In Collaboration with USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Communicating With Wildland Interface 

Communities During Wildfire 

By Jonathan G. Taylor and Shana C. Gillette, U.S. Geological Survey; Ronald W. Hodgson, Bureau of Land 

Management; and Judith L. Downing, U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Photo Credit: Chris Doolittle 2003 
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government 

Open-File Report 2005-1061 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
Communicating with Wildland Interface Communities 

During Wildfire 

By Jonathan G. Taylor and Shana C. Gillette, U.S. Geological Survey; Ronald W. Hodgson, Bureau of Land 

Management; Judith L. Downing, U.S.D.A. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

With Assistance from John T. Hogan, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2005-1061 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Gale A. Norton, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Charles G. Groat, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2005 

Revised and reprinted: 2005 

For product and ordering information: 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 


For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 


its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 


Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

ii 
Contents 

U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................................................................................................... ii


Gale A. Norton, Secretary.................................................................................................................................... ii


U.S. Geological Survey ......................................................................................................................................... ii


Charles G. Groat, Director.................................................................................................................................... ii


Contents ................................................................................................................................................................. iii


Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................................. 1


Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 2


Fire Communication........................................................................................................................................... 2


Quick Response Research ............................................................................................................................... 2


Approach................................................................................................................................................................. 3


Study Area Selection ........................................................................................................................................ 3


Fire Communications Data Collection: Methods and Timeline ................................................................. 5


Findings: Information Sources and Messages Useful During a Wildfire Threat ....................................... 7


Pre-Fire Communication................................................................................................................................... 7


Communication During a Small, Short-Duration Fire .................................................................................. 7


Communication During a Large, Long-Duration Fire................................................................................... 9


During Evacuation........................................................................................................................................ 10


Evacuation Centers...................................................................................................................................... 10


Communication at the Joint Information Center .................................................................................... 11


ESRI ................................................................................................................................................................ 12


Communication Following a Large, Long-Duration Fire ........................................................................... 13


Re-Entry ......................................................................................................................................................... 13


BAER and Other Transitions ...................................................................................................................... 13


Real-Time Information .................................................................................................................................... 14


Mass Media Communication......................................................................................................................... 14


Management Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 17


Lessons Learned: Findings and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 18


Real Time Information..................................................................................................................................... 18


Official Communication................................................................................................................................... 18


Response to News Media .............................................................................................................................. 18


Informing the Networks.................................................................................................................................. 19


JIC–Timing and Media.................................................................................................................................... 19


Evacuation Communication ........................................................................................................................... 20


Re-entry/Reoccupation................................................................................................................................... 21


MAST and FSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 21


Separating Functions: Informing the Media vs. Informing the Public.................................................... 22


Information Flow During Transitions............................................................................................................ 22


Priority of Fire Information Functions........................................................................................................... 23


Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................................... 25


iii 
iv
Summary of Findings 

An inter-agency research team studied communications during the small Bridge Fire in 

southern California, as well the before-, during-, and post-fire communications of an extreme fire 

event (Old and Grand Prix Fires) in the same area in the fall of 2003. This “quick-response” 

research showed that pre-fire communication planning was particularly effective for small fire 

events, and parts of such planning - especially the inter-agency coordination through the 

establishment and work of the Mountain Area Safety Taskforce [MAST] – proved invaluable for 

the large fire event. 

Information seeking by the affected public relied on locally convenient sources during the 

small fire. Neighbors and friends were contacted; emergency frequency radio scanners were 

monitored; posted information was sought; and local call-in lines were utilized. Often, personal 

contacts were made where fire fighters could be contacted either directly or indirectly through 

family members. The information being sought was primarily about the precise location and 

severity, size, and direction of spread of the fire. This was keyed to the concern as to whether 

communities and personal homes were likely to be threatened. Effective community networks 

included the local fire department, the local water board, and established Fire Safe Councils [FSCs] 

which served as liaisons between the communities and the fire incident management team. 

During the Old Fire and Grand Prix Fire complex, levels of threat were much higher, over a 

much longer period of time, and required prolonged evacuation displacement. With widespread 

evacuation of many communities, many of the local informal networks were disrupted: FSCs were 

scattered over a multi-state area; persons with personal knowledge of the fires were difficult to 

find–but in some instances were discovered. Attempts by fire officials to control the quality of fire 

information being disseminated were sometimes viewed by the at-risk public as delays in the flow 

of information. Local residents’ needs were for “real-time” information that was also placespecific; generalized information was of little value. 

Assistance by news media (radio, TV, newspapers) in disseminating needed fire 

information was mixed. Regional TV and newspapers were perceived as very often being 

inaccurate (e.g. newscasters who did not know from where they were reporting, and communities 

wrongly listed as burned out), and focused on “entertaining” their major audiences in Los Angeles 

or San Diego rather than trying to report accurate information to mountain community residents. 

One local radio station was lauded for taking its community service obligation seriously and 

providing local residents with timely and verified information, and a couple of private websites 

were also cited as providing critical information. 

There are times when the flow of information tends to get disrupted, especially when 

transitioning from one fire Incident Management Team [IMT] to another, or from active fire 

fighting to post fire recovery and protection. 

The primary recommendation for fire management that comes from this triangulation on 

communication before, during, and after wildland interface fires is to “inform the network.” With 

changes in communication technology, the public has multiple channels to explore to discover the 

information they need, and they will not be put off by what they perceive as information delays. To 

increase the likelihood that the public will discover real, accurate, and timely information it is 

critical to disseminate information from the Incident Management Team as broadly as possible 

through multiple information channels. The at-risk public is seeking real time information; the key 

is to have accurate information readily available. 

A second recommendation is to respond positively to groups trying to provide a local 

information function for both fire fighting and for media reporting. The research team heard 

multiple reports of inaccuracies in regional news media reporting. Fire crews could have benefited 

1

from more local information on community defensibility and accessibility for fire fighting 

equipment. An FSC network in southern California is attempting to establish this kind of functional 

local-information network. 

The pre-event preparation represented by the MAST was critical to effective handling of 

these fire events. More findings and recommendations are presented at the end of the report. 

Background 

Fire Communication 

Increases in the severity and frequency of wildland fires during recent drought years in the 

Inter-Mountain West have coincided with growth in both housing developments and recreation in 

wildland areas (Rudzitis, 1999). The results of such a convergence in 2003 were large, composite 

wildfires that threatened communities, strained firefighting resources and caused evacuations from 

many cities and towns. The strength, size, and proximity to populated areas of these wildfires 

demanded unprecedented levels of communication among agencies, and between agencies and the 

general public. This quick response research study of two wildfire events in the San Bernardino 

Mountains evaluated the communication needs of the public in this wildfire context and explored 

current agency responses to those needs. 

This study focused on fire communication before, during and immediately after a fire event 

because it represents a gap in the fire social science research literature. Researchers have studied 

public knowledge of wildfire (Cortner and others, 1990); and public perceptions of risk, 

responsibility, and blame (Taylor and Daniel, 1984; Gardner and others, 1987l Carroll and others, 

2000). Very little research, however, has studied information-seeking behavior during and 

immediately after a wildfire event (see Kumagai and others, 2004). 

Our initial research questions were the following: 

• What information sources are used during a wildfire threat: both to gather information 

and to disseminate information? 

• What message content is critical during what stages of a wildfire event? 

• How does mass-media communication differ from of interpersonal communication 

networks? 

Quick Response Research 

Communication needs emerge rapidly and change quickly during a wildfire event; therefore 

research that takes place during the event is crucial. This type of research has been termed “quick 

response research” by researchers of other natural hazards or disasters (Michaels, 2003). Quick 

response research is conducted during and immediately following a disaster event. Preplanning and 

rapid implementation of this kind of research is important to ensure that events important to the 

study are captured but also to ensure that the research itself does not interfere with emergency 

response teams or public safety. The following components are essential to quick response 

research: 

• Coordinate with regional Incident Management Teams [IMTs]. 

Coordination with regional IMTs encouraged a research exchange that better defined the 

objectives and the role of researchers in the field during the wildfire events studied. One research 

team member was assigned coordination of agency fire communications (as Joint Information 

2

Center Director) during the wildfire events studied, which provided us with the opportunity to 

observe and better understand interagency communication efforts. 

• Identify communities at risk for wildfire and assess their capacity to respond to wildfire threat. 

