Photo Credit: A fire briefing takes places during the Powerhouse Fire in LA County (2013). Photo by Branda Nowell


Cooperator meetings, such as this one that took place on the Beaver Creek Fire (2013) near Sun Valley, Idaho, are an effective way for Incident Management Teams to work with local community stakeholders during fire incidents. (Photo credit: Branda Nowell)

Cooperator meetings, such as this one that took place on the Beaver Creek Fire (2013) near Sun Valley, Idaho, are an effective way for Incident Management Teams to work with local community stakeholders during fire incidents. (Photo credit: Branda Nowell)

A complex fire event that threatens a local community can quickly overwhelm local resources.  If this occurs, it can necessitate the involvement of a regional or federal incident management team (IMT) that comes into the community to manage the fire.  These teams come with a wealth of resources, knowledge and experience in incident response.  However, each incident is different because communities are different.  In order for this outside assistance to be the most effective, they need help from the local community.

For several years now, our research team, Firechasers, has been asking the question, “How can IMTs work more effectively with local communities?”  However, at the same time, we also have wanted to understand what local communities can do in advance of a fire that will prepare them to work with IMTs who are coming in from outside the area.  It turns out there is a lot that can be done to help IMTs and host communities partner more effectively.  Based on our research, here are three key things local communities can do:

1)     Know Your Values at Risk (and Be Able to Communicate Them!)

IMTs can’t protect the things that are most valuable to a local community if the IMT doesn’t know what and where they are.  According to a survey we conducted in the spring of 2013 with 137 USFS Districts in OR, ID, WA, and MT, over 25% of Districts reported they did not have detailed documentation of values at risk that could be handed over to a federal IMT in the event of a WUI fire.    Across 22 wildland urban interface (WUI) fires that occurred in 2013, effective communication of values at risk was an area that IMTs indicated host communities had the greatest room for improvement.  Local communities can identify and map structures and critical infrastructure as well as areas of cultural, economic, recreational, historical, and/or ecological importance.   These need to be developed in collaboration with both local community stakeholders as well as state and federal land management agencies to establish a shared base of understanding in advance of a fire.   These documents need to be readily available to hand off to an IMT when they arrive on site.

2)     Know Your Local Incident Response Network (and Maintain Up-To-Date Contact Information!)

A complex fire event in the wildland urban interface (WUI) can involve a wide array of local stakeholders including fire agencies, law enforcement, media, emergency responders, utility companies, local landowners, and local government.   In order for the incident to be managed in a coordinated manner, IMTs need to work in collaboration with these local actors.  Valuable time is wasted if IMTs are forced to hunt and search to figure out who’s who in the area and how to get in touch with them.   Out of 137 USFS Districts surveyed, one out of five Districts reported they did not have up to date information on key contacts to give to IMTs.   Across 22 WUI fires in OR, ID, WA, and MT in 2013, IMTs reported “Timely contact information for pertinent local cooperators” as, on average, having the second highest ratings of room for improvement.   Local communities can work with federal and state land agencies to ensure that contact people are identified and that comprehensive, up-to-date lists are maintained.   These lists should be available to hand over to IMTs when they arrive on site and include primary contact information for: a) local government, b) utility companies, c) liaisons for the transportation department(s), d)   all fire, emergency response and mass care agencies/organizations, e) media contacts, f) large landowners, g) neighborhood associations, h) prominent community leaders, and h) key locations for disseminating public information.   Maps detailing property ownership can also help IMTs stay in communication with landowners if a fire threatens private land.

3)     Build Capacity within the Network of Local Responders

In our research, relationships are repeatedly identified as one of the most critical factors in determining how well things go when managing a complex incident.  We have found that responders who are more familiar with one another before an incident are statistically more likely to communicate more frequently and more effectively during an incident (Nowell & Steelman, 2014).  When communities have invested in building relationships and capacity among all local responders before an incident, it can make it easier for all of those participants to coordinate more effectively with incoming IMTs.  Our survey work with 137 USFS Districts and 109 counties in OR, ID, WA, and MT indicated there is more work to be done in this area.  Nearly half of all Districts were not prepared to maintain communications with other agencies in the event of power and phone outages. Further, one out of every four Districts reported not having plans in place for how to manage inter-agency communications during an incident.   Planning efforts to establish protocols for communication and coordination during an incident can provide the foundation for building key relationships.   Familiarity with the incident command system (ICS) can also assist local stakeholders to communicate more effectively with each other as well as an incoming IMT.  In our research, we found that fire service, law enforcement, and county emergency managers were generally trained and experienced in ICS.  However, other key actors, such as county and municipal elected officials, town and county managers, and animal evacuation/sheltering organizations were significantly less likely to be familiar with ICS. Such lack of familiarity may create challenges as these actors seek to define their role and communicate effectively with incident command and other cooperators.

References:

Faas, A.J., B. Nowell, T. Steelman and L. Bradford. 2013. County Wildfire Incident Readiness Report: Fall 2013. Fire Chasers Improving Community Response to Wildfire Study. September 30.  Available for download at: http://cnr.ncsu.edu/blogs/firechasers/reports/

Faas, A.J., B. Nowell, and T. Steelman. 2013. National Forest Wildfire Capacity Report: Fall 2013. Fire Chasers Improving Community Response to Wildfire Study. October 9. Available for download at: http://cnr.ncsu.edu/blogs/firechasers/reports/

Nowell, B. and Steelman, T (in press) Communication Under Fire: The Role of Embeddedness in the Emergence and Efficacy of Disaster Response Communication Networks.  Manuscript in press with the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (contact authors for more information).


Please note that comments are manually approved by a website administrator and may take some time to appear. 

Font Resize

Subscribe

We offer 2 ways to stay connected with us. Subscribe to our blog to get success stories, lessons learned, fantastic failures, research, and tips related to community wildfire resilience delivered to your inbox weekly every Thursday. You can also subscribe to “The FAC Circular”, our E-newsletter, which offers fire adaptation ideas outside the box.

Name
I would like to receive:(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.