Grand Canyon Lodge North Rim, Dragon Bravo expansion

[azbackpackr]

(July 27 Edit, changed headline to reflect development of fire.)
Grand Canyon Lodge at North Rim burned last night, and over the last 24 hours also the visitor center, cabins, Administration center, backpacking permit office, and numerous employee houses were burned. I heard that the mules survived and that nobody died. It'll be all over the news.
https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-i ... bravo-fire

[Grimey]

Simple discussion and speculation isn't the same thing as fear mongering and hysteria.

[RedRoxx44]

Off subject but from the NPS regarding the Trans canyon pipeline project--

On Dec. 1, 2023, sections of the Bright Angel and Tonto Trails and the Havasupai Gardens Campground were closed to begin work for sliplining pipe. The sliplining is a trenchless rehabilitation method of installing a smaller pipe through an existing pipe. It occurred to the Bright Angel section of the water pipeline, which is the section between the South Rim and Havasupai Gardens. Construction workers replaced the distribution system at Havasupai Gardens and upgraded the water distribution lines at Mile-and-a-Half and Three-Mile Resthouses. Work wrapped up and the Bright Angel Trail and Havasupai Gardens Campground fully reopened April 15, 2024.

The South Rim contractor support facilities and new raw water tanks were completed in 2024, and work continues at the South Rim helibase and water treatment plant and at the Phantom Ranch water treatment plant. More trail and campground closures were implemented in the fall of 2024 for work on the Transcanyon waterline section between Havasupai Gardens and Phantom Ranch and waterline and distribution line work through the Bright Angel Campground and at the Phantom Ranch Canteen and lodging areas.

The Phantom Ranch Lodge and Canteen reopened April 1, 2025. While Phantom Ranch Canteen and Lodge were closed, workers installed new distribution, power and communication lines, fire hydrants and water filling stations in the area. There may be small areas in the Phantom Ranch area sectioned off with construction fencing. Some additional work will occur later this year to connect the new lines to the facilities.

Waterline work in the Bright Angel Campground and along the Bright Angel Trail wrapped up, and the areas reopened on May 15, 2025.

The project includes upgrading, replacing, or constructing temporary infrastructure for the installation of the waterline in a sequenced construction timeline of approximately 2023-27.

The TCWL project will relocate the water intake for the water delivery system to the South Rim from Roaring Springs to Bright Angel Creek near Phantom Ranch. This location will greatly reduce the length of the TCWL and eliminate a portion of the current waterline north of Phantom Ranch that experiences the most frequent failures. The water intake at Roaring Springs will continue to provide water to the North Rim.
The project includes:

Constructing an auxiliary hangar, helicopter landing pad, and contractor support area at the park helicopter base.
Constructing a 1 million-gallon per day water treatment plant at the South Rim and a smaller water treatment plant at Phantom Ranch.
Replacing the water distribution system at Havasupai Gardens.
Replacing approximatley 3 miles of waterline and upgrading approximately 3 miles of electrical supply line from Havasupai Gardens to Phantom Ranch.
Constructing a water intake system and pumping station in the Phantom Ranch area.
Replacing the water and electrical distribution systems at Phantom Ranch.

[Jim]

https://www.nps.gov/grca/getinvolved/tc ... ovdelivery

It doesn't say how large they will be, but raw water storage suggests a reservoir of untreated water, since treated would be potable.

[Jim]

@Grimey
No one said YOU were doing that. Someone here was.

[Grimey]

Well #$!@ latest satellites showing fires around the pumphouse and down into Bright Angel Canyon.

[hikeaz]

@chumley
Not-to-Worry ... hobbs is on the task........... https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo ... 145940007/

[cactuscat]

Jim
I normally have you blocked, but I was interested in this discussion so I read all the comments.
I assume you're talking about me, even though nothing I said was remotely hysterical or fear-mongering. You're the one who often seems hysterical, imo - hence my blocking you so I don't have to read it.
I also find it telling that your comment to Grimey indicates that you can't understand why someone would care to disagree with your statement if it wasn't meant to apply to them.