The Mountain Area Safety Task Force (MAST), in this case a regional response team, 

helped identify at-risk communities and assess their capacity for response. This gave the research 

team access to background knowledge of these communities, before a fire event occurred. Such 

pre-identification is a common practice in hazard research. 

• Arrive during or immediately after the fire event. 

Quick response research is designed to facilitate first-hand observation of events and the 

gathering of feedback before subsequent events influence respondents’ memory of the events. 

• Conduct research in a manner that does not impede assistance efforts. 

Consultation with IMTs and feedback from emergency agency officials during the wildfire 

event assisted in designing a research approach that did not interfere with assistance efforts. 

• Provide timely results. 

To provide timely results that could be used to inform future communication efforts, short 

observation reports were provided to sponsoring personnel immediately after each field research 

effort. 

Data collection methods need to be flexible to respond to changing events in quick response 

research. The following collection methods, previously used in quick response research on other 

natural hazards (Michaels, 2003), were employed: 

• Participant Observations 

o Public meetings, agency information operations 

• Informal conversation and discussion 

o Group discussions, in-person interviews, telephone conversations 

• Document Reviews 

o Flyers, brochures, postings, media via the web 

Approach 

The quick response research team consisted of two researchers from the US Geological 

Survey (USGS), one researcher/advisor with the Bureau of Land Management, and one fire 

information officer (IOFR) from the US Forest Service with a shared appointment with the Bureau 

of Land Management. The research study was conducted under the Policy Analysis and Science 

Assistance program of the USGS Fort Collins Science Center and was supported by the Pacific 

Southwest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service (USFS). 

Study Area Selection 

During the fire year 2003, the study team planned to travel to wildland fires that showed 

significant potential threats to wildland interface communities in the Inter-Mountain West. Two 

such fires were identified: in Montana near Glacier National Park and in Oregon in the Sisters 

Wilderness vicinity, however, in both instances the fire threat to local communities ended before 

the team could get on-site. The team, therefore, opted to study a wildland interface area where the 

3

known wildfire potential was very high, and where significant pre-fire communication and 

organizational planning was already taking place. Communities in the San Bernardino Mountains 

met those criteria. 

• Fire Risk Factors 

The San Bernardino National Forest (SBDONF) has experienced an extreme drought over 

the past five years that has made the trees more susceptible to mortality from air pollution and a 

complex of insects and disease (Dietrich, 2003). In response to the tree die-off, which one Fire 

Management Officer termed a “slow-moving disaster,” the USFS initiated several fuels reduction 

projects. Coordination of these projects and other fire mitigation efforts enlisted a diverse range of 

agencies and community groups and served as a catalyst for community discussion about wildfire 

and forest health. 

The geographic location of the San Bernardino Mountain communities made them a 

challenge for emergency planning. While these communities are isolated from large urban centers, 

they have a substantial combined population (close to 60,000) with very few evacuation routes 

(only three paved roads lead off the mountain). 

• Community Capacity Factors 

An important development in the San Bernardino National Forest area was the organization 

of the Mountain Area Safety Taskforce (MAST), which included representatives from federal, 

state, and local government agencies as well as various community service organizations (e.g., Red 

Cross, Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council, etc.). The MAST helped many participants to understand 

how to deal with a wildfire, who would be in charge at various stages of a natural disaster, and how 

all entities involved would communicate. 

In addition to the MAST, local community organizations called Fire Safe Councils (FSCs) 

were created for several mountain communities or community clusters. These organizations were 

linked to the MAST and developed networks within their constituent communities, providing 

prearranged interrelationships between communities and the responsible agencies. 

The mix of residents (retirees, commuters, local workers) and vacation homeowners in the 

San Bernardino Mountain communities is typical of the wildland interface communities that have 

developed and expanded over the past ten years. This mix of community members, who have 

varying interests and communication needs prior to, during, and following a wildfire event, 

presents a challenge in the design of communication messages. 

San Bernardino Mountains, Fall 2003 Fires – Timeline and Statistics 

Bridge Fire September 5-6, 2003 

• Location: San Bernardino Mountains, beside Highway 330, just south of Smiley Park and 

Running Springs 

• Acres burned: 1,352 

• 1,500 residences threatened and occupants evacuated from 2 communities. 

• No home or businesses destroyed. 

• 1 injury, no deaths 

The research team went to the San Bernardino area to study pre-fire communications, but arrived 

shortly after the Bridge Fire started. 

4

Old Fire October 22 – November 4, 2003 

• Location: Northern edge of San Bernardino into San Bernardino Mountains; from Running 

Springs on the east to I-215 on the west (see map, Figure 1). 

• Acres burned: 91,281 


• More than 45,000 residents evacuated; 12 communities had mandatory evacuation, 


• 18 communities had voluntary evacuation. 


• 993 homes and 10 commercial properties destroyed. 


• 12 persons injured, 6 fire-related deaths. 


• 12 deaths reported from post-fire flooding and debris flow. 


The research team arrived during a later stage of the Old Fire, a few days before evacuated 


residents returned to the mountain communities. 


Fire Communications Data Collection: Methods and Timeline 

The research team traveled to the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California on 

September 7th 2003, to study the pre-fire communication process. Coincidentally, the Bridge Fire, 

a small wildfire in the San Bernardino Mountain foothills just below the communities of Smiley 

Park and Running Springs, occurred the same weekend. This gave the team the combined 

opportunity to study both pre-fire communication preparations as well as the effectiveness of the 

during-fire communication process related to the Bridge Fire. This data collection was an important 

referent pre-fire study for the extreme fire events that affected these and other San Bernardino 

Mountain communities in October and November 2003. The town of Smiley Park and portions of 

Running Springs were briefly evacuated during the Bridge Fire event. 

Research team members interviewed residents and agency personnel and participated in a 

focus group discussion following a public meeting of the Running Springs FSC. A “snowballing” 

method was used to identify key personnel and residents to interview. Fire mitigation pamphlets, 

official fire reports, and other informational material were also collected. 

On October 22, 2003, a fire began on a section of the Old Waterman Canyon Highway, just 

north of the city of San Bernardino. This fire, dubbed the “Old Fire” by abbreviation of the name of 

its origin site, was driven initially by Santa Ana winds partially down slope into the city. As this 

fire grew, and eventually merged with the Grand Prix fire to the northwest, it became a significant 

portion of the notorious firestorm that swept across hundreds of thousands of acres in southern 

California that fall. At one time, the Old and Grand Prix Fires together formed a 40-mile fire front. 

As the Santa Ana winds decreased, the Old Fire moved progressively upslope into the San 

Bernardino Mountains, including into the area where previous interviews had been conducted. 

Several mountain communities were burned, including Cedar Glen, Crestline, and Waterman 

Canyon (see maps on page 24 for fire progression). All communities on the mountain, from Big 

Bear to Crestline, were evacuated, except for essential personnel. 

During the Old Fire/Grand Prix Fire combined events, affected community members were 

spread, as a result of the all-mountain evacuation, across a multi-state area and thus most were 

inaccessible to the research team. Further, because the first guiding principle of the research team 

was to “do no harm,” it stayed out of the way of firefighters and communities in the San 

Bernardino Mountains during the Old/Grand Prix Fires. 

Instead, the team acted as participant observers to the information coordination process 

arranged by Judith Downing who organized the setup and operation of a Joint Information Center 

5

(JIC) to handle communication with the public, media, legislative liaisons, etc. from a single 

location. Research team members attended internal briefings at the JIC among three participating 

Incident Management Teams, observed public briefings held at evacuation centers, attended a 

public meeting held one day after re-entry for Big Bear community residents, attended 

organizational meetings among IOFRs, and attended two MAST meetings. The team also 

conducted interviews with staff and volunteers at the JIC toward the end of the evacuation period 

and the start of re-entry. This timing allowed the team to capture experiences and perceptions of 

people involved in the public communication process while the experience was fresh in their 

minds. 

In March 2004, the Fire Communications Research Team returned to the San Bernardino 

Mountains to moderate focus group discussions with groups from several different communities 

who had experience with the Old Fire or Grand Prix Fire. During this research visit, the team 

collected information on communication needs during fire evacuation and re-entry as well as 

communication needs during fire recovery. Eight focus groups (Table 1) were set up by community 

members including FSC members, community leaders, business community leaders, and Rim 

Family Services members. The team had met with many of these focus group members during the 

previous work on the San Bernardino National Forest. 

