By Pete Aleshire Staff Staff Writer for the Payson Roundup..
August 31, 2010
As Rim Country (Northern Arizona) heads into the prime season for controlled burns, a recent study has produced some surprising good news.
Turns out, controlled burns during the damp fall season that reduce the fire danger to Rim Country communities, also put less smoke and carbon dioxide into the air than wildfires, according to a study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
In fact, widespread use of controlled burns would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the West by 18 percent to 25 percent — and perhaps as much as 60 percent in especially fire-prone areas like Rim Country.
The key to the seemingly counter-intuitive finding lies in the fate of the big trees — which generally survive low-intensity controlled burns but not run-away wildfires, like the 600,000-acre Rodeo-Chediski Fire.
That massive blaze that nearly consumed Show Low and cost some $60 million to fight, transformed the U.S. Forest Service’s approach to fires in Rim Country. The Tonto National Forest has been scrambling ever since to thin a buffer zone in the thick, overgrown, tinder-dry forest surrounding Payson, Pine, Strawberry, Star Valley and other Rim communities.
Contractors generally thin the surrounding forest, cutting down and piling up about 80 percent of the trees and brush. They then come back and set those piles on fire in the fall, when the high moisture content of the fuels makes it possible to keep the controlled burns from spreading. Increasingly, the Forest Service is also turning wildfires into controlled burns, but letting them keep on burning when conditions allow.
Once the Forest Service has created adequate buffer zones, forest managers hope to start using more controlled burns without the initial hand thinning. Again, they’ll start those controlled burns in the late winter or fall, to keep the fires from getting out of hand.
Such a policy could prove good for the planet, concluded Christine Wiedinmyer at the NCAR along with co-author Matthew Hurteau, with Northern Arizona University. The study was published in Environmental Science and Technology.
The researchers used satellite measurements and computer models to study the difference between a low-intensity controlled burn and an all-out wildfire.
First, they estimated the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by fires in 11 western states between 2001 and 2008. Then they used a sophisticated computer model developed by Wiedinmyer to figure out how much carbon is released when a certain mass of vegetation burns.
Next, they estimated how much carbon would have gone up in smoke if those same areas had been treated with controlled burns.
They concluded that controlled burns of those areas would have reduced total carbon emissions by 11 million metric tons. That’s only a fraction of the total U.S. carbon emissions, but still exceeds the total produced by a host of smaller states.
New Mexico, Montana and Arizona would enjoy the biggest drop in potential emissions by using controlled burns to pre-empt wildfires — about a one-third reduction.
The researchers concluded that the controlled burns would also likely produce substantial health benefits, by reducing the amount of other pollutants released into the air — especially soot and other fine particulate matter. Several studies have demonstrated that such finely burned material can have a pronounced effect on the health of people with asthma and other breathing problems.
The study comes just as Rim Country forest managers are gearing up for the fall burn season — and for an innovative effort to use a retooled timber industry to thin some 700,000 acres of overgrown ponderosa pine forest in northern Arizona.
The 4-Forests initiative recently won a $2 million federal grant to prepare long-term contracts that would guarantee a steady wood supply for mills that could handle small-diameter trees.
Forest managers hope this approach will create more than 600 jobs in the region while eliminating the taxpayer cost of thinning huge expanses of forest.
The key to that effort lay in an agreement by loggers and forest managers to mostly not cut trees bigger than 16 inches in diameter.
As it happens, those are the trees capable of withstanding controlled burns and locking up huge amounts of carbon for centuries.
BP’s failures on the Gulf made worse by PR woes By HARRY R. WEBER and ERIN McCLAM (AP)
HOUSTON – BP is already fighting an oil gusher it can’t contain and watching its mighty market value wither away. Its own bumbling public-relations efforts are making a big mess worse.
Not only has it made a series of gaffes – none greater than the CEO’s complaint that “I’d like my life back” – the company hasn’t even followed its own internal guidelines for damage control after a spill.
Executives have quibbled about the existence of undersea plumes of oil, downplayed the potential damage early in the crisis and made far-too-optimistic predictions for when the spill could be stopped. BP’s steadiest public presence has been the ever-present live TV shot of the untamed gusher.
What BP has lacked, crisis management experts say, has been much of a show of human compassion.
“All crises are personal,” said Richard Levick, who runs a public relations firm, Levick Strategic Communications, that advises companies. “Action and sacrifice is absolutely critical.”
The best move for BP’s image, of course, would be to stop the leak. That has proved difficult enough, with one fix after another failing and estimates of the severity of the spill growing by the week.
Failing a solution, Daniel Keeney, president of a Dallas-based PR firm, suggested putting CEO Tony Hayward in a hard hat and life vest, helping crews contain and clean up the spill.
“You want to get him right in the thick of things, even if he looks somewhat uncomfortable doing it,” Keeney said.
Levick suggested BP could have cut gas prices at its stations along the Gulf Coast – a show of financial solidarity.
