Graceful EXIT
In wildland fires, it isn't prudent to have panicky people driving through smoke and flame at high speeds on roads that have burning debris, rocks or downed trees and power lines.
Standard operating procedures enable smooth and reliable operations without having to reinvent a plan for every situation. Yet few fire chiefs use SOPs for evacuations, which are some of the most demanding procedures they undertake.
Preplanned evacuations can help avoid the confusion and losses from on-the-fly planning and panic. Evacuation SOPs especially need to include how to handle situations when evacuation is not suitable. Many situations that might suggest evacuation will be better served by keeping people in their homes. A clear plan created when time is ample will really pay off when the crisis hits and every resource is stretched to — or more likely past — the breaking point.
SOPs are the accepted choice of emergency service leaders to ensure consistent, accepted and reliable performance at emergency scenes. SOPs also can keep a chief out of trouble. Not having them can put the chief in jail and cost him or her large sums in jury awards and Occupational Safety and Health Administration fines when a quick decision turns out bad. The assumption is that if a department has an SOP and someone does not follow it and serious losses result, that person is going to have to explain his or her actions to a group of non-fire/rescue people who won't understand why the chief couldn't make perfect, well-considered decisions with all the information that this group gathered over the two years since the incident. Those who follow the SOP will have to do much less explaining.
While chiefs are not restricted to only using the SOP, a good SOP will cover most situations and allow him to save time by already having 90% of the planning complete before we arrive at the scene. This is done by sitting in low-pressure meetings with experienced and motivated responders and planners to evaluate the situational needs and historical lessons to create strategic and tactical response plans that best meet the needs of responders and customers in most situations. Yet SOPs are living plans, they adjust and improve with time and experience. Modifications to the basic plan at an incident takes less time than reinventing each entire response.
For a specific task, start with a good general SOP that takes many hours of careful consideration to create. Then train everyone to perform the same actions every time so that responders can anticipate team members' actions and be ready to perform their own task at the right time. Any firefighter can fill any position because he or she has learned the same tactical SOPs.
Even the Department of Homeland Security is beginning to stress the concept of shelter in place. Moving and caring for hundreds or thousands of displaced people places all of them at risk during relocation. Even without considering the effects of the hazard that prompts an evacuation, the injuries, deaths, assaults, thefts, rapes, illnesses and widespread psychological trauma from the move itself are very high costs.
Evacuating a school and then dealing with parents who are trying to find their kids will take huge resources. Evacuating hospitals and elder-care facilities can require 12 to 24 hours, massive staffing, dedicated transport and specialized receiving facilities. Moving and caring for pets and livestock requires handlers, trailers, cages, veterinarians, and facilities that are specific to each species. Relocating prison and jail populations will take law enforcement resources away from other vital duties such as notification, traffic control and control of looting. Reception areas tend to spread disease, including tuberculosis, strep, hepatitis and influenza. And post-traumatic stress disorder is frequently seen in displaced populations.
Here's a look at evacuation and shelter in place strategies from multiple angles. And for help writing an SOP, visit www.disaster-info.net/carib/SOP.htm.
Structure protection during wildland fires is too expensive. Mitigation, higher taxes, subdivision regulations, shift responsibility to homeowners. Here are some perspectives:
“The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General conducted an audit that criticized the Forest Service for excessive spending. ‘The largest factor in rising costs, the audit found, is the expense of protecting the homes and communities that have sprouted around the edges of federal forests. The march of development into the woods ‘is an escalating fire problem,’ the audit says, adding that many ‘landowners take no action to reduce their homes’ vulnerability to wildfire and many local governments do not require them to do so.’” — Sacramento Bee
“Obviously, people and their property need protection from fire. The question is whether that should be the Forest Service's job. Moreover, we should also consider whether all of us might do more to protect ourselves from forest fires, most of all by making better decisions about where and how we develop property. We're never going to get a handle on firefighting danger — much less the costs of firefighting — if we insist on sprawling residential development throughout what's known as the wildland-urban interface.” — The Missoulian
“The fastest growing fire problem in the United States is fire in the wildland-urban interface. This fire problem is growing each year as millions of people continue to build homes in high-risk interface areas and as local, state, and federal government attempts to address fuel modification in the interface continue to meet social resistance to a balanced fuels reduction plan. The direct threat to life and high-valued property in the interface (suburbs) has been demonstrated in cities, towns, counties, and communities throughout the country. The direct and indirect costs of an extreme fire event can reach multi-billion dollar dimensions; impacts on the infrastructure of a community can include damage and disruption of water supply, utilities, and transportation systems.” — International Association of Fire Chiefs
“Landowners with properties in forested areas would be assessed higher rates for wildfire suppression costs under a bill that came before lawmakers Monday. A major issue for the state is that firefighters are spending more time protecting homes and other manmade structures in or near wildland areas, which is more costly and more dangerous than if homes were not involved.” — Chronicle, Helena, Mont.