Table 1. Timing, Numbers and Organizers of Focus Groups: Old Fire/Grand Prix Fire Follow-up

 Tuesday 

March 23rd 

Wednesday 

March 24th 

Thursday 

March 25th 

Morning 25 

Rim Family Services 

Afternoon 15 

Running Springs Business 

Community 

3 

Lytle Creek 

Fire Safe Council 

12 

Big Bear Fire Safe Council 

Evening 10 

Crestline Fire Safe 

Council 

6 

Running Springs Fire Safe 

Council 

20 

Rebuilding Mountain 

Hearts and Lives 

10 

Rancho Cucamingo 

Fire Safe Council 

6 
Findings: Information Sources and Messages Useful During a Wildfire 

Threat 

Pre-Fire Communication 

Frequently, it appears to researchers working in public responses to natural hazards that no 

one wants to get prepared until after the disaster has struck them or their community. In the case of 

the San Bernardino Mountain area, significant pre-fire communication planning had already taken 

place prior to the fire events we report here. The existing communication agreements were 

attributed, at least in part, to the “slow moving disaster” of the mature tree mortality spreading 

across the forests in the San Bernardino Mountains. 

Communications among agencies and between agencies and residents, in the mountain 

communities, were substantially more effective during the fires as a result of preparations made by 

MAST and the FSCs prior to the events. Agency personnel reported having worked out ahead of 

time the sequence of authorities and responses in the event of a wildland fire. Thus, interagency 

conflict was greatly reduced, and through the FSC communication networks, the public at risk felt 

more informed of how the event should proceed. 

“Things we usually have to try to figure out during the fire event had already been negotiated.” 

Running Springs Fire Dept: Sept. 10, 2003. 

“Things like transitions of authority had already been ‘table-topped’, so we knew what to 

expect.” Sheriff’s Dept: Sept. 11, 2003 

The FSCs were linked to the MAST and had networks in their constituent communities, 

providing pre-arranged interrelationships between communities and the responsible agencies. One 

of the FSCs’ functions was to pass pertinent fire information on to other community groups such as 

the Chambers of Commerce; this communication exchange was facilitated by having overlapping 

memberships among community leaders. People who had disaster responsibilities in the community 

reported the value of this pre-fire planning. 

One particularly helpful document, produced by Running Springs FSC, was an evacuation 

guide titled “Get Ready, Get Set, Go.” This document laid out preplanning of what was important 

to take. It also established locations for those essentials when a fire threat occurred and outlined 

procedures for getting the essential items, animals, etc. removed in the event of evacuation when 

the resident as not at home. 

Communication During a Small, Short-Duration Fire 

The Bridge fire was both relatively small and of short duration, resulting in a small number 

of resident evacuations; most San Bernardino Mountain communities were not affected. Because 

the fire was relatively short-lived, people sought information from sources that were locally 

convenient during the course of their everyday routines. Initially, when the fire had potential to 

become a high-level of threat, people took actions that had been discussed by MAST, the FSCs, 

and community liaison officers prior to the fire event. 

The community members interviewed, especially those from Smiley Park and Running 

Springs who were evacuated during the Bridge Fire, reported accessing multiple local sources of 

information about the Bridge Fire. They phoned the disaster call-in lines, went to Fire Information 

contact points, listened to their scanners for information, and called friends and neighbors – 

7

especially those connected in some direct way to the fire response. Fire Information contact points 

had been previously established and were easily identified by the USFS vehicle or uniformed 

authority present. The Running Springs Fire Department played a major role in providing up-todate fire information. 

Some FSCs had established yellow-board signs to post emergency information. The FSCdeveloped evacuation brochure “Get Ready, Get Set, Go” was cited by Bridge Fire evacuees as 

especially helpful because it provided step-by-step guidance on how to prepare to evacuate. The 

FSC informed a network of organizations, including the Chambers of Commerce, trade associations 

(e.g., the Mountain Association of Realtors), etc. Specific businesses or services (e.g., Water Board 

members) activated their phone and email networks to keep their members and the general public 

informed of the fire progress and community responses. 

An example of the level of collaboration between the MAST and the FSCs was the 

arrangement and announcement of public information meetings on Saturday, day two of the Bridge 

Fire. The Incident Commander, who took over management of the fire at 6:00 pm on Friday, 

decided by 8:00 pm that same evening that he wanted to arrange public meetings the following day. 

Within two hours of his decision, the time and place of two public briefings had been decided and 

were posted on the Mountain Rim FSC website. 

The fire briefing, held at the Rim of the World High School which served as the Bridge Fire 

emergency evacuation center, and was characterized by participating officials as very successful – 

most involved agencies were represented and a large audience attended. However, that briefing was 

characterized as uninformative and redundant by some non-agency participants. 

“Each person just said, ‘I work for the such-and-such, my job is to do so-and-so.’ But nobody 

gave detailed information about the fire condition or where it was going.” Red Cross 

volunteer: Sept. 12, 2003. 

The morning fire information news releases from the IMT contained more technical ICS 

2091

-type information than specific fire information that would directly address public information 

needs. Releases included information about the IMT assigned to the fire, when the IMT took over 

management of the fire, and how many firefighters and how much equipment was assigned to the 

fire. Information about the location, direction, and size of the fire was very general (e.g., “The fire 

is located 3.5 miles east of San Bernardino.”), and lacked local specifics that would be useful to 

community residents. 

“[The Forest Service’s] internal communication went smoothly and efficiently. But the flow of 

information out of that was where things broke down.” Running Springs: Aug. 9, 2003 

Further, the limited information release – usually two times daily by the IMT – was not 

frequent enough to respond to public needs as the fire event progressed. Volunteers working the 

call-in lines as well as community members reported the need for more updated, real-time 

information. Without such updates, people said that they used information from scanners, other 

community members, the Internet, and the media to try to fill the gaps. 

“Channels 6 & 38 (disaster information channels) had the same information up for 15 hours 

and it was too generic.” Running Springs: Sept. 12, 2003 

1

 ICS 209 forms are filled out by the IMT to keep track of pertinent information about the fire and how many and what 

kind of resources are assigned. The forms are typically produced two times each day. They are often used by IOFRs to 

prepare news releases, but that is not the principal purpose for which the forms are maintained. 

8

“The Fire Information phone line (recording) is not updated during the day. FS updates at 6am 

and 6pm. Not enough for people who are affected.” Running Springs: Sept. 10, 2003 

At times the communication criteria of the Incident Management Team appeared to conflict 

with the public’s information needs. Members of the fire information community reported trying to 

ensure the validity of the fire information message, to speak with “one voice,” and send out 

information that was rationally and cognitively structured in pre-determined time increments. 

Affected local residents, whom the team interviewed, reported that their search for information was 

urgent and emotionally driven because of what was at stake for them. They sought real-time 

information, but with far less concern on whether the information was officially sanctioned. This is 

not meant to imply that the public does not care about accuracy of information, but they do express 

an urgent need for “real time” information. 

The social-psychological processes in fire communication are reflective of the processes 

that occur in other risk communication. Fitzpatrick and Dennis (1994) mention that the most 

effective forms of risk communication respond to the desire of those at risk to personalize warning 

messages and to receive those messages from multiple sources. 

Communication During a Large, Long-Duration Fire 

Focus group respondents reported using informational sources that reflected the urgency of 

the situation in which entire communities were preparing to evacuate. People who were at work off 

the mountain relied on neighbors, friends, and community authorities (schools, sheriff/fire 

departments) to provide information on conditions and evacuation plans. People who were on the 

mountain, listened to emergency frequency scanners, spoke with neighbors and friends, spoke with 

local officials, and responded to loud-speaker announcements and reverse 911 calls when the time 

for evacuation came. 

Early in the fire progression, many mountain households lost electrical power. With no 

electricity, television broadcasts were not accessible, the internet was not accessible, and phones 

that used a plug-in power supply did not work. Only battery-operated radios and standard land-line 

telephones or cell phones remained operable (although cell phones could not be recharged). This 

was one of the significant differences between the small Bridge Fire and the large Old Fire. 

“As soon as the lights went out I called the sheriff’s office. And the sheriff said ‘Well your 

lights are out. It’s a good idea to leave.’ That was the only indication we had.” Resident, Lake 

Arrowhead: Tuesday, March 23, 2004. 