BP has taken a stab at soothing angry Americans, airing a slick, multimillion-dollar national TV spot this week in which Hayward pledges: “We will make this right.” Hayward also promised BP would clean up every drop of oil and “restore the shoreline to its original state.” President Barack Obama said the money spent on the ads should have gone to cleanup and compensating devastated fisherman and small business owners.
And even those efforts violate the company’s own prescription for damage control. Its own spill plan, filed last year with the federal government, says of public relations: “No statement shall be made containing any of the following: promises that property, ecology or anything else will be restored to normal.”
On top of everything else, BP can’t figure out what to say about its dividend. Lawmakers in the U.S. insist the company must look after the devastated people of the Gulf before paying its shareholders. But in Britain, legions of retirees count on the steady payouts.
And earlier this week when Wall Street freaked out over the prospect of billions of dollars in BP liabilities and sent its stock to its lowest point since the mid-1990s, the company response was positively tone-deaf.
“The company is not aware of any reason which justifies this share price movement,” the company said early Thursday, after its stock was hammered on New York and European exchanges.
Almost from the beginning, BP has been as unable to control its public message as it has the spill itself.
Hayward was ridiculed for telling reporters “I’d like my life back” earlier in the crisis, remarks the families of some of the 11 men killed in the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig felt were insensitive. He also suggested that the environmental impact of the spill would be “very, very modest.”
Former Shell chairman John Hofmeister said it might have been more appropriate for senior U.S. executives of the company to take the heat. Hayward is an Englishman, and BP is based in Britain.
“I think it was a mistake for Tony Hayward to come and put his physical presence in the U.S.,” Hofmeister said. “The U.S. has its own culture and traditions. Foreign companies can come and do business there, but they are not necessarily welcomed.”
BP’s chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, an American, was rolled out for interviews, but his aides grumbled Hayward was stealing the spotlight. Hayward’s decision to present a video explaining BP’s “top kill” attempt took the company’s Louisiana command by surprise.
As for Suttles himself, he insisted this week that there were no massive underwater oil plumes in “large concentrations” from the spill. To NBC, he offered that it “may be down to how you define what a plume is here.”
The government had said three tests confirmed oil as far as three-fifths of a mile below the surface of the Gulf, at least 40 miles away from the site of the gushing well.
Suttles also predicted the spill would be reduced to a “relative trickle” by early next week. BP later sought to walk the comments back, saying the company was optimistic but that getting the spill to a trickle would take more time.
By late this week, the government had reported that the spill was spewing the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez disaster into the Gulf every two weeks or less, with the catastrophe nearing the end of its second month.
Since the April 20 explosion, BP has parachuted its own staff, plus staff from at least two independent public-relations firms, to deal with the deluge of round-the-clock media inquiries.
Early on in the crisis, BP and government officials held daily in-person briefings with media, allowing questions. In recent days and weeks, officials have increasingly resorted to teleconferences with reporters and have limited the ability to ask questions and the number of questions that could be asked.
In Houston, where BP has set up a U.S. command center, company PR officials have grown weary of reporters going directly to engineers and other higher-ups for information, at times trying to insist media go through them first.
Spokesman Robert Wine said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that media visits to the Houston center are “very carefully controlled and sparingly arranged” by design.
“The rooms that are shown are full of the teams who WILL make a difference on the result of this crisis,” Wine wrote. “Every second they are not helping with media visits is time they are not doing the `day job.’”
In the meantime, BP has been buying up spill-related search terms on Google and Yahoo, so that links to its own oil-response sites pop up first. BP says the idea is to help people on the Gulf find the right forms and people quickly and effectively.
Others suggest it’s a move to steer searchers away from bad press for BP.
“It is clearly trying to protect its brand image,” said Matthew Whiteway, director of campaign management at London consulting firm Greenlight, which says 95 percent of BP’s search listings are rated very negative.
Crisis management experts say the only reliable way to repair BP’s badly tarnished image is the obvious one – to plug the hole.
“Crisis management is about fixing the problem. It’s not about looking good,” said Tony Jaques, a crisis management consultant in Melbourne, Australia. “BP has done some things that have not been smart, but really, what would they have done to look good in this kind of situation anyway?”
From: Dave Whitmer To: AK AFS ALL Subject: 2010 Alaska fire season
Most all of us remember the Alaska fire season of 2009. Just by way of comparison, Alaska had 193 fires for a total of 98,163 acres burned by the end of May in 2009. On the last day of May in 2010, we are at 261 fires for 260,024 acres burned.
By all accounts, there doesn’t appear to be any significant relief in sight. The weather is supposed to moderate for a few days and then the high pressure dominance is expected to return. We have had more lightning, more dry lightning and considerably higher temperatures this May than any May I can remember for the last 22 years. A near record lack of precipitation in May, on top of a near record low snowpack over the winter has combined to produce an extremely volatile fuels condition. Observed fire behavior across the interior of Alaska this past week has most often been described as extreme, and in many cases, extremely extreme. Our resources are getting stretched thin and our ability to support those resources is getting taxed. And technically, it is still May.