[Jim]

Officials opted to manage the wildfire, which started July 4, as a controlled burn rather than immediately extinguish it.

And the press wonders why people don't trust them. At no point was the fire a, "controlled burn". It was always a lightning caused fire. I hate the term, but fake news.

It was not a prescribed fire, either. It was always a lightning caused fire. It was natural.

Edited to add: never mind, I see the article contradicted itself in the next paragraph underneath of the ad. It's a controlled burn, but then it's a lightning fire?

[xsproutx]

@Jim
...in your quote it says "manage...AS a controlled burn rather than...extinguish it."
Article is quite clear with no contradictions. Naturally started, they tried to manage it the way you say they always should (which I don't disagree with generally) but as it was ad hoc, didn't have time to plan and prep as they would with a typical prescribed burn, and well... consequences. No fake news

[chumley]

I've come to my own understanding of terms over the past few years, none of which might be what officials use, but which seem to be thrown about by people wearing uniforms and/or those who write stories about them. I see prescribed fire used to describe situations when the initial ignition is sparked on purpose by fire managers. I see controlled burn used to describe a fire that was ignited naturally by lightning, but then permitted to burn within a defined area — often with additional ignitions by fire personnel.

I believe that these controlled burns are essentially loopholes that fire managers use to avoid the environmental bureaucratic red tape required to get approval for a prescribed burn: "It's a natural fire. We didn't start it!" Sometimes it's laughable, as with the Horton Creek fire this past winter, which started naturally, and was extinguished naturally several times, and the FS kept reigniting it but somehow claiming it was still a natural fire start. (The Horton fire appeared to meet objectives without huge issues except for some crowing near the rim. It was also December and snowing.)

I don't envy forest managers who have to balance the need for fire with the public pushback against air quality, wildlife management, and undesirable fire damage. I suspect it's the red tape required for prescribed burns that has made controlled burns so much more common in recent years. Perhaps some of the restrictions on prescribed burns should be loosened, and also some of those restrictions should be added before managers can initiate a controlled burn from a natural fire start.

Fire is volatile and unpredictable. But it seems to me that there have been an awful lot of acres of forest ecosystem in Arizona that have been permanently altered or completely destroyed because a controlled burn got out of the containment lines. This one made the news because of it's popularity with the general tourist public, but it's not the first one.

Leaving the obvious political motivations out of it (is that possible in 2025?), this IS something that should be investigated, revisited, and policy absolutely revised. Because if it's not, it will happen again. And again. And again.

[Jim]

@xsproutx
I'll take that as something which demonstrates an ignorance of the language used in fire. I recognize it as a contradiction, because it is. Prescribed fire was formerly referred to as controlled fire, and some still use that term, but it was considered inaccurate and misleading because it implies the fire is being controlled, which they never are. This is why the name was changed.
Many in the public may still think of a prescribed fire as a controlled fire.

However, to the originally quoted text,

the wildfire, which started July 4, as a controlled burn rather than immediately extinguish it

you see that it was reported as starting as a controlled fire, and that is flat out wrong. It later states it was lightning started, and I only read that after posting, returning to the lousy article and scrolling past the full page ad on my phone, and reading that contradictory writing.

Ask 100 people about these terms. Ask them if a controlled fire is likely to be started by humans, or natural lightning ignition, and most people probably will tell you that a controlled fire was human started. When I read that article, this was exactly what I thought, that they were saying this fire was an escaped prescribed fire.

The fire was initially managed with a confine and contain strategy, which included multiple containment features to protect structures, facilities and infrastructure.

https://inciweb.wildfire.gov/incident-i ... bravo-fire As you can see, the NPS did not refer to it in that manner, for very specific reasons. This was a managed fire. It was not prescribed, it was not controlled.