At the beginning of the fire event, the main information needs identified by the public were: 

“Where exactly is the fire;” “How bad (how big) is it;” and “Which direction is it moving?” These 

items are important for determining, “Is my home/community at risk?” and “Will we have to 

evacuate?” As such, these questions require real-time information to be answered satisfactorily. 

Any fire information that was generalized, either spatially or temporally, had little value to people 

who were trying to ascertain how much they would be directly affected by the wildland fire. Later, 

during the event when residents had been evacuated, the primary public concerns changed to “Has 

my community been affected?” “Has my home burned?” and “When can we go home (if we still 

have one)?” Again, these questions were real-time and place sensitive. 

9

During Evacuation 

Once people were evacuated, it became more difficult to receive information that was up-todate and locally accurate. “Well, there's one thing worse than gossip in Big Bear, and that's gossip 

when you're out of Big Bear.” Resident, Big Bear FSC group: Thursday, March 25, 2004. Members 

of the Mountain Rim Fire Safe Council were evacuated and scattered; it was impossible for them to 

assist and contribute to fire information efforts in the same manner that they had done during the 

Bridge Fire. One FSC officer overcame this frustration by serving on the community phone bank at 

the JIC. 

With evacuation, this separation from information networks became almost universal. 

Reports of the evacuation experience varied widely across the mountain: 

“The Sheriff’s Department started early, so everybody was able to get off the Mountain.” Rim 

Family Services focus group: Thursday, March 25, 2004. 

“It took four hours to get off the mountain Saturday night.” Big Bear focus group: Thursday, 

March 25, 2004. 

“Everyone underestimated the duration of the evacuation,” many taking only what they needed 

for a few days. Rim Family Services: Thursday, March 25, 2004. 

“There were no pre-packaged instructions or maps for evacuating.” Rebuilding Mountain 

Hearts and Lives: Tuesday, March 23, 2004. 

Evacuation of the elderly off the mountain was challenging, in part due to communication 

failures. Public transit buses were assigned to ferry elderly people off the mountain to the 

evacuation centers. However, in at least one reported instance, a public transit bus was denied 

access to return to the mountain to evacuate more people. One community member described an 

elderly lady evacuee in her neighborhood, with no family or pre-arrangements, who simply stood in 

the middle of her street with her suitcase until someone stopped and gave her a ride. 

Evacuation Centers 

The public appreciated the response of the Red Cross in setting up evacuation centers, but 

varied in their perception of information access while at the centers. Some community members 

who moved to the centers felt they had received more timely information than people who were not 

at the centers, however, a few people at the centers said they rarely received up-to-date information 

and would go several days without getting any new information about the fire. 

The IMTs coordinated briefings given at the evacuation centers on the current fire situation. 

However, one group decided not to give advance notice of their briefings because they were 

concerned that the centers as well as the Red Cross personnel might be over-run by evacuees from 

off-site and the news media. One staff person explained this decision as “not wanting to have to 

deal with hundreds of angry people” (Joint Information Center: November 2, 2003). It is important 

to point out that the decision not to provide advanced notification was apparently made by 

information officers at a low level in the organization and is contrary to both the JIC and IMT 

information policy. As the IMT lead information officer said, “If there are angry people it is our job 

to work with them.” 

A briefing at the Apple Valley High School evacuation center did not appear to be seriously 

affected by the lateness of the briefing announcement – a large portion of the 130 persons sheltered 

there were on site and attended the briefing. The briefing in the airport hangar shelter in San 

10

Bernardino, however, reached only a small portion of evacuees – perhaps 100 of the 2,000 housed 

at the hangar shelter and the 40,000 evacuees registered at that center. Virtually none of the 

evacuees who were camping outside the hangar attended the evacuation center briefing. Many 

evacuees inside the hangar shelter were Spanish-only speakers without translation services. 

Spanish-speaking evacuees appeared to have difficulty in general receiving up-to-date information. 

Only a few on-site interpreters were available at the evacuation centers, and these were brought 

from the Mexican Consulate and had difficulty interpreting locally specific information because 

they were not familiar with communities in the San Bernardino Mountains. 

The research team spoke with a few mental health professionals who said that the 

evacuation centers were not prepared to handle the elderly or the disabled. A number of evacuees 

described the evacuation centers – especially the airport hangar in San Bernardino – as depressing. 

Some refused to enter the hangar, preferring to camp out in the evacuation center’s parking lot. 

Some objected to being “wrist-banded” upon entry. There was a sense of insecurity, especially 

among the elderly, about possessions in the giant open hangar. One lady reported being afraid to go 

to the bathroom for fear her cot, sheets, and pillow would be taken. 

Communication at the Joint Information Center 

The JIC was conceptually organized and recommended for implementation in July 2003, 

but was not actually put into operation until the Grand Prix and Old Fires were burning. 

Transitioning information functions from the Fire Operations Command Centers to the JIC caused 

some minor disruption and required personnel to adapt to a new working environment and authority 

structure, although most felt they adapted to these fairly readily. 

Information was brought into the JIC from multiple sources: IMTs, IOFRs, Red Cross, 

Legislative Liaison, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Forest Supervisor’s office, etc. The 

information was organized, verified, and then distributed by the JIC to its community phone bank, 

media contact lines, evacuation centers, legislative staff, etc. Generally, the information sources 

supplying the JIC continued to distribute information through their own channels; the JIC was not 

always notified first or even at the same time when events or plans changed. As a result, people 

operating the phone lines sometimes had incomplete or out-of-date information. 

“San Bernardino County Fire had a switchboard that you were supposed to be able to call. 

Unfortunately, it was busy but when you would get into the switchboard they weren’t giving--

they didn’t have manpower to update the information.” Resident, Lake Arrowhead: Tuesday, 

March 23, 2004. 

Phone operators reported frustrated callers complaining about the lack of real-time 

information about the active fires. Many callers wanted to know if their homes had burned -- 

information that was not possible for the phone operators to report. People were unhappy when 

they could not get information about whether or not the fire had reached their own communities. 

The lack of up-to-date information from official sources was a consistent complaint heard 

throughout this fire communication study. Sometimes callers had more up-to-date information than 

the phone operators, leaving the operators unable to verify what the caller had heard. It was 

demoralizing when operators later discovered that the caller had been correct. 

“Being at the JIC was almost more frustrating than doing nothing. The amount of information 

was limited—the official agency information is sterilized, sanitized to reduce liability.” 

Resident, Running Springs: Wednesday, March 24 2004 

11

In addition, operators reported that they occasionally overheard informative conversations 

among other JIC personnel, but were not allowed to release the overheard information immediately. 

Since the operators’ function was to keep the public as informed as possible, such delays, necessary 

for the JIC to verify information from different sources, appeared to undermine the confidence of 

both the operators and the callers. The objective to provide timely information has always 

competed with the objective to provide accurate information. This is a significant problem in 

community fire information where the public depends on current and accurate information to make 

decisions that affect their ability to cope with the wildfire threat. 

Individuals with access (e.g., sheriff’s department, police, or fire personnel) sometimes used 

their authority to enter the fire zone to check on their own, or family members’ homes – some even 

doing so accompanied by media reporters. This access for personal purposes angered residents who 

did not have such inside avenues to check on their properties. "A few individuals who had lost their 

homes were given private trips up the mountain to see their property, but this certainly was not a 

service provided to all." Some callers to the community phone bank characterized this as a misuse 

of authority. 

Community phone bank operators often had to deal with greatly traumatized callers. Often, 

these callers did not want to be “shunted off” to a counselor at a different phone number. Having 

mental health professionals available and accessible to the emergency phone banks would help 

operators who must convey information in a manner that can satisfy people who are having 

difficulty dealing with the traumatic emotions tied to a wildfire event. 

Further systematic research on call communication during a fire could help direct 

improvements in call-taker/caller interaction. Tracy (1997) conducted a discourse analysis with 

data from 640 audio-taped telephone calls, field notes, observations of call-takers, semi-structured 

interviews, and a document review of procedure manuals. Findings from that research identified 

differences in call-taker and caller expectations regarding information provision, geographic 

location, and time elapsed before police arrived. These differences contributed to the use of 

conflicting frames of reference that led to misunderstandings and heightened tension. Similar 

research on call communication during a fire could help identify ways to improve call procedures 

during a wildfire event. 

