Emergency Response

The Greater Sacramento Region’s Natural Disaster Risk

The Sacramento region faces a number of potential emergency situations caused by events such as forest fires, flooding and earthquakes. Forest fires are a significant risk to foothill areas (for example, Placerville and Auburn) as seen in the summer of 2008 when California experienced a record number of forest fires. Although earthquakes are not considered a serious threat because the Sacramento region is not along the most active fault lines, some geologists do believe California is overdue for a large earthquake that could potentially affect Sacramento. In addition, many parts of the region have a high risk of flooding due to large rivers, vulnerable levees and developed flood plains.

The Sacramento region remains the most at-risk large metropolitan area in the United States for a major flood event. Large rivers and significant creeks flank or divide nearly all the counties in the region. Due to the numerous natural bodies of water, many parts of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties are in 100-year flood plains. In order to protect residents from flooding, hundreds of miles of levees have been built, but many are currently not up to federal protection standards. Compounding the region’s vulnerability to flooding events is the remote threat of dam failure; two large and several smaller dams hold back water north and east of Sacramento.

The Rural Challenge

Natural emergencies create challenges that affect Sacramento’s urban and rural areas in different ways, and both have different barriers to evacuation. Disaster preparedness efforts have focused on urban areas because there are more people and infrastructure. However, rural areas face more frequent threats from natural disasters, such as fires and floods.

Rural areas face unique vulnerabilities due to their very nature. Expansive wooded and vegetative areas are significantly more vulnerable to fires. The California fires in 2008 burned nearly 300,000 acres of land and numerous homes, affecting rural areas in a far larger proportion than urban areas.¹ Locally, Placer County and Yuba County had significant fires, with over 1000 acres burned. Additionally, rural infrastructure is frequently more vulnerable to flood events. Historically, many rural and county roads were not constructed with an engineered pavement section. Many of the roads we see today are composed primarily of dirt and gravel, leaving rural roads particularly suspect to washing out during major floods. The impacts of fires that clear out vegetation coupled with heavy rains can create flash floods and/or mudslides which are capable of wreaking havoc on rural roads and communities. Many homes and property are along rivers and creeks, leaving them vulnerable to levee breaches during major storms. What is more, rural areas lack the emergency services and relatively quick response times that urban areas have, which can compound a small incident into a larger problem.

Emergency Preparedness Planning

The threat of natural (as well as man-made) emergencies establishes the need for good emergency planning in both urban and rural areas. In the SACOG region, urban and rural boundaries are so close to each other that they are inextricably related. It is important that both urban and rural areas are well prepared in the event of an emergency. In fact, rural roads may be an urban resident’s natural escape route.

In California, every jurisdiction has emergency planners that follow an organization system in order to control chaos and save lives during an emergency. The following are systems used:

• 
  
• National Incident Management System (NIMS) is the national structure for command, control and communications among responding agencies and decision makers. NIMS was created after September 11, 2001 and is based on the California model.
• California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) is a state-wide system directed by the California Office of Emergency Services, which consists of multi-interagency coordination and mutual aid. SEMS was created after the 1991 East Bay Hills fire.
• Incident Command System (ICS) is a local, emergency-site system used by first responders that helps to direct and delegate authority, used in small traffic accidents and major catastrophes.

Throughout California, emergency planners implement the systems previously mentioned, depending on the situation, as a way to control and communicate during an emergency. The following are local emergency planning sites:

• 
  
• Office of Emergency Services (OES) is in every county and many cities in California and oversees day to day emergency planning.
• Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is a command center where emergency service providers (many from the local OES) meet and coordinate response, recovery, and resources during disasters.

Mobility and the Role of Transit

In the event of an emergency, residents must be able to evacuate their homes and go to a safer area (such as higher ground in the case of a flood). Unfortunately, some people are at risk of being left behind, such as people in convalescent/nursing homes or hospitals, seniors unable to drive and people that do not have a car. In 2000, over 54,000 households in the Sacramento region did not have a vehicle, 2400 of which were in rural areas. People unable to drive may have friends or family that can transport them, but some may depend on alternative transportation.

