Two fire analysts who were on the front lines of the Santiam Fire dispute the findings in an Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) report that claims powerlines played no role in the spread of the fire.
According to fire behavior scientist Dean Warner and retired fire chief Lonnie Click, they saw no evidence supporting ODF’s conclusions that the fire was an offshoot of the Beachie Creek Fire.
ODF’s theory, as detailed in a report released March 19, was that embers from the Beachie Creek Fire were carried by high winds several miles into the Santiam Canyon and sparked multiple spot fires.
While the report identified multiple powerline fires, it said none of these spread far enough to cause the significant fire growth seen in the canyon that night.
In depositions taken July 1, Click said the state’s theory was “probably not even possible,” and Warner said this type of fire behavior “just doesn’t happen.”
“Given the highly unlikely nature of spotting from the Beachie Creek Fire, I would only have to conclude some other ignition event for [the Santiam Fire],” said Warner.
The depositions were taken as part of an $8.75 million lawsuit against PacifiCorp by a class of Oregon wineries who say their crop was tainted by the 2020 Labor Day fires. PacifiCorp denies wrongdoing. A trial is set for Jan. 12, 2026.
ODF was approached for comment for this article and declined to give a statement due to the ongoing litigation. In an interview March 27 with The Canyon Weekly, ODF said it stands by its methods and conclusions in the report.
PacifiCorp was also approached for comment and did not respond by deadline. The company claims ODF’s report exonerates PacifiCorp from liability for the Santiam Fire. The report has formed the basis for an appeal of a 2023 verdict in a separate suit finding PacifiCorp liable for the fire, among other legal arguments.
Spotting theory disputed
Both Warner and Click were part of Northwest Incident Response Team 13, which led the response to the Beachie Creek Fire in 2020. Warner was commander and Click was deputy commander.
The fire was sparked by lightning that August in the Opal Creek Wilderness.
The night of Sept. 7, 2020, numerous spot fires sparked throughout the Santiam Canyon amid high heat and wind as the Beachie Creek Fire spread into the area. Two days later Team 13 issued a press release naming the blaze the Santiam Fire and saying the main cause was downed powerlines and not the spread of the Beachie Creek Fire.
In their depositions, Warner and Click said this conclusion remains consistent with what they saw and heard while responding to the fires.
Warner said, around 11 p.m. Sept. 7, 2020, a hotshot crew near Detroit was ordered to evacuate to Gates. At this time the Beachie Creek Fire was still on the other side of a ridgeline from Detroit, while spot fires had been breaking out in Gates as early as 9:20 p.m.
Warner said these teams observed no spot fires between Detroit and Gates. He said, if the Beachie Creek Fire had been spotting into the Santiam Canyon, there should have been fires closer to the main fire, and it was “highly unlikely” for spotting to occur several miles away as in Gates.
Warner also said, because the Beachie Creek Fire was approaching a ridgeline, the fire would require a “convective column” of hot air to carry embers high enough to travel a long distance. He said wind speeds that night were too high to produce a convective column, and instead embers were being pushed around the ridge.
Additionally Warner said any embers carried into the air would need to have traveled 10 miles or more to reach Gates, which he said was “an incredible distance.”
Click estimated the Beachie Creek Fire may have been as far as 20 or 25 miles from Gates when spot fires started breaking out. He said, in typical conditions, an ember might travel as far as 0.25 miles, and that an ember behaving as theorized in ODF’s report was “probably not even possible.”
ODF was asked about the limitations of long-distance spotting during the March 27 interview and said its investigators used sound, proven science to reach their conclusions.
Powerline activity observed
In addition to describing a lack of evidence for ODF’s theory, Warner and Click said they either witnessed or heard first-hand accounts of powerline fires spreading throughout the area.
Some of the first spot fires documented by ODF were at Potato Hill, near Gates, around 9:20 p.m. Click said he did not witness the fires ignite, but said he did witness flashes of light consistent with arcing power equipment in the direction of Potato Hill.
He said there was a “very high probability” based on his experience that an arc from power equipment struck vegetation and started these spot fires.
Click said firefighters observed “three glows” in the area of Potato Hill and scout teams were sent to investigate. They reported back that Potato Hill was on fire and crews did not have the resources to stop it.
In ODF’s report, the agency said the Potato Hill fire was allowed to burn because crews could not reach the area. It said there was no power equipment nearby to spark the fires.
Then a fire ignited near Gates School, where Team 13 had set up a command post. Warner arrived after the fire broke out and said firefighters were focusing on saving the historic school building, and ignoring fire that spread into nearby grass or trees.
Warner said firefighters eventually evacuated the area for their own safety, leaving the fire to burn out of control.
The ODF report said a powerline fire did break out at Gates School, but was fully suppressed by the time crews evacuated.
While this fire was burning, another firefighter camp at Fisherman’s Bend, near Mill City, was subject to powerline fires and had to be evacuated. Warner and Click did not witness this fire break out. They said they received no reports that the fire was extinguished when the camp was evacuated.
ODF’s report did not include any references to Fisherman’s Bend. Warner said he was aware of this omission, and that a report on a large wildfire “should include all the fires that were noted.”
Warner also described seeing PacifiCorp crews in the area three or four days after the fires, loading up damaged power equipment such as a transformer near Gates School. Warner said, while he is not a fire investigator, he would imagine that such equipment would be valuable to examine when determining the cause of a fire.
ODF’s report acknowledged the vast majority of damaged power equipment from the canyon was disposed of before their investigators arrived, and that they could not draw conclusions based on evidence they could not examine.
PacifiCorp questions witnesses
PacifiCorp’s defense counsel was present for the deposition, represented by attorney Raj Trehan.
He questioned Warner’s and Click’s qualifications to draw the conclusions they did about the cause of the fire, particularly the conclusions in the Sept. 9, 2020, press release. Trehan said Warner primarily works in forest management and only a fraction of his time is spent on wildfire behavior, and that Click’s official focus on Team 13 was monitoring weather conditions.
Trehan also argued it was not the purpose of Team 13 to determine the cause of the fire, and observations made by the team were not part of any official investigation.
Plaintiff attorney Dustin Dow, in a statement to The Canyon Weekly, said Trehan’s assertions were “absurd.” Dow said Team 13 watched the fire spread in real time and their observations were of high evidentiary value.
Dow said ODF not only arrived on scene a week after the fire began, but also failed to take Team 13’s observations into account. He said ODF investigators spoke with Click but did not include his observations in the report, and did not speak with Warner at all.
The Canyon Weekly asked ODF about these omissions before being told the agency would not comment.
Dow said his next step will be to depose ODF’s investigators to learn why they studied the fire the way they did and how the department reached its conclusions. Dow said these depositions may occur by August or September, depending on whether or not ODF cooperates with attorneys or if the court will be required to issue subpoenas.