ESRI2 

Fire maps were helpful to both JIC staff and the public. ESRI actually had personnel 

stationed within the JIC to interact with fire personnel and provide quick-time product production 

as needed. In discussions with residents a few months after the fire, community members reported 

interest in seeing fire maps that provided sufficient detail as to which specific neighborhoods had 

been hit or spared by the fire. Some ESRI maps seemed to be excellent, but were perceived to be 

geared primarily for the JIC and Fire Teams. In fact, the JIC Director required the phone operators 

to regularly provide the ESRI team with the kinds of information being requested by the public. 

The ESRI team attempted to provide maps that met those changing information needs as quickly as 

possible. Very few of the fire-affected public who were asked knew of these maps, and even fewer 

knew how to access them. At the airport hangar evacuation center, one local evacuee attempted to 

improve access to real-time information by setting up a web-linked projection on the wall of the 

fire-map site. Even when rapid response information is provided, special efforts are apparently 

necessary to plug into the networks community residents use. This will require discovery of the 

 Environmental Systems Research Institute [ESRI], a prominent Geographic Information Systems (GIS) producer, has 

focused their expertise on developing fire progress maps and other tools of immediate importance to Fire IMTs. ESRI 

is headquartered in Redlands, CA and thus were able to deploy a GIS mapping team into the JIC. 

12


2
technology based networks used by community residents and active efforts to link to sites that they 

use. 

“You should be able to go someplace and find a map, hour by hour, of how the fire 

progressed.” Resident, Lake Arrowhead: Tuesday, March 23, 2004. 

Communication Following a Large, Long-Duration Fire 

Re-Entry 

At the JIC, the cooperating agencies worked out a procedure for timing and announcing 

community re-entries that allowed an orderly return when each community area was declared safe. 

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office, one of the cooperating agencies, held the final 

authority to allow residents back in to their communities. Part of this procedure included notifying 

officers in charge of highway access into the mountains. 

Re-entry to mountain communities, following the lifting of the evacuation order, was 

perceived to be a problem by many people. Since re-entry had not been as clearly outlined by 

MAST as the evacuation, the various authorities appeared to be operating under different rules, 

resulting in confusion over how and when to allow residents to return home. Some residents 

reported receiving instructions such as, “Go to such and such location and get a permit sticker. 

Then go to the closure gate on the highway and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) will let you 

go through,” only to be turned away by the CHP at the roadblock. 

“So we get to the CHP and the CHP is not going to let us up because they didn’t get the code.” 

Resident, Big Bear FSC group: Thursday, March 25, 2004. 

The Big Bear re-entry announcement, however, was an exception to the ordered rule 

worked out among the agencies. The re-entry announcement was made by a county official and the 

timing outside the joint agency’s agreement. Therefore, the mechanism for notifying the road 

blocks or other management points may not have been activated. Essential city officials were asked 

first to return to Big Bear, for example, so the community infrastructure could be working when the 

general population returned. At the highway re-entry post, however, the CHP were not aware that 

this request had been made and were unfamiliar with the password that the essential personnel had 

been given. 

“And they told us that we were the last people that they were letting through because there’s 

just no information and they don’t know what they’re doing.” Resident, Big Bear FSC group: 

Thursday, March 25, 2004. 

BAER and Other Transitions 

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) teams are frequently dispatched to large 

fires towards the end of, or immediately following, the incident management team operation on the 

fire. When the BAER teams completes its work, the remaining rehabilitation and communication 

responsibilities return to the National Forest. The transition between these authorities can easily 

bring about a breakdown in the flow of communication with the local communities and the public. 

To avoid these interruptions in information flow, sometimes the National Forest may retain fire 

information authority. In the case of the Old Fire/Grand Prix Fire complex, the JIC was allotted the 

authority for the flow of information to the public. The IMTs and the BAER team overlapped, and 

here the communities reportedly felt an interruption in the flow of information. The BAER 

13

informed all pertinent agencies of the remaining hazards on federally managed lands. A target date 

was set for completion of federal land rehabilitation and establishment of warning systems by 

December 15th (Federal assistance for rehabilitation on private lands is provided by the National 

Resource Conservation Service. The agency had teams working in the burned area too). 

For the Old Fire/Grand Prix Fire complex, the JIC was structured to change and adjust to 

new needs by predicting how information needs would change over time, in particular, providing 

detailed information about safety concerns for re-entry and distributing materials on flooding, 

landslides, and fire restoration efforts. 

Real-Time Information 

In both the Bridge Fire and the Old/Grand Prix Fire complex, it was apparent that public 

interest in fire information changed focus over time but did not lessen in intensity. Through the 

call-in lines and at public meetings, residents expressed frustration with the fact that updates on the 

fire came quickly at the beginning of the fire event but slowed considerably once the fire was under 

more control. Even if the fire movement was slowed, fire information still needed to keep pace with 

public information demands that changed over time from fire behavior to re-entry efforts. 

The IMTs and the JIC worked together to gather intelligence and report it back to the JIC at 

the end of the day. This worked well, although the time-lag from intelligence gathering to reporting 

to the public appeared to be too long from the residents’ perspectives. Some information officers 

assigned to the community reported that they did not want to continue working with residents 

because they felt people did not want to talk to them. 

“There was extreme lag time, like half a day or more, on the updates at one point.” Resident, 

Lake Arrowhead, Tuesday, March 23, 2004. 

Mass Media Communication 

Almost everyone interviewed mentioned that the news media did not provide useful 

information through regional media outlets. While the local Big Bear radio station, KBHR, was 

reported as a good source of local information by several community members, most interviews 

mentioned inadequate coverage by television or newspaper media based in San Diego and Los 

Angeles. 

“Then when we get down the hill, and you’re away from the radio and you’re watching TV and 

seeing pictures... when they’re (the media) west of Running Springs saying they’re in Big 

Bear, you know, they’re still 25 miles away and you realize that . . . you’re not going to get 

good information this way.” 

“We were watching and laughing and saying, ‘Boy, you know, it looks like you took a 

(camera) shot.’ And so, ‘We’re in Running Springs now.’ They just turn the camera 45° and 

they’ve got another burning tree and saying, ‘We’re over in Big Bear now.’ Well they couldn’t 

have gotten there that fast. Besides, I know that tree!” Resident, Big Bear FSC group: 

Thursday, March 25, 2004. 

Some interconnected media issues surfaced clearly in both the Bridge and Old/Grand Prix 

Fires. Because there was little local news media coverage, regional media provided most of the 

reports. The regional coverage was often inaccurate and not very useful to residents who needed 

up-to-date information on how their communities were being affected and what they needed to do. 

14

At the beginning, most of the regional media did supply relevant agency contact information, 

thereby handing over the emergency information responsibility to the JIC and to fire and 

emergency management agencies. As a result, people expected agencies to provide up-to-date, realtime, accurate information that the regional media sources were not providing. 

“And if I had to complain about anything in particular, it is the sensationalism within the 

television and radio and misinformation.” Business Owner, Big Bear FSC group: Thursday, 

March 25, 2004. 

“I would watch the news and I’d start screaming at the TV and (inaudible) people that I’m 

supposed to be able to relate to.” Resident, Big Bear FSC group: Thursday, March 25, 2004. 

Phone operators reported a large proportion of calls complaining that the regional news 

media gave incorrect information: “Highway 330 is now open,” “Residents can now return to 

Arrowhead,” etc. It was estimated that about 50 percent of media reporting was in error. Callers 

who reached the community phone bank expressed relief that they had found a source of verified, 

reliable information. Phone bank personnel were frustrated that media outlets were using multiple 

sources of information – indicating that this was a probable source of inaccuracy. Gathering news 

from multiple sources is viewed as important by the media because it draws from the most 

available, up-to-date information, albeit of varying levels of accuracy and authenticity. 

“But it was a very interesting period of time. You said even when it's not news anymore. It's 

not news. But it's not entertainment for me. You know, that's when information goes awry.” 

“And we just watched the news and couldn't tell anything. The one thing we wanted was 

something like that . . . just a map that says ‘it's here’ – because there was nothing.” Resident, 

Big Bear FSC group: Thursday, March 25, 2004. 