[Jim]

On July 11th the Dragon Bravo Fire was driven by strong northwest wind gusts, uncommon to the area, and jumped multiple containment features.

From the earlier linked inciweb page. Actually, I found this tid bit rather funny.

Maybe they meant that high winds are uncommon in summer? When I think of places where wind gusts are "uncommon", I do not think of the GCNP. Whatever, I'm more interested in why the buildings were not firewise, didn't have defensible space (or did and it was overrun) and why things like the lodge roof were reported to be wood shingles. Was GCNP conducting routine prescribed fire around the village? Things like that.

[ShatteredArm]

Jim
Does someone need to explain the purpose of a comma to you?

[chumley]

Prevailing winds across most of Arizona tend to come from the west and southwest. I could understand that a fire burning a couple of miles northwest of critical infrastructure would raise less concern than a fire burning to the south or southwest. Terrain considerations aside, fires here generally burn north and northeast. While hiking on the Mogollon Rim on Saturday, I was surprised how much smoke was in the air so far south of the Kaibab Plateau. The San Francisco Peaks were fully obscured from just 40 miles away. I would agree with the assessment that it is uncommon for wind from the northwest to push fire and smoke in a southerly direction here. It also seems to be the kind of thing that we're pretty good at forecasting within a couple of days and anybody in charge of managing a wildfire should not have been blind-sighted by.

[xsproutx]

@ShatteredArm
Reading comprehension is a dying concept. UNLIKE THESE WILDFIRES. BADA BING.

[xsproutx]

@chumley
That's the honest failure here. Fully get them trying to take advantage of a natural fire to get rid of some undergrowth but some winds were predicted. Seems someone/some people just didn't get how strong the winds were going to get. And, to give Jim a little credit, I'll be interested to see what was done previous to maintain safe firelines around those resources. Frankly, we don't see many structures lost like this lost these days for the most part. The guys are pretty good at protecting real estate. I have a house in Geronimo Estates that the Weber fire last year got very uncomfortably close to and they really handled it well and it was "fun" to see the steps they took to protect infrastructure vs forest (although I lost a gutter to an air water drop but eh, not that big a deal).

[RedRoxx44]

I see the language in inciweb as a CYA mode. There will be lots of that in this case. It sparked, it ran and someone in the fire management chain probably f'd up. It also could've been worst case multiple failure scenario and it could not have been changed.

[hikeaz]

The fire was being 'managed' by a T3 IMT ... from the 4th/5th until it wasn’t; that was July 13th, when it became an evacuation & all-hands-on-deck operation - but became a 'stand-down' order when the chlorine gas hit the fan. A T3 IMT incident management team, with minimum staffing does not have an assigned MET Meteorological Technician , nor an FBA (Fire Behavior analyst). So, this hard question needs to be asked. Why/Why not?
There was a 2022 Fire in the same area that they also managed as 'confine & contain, but let her burn'. and that (with a God-sent 3/4" of rain) was a 'success'.

Interestingly, seems they behaved contrary to law in BOTH cases as “confine and contain” is an unauthorized strategy. The National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. l 2 3, and 4) and subsequent acts do not authorize the use of fire in the National Park System. Ironically, the NPS Organic Act does authorize timber harvesting and livestock grazing in Section 3.

[xsproutx]

contrary to law “confine and contain” is an unauthorized strategy.

Can you provide a citation? I'm 100% sure this isn't true in certain NPS parks but I'm not certain if those are policies that were implemented as exceptions (IE, Yellowstone). When I skim the cores in the NPS organic act, I don't see a reference but I'm just skimming so could be missing something. More curiosity than anything.

[hikeaz]

@xsproutx
AS in the post...... National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. l 2 3, and 4) and subsequent acts. Yellowstone has it's own deviations but was impertinent to this thread so I omitted specifically mentioning it. Yellowstone is the exception to the discretionary grazing authorization.