Transit plays an important role during an emergency. In evacuation situations, buses offer a vital service by moving large numbers of people to safer areas. Additionally, transit vehicles provide the opportunity to transport emergency responders and necessities (food, blankets, etc.) to disaster sites and to provide mobile cooling stations for fire fighters.

Case Study (1997)

The second largest evacuation in U.S. history took place in Yuba and Sutter Counties on January 1, 1997. After a massive snowfall before Christmas, followed by warm, heavy rain, all the major northern and central California reservoirs exceeded flood control capacity. By New Years Day voluntary evacuations were ordered for the urban areas in both counties.

[[Image:|1px|Your browser may not support display of this image.]]However, Yuba-Sutter Transit was not notified or given evacuation orders by either county EOC. It was simply by happenstance that one transit analyst found out about the order, and she spent over three hours attempting to contact the responsible emergency services official in either county. During this time, the analyst contacted Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc., an agency contracted to Yuba-Sutter Transit for operations and maintenance services, which began preparing the transit systems for activation. Finally, an emergency official instructed the transit analyst to assist the local ambulance company in the evacuation of all the nursing facilities, convalescent hospitals and group homes in both counties. Yuba-Sutter Transit split the number of buses in each county so that, in the event one flooded, half of the fleet would still be available. Yuba-Sutter Transit took the evacuees to schools and community centers in Nevada and Plumas Counties, which were ill prepared for the number of people and their frail state. With the help of bus drivers and volunteers, over 1000 individuals were evacuated on busses that day.

The Yuba-Sutter Transit evacuation experience provides several valuable insights into challenges faced by the rural transit operator. To begin with, Yuba-Sutter Transit did not have an open communication with the local OES. It was by sheer tenacity that the transit analyst got in contact with the emergency planner, when the emergency planning agencies in both Yuba and Sutter Counties could have been in contact with the transit agency. Second, transit’s role in emergencies was not pre-established. Had OES officials and the transit operator been in regular contact, the transit agency could have started evacuations hours earlier and the (very expensive) joint effort with local ambulance companies could have been avoided. Finally, transit operators were not included in the jurisdiction’s emergency planning. By planning with transit operators, OES officials could have known what transit inventory was available, how to access the inventory and how best to get in contact with the transit operators in order to facilitate effective and efficient evacuations.

Case Study (2007)

In October 2007, the Department of Homeland Security funded an emergency response exercise that simulated a flood disaster in the Sacramento Region. The exercise² involved ten transit providers³ and several agencies⁴ in the region. The simulation examined how transit resources and abilities could be used to deal with various aspects of a flood emergency, including a levee break. The emergency response exercise tested the following areas: interaction between transit agencies and EOCs, coordination among transit operators, EOC communications of local transit aspects of city and county evacuation plans, and operational aspects of a mass evacuation.⁵ The exercise was very beneficial in identifying areas where the teams did well: leadership in local transit agencies, resource response at the Sacramento City and County EOC, and communications and plans within each local agency. However, the exercise also highlighted several areas for improvement.

According to the emergency response exercise After Action Report (AAR), improvement is needed between EOC personnel and transit agencies in these areas:

• 
  
• Communication—broke down because the EOC and transit agency communication plan was incomplete and inaccurate, resulting in delayed operational decisions and inaccurate resource tracking.
• Leadership—lacked within the EOC because there was not a primary transit representative, which created a “break-down in communication of emergency operation information.”
• Training—among transit operators on the procedures and resources of the EOC system, limiting the operator’s capabilities to effectively assist the EOC.

The Sacramento region has had two emergency exercises over 10 years—one real and one simulated. The 1997 flood evacuation and the 2007 emergency exercise demonstrated positive aspects in our region and yielded several areas for improvement. Both examples established the need for transit agencies and EOCs to have better communication, leadership and training. Many improvements have been made after the 1997 experience, including establishing frequent communications between the transit operator and emergency planning agencies. However, the 2007 exercise highlighted the fact that the region still has many improvements to make in these areas.

Opportunities and Innovations

In response to the transit emergency exercise, SACOG applied for and received a Caltrans grant to create a plan that will concentrate on the recommendations of the After Action Report (AAR). This plan⁶ is designed to be a continuous effort to improve emergency-related communication, procedures and information within transit agencies and, when applicable, with local EOCs. The AAR response plan will also study flooding effects on transit systems in the Sacramento River and American River Flood Plains, including rural sections of Sacramento and Yolo Counties. Agencies that participated in the October 2007 exercise will be invited to participate in this exercise, which will be overseen by the Transit Coordinating Committee (TCC), a SACOG advisory group. This innovative and important plan will better prepare the region in the event of an emergency.