“Spooked by devastating wildfire seasons, the nation's top insurers are inspecting homes in high-risk areas throughout the West and threatening to cancel coverage if owners don't clear brush or take other precautions.” — The Missoulian
Fire codes in San Diego County are reducing losses, from 14% to 4%, through better construction practices, fire-resistive materials, site planning, fuel mitigation and public education.
The emphasis is quickly shifting to a new system of responsibility. No longer will the federal and state governments be willing to be the deep pockets for suppression. Insurance companies will not take on new bad risks and are dropping old ones. The homeowner will end up being responsible for keeping his property resistant to fire.
John Handmer and Amalie Tibbits, researchers at the Centre for Risk and Community Safety at RMIT University and the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre in Australia, were concerned about deaths and property losses from wildland fires. They looked at every detail of the large fires during the 20th century and learned some things. Houses don't explode from wildland fires. People die mostly during evacuation. Homes can protect people if people are there to protect the homes.
“Australian bushfire agencies have a position that people in the path of a fire should either prepare, stay, and defend their properties, or leave the area well before the fire front arrives,” they wrote. “The position is supported on the grounds of both improved safety and reduced property loss.”
U.S. Forest Service researcher Jack Cohen, working at the Fire Science Laboratory in Missoula, Mont., can be credited for looking for the process of exterior home ignition. He found that homes are generally ignited not by the massive flame fronts, but by the little ember that finds a receptive fuel bed next to a structure. The homes usually won't catch fire until the flame front has long passed. It is so simple: Prepare your home for wildland fire by removing the fuels that allow embers to ignite your home. Then either evacuate early or stay there during the fire and put out the little fires that find fuels that you missed. All western states are now encouraging homeowners to clean up their environs so that fires will have less chance to find their way to the structures. Montana has a simple grading form that anyone can follow that shows how to make a home safer from wildland fire.
State and federal fire agencies are very clear — they can no longer afford to provide structure protection. And insurance companies are beginning to demand that homeowners do their part to protect their homes. It will be up the homeowner to make his home safe from wildland fire. We are talking about defensible space, whether it is for the homeowner or the local firefighters. Several organizations have taken up the cause, including Firewise and FireSafe chapters in California and Montana. Check out their Web sites. It is easy to prepare and maintain an environment that keeps wildland fire from burning structures. The concepts easily are understood. Most homeowners can do all the work themselves, but contractors are usually available.
The Tasmanian Fire Service is the leader in the Prepare, Stay, and Defend program. Its studies have clearly shown that evacuations are killing their people. Staying at a home that has been prepared for wildland fire is far safer than trying to negotiate smoky, blocked and congested roads. Its prescription for success in protecting people is to make their homes islands of safety that will protect their inhabitants. People protect homes; homes protect people. In the fall of 2006, the TFS distributed 23-minute instructional DVDs to its residents who were most at risk from wildland fires. One resident received the DVD and put his family to work. Three days later, his house was at the head of a true fire storm. His family members followed the plan and they and their house survived unscathed. This is just one example of the many successes.
Some American communities have begun to embrace the Prepare, Stay, and Defend program. The Painted Rocks community in southwestern Montana has adopted the program. The five communities of Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., have been using the concept in their entire design. Colorado Springs, Colo., is incorporating the concept in new development. Topanga, Calif., is slowly merging the Prepare, Stay, and Defend idea in its community emergency response and public-education systems.
Alan Tresemer is a fire chief with Painted Rocks Fire & Rescue Company in southwest Montana, director of the First Responder Institute for Research and Education, and a director of FireSafe Montana.
One of the problems of moving people is size. How long and how many responders does it take to move one large, immobile person from an upstairs bedroom to a vehicle outside? Allot one hour, minimum, but it could take up to six hours. How many such people are in your target population? How many transport vehicles, including specialty vehicles such as ambulances, are there? For guidance, visit www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/evacuation/shelterinplace.html.
