2021, LAFD deployed bulldozers<\/a> to another Palisades fire<\/a>. According to testimony from Rishe Khalili, firefighters\u2019 use of bulldozers to put a contingency line around that fire ended up harming astragalus.<\/p>\n \u201cThat activity results in extensive suppression damage,\u201d she testified, noting that part of her role is to \u201cadvise the location of the contingency lines to provide options to go around or avoid sensitive natural and cultural resources.\u201d<\/p>\n ::<\/p>\n The first state employee to respond to the Lachman fire in person was Sgt. Christy Araujo.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cavoidance areas.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Soon after, the LAFD announced<\/a> to the public that firefighters had \u201ccompleted the hose line around the perimeter\u201d of the fire and it was \u201cfully contained.\u201d \u201cSome resources will be released as the mop up operation continues,\u201d it added, \u201cto ensure no flare ups.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n \u201cWildfires tend to smolder for long periods of time,\u201d Araujo testified.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs\u2019 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cImpacts seem to be south of astralagus,\u201d he texted. \u201cMop of hot spots in progress.\u201d<\/p>\n He sent a photo of a hose, texting: \u201cHose lay leaks are tearing up small bits of the trail.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCan you make sure no suppression impacts at skull rock please?\u201d someone asked, referencing a culturally sensitive area. <\/p>\n \u201cHiking there now,\u201d Ota replied.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cThe southern flank line is going to be my repair priority,\u201d he wrote, later adding: \u201cAlso going to ask that they get all hose debris out. Any other big points folks can think of?\u201d<\/p>\n In his deposition, Ota testified that he requested firefighters cover part of a handline with the vegetation they\u2019d removed.<\/p>\n \u201cFirst 50 feet of hand line completely covered with bush, pretty much all of what was visible by trail,\u201d Ota texted later, attaching photos of crews covering their handline. \u201cChief Mullen and his crews were very good to work with.\u201d<\/p>\n Ota testified he wasn\u2019t concerned about covering up the firebreak as there was already live brush on each side. <\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s unlikely to be a hot spot … directly next to this hand line,\u201d he testified. \u201cNo, it wasn\u2019t at this point doing any containing.\u201d<\/p>\n Ota testified that he \u201cwas never in the burn scar\u201d and \u201cpretty much remained on the trail.\u201d<\/p>\n