SACOG is also working with partner agencies to implement an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) project called the Sacramento Transportation Area Network (STARNET) system. Many difficulties during emergencies are encountered when information is not accurate for first responders, emergency planners and incident commanders. Transit operators and emergency responders will be able to use STARNET to exchange information and coordinate operations in the Sacramento region. STARNET will allow real-time sharing of data and live video, as well as adjustment of joint procedures pertaining to roadways and public transit operation, and public safety activities. It will also provide more information for travelers via the region’s 511 web site and interactive telephone service (dial 511).

Through the TCC, SACOG is exploring an opportunity to create a formal framework between transit operators and emergency planners. The framework may identify, establish, and standardize information sharing between transit agencies and EOCs. Improving communications and leadership between the agencies and training within transit agencies could also be addressed. SACOG is interested in working with the TCC and other partners to identify innovations and opportunities to address the AAR recommendations.

Funding

Many transit operators are not in a position to fund emergency planning exercises and programs, especially given the current fiscal environment. Transit costs (such as operations and maintenance) require considerable funding commitments, and transit operators are increasingly short of funds. Federal and state funding support has declined over the last several years and transit operators have turned to more volatile local sales tax for funding. The limited resource makes shifting discretionary monies away from operations to emergency planning nearly impossible. In order to pay for exercise planning and training, transit operators have to rely on grants and other governmental sources. Some opportunities include:

• The California Office of Emergency Services provides training classes on the various organization systems.
• The United States Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration provide classroom training and online courses on a wide variety of topics ranging from ICS and NIMS to terrorism awareness.
• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the California Office of Homeland Security provide several grant programs.

The 2005 Hurricane Katrina flood disaster brought to light Sacramento’s vulnerable levees and ranked our region as a national concern for serious flooding. The ensuing years have led to increased funding to improve the region’s levees in many of our at-risk areas. In 2006,the California Legislature passed Proposition 1E, the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act, which allocated $4.06 billion to rebuild and repair California’s most vulnerable flood control structures. Also in 2006, the public passed Proposition 84, which provides renewed funding for the Flood Protection Corridor Program (FPCP) in the amount of $40 billion. Most of the funding goes to improve the region’s levees.

In spite of the state-wide funding increases, the Sacramento region still needs to expand safety improvements and emergency planning efforts. As part of the Rural Urban Connections Strategy (RUCS) project, SACOG would like to explore the issues identified above in greater detail by answering the following questions:

• What other transportation aspects of emergency planning affect rural areas?
• How can transit be incorporated more fully into emergency planning?
• What additional lessons can be learned from the 1997 and 2007 case studies?
• What are some of the most cost-effective strategies to enhance regional preparedness?

SACOG plans to continue working with regional partners to identify new innovations and pursue new funding opportunities.

Footnotes

i California Department of Forestry and Fire http://www.fire.ca.gov/index_incidents_info.php
ii Sacramento Functional/Full-Scale Exercise (FE/FSE)
iii Sacramento Regional Transit, Paratransit, Inc., Placer County Transit, Yolo County Transportation, El Dorado Transit, Folsom Stage line, Roseville Transit, South County Transit, Amtrak, Fairfield Suisun Transit.
iv California Department of Transportation, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Transit Administration, Natomas Unified School District, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento County Office of Emergency Services, US Department of Homeland Security.
v The exercise was funded by the US Department of Homeland Security and coordinated by the California Office of Homeland Security, SACOG and consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. It was an exercise that took place at the Sacramento County Emergency Operations Center and the Natomas Unified School District Headquarters. An After Action Report was developed after the completion of the exercise identifying strengths and weaknesses. The After Action Report is now being used to develop a Caltrans awarded Sacramento Emergency Transit Response Plan. The plan will serve as a template to guide transit operators in the SACOG Region in preparation for disasters.
vi Sacramento Functional / Full Scale Exercise After Action Report Response to Recommendations Plan