We have really only been busy for the last 10 days or so, so I can’t see that the duration of this level of activity has had much impact on us. But I definitely think that the pace of the activity has. Some weak signals are starting to surface. Small, seemingly insignificant things are cropping up. Small, seemingly insignificant things are getting missed. Weak signals are indicators of potential problems that are “under the surface”, and that left unattended, may cause catastrophic failures down the road.
I’d like to take this moment to remind everyone that we all need to consider several key points as we head into the coming days, weeks and quite possibly, months.
1. We are likely in this for the long haul. By that, I mean that I expect fire season will probably end in AK sometime in August or September. Will it continue at the pace of these last 10 days? Not likely, but once the pace slows down, duration will start to become an issue. Realistically, we should expect to be dealing with fires in Alaska for the next two to three months. Plan for it.
2. As the fires grow, the smoke associated with those fires will give us increasingly more and more problems. Visibility will decrease – often to the point where aviation missions may be seriously impacted, or may not be possible at all. We won’t be able to see the fires we know we have, and will have a really tough time with the ones we don’t know we have. Pilot fatigue as a result of smoke will likely increase and we will get pressure from external audiences to control something we have no control over. Plan for it.
3. Resources coming into Alaska from the lower 48 are flowing freely right now. That will not continue forever, especially once the lower 48 fire season starts and resource competition/prioritization/allocation becomes an issue. We will still be dealing with many large problem fires that are threatening many values at risk when the call comes to start returning the resources we’ve borrowed. Plan for it.
4. We will all feel the stresses of being hindered by resource shortages, smoke issues, logistical complications, seemingly avoidable inefficiencies, long mobilization times, longer demobilization times, long hours, lack of rest, etc. Our best laid plans will have more wrenches thrown at them than the Craftsman company has ever thought about building. Plan for it.
There is not one thing that we are out there protecting that is worth getting hurt over, or dying for. Firefighter and public safety is always our number one priority, but getting hurt or dying trying to protect “things” is senseless. As you go about your daily business, whether it is driving airplanes, fighting fires, operating equipment or supporting any of those who do, please take the time to think about this: As the small things start to get missed, or the small things start to crop up, look around you to see what is going on in your operation. Was what just happened an isolated incident? Or is it an indicator of a larger failure waiting to happen? I’d submit that very few things are truly isolated incidents. Consider using the pre-mortem process in your daily operations to look for those areas where the potential for catastrophe may be lurking. The most dangerous situation is the one where we don’t recognize the danger.
Be mindful about what you are doing. Think about what you are going to do before you do it. Do it. Learn from doing it. We work in emergency response, but our jobs are not an emergency. Slow down, and if necessary, stop. Think.
I am extremely proud of this organization and all that we do. It is the people who make this the place it is. We can burn millions of acres and lose all sorts of valuable resources and it won’t faze me one bit, but if any one of you is seriously injured or killed, none of this will be worth it.
Maybe the best advice I can give is something I saw on a dry erase board in the Paracargo bay at the smokejumpers a couple of days ago.
File your paperwork Be kind to others Stay calm
Dave Whitmer Division Chief, Fire Operations Alaska Fire Service Fairbanks, Alaska
Source: USDA Forest Service – Missoula Technology and Development Center
Highlights…
Hand-held radios allow limited conversations that may require intermediaries with phones to forward a message. Cell phones provide direct communications—but only when cell phones have coverage.
MTDC conducted mobile tests with an LG Model VX3450L cell phone and two Wilson Electronics, Inc., amplifiers.
Cell phone amplifiers can extend the range of cell phones from several miles to 10 miles or more in flat terrain.
Signal amplifiers (also known as boosters) for cell phones are relatively inexpensive. Mobile signal amplifiers with magnet-based car roof antennas cost $250 to $450. Cell phones can be coupled with an amplifier to extend coverage while traveling through rural areas with limited cellular service. Increasing the range of cell phones can improve safety for Forest Service employees.
Physics and Cell Phone Transmissions
The limited range of cell phones is based on two factors: operating frequencies in the UHF (Ultra High Frequency, 300 to 3,000 megahertz) radio spectrum and the limited transmission power of cell phones. The operating frequencies of contemporary cell phones (800 and 1,900 megahertz) limit communications to line-of-sight between the cell phone and a cell tower. When the distance between the tower and cell phone is relatively short, the line-of-sight limitation may be overcome by signals reflected off buildings or rock walls or by “knife-edge” refraction (bending) over ridges. Such indirect signal paths typically allow a range of a few miles, while line-of-sight signal paths permit connections for many miles.
The other factor that affects the communication range of cell phones is the power of the transmitted signal. Federal Communications Commission rules restrict the amount of RF (radio frequency) power a cell phone may transmit. While battery size does not limit the power of radio transmissions in cell phone towers, the small batteries in cell phones do limit the power of the phones’ transmissions. A cell phone’s operating life on a single battery charge is determined by the transmitter’s power and the length of time the cell phone is broadcasting (someone is speaking into the cell phone). The transmission power of a cell phone is about a quarter of a watt.
The range of cell phones also is affected by the location and shape of the antenna. For maximum range, a cell phone’s antenna should be outside the handset, not built into it.
