TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Probe Finds Controlled Burn Near I-4 Pileup Done Properly
News Channel 8 file photo by PETER MASA
A "FOG SMOKE" sign sits untouched among burned vehicles after the 70-car pileup on I-4 on Jan. 9.
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: February 5, 2008
Related Links
TALLAHASSEE - A state investigation has cleared wildlife officials who last month lost control of a prescribed burn that is said to have contributed to a 70-vehicle pileup on Interstate 4 in Polk County.
The investigation by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services concluded changing weather conditions on Jan. 8 caused the 10-acre planned burn to jump firelines and spread to hundreds of acres. The National Weather Service said the smoke combined with fog to cut visibility to nearly zero on the highway.
Five people died in the pileup and resulting fires. A homicide investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol is ongoing.
The report by the agriculture department states that an "unpredictable change in weather caused the prescribed burn to burn erratically which resulted in spot fires outside the established boundaries" of the burn.
State Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission employees conducting the burn were not guilty of criminal violations or gross negligence, according to the report.
The investigation was conducted by the Florida Office of Agricultural Law Enforcement and an independent multiple-agency team working under the state Division of Forestry. Investigators said the burn was authorized under state law and that only one element of the statute was in question: whether there were sufficient firebreaks, personnel and equipment on-site.
The investigation found six Fish and Wildlife employees, including a burn manager, were present when the fire was started, as prescribed in an agency burn plan. The crew had dug 12-foot-wide firebreaks around the fire and there were seven pieces of machinery on-site, including a 500-gallon brush truck, a 200-gallon truck, a tractor and three all-terrain vehicles. All were part of the burn plan.
The burn manager had conducted 27 controlled burns before the Jan. 8 fire. He obtained two weather reports before setting the fire. Both predicted low humidity and winds from the east and southeast that would have blown any smoke away from the highway, according to the investigative report.
About 10 a.m., before starting the fire, the burn manager did a field weather test. The humidity was 63 percent, considered in a safe zone, and the wind was out of the south-southeast at 2 to 7 mph.
But the weather began to change at 11 a.m. Winds picked up and changed direction, and the humidity dropped. Embers started a fire beyond the earthen barriers. As the Fish and Wildlife employees tried to suppress that spot, another one flared up.
Reporter Mike Salinero can be reached at (813) 259-8303 or msalinero@tampatrib.com.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
Reader Comments
Posted by ( ToeCutter ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The state has determined that they bare no responsibility when ever things go wrong.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( HMS24 ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
GO AHEAD COVER YOUR _$$!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Joyann ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yeah, CYA!So no one can sue the state.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MyNameIsJob ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sure they have no control over the weather, nor do they have control over controlled burns, but the DOT has control over shutting down the highway because of these conditions.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mprice12 ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yup.. issue citations to the drivers, find no wrong doing by the wildlife officials, and claim there was nothing the troopers could have done because they were elsewhere... Translated: You can't sue us because it was "clearly" not our fault!!! I still don't get how it was the driver's fault when the visibility suddenly dropped to near zero.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Primus ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
That decision was a no brainer. It is obvious from the helicopter pictures that was FOG people. I had to drive through the valleys of California on numerous occasions and encountered the same terrifying experience. Stupid drivers who drive like they have radar vision in dense fog.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Primus ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
One additional comment, yeah the state should have shut down the road in a timely manner, but, when you study for your drivers exam and take the test in every state it tells you to SLOW DOWN IN FOG AND INCLEMENT WEATHER CONDITIONS.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thirdeye ) on February 5, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
No surprise here!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( welshiesdad ) on February 5, 2008 at 3:13 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Ben ) on February 5, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
mprice12 said "I still don't get how it was the driver's fault when the visibility suddenly dropped to near zero." It was not the drivers fault that the visibility dropped to zero, it was however the driver's fault that they were driving Days Of Thunder style. When the conditions deteriorated they should have let off of the gas.
As far as the smoke, smoke is from fire, fire makes heat, hot air rises, therefore smoke rises! Fog settles, it wasn't the smoke that caused the decrease in visibility, it was the fog. If you want to sue someone go after Mother Nature. This is tragic for all involved but you are responsible for your vehicle when you drive it, end of story.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( GF ) on February 5, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Some people can't handle the truth. They have to blame someone. I'm glad they slammed the door on the ambulance chasers feet. Now they will have to sue each others insurance companies. The ones that had insurance that is.
Just because you come into a zero visibility situation doesn't automatically make it somebody else's fault. It is still your responsibility to maintain control of your vehicle, not DOT, not FHP, or DOF.
I hope that I-4 travelers will learn from this.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mishymale ) on February 5, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
i hope you ppl werent expecting anything else
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mishymale ) on February 5, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
ben according to a weatherman on the news the smoke has molecules that draws moisture from the air and helped the fog get so thick in that spot so it was both the smoke and fog that played a role,and yes as others stated ppl should have slowed down
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( virgil121 ) on February 5, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
yeah right
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( biker ) on February 5, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Hmmm! I wonder if I were on trial if I could be the jury also. Doesn't surprise me the state found the state not responsible.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( RRR ) on February 5, 2008 at 6:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It certainly is easy too see whom in this group does and whom does not believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Always looking for someone else to blame for their own STUPIDITY> Get over it !!!!!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ToeCutter ) on February 5, 2008 at 6:34 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
You can't sue the state they have diplomatic immunity.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hvh ) on February 5, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
RRR who takes PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY with not closing the road? It was closed the next day and someone took responsibility then.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Ben ) on February 5, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The driver's should acted responsibly by slowing down. It is not the government's job to force you to have common sense.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( situp ) on February 5, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It was an accident people ( I know some of you are perfect but not all of us mortals are)!!
There is not always a person or entity that is at fault. Several events came together that caused the situation.
As always, money from a lawsuit is not going to right the situation regardless.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lolafalala ) on February 5, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Typical bureaucracy b.s. I wouldn't expect anything else from the FL state government.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( 1waytogo ) on February 6, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
If you look at the picture, you will see a sign next to a burnt truck "fog-smoke" burnt truck!
Why cant they give a tube of vassoline or take you out to dinner.
Report Inappropriate Comments