Residents reported that regional television and newspapers provided little information that 

was locally specific and useful. In conversations with residents and emergency personnel, people 

reported that television commentators often talked without knowledge of where they were or of the 

real fire situation. One person said that she quit using television news as an information source 

when she heard a television reporter announce: “Running Springs is being sacrificed in order to 

save Big Bear.” Others stopped watching because of what they perceived as sensational repetition. 

Speaker 1: “You know the way we found our house was gone? Someone called us on the phone 

from the LA area which is where we got all our information. People who were watching the 

Internet down there and they’d call and they’d say, ‘We just saw this on television.’ But the 

first call we got that we found out the house was gone, somebody called us and said, ‘Run out 

and get the LA Times.’ It was October 30th. ‘Your house is on the front page.’” 

Speaker: “I saw the house and the flame was coming out of the windows.” 

Speaker 2: “When we saw Chuck Henry (newscaster) standing at Pine Ridge... we were fairly 

certain, but then he said, ‘By some miracle some houses survived,’ and it was like, ‘Is it still 

there?’” 

Speaker 3: “I saw mine burning on Channel 5. I saw my house burn on TV. As a matter of fact, 

I saw my house burn over and over . . .” 

15

Interviewer: “Just over and over?” 

Speaker 3: “Over and over and over! Because they do that. They say: ‘Oh, this our best shot.’ 

You know, ‘use this one.’ And then people who were affected by that, they watch that thing 

just happen, you know, kind of on into the night – it’s just awful.” 

Rebuilding Mountain Hearts and Lives – Community Residents, Lake Arrowhead: Tuesday, 

March 23, 2004. 

A local media operator in the San Bernardino Mountains said that fire in the mountain 

communities only had “entertainment value” for Los Angeles television audiences. Past research 

has indicated that mass media can make a useful contribution during the initial stages of a crisis 

event. Broadcast media can act as the primary distributor of immediate news, conveying 

information to citizens about the emergency and local emergency management organizations 

(Wenger and Quarantelli, 1989; Burkhart, 1991). However, when the public service function is 

subjugated to focus on the primary market, television and newspaper media lose that function of 

informing a crisis situation. 

From focus group discussions, researchers found that only the locally based broadcast 

media was considered useful and credible by residents during the prolonged evacuation and 

confusing re-entry period. Information-seeking behavior during these stages of a wildfire event 

may indicate a shift from the traditional concept of public media consumption to a more nuanced 

notion of mediation of information from different communication channels by the public itself 

(Mokros and Aakhus, 2002). 

“There’s a new generation of news people. They were more interested in entertainment. They 

understand it’s ratings that makes the money and keeps their job and it has nothing to do with 

getting the information right.” 

“But to describe one person’s disaster is another person’s entertainment. And I think it is really 

true in the Los Angeles market, because you got approximately 12 million people and maybe 

200,000 people were affected here, so it’s not a very big percentage that they’re worried about 

getting information right for. They’re interested in getting entertainment right for the rest of the 

11 and a half million people who were watching the TV to try to get ratings.” Resident, Big 

Bear FSC group, Thursday, March 25, 1-3:30pm. 

In public meetings after the fire, residents applauded the local radio station KBHR for 

providing useful and up-to-date information to residents during the evacuation. These media 

operators felt an obligation to their communities, so they went out of their way to get information 

and to update it frequently. When KBHR had to shut down, with the evacuation of Big Bear, the 

operator kept putting his fire information on the KBHR website. 

Locally operated websites dedicated specifically to the Old Fire often were cited as sources 

of valuable information for affected communities, both before and after evacuation. Most 

frequently cited were Rimoftheworld.com and fireupdate.com. Both of these websites worked to 

provide real-time and place-specific information to mountain residents. It should be noted that 

fireupdate.com was a site that SBDONF Association personnel referred to when they complained 

that trained people were kept off the mountain while unauthorized people were allowed to wander 

around freely. Lack of official permission denied both the National Forest Association and the local 

residents a function that both parties recognized as badly needed. 

16

Ranger Al’s story 

“Ranger Al” lived on the mountain 48 years: 10 years working with the Forest 

Service, 30 years with the LA Fire Dept. He chose not to leave the mountain when 

evacuation was announced. Ranger Al started his Old Fire work by finding out, for a 

friend, whether his house had been spared. When other people found out what he had 

done, he was inundated by phone calls asking for help. He contacted his son, off the 

mountain, saying, “I can’t get the message out.” His son set up <fireupdate.com> and 

began posting the information his father collected. There were so many hits the first 

day that the son had to switch immediately to a much higher-capacity server. The site 

averaged about 1 million hits per day during the Old and Grand Prix Fires. Ranger Al 

traveled around neighborhoods gathering addresses of places that had burned and 

places that had been spared. No officials seemed to want the information he had 

gathered at the time, but the affected public did. When Ranger Al’s free access to 

areas on the mountain was challenged by the Highway Patrol, notice of that on his 

website resulted in a message from Sacramento, “Ranger Al can go anywhere he 

needs to go.” 

First hand account in the Rim Family Services focus group meeting: Thursday, March 

25, 2004. 

Management Recommendations 

Although there is a tendency by many organizations and government agencies to hope for 

control over the information that travels through the media and informal networks in a natural 

disaster situation such as a wildland fire, it is neither an achievable nor even a desirable goal. 

Instead, by establishing a goal of informing the network, the JIC and other fire information efforts 

can focus more on their responsibility as providers of up-to-date and accurate fire information. The 

more IOFRs supply multiple information channels with locally relevant information, the more 

likely the public will find accurate, verified information in their searches. The lack of adequate 

crisis information in the regional media further emphasizes the need for agencies to provide that 

information and to find methods for sending it more effectively through local media and informal 

communication networks. 

If the need for real-time information is not fulfilled by the agencies, people are more likely 

to rely on alternate informal information networks, fed both by trusted sources and public rumors. 

If the JIC is able to provide more immediate information from its multiple sources and assure that 

fire information is received and disseminated in a regular, hourly manner, more people are likely to 

rely on JIC contact points as their main information source during a fire event. One way to provide 

more immediate information from the IOFRs is to more effectively embed information officers into 

Incident Management Teams whose sole responsibility would be to communicate detailed 

information about the fire to the JIC at a minimum of hourly intervals or when a significant change 

occurs. A number of people provided suggestions for improving broadcast communication during 

wildland fires. A dedicated broadcast specific to the fire event could be established similarly to the 

Weather Alert System. Fires should be coordinated with the Emergency Broadcast System – 

especially evacuation orders. The National Weather Emergency system was used to warn of 

flooding and mass- or debris-flow dangers post-fire; that system could be used during the fire. 

17

It may work better to have publicly accessible fire maps updated by ESRI, but the 

descriptive comments updated by an information technology specialist working with the JIC. 

The need to provide parallel Spanish-language information was highlighted during these 

fires because a large proportion of Spanish-speaking residents were affected. More Spanishspeaking information officers and volunteers would have facilitated communication between the 

JIC and Spanish-speaking media and community. Later, during follow-up focus group meetings, it 

was learned that Spanish translation was provided at several evacuation shelters. The translators, 

however, were not familiar with the San Bernardino Mountain communities and were often 

confused about what areas were being discussed. Achieving an interactive exchange of information 

that is reasonable and effective can be especially challenging when the communities involved have 

vastly different socioeconomic and cultural contexts (Vaughan, 1995). 

Lessons Learned: Findings and Recommendations 

Real Time Information 

1.	 Residents of communities near wildfires feel an urgent need for timely site-specific fire 

information that will help them cope with the threat to their families, lives, safety, property, and 

interests. 

a)	 Expand and reinforce those fire information functions that provide information to 

communities near the fire, especially those where residents perceive a direct threat from fire 

and smoke. 

b) Recognize in fire management policy that – for wildland urban interface fires – providing 

those whose families, lives, safety, property, and interests are potentially endangered with 

timely but accurate information needed to cope effectively with the threat is the first and 

most important fire information role. 

Official Communication 

2.	 Residents found that official communications about the fires contained little that was useful to 

them and that information releases were too few and infrequent. Even the public meetings 

directed to residents sometimes appeared to address issues more important to fire managers 

than to residents. 

a)	 Incident Commanders and IOFRs should develop ways to monitor the information needs of 

residents of communities at risk and rapidly respond to changing information needs. 

b)	 The information on the ICS-209 form is of little use to residents of threatened communities. 