Cell Phone Amplifiers
A cell phone amplifier can increase the range of a cell phone.
The amplifier:
Is powered by a vehicle’s electrical system, so the amplifier’s operating life is not tied to the cell phone’s internal battery.
Has two RF amplifiers: one to boost the signal the phone receives from a cell tower and the other to boost the signal the cell phone transmits to the tower. The power of the cell phone’s transmission is amplified to about 2 watts.
Is used with an antenna that may be mounted on the roof of a vehicle (an optimal location). The size and design of the external antenna improve the effectiveness of the system. Some external antennas attach with magnets so they can be transferred easily to other vehicles.
Three methods of coupling cell phones to amplifiers are:
A cable and plug for a cell phone with an external antenna jack.
A contact antenna that can be attached to the back of a cell phone (figure 1).
A repeater antenna that can be mounted inside the vehicle 1 to 2 feet away from the cell phone (figure 2).
Few cell phones have external antenna jacks, so the Missoula Technology and Development Center (MTDC) decided to evaluate how well the contact antenna and repeater antenna would work with amplifiers. MTDC used Wilson Electronics, Inc., products for the evaluation because the products are available in kits that can be assembled to suit specific applications.
Figure 1—This system uses a contact antenna mounted to the back of a cell phone, an amplifier, and an external roof-mounted antenna to boost the range of cell phone transmissions.
Figure 2—This system uses an internal repeater antenna, an amplifier and an external roof-mounted antenna to boost the range of cell phone transmissions.
Products That Were Selected for the Driving Tests
The Wilson Electronics Model 811210 and 801230 amplifiers use 6-volt power sources. Cigarette lighter power plugs that came with the Wilson amplifier kits contain voltage regulators that lower the 12-volt car voltage to 6 volts as required for the amplifiers. The amplifiers were evaluated with 12-inch external antennas mounted with magnets on the vehicle’s roof and with antennas inside the vehicle that were coupled to the cell phones directly or indirectly.
Driving Test Results
MTDC performed driving tests with a Ford Escape hybrid in and near six national forests in Montana. The external antenna was mounted with magnets in the center of the roof. MTDC performed most of the tests with the internal contact antenna (Model 811210). The amplifier and internal repeater antenna (Model 801230) produced similar results if the antenna was within a foot of the cell phone. Performance dropped off with increasing distance, but even when the cell phone was 2 feet away from the internal repeater antenna, reception and transmissions were still improved.
The cell phone used for mobile tests was an LG Model VX3450L. The cell phone featured a diagnostic screen that displayed received signal strength in dBm (decibels relative to 1 milliwatt of power) and signal quality (a data error rate listed as “EC/IO”). The cell phone was equipped for Verizon wireless service, which is widely available in western Montana.
The tests were performed either in a parked vehicle or by the passenger in a moving vehicle. The Forest Service’s Health and Safety Code Handbook 6709.11, section 12.34, prohibits using two-way radios and hand-held cell phones while driving.
Figure 3—Diagnostic screens found on some cell phones offer a more accurate way of determining when a cell phone can complete transmissions than the bars most cell phones display.
In many areas of western Montana, small towns with cellular service are 20 to 30 miles apart. Without a cell phone amplifier, someone driving between those towns would be out of service for 10 to 15 miles. With the amplifier, continuous coverage was available. In similar situations, amplifiers could allow continuous cell phone coverage on hundreds of miles of highways between towns where coverage would not be available otherwise.
In areas where a town was the sole source of cellular coverage for many miles, coverage outside town was extended on average by 7 miles, frequently doubling the range of an unamplified cell phone. If the road into town was relatively straight, often coverage was extended by more than 10 miles. If the road took a sharp turn into a steep drainage, typically the coverage was extended just 2 to 3 miles. If the road followed rolling hills, coverage would be lost in the dips of the road and recovered near the ridges.
If a cell phone user has the opportunity to seek out a high ridge or hilltop that provides line-of-site access to a cell tower, cell phone service often can be obtained in relatively remote locations.
More Details
At several points during each test, calls were placed to an office and voice mail messages were left to record the audio quality of the cell phone connection. Using the diagnostic screen on the LG cell phone, calls could be placed when the unamplified cell phone registered received signal strength of -104 dBm. The cell phone would not register signals below -106 dBm. When the amplifier was turned on, the received signal strength would typically increase about 26 dBm; an unamplified received signal registering -100 dBm would increase to about -74 dBm when the amplifier was on.
With the amplifier on, the received signal strength level had to be about -92 dBm to make a call. The amplifier can provide more boost to signals it receives from cellular towers than it can to signals it sends to those towers—the amplifier can detect tower signals beyond its range for responding.
The EC/IO value the phone displayed was a good indicator of whether a call could be placed, regardless of the received signal strength. Values down to -10 appeared to be associated with calls with good voice quality. Voice quality was poor or the phone could not connect when the EC/IO value was less than about -10.