Information releases for communities should not rely on the 209. New methods of tracking 

and disseminating information should be developed within the IMTs, focused on the needs 

of communities at risk. 

c)	 Information releases should be every 1–2 hours, or immediately following major changes in 

the fire situation. 

Response to News Media 

3.	 Residents expressed dissatisfaction with most of the traditional TV and newspaper media as 

information sources. Information disseminated through the mass media was believed to be 

frequently inaccurate, emphasized the sensational over the practical, and shifted to new topics 

18

before the local need for information was past. An exception was a local radio station that 

dedicated programming to coverage of the fire with information collected locally and directed 

to local information needs. Other hazards communication research has found that residents are 

more likely to turn to social networks or officials in order to confirm information about a hazard 

(Burkhart, 1991) and to other information sources, such as the Internet, when media coverage is 

considered insufficient (Bucher, 2002). 

a)	 Although information officers need to meet the demands of the traditional commercial print 

and electronic media, they should not rely on those media to get essential information to 

residents of communities at risk during fires. 

b) However, local radio stations might be recruited to broadcast useful information to residents 

in their areas. 

c)	 Traditional commercial media could be asked to broadcast the locations (radio frequencies, 

internet addresses, etc.) where accurate and timely fire information could be found. If such 

sites could be established before the fire, then these locations could be broadcast 

immediately. 

Informing the Networks 

4.	 Wildland urban interface communities are served by relatively complex information networks 

that go well beyond traditional media. Those include websites of local businesses and 

organizations, interpersonal networks, and a variety of local mass media. Residents rely on 

these networks heavily during fires. They both seek information from the networks and add 

information to the networks. The need to relay warning messages through multiple channels in 

order to increase comprehension and encourage residents to take needed action has been well 

documented in the hazards communication literature (Turner and others, 1981). This study 

found that the use of multiple channels is especially important during evacuation and re-entry 

periods. 

a)	 Incident managers and information officers should recognize that their official messages 

and media are in competition with many other channels, messages, and sources. If the 

official message is to succeed, it must be useful, credible, and timely. 

b) Advanced communication technology such as cell phones -- some of which can take and 

transmit photos, websites, and GIS maps and databases -- need to be incorporated along 

with bulletin boards, community meetings, and mass media as communication channels. 

c)	 Most importantly, information officers should seek to inform the networks to disseminate 

information. Arrangements should be made to map the informal communication channels 

used and find ways to provide them with accurate and timely information. 

JIC–Timing and Media 

5.	 The JIC was able to overcome some of the difficulties of getting timely and useful information 

to people in communities at risk. However, it could have worked better if it had been activated 

sooner. Some cooperating agencies were slow to shift their information functions to the JIC. 

Other cooperators did not always provide the center with critical information but continued to 

disseminate information through their own channels without coordination with the JIC. 

Information from several different IMTs was communicated through the same media without 

adequate coordination, sometimes causing confusion. Even the special efforts to rapidly 

19

validate information could not always provide information close enough to real time for 


residents. 


a)	 The JIC can serve as the coordinated point source of official, validated information and 

necessary changes should be made to correct the difficulties encountered. 

Recommendations are included in the final report from the JIC. The JIC served a positive 

need, but could have been more effective if implemented sooner. 

b) Specially trained information officers and/or community liaison personnel should be 

deployed to the fire to gather real-time intelligence and immediately communicate it to the 

JIC for dissemination to the communities at risk. Time is of the essence. 

c)	 When thousands of people are threatened, a few dozen emergency information phone lines 

will not meet their demands for information. Phone banks should be maintained, but need to 

be reinforced with other accessible media. The JIC website met some of that need and could 

be even more effective had it been broadly advertised. Active dissemination through the 

existing informal networks and websites would help overcome bottlenecks that can occur in 

emergency information centers. 

Evacuation Communication 

6.	 Evacuation creates serious communication problems. They disrupt informal information 

networks. Access even to the traditional media is sometimes disrupted when power fails, 

causing radios, televisions, and some telephones to shut down. With evacuation, residents’ 

information needs change and intensify just as communication becomes more difficult. Studies 

on warning communication for pre-impact evacuations in response to natural disasters have 

been fairly extensive. Researchers have reviewed the key structural and psychological and 

social factors that affect people’s response to evacuation warnings (Aguirre, 1991; Fitzpatrick 

and Dennis, 1991; Baker, 1995; Atwood and Major, 1998; Dow and Cutter, 1998; Balluz, 2000; 

and Bateman and Edwards, 2002). Others have looked at warning and communication 

processes and evaluated their effectiveness under different organizational scenarios (Carter, 

1980; Aguirre and Anderson, 1991; Burkhart, 1991). There is little research, however, on 

communication needs following the evacuation warning. More research is needed on 

information-seeking behavior during the evacuation, re-entry, and recovery period of a wildfire 

event. 

a)	 Evacuation notification needs to be delivered with as much lead time for preparation as 

possible. The means of announcing evacuation must be as considerate as possible: the 

recipients are already traumatized. Reverse 911 call systems can be effective, but they 

must repeat information, and include a “call-back” number for residents to get 

additional information or instruction. 

b) Early on, information officers should establish channels that can be accessed easily by 

people away from home and without access to their usual communication technologies. 

c)	 During evacuation, information about structures and other key values needs to be 

regularly collected and communicated to residents. Homeowners need to be told, as 

soon as possible, whether or not their homes and structures have burned. Information at 

the community level should be broadly and quickly disseminated. 

d) However, care needs to be taken in how individual property information is 

communicated. Homeowners must be told privately if their individual homes are 

20

destroyed, and it may be important to have mental health workers present to assist 

families who have lost their homes. Procedures for these sensitive communications have 

been developed by the American Red Cross with the help of psychologists and can be 

easily adapted for use on fire disasters. Never should evacuated residents be kept in the 

dark about the condition of their property and community for any length of time. A cell 

phone call from an IOFR standing at a particular location describing and/or 

photographing the scene can be very helpful. 

7.	 Evacuation centers and shelters proved to be effective locations to communicate fire 

information to residents who used them. However, relatively few evacuees use the shelters, 

most with the means to do so choose to rely on their own, or friends’ and family resources. 

a)	 The American Red Cross might consider establishing assistance and information sites 

throughout the area to which evacuees go for shelter or lodging. If evacuees know the 

location of those satellite assistance and information centers before the evacuation, they 

may seek them out to keep up-to-date on events and conditions in the evacuated 

community. 

b)	 Information officers could provide such sites with specialized information and with 

telephone links to the JIC and field information officers who could respond to questions 

from residents. 

c)	 Evacuation centers could also set up voluntary bulletin board sign-up locations so 

evacuated parties could leave forwarding/contact information. This has been used 

effectively on some wildland interface fires. 

Re-entry/Reoccupation 

8.	 Reoccupation following evacuations needs to be planned as carefully and completely as the 

evacuation itself. A communication plan needs to be part of the reoccupation plan. 

a)	 Information officers need to prepare methods to alert all evacuees of the reoccupation 

and provide instructions on how and when to return. 

b) Safety information may be needed if vegetation and structures or power lines, water 

systems, roads, and other infrastructure have been damaged. 

c)	 Returning residents will face a wide range of urgent problems when they return, 

including acquiring food and fuel, assessing whether any heat stressing has affected 

their structures, disposing of spoiled food in freezers, encountering injured snakes or 

other wildlife, and caring for heat-stressed ornamental vegetation. An information 

program needs to be in place and active to help returning residents cope and return the 

community to normal as soon as possible. 

MAST and FSCs 

9.	 Communications among agencies and between agencies and residents, in the mountain 

communities was substantially more effective during these fires as a result of preparations made 

by MAST and the FSCs prior to the events. The existing communication patterns that had been 

established to deal with the widespread die off of trees as a result of drought, disease, and 

insects added significantly to the effectiveness. 

21

a)	 Communication plans should be prepared and rehearsed for wildland urban interface 

communities well before they are needed for a wildfire. 

b) Communication plans could be developed as part of community wildfire protection 

plans. 

c)	 Local informal communication networks were effective at keeping large numbers of 

people informed during the Bridge Fire and worked well to quickly mobilize people to 

attend community meetings. Communication plans should specifically address means of 

activating local networks and keeping them informed with timely and useful 

information. 

d)	 Local residents should take necessary safety training so they can participate in official 

information functions to provide local information and to serve as informational links to 

local informal networks. 

e)	 FSCs, especially in southern California, are organizing themselves to be qualified and 

trained to serve local presence functions during wildland interface fires. This 

momentum needs to be accepted and supported through agency collaboration. 