Conclusions
Cell phone coverage in national forests is not likely to match the communication coverage available through the Forest Service’s VHF (Very High Frequency, 30 to 300 megahertz) repeater network. However, adding cell phone amplifiers to Forest Service vehicles can extend the range of cell phone coverage, reducing instances when employees are forced to radio their dispatcher to ask for help in forwarding a message by phone.
With the decreasing availability of external antenna jacks on cell phones, the contact antenna is the most effective method MTDC tested for coupling a cell phone to an amplifier. An in-car signal coupling option that wasn’t investigated for this project is a cell phone “cradle” that contains a contact antenna behind the cell phone. Because the cradle would have to be mounted on the dash or the center console, the cell phone would have to be used with a headset plugged in or in speaker mode. Considering the noise in a vehicle, a headset would provide clearer audio.
A cell phone amplifier installed permanently in a vehicle should be mounted in an out-of-the-way location, such as under the passenger seat, where there is good ventilation. The power and antenna cables should be routed to avoid tripping, snagging, and damage.
About the Author
Ted Etter joined MTDC in 2002 as an electronics engineer and project leader. He has 20 years’ experience working for private industry in the design of test equipment, display devices, and medical instrumentation. For 6 years before he joined MTDC, Etter taught courses in the electronics technology program at the University of Montana College of Technology, Missoula, MT. His work at MTDC includes projects in wireless communications, alternative energy sources, instrumentation, and process control. Etter received a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of Oregon and a master’s degree in teacher education from Eastern Oregon State University.
There are two tools that I use on incidents, Flickr and Picasa. Both have value to any incident or event. Flickr is is a little more technical and robust. Picasa is simple and the learning curve is a lot less. If you are just starting out, I would recommend Picasa and Picasa-web. Since Picasa is a Google product, it comes with 1 gig of photo storage space on Picasa-web.
Picasa: I was shown Picasa (the program) by a NY Times Photographer on a fire a few years ago. He said that “it does all of the basic stuff that Photoshop does but very quickly and in one easy package.” And it’s true! The simple “Basic Fixes” buttons will take out smokey haze from photos from on the fireline and a lot more. And the great thing is it’s FREE with up to 1 gigabyte of space with your Google account!! It’s pretty intuitive and it’s “PHD” (push here dummy).
Flickr has a great tool called Groups. Groups can either be public, public (invite only), or completely private. Every group has a pool for sharing photos and videos and a discussion board for talking. Note: This is a great way to publicly solicit photos of your fire, incident or event. Or have other trusted incident personnel or agencies submit photos for your collection.
It happens at every large incident, we have CD’s, memory sticks and folders upon folders of photos. And at the end of the incident, incident personnel always want a CD/DVD of all of the photos taken. Hopefully now you can point them to a photo sharing website instead of being a CD/DVD duplication service. In addition these services provide an avenue to share and receive photos from the public and your stakeholders.
A Red Flag Warning is a forecast warning issued by the National Weather Service to inform area firefighting and land management agencies that conditions are ideal for wildland fire ignition and propagation. After drought conditions, and when humidity is very low, and especially when high or erratic winds which may include lightning are a factor, the Red Flag Warning becomes a critical statement for firefighting agencies, which often alter their staffing and equipment resources dramatically to accommodate the forecast risk. To the public, a Red Flag Warning means high fire danger with increased probability of a quickly spreading vegetation fire in the area within 24 hours.
The weather criteria for fire weather watches and red flag warnings varies with each Weather Service Office’s warning area based on the local vegetation type, topography, and distance from major water sources but usually includes the daily vegetation moisture content calculations, expected afternoon high temperature, afternoon minimum relative humidity and daytime wind speed.
Outdoor burning bans may also be proclaimed by local law and fire agencies based on Red Flag Warnings.
A separate but less imminent forecast may include a Fire Weather Watch, which is issued to alert fire and land management agencies to the possibility that Red Flag conditions may exist beyond the first forecast period (12 hours). The watch is issued generally 12 to 48 hours in advance of the expected conditions, but can be issued up to 72 hours in advance if the NWS agency is reasonably confident. The term “Fire Weather Watch” is headlined in the routine forecast and issued as a product. That watch then remains in effect until it expires, is canceled, or upgraded to a Red Flag Warning.
Throughout the winter, a moderate intensity El Niño has kept California squarely in an active storm track and much of the state has been the recipient of above normal precipitation. The jet stream, particularly the polar jet, has been active this year which has continually generated a high number of storm systems across the Eastern Pacific.
by Jenn Burgess (Special Contributor to Fireground)
I have a confession to make.
I work in espionage…
…and I’m a double-agent.
I would like to say you can find me disappearing into the twilight wearing a stylish trench coat, heels clicking down the sidewalk as I chase my leads, peering out from under the brim of a smart hat to survey the scene. But, that would be incredibly impractical for Phoenix. Especially during the summer months.
Nope. I actually don’t own a stylish trench coat. I have run in heels and it’s not a pleasant experience. The only hats I own are baseball caps and a few beanies for snowboarding or skiing. Yet, even with that plain persona of mine, people still willingly share information with me and I do what I can to pass it on to the other side.