Separating Functions: Informing the Media vs. Informing the Public 

10. The problem of communicating with communities at risk during wildfires is a much different 

problem from that of providing timely and accurate information to the traditional news media. 

The two audiences demand different kinds of information and have different deadlines. 

Information to communities needs to be as close to real time as possible. 

a) Incident managers and information officers should clearly separate the two fire 

information functions of serving the media and serving communities at risk. 

b) Specialized training needs to be developed and provided to information officers who 

will manage community information functions. Agency administrators must be 

informed and encouraged to support these changes. 

c)	 Many of the community information functions used during the fires seemed to work 

well and information officers reported success with community information efforts on 

other fires. These experiences should be used to help develop effective information 

programs to deal with the unique communication needs of people in communities at risk 

of wildfire. 

d) On the other hand, a great deal of research and communication theory is available on 

disaster communication. Much of that can be useful in developing community fire 

information processes. Some erroneous assumptions have been clarified in research on 

hurricane and other natural hazard research. For example, people do not panic when 

notified early that evacuation may be required. Also, most people when faced with 

serious natural hazards do not adopt “self-first” attitudes, but go out of their way to 

assist others in their neighborhoods and communities. 

Information Flow During Transitions 

11. When wildland fires change in status and scope, authority, function, and personnel change as 

well. For example, as a safety measure, all wildland firefighters, including members of an IMT 

can work only 14 days (under most circumstances) before they are required to rest. As they 

22

reach the required rest period or as fire conditions permit, the IMT will transition to another 

team. Each fire fighting team brings with it a lead information officer and usually orders 

additional information officers. Once the fire is contained, fire management will be returned to 

the local agency. A Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation team (BAER) may be assigned to 

the fire. BAER teams also may include a lead information officer. Often, team transitions 

correspond with abrupt changes in information flows, with the new team in charge starting from 

scratch to try to build community information systems. In spite of the formal transition between 

the team leaving and the one taking over, the community perceives a disruption to reliable 

information sources and channels. 

a)	 Authority to manage the incident is delegated to the IMT from the local agency line 

officers. Sometimes forest supervisors and other agency administrators reserve the 

information function under their direct supervision. In the interest of continuity of 

community information throughout the incident, line officers may wish to exercise this 

option more often, especially when there are multiple fires and several IMTs would be 

communicating with the same communities at the same time, or over time. 

b)	 When transitions are made, each fire team needs to examine the information flow to the 

public in the unique situation of transition. Previous communication operations must be 

examined in light of the incoming team’s assessment of changing community 

information needs. 

Priority of Fire Information Functions 

12. Land management agencies need to critically examine the resource flow allocated in different 

stages of pre-, during-, and post-fire management. While resources available to suppress a fire 

may seem unlimited, by comparison, very few resources are made available for pre-fire 

mitigation and community preparedness, or for post-fire recovery and mitigation against future 

fire losses. This is true as much for information as for any other fire management dimension. 

Individual Bureau of Land Management Field Offices, and National Forests, National Parks, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs management units typically have 

limited resources compared to those of an IMT during a major fire. Consequently, the level of 

community information effort seen during the fire may not be sustained after the team leaves. 

The public – in post-fire environments – shows evidence of believing that their local forest (or 

other land management agency) did not care or “dropped the ball” because they could not 

respond in scope or rapidity equal to that of the IMT. 

a)	 Land management agencies need to insure that resources are sustained beyond fire 


suppression both for fire information and for community involvement. 


23

Figure 1. Old Fire Perimeter: October 28 

Figure 2. Old Fire Perimeter: November 4 

24 
Literature Cited 

Aguirre, B. 1991, Evacuation in Cancun during hurricane Gilbert: International Journal of Mass 

Emergencies and Disasters, v. 9, no.1, p. 31-45. 

Aguirre, B., and Anderson, W., 1991(a), Saratoga, Texas, tornado, May 22, 1987: An evaluation of 

the warning system: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press. 

Atwood, L.E., and Major, A., 1998, Exploring the ‘Cry Wolf’ hypothesis: International Journal of 

Mass Emergencies and Disasters, v. 16, p. 279-302. 

Baker, E., 1995, Public response to hurricane probability forecasts: Professional Geographer, v. 47, 

no. 2, p. 137-147. 

Balluz, L., 2000, Predictors for people’s response to a tornado warning: Arkansas, 1 March 1997: 

Disasters, v. 24, no. 1, p. 71-77. 

Bateman, J.M., and Edwards, B., 2002, Gender and evacuation: A closer look at why women are 

more likely to evacuate for hurricanes: Natural Hazards Review, v. 3, p. 107-117. 

Bucher, H.J., 2002, Crisis communication and the Internet: Risk and trust in a global media: First 

Monday, p. 1-10. 

Burkhart, F.N., 1991, Media, emergency warnings, and citizen response: Boulder, CO, Westview 

Press. 

Carter, M.T., 1980, Community warning systems: The relationships among the broadcast media, 

emergency service agencies and the National Weather Service, in Disasters and the Mass Media, 

Committee on Disasters and the Mass Media: Washington D.C., National Academy of Sciences, 

p. 214–228. 

Carroll, M., Findley, A., Blatner, K., Mendez, S., Daniels, E., and Walker, G., 2000, Social 

assessment for the Wenatchee National Forest wildfires of 1994: Targeted analysis for the 

Leavenworth, Entiat, and Chelan Ranger District: Portland, OR, USDA Forest Service. 

Cortner, H.J., Gardner, P.D., and Taylor, J.G., 1990, Fire hazards at the urban-wildland interface: 

What the public expects: Environmental Management, v. 13, no. 1, p. 57-62. 

Dow, K., and Cutter, S., 1998, Crying wolf: Repeat responses to hurricane evacuation orders: 

Coastal Management, v. 26, no. 4, p. 237-252. 

Fitzpatrick, C.M., and Dennis, S., 1991, Motivating public evacuation: International Journal of 

Mass Emergencies and Disasters, v. 9, no. 2, p. 137-152. 

Fitzpatrick, C.M., and Dennis, S., 1994, Public Risk Communication, in Disasters, Collective 

Behavior, and Social Organization, Dynes and T. Russell R., Kathleen J. Newark, U Delaware 

Press: 71-84. 

Gardner, P.D., Cortner, H.J., and Widaman, K., 1987, The risk perceptions and policy response 

toward wildland fire hazards by urban homeowners: Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 14, no. 2, 

p. 163-172. 

Kumagai, Y., Daniels, S.E., Carroll, M.S., and Bliss, J.C., 2004, Social-psychological reactions to 

wildfire: Implications for agency-community interactions and communication strategies: Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry, v. 19, no. 3, p. 113-194. 

Michaels, S. 2003. Perishable Information, Enduring Insights? Understanding Quick Response 

Research. Beyond September 11th: An account of post-disaster research. Natural Hazards 

Research and Applications Information Center, Program on the Environment and Behavior. 

Boulder, University of Colorado. 

Mokros, H.B., and Aakhus, M., 2002, From information-seeking behavior to meaning engagement 

practice: Implications for communication theory and research: Human Communication Research, 

v. 28, no. 2, p. 298-312. 

25 
Rudzitis, G., 1999, Amenities increasingly draw people to the rural west: Rural Development 

Perspectives, v. 14, no. 2, p. 9-13. 

Taylor, J.G., and Daniel, T.C., 1984, Prescribed fire: Public education and perception: Journal of 

Forestry, v. 82, no. 6, p. 361-365. 

Tracy, K., 1997, Interactional trouble in emergency service requests: A problem of frames: 

Research on Language and Social Interaction, v. 30, no. 4, p. 315-343. 

Turner, R.H., Nigg, J.M., Paz, D.H., and Young, B.S., 1981, Community response to earthquake 

threat in Southern California, Part 10, Summary and Recommendations: Institute for Social 

Science Research, University of California, Los Angeles. 

Vaughan, E., 1995, The significance of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity for the risk 

communication process: Risk Analysis, v. 15, p. 169-180. 

Wenger, D., and Quarantelli, E.L., 1989, Local mass media problems, and products in disasters: 

University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center. 

26