I’m on a big case right now. In fact, it could be a game-changer. I hope it is. So do a lot of other folks. However, this case was a bit too much for me… so I had to call in someone who could help sniff out where to go. I know Bloodhounds are usually used in a situation of this nature. But, I needed a Bulldog.
Winston Churchill said, “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”
The case: a quiet feud building among the broadcast media and public information officers (PIO’s).
The criticism: it appears there is a major disconnect between how each side communicates and how each side works.
The good news: war has not broken out yet. In fact, with a few diplomatic discussion points, we may be able to reach a victory for both parties. And I will use Winston’s wisdom to get us there.
“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”
With the Cave Creek Complex burning adjacent to the Phoenix metro area, the media had a large presence at the incident. The fire threatened a number of very expensive homes briefly, causing the evacuation of some 250 residents.
Read that again. I remember a few times as a reporter, when I dashed to a story (I was probably running in heels, too, come to think of it) and I really had no idea what the story was. I’m deeply ashamed to admit that. It happens. Not just to me. (Don’t worry, reporter friends… I won’t out you.) But, there are times when we charge ahead, assigned to tell someone’s story… and we have no idea. what this. is. all. about.
Winston’s right. It takes courage to sit down and listen. Or, to put it in reporter terms: we’re all so scared of not making our deadline, we may fear sitting down to do some preliminary research because time is precious and usually in short supply. Or, maybe we feel so confident in our skills, we assume we can figure it out when we get there. Take heart, and take time. Knowing the basic foundation of a story will save you not only time in the field, but also allow you to save face among experts who are on scene. I’m talking about the PIO’s. A few of them leaked this precious information to me. They’re getting irked by reporters showing up unprepared. They want to -believe it or not- help you do your job better. So, do ‘em a favor: learn some basic material before you show up and speak, pretending you know… when you really have no idea. Which leads me to the other area where to have courage: if you really don’t know, speak up. I’ll give you this info as a former insider. Repeat after me. Or type it in your BlackBerry notes: “I appreciate your time to meet me. I have to be honest: I have no clue what this is all about. Can we talk off-camera before we start the actual interview?” Be courageous. Be honest.
That said, PIO’s, listen up. Reporters are a dying breed. In this race to get information out to the public, a new figure is emerging: the multi-media journalist (MMJ). You can ID them by 1) they’re alone 2) their arsenal. Camera? Check. Tripod? Maybe – if it wasn’t the heavy one that no one wants to use and usually gets left in the car. Nice suit? Perhaps… depends on if they’re more reporter-turned-mmj or photojournalist-turned-mmj. The latter of which will always be identifiable by comfortable footwear, ample ease in setting up the gear and getting the white-balance to work properly.
Photographer Lynn French from Channel 12 in Phoenix shooting the Brins Fire outside of Sedona, AZ as the fire crests the ridge into Oak Creek Canyon.
PIO’s: the MMJ is a super-hero. Someone upon which the honor of great responsibility has been bestowed. Handle this hero with care. Theirs is a large burden: find the story, make the contacts, drive to the scene, find interviewees and set up equipment. Conduct interview. Log tape. Write story. Write blog. Update Facebook. Update twitter. Send cell phone pictures back to the base (aka: station) with brief updates that are meant to entice the web users to watch the broadcast. Tweet more. GO LIVE! Drive back to the station. Update story with fresh content for the next newscast. And… done! *Whew* I got tired just writing that. I hope you gained some empathy from reading it. So does the MMJ.
PIO’s, I know you want to help this fascinating news machine. Here’s how (straight from my close connections, in fact, this is a direct quote from an email): “When it comes to Public Information Officers, being AVAILABLE is key. Once a newsroom knows you’re dependable, flexible, and willing to help out in a crunch… the relationship is solid. Your phone will be ringing off the hook because you’ll be the first one someone thinks of for great comment. That, of course, means you’ll want to take an aggressive approach: send TIMELY story ideas, regular updates, even reminders to as many email addresses as possible. As they say in the news biz, the newsroom never sleeps… so chances are, you’ll catch the attention of someone…” To which I would add, have things set as best as possible for your MMJ so upon her arrival to the scene, you both get the message of the story communicated correctly, efficiently, and effectively.
“Difficulties mastered are opportunities won.”
Getting through these challenges together will win the race to get timely and important information out to the public. Here are just a few short items of note, to supplement the information above. Warning: the eloquence is gone. The gloves are off. This double-agent is not necessarily tired from hearing it from both sides, but – enough is enough.
“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.”
Thanks, Mr. Churchill. Let’s just jump right in, shall we?
Reporter Chris Sign and photographer Ray Telles from Phoenix based ABC-15 covering the Promontory Fire on the Mogollon Rim in N Central AZ. (Smartphone Photo)
-You know that saying, “Less is More” – news flash: less is not more. Less sucks. Television news needs pictures to go with the story. PIO’s keep this in mind: plan for some compelling images, and you will have just made a fast friend out of the press members who cover your event. In addition, more information can be used in other mediums, like a station’s website for a side-bar story. More. Give them more. The news beast is a hungry one. Feed it.
-Another one of my favorites: “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Reporters: if you don’t have a pertinent question, don’t ask a stupid one. Here’s another favorite saying of mine: “Google it.” Enough said.
-Everyone: remember, this is not a glamorous business. There may be times you have to cover a plane crash, a forest fire, a murder out in the rain standing on an unpaved road that is now turning into mud caking onto the Michael Kors wedges you got on sale at Nordstrom Rack. (Yes, I would know.) Reporters: keep a good change of clothes at work. Shoes, boots, a jacket. You never know where the day will take you. Besides, isn’t that one of the reasons you got into this business in the first place? On the flip side: PIO’s. You can help by alerting the press that there may be certain requirements on certain scenes. For example: one day, I was heading out to cover a forest fire. I had heels on. My boots were in the news car. (Good thing I thought that far ahead, at least. I just didn’t think to put them on. I’m tough. I can hike in heels.) A PIO who was heading up the media walked over. Looked at my shoes. ”You know, I can take you into some really great areas on this fire, you could get some great shots!! But, I can’t take you in those.” He winked – knowing he just baited a sucker for a good b-roll opportunity.
I changed my shoes. I love good fire video… and I’m a sucker for a wink.
Jenn Burgess comes from an extensive background in television news. She anchored and reported news for nearly 10 years in Flagstaff and Phoenix, AZ. Burgess is now a media relations strategist in the Phoenix area.
Every individual (government and contracted employees) have the right and obligation to report safety problems affecting his or her safety and has the right to contribute ideas to correct the hazard. In return, supervisors are expected to give these concerns and ideas serious consideration.
When an individual feels an assignment is unsafe, he or she also has the obligation to identify, to the degree possible, safe alternatives for completing that assignment. Turning down an assignment is one possible outcome of managing risk.
A “turn down” is a situation where an individual has determined he or she cannot undertake an assignment as given and is unable to negotiate an alternative solution. The turn down of an assignment must be based on assessment of risks and the ability of the individual or organization to control or mitigate those risks. Individuals may turn down an assignment because of safety reasons when:
1. There is a violation of regulated safe aviation practices.
2. Environmental conditions make the work unsafe.
3. They lack the necessary qualifications or experience.
Individuals will directly inform their supervisor that they are turning down the assignment as given. The most appropriate means of documented turn down criteria is using the Aviation Watch Out Situations (page 46 IRPG).
Supervisor will notify the Air Operations Branch Director (AOBD) immediately upon being informed of a turn down. If there is no AOBD, notification shall go to the appropriate Section Chief, the Incident Commander or local aviation staff. Proper handling of turn downs provides accountability for decisions and initiates communication of safety concerns within the incident organization.
If the assignment has been turned down previously and the supervisor asks another resource to perform the assignment, he or she is responsible to inform the new resource that the assignment had been turned down and the reasons why. Furthermore, personnel need to realize that a “turn down” does not stop the completion of the assigned operation. The “turn down” protocol is an integral element that improves the effective management of risk, for it provides timely identification of hazards within the chain of command, raises risk awareness for both leaders and subordinates, and promotes accountability.
If an unresolved safety hazard exists the individual needs to communicate the issue/event/concern immediately to his or her supervisor and document as appropriate.
California, which emphasizes the importance of evacuating homeowners from a fire zone, stands in sharp contrast to Australia, where more emphasis is placed on advance preparation and staying in place to protect one's home. But the recent catastrophic fires Down Under have raised questions about that policy, which some experts say could be adopted here. (AP/L.A. Daily News, Hans Gutknecht)
By Sarah Yang, Cal Berkley
BERKELEY — Even as debate rages over the safety of Australia’s longstanding “prepare, stay and defend, or leave early” policy of wildfire defense, fire researchers there and at Berkeley say that the strategy is worth consideration in California and other regions in the United States.
Questions about the policy, which encourages able residents to stay home and actively defend their property from wildfires, are being renewed in the wake of Australia’s devastating fires, which began on Feb. 7 and killed 210 people, burned down 1,800 homes, and scorched 1,500 square miles of land.
“The key element of Australia’s policy is to train willing home-owners to protect their homes in an active wildfire,” says Scott Stephens, associate professor of fire science and co-director of Berkeley’s Center for Fire Research and Outreach. “What the Australian strategy does is actively engage and help home-owners to become part of the solution rather than just needing to be evacuated. However, it should be noted that some California communities are so vulnerable that a ‘prepare and leave early’ strategy may be the only option.”
The Australian approach also includes a more strategic land-use-management policy whereby decisions about new housing in areas vulnerable to wildfires are overseen at the state level, ensuring a more consistent standard for fire-resistant building codes specifically and in urban development generally, the researchers say.
In contrast to Australia, they add, fire agencies in California focus primarily on mandatory evacuations followed by fire suppression. Not only has this approach not reduced property loss, it could increase the risk for people if evacuations are carried out at the last minute, the researchers argue.
Over the past several years, scientists from Berkeley’s Center for Fire Research and Outreach have been collaborating with colleagues from Australia to study best practices in an effort to reduce the loss of life and property from wildfires. Their report on what lessons U.S. wildfire-management officials can learn from Australia was published Feb. 26 in the open-access journal Environmental Research Letters.
Did the policy help or hurt?
In the event of a wildfire, homeowners in Australia are taught, they need to prepare their homes for the wildfire front and to patrol their properties vigilantly for spot fires that may have started from flying embers. If the front of the wildfire reaches the home, residents are instructed to shelter inside as the flames burn past.
This is a smart strategy even for those who may intend to evacuate early but can’t because of the speed of the fire’s advance, the researchers says. “Chances of survival are significantly greater inside the home than outside in a car when the fire’s front is upon you,” says Stephens.
Today, nearly a month after the southern Australia wildfires, the looming question is whether the “prepare, stay and defend, or leave early” policy helped or hurt in that disaster — an issue that is sure to be addressed in the official inquiry established to investigate the country’s deadliest-ever wildfire.
With the verdict from the latest fire pending, scientists are looking at a recent review of the Australian policy, which was based upon 60 years of historical evidence. That review concluded that the policy is fundamentally sound.
The authors of the Environmental Research Letters paper also point to the beneficial culture of preparation inherent in the policy. For instance, long before fire season begins, residents are involved in reducing the vulnerability of their homes through such activities as clearing dangerous vegetation around their property or installing ember-blocking screens for their attic vents.
The researchers also emphasize that homeowners in Australia not only go through an annual training program run by local fire agencies but are provided with appropriate supplies, such as hoses, radios, and protective clothing.
“The Australian approach is different from what many call ‘shelter-in-place,’ an American concept stemming from other environmental hazards and connoting more-passive action by residents,” says co-author Max Moritz, cooperative extension specialist in wildland fire and co-director with Stephens of the Center for Fire Research and Outreach. “There is active participation from the homeowners before and possibly during a fire. In the process, they become more aware of the risks of living in an urban-wildland interface, and both homes and people are better prepared to handle fires when they inevitably occur.”
The Australian wildfire-management strategy was adopted after the country’s devastating 1983 “Ash Wednesday” brushfires, in which 75 people died and many more were injured, most while outside their homes trying to escape.
“The clearest evidence was that late evacuation is dangerous,” says the paper’s co-author, John Handmer, director of the Centre for Risk and Community Safety at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University in Melbourne. “While deaths did occur inside houses, twice as many deaths occurred in vehicles or out in the open. This evidence has led to the Australasian Fire Authorities Council catch-phrase, ‘houses protect people, and people protect houses.’”
No piecemeal approach
A number of communities in the United States, including counties in Southern California and in rural Montana, have already begun emulating aspects of the Australian approach, but the researchers says implementing the policy piecemeal could be a mistake.
“The state of California should take the lead on this to ensure that communities that adopt this policy receive the proper training and that the policy is implemented properly,” says Stephens. “Giving homeowners the option of staying home during a wildfire can be deadly if done incorrectly and without adequate preparation. It would take just one terrible instance of a family getting killed because they were trying to save their homes for the policy to be abandoned.”
The researchers point out that it takes a significant amount of mental preparation by home-owners to not panic and flee when flames are licking at their doors. “The noise alone of a wildfire front is phenomenal,” says Stephens. “Then the sun goes away, and the sky goes dark. It’s haunting, and people need to understand that before they sign up for this.”
An important part of the policy is awareness of one’s limitations and the potential for panic, the researchers say, as is knowing that the safest option may be to prepare a home as much as possible but then leave early in the event of a wildfire. Enter ‘the surprise factor’
“The Australian model is partly based on homeowners having some time to prepare for an oncoming fire,” says Moritz. “But what if there is no warning and homeowners suddenly find a wall of flame racing toward them, a scenario that may have been at play in the recent Australian fires? It is this surprise factor that may end up playing a key role in determining whether people who would otherwise leave early have the chance to do so. In these ‘sudden onset’ fire situations, even the success of our own policy in California for evacuating everyone early would be challenged.”
The researchers acknowledge that the Australian policy may not be appropriate in many areas of California and the United States. For instance, it probably would not work in areas dominated by a high percentage of vacation homes, where owners are absent much of the year.
Before adopting the policy in any part of California, it would be necessary to determine which areas in the state might be candidates for the Australian approach, says Moritz. “Such a map would take into account what we know about fire patterns, weather, age of structures, and the ability to evacuate,” he says. “We need the equivalent of a flood-zone map for fire to better understand our own landscape and risk.”
ng and land management agencies that conditions are ideal for wildland fire ignition and propagation. After drought conditions, and when humidity is very low, and especially when high or erratic winds which may include lightning are a factor, the Red Flag Warning becomes a critical statement for firefighting agencies, which often alter their staffing and equipment resources dramatically to accommodate the forecast risk. To the public, a Red Flag Warning means high fire danger with increased probability of a quickly spreading vegetation fire in the area within 24 hours.
