RESCUE REPORT
By Tom Vines

On Dec. 23, Arizona firefighters responded to a call for “kids in tree”; however, that account didn’t turn out to be as descriptive as they may have liked, as by the end of the day, they had performed a well-coordinated water rescue.

The 9-1-1 call to Sedona Fire Dispatch was initially assigned as an EMS dispatch. At 1658 HRS, the Montezuma Rimrock Fire District dispatched EMS unit A711 and Engine 711.

While en route, responders obtained additional information that indicated that the call was actually a swiftwater rescue response to Beaver Creek, which was flooded from recent rain and melting snow in the high country. As a result, the nearby Camp Verde Fire District dispatched Car 713, Car 811, Rescue 811, Ambulance 811 and Ambulance 812. Sixteen fire personnel were eventually involved in the rescue, along with two deputies from the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office.

Responders could not drive their vehicles all the way to the scene, so they had to carry their gear three-fourths of a mile to the scene. As they got closer, the resident who made the initial 9-1-1 call was able to direct responders to the exact location of the victims.

Responders spotted two males, ages 16 and 18, located about 50 feet away, in the middle of the flooded creek. The two were standing on a root ball of a large tree, with cold, knee-high creek water flowing rapidly around them. Throughout the rescue, the water level continued to rise, and it was getting dark quickly.

How did the teens get here? Their adventure began when they built a makeshift wooden raft and launched it in the flooding creek. They had no personal floatation devices (PFDs) or other PPE. At one point, they lost control of the raft and were dumped into the fast-moving water. They managed to swim to a tree in the middle of the creek where they had been for nearly 2 hours.

The responders sized up the situation, quickly discussed different rescue options and unanimously decided on a plan. Everyone agreed that the quickest and safest approach would be a technique known as a “shallow water crossing”—walking on the creek bottom as opposed to swimming across the creek.

The rescuers quickly established a unified command that involved both departments, along with Operations, a technical sector officer (TSO), a Rescue Group (four personnel from both departments) and Patient Treatment (Ambulance 711).

One clear hazard: a “strainer” consisting of fallen trees and limbs located approximately 50 feet downstream. Rescuers knew that a strainer like this would allow the current to pass through, but would catch and entrap a person. If a person were to become entrapped, the current would press them against the strainer, preventing their escape and possibly causing them to drown.

Spotters were posted downstream with throw bags in case anyone (victim or rescuer) was washed away in the current. Other spotters were posted upstream to alert rescuers in case they saw dangerous debris washing toward the scene.

Additionally, rescuers anchored a rope to the control bank by tying the end of the rope to a tree to establish a tension diagonal at roughly a 45-degree angle to the flowing water, so that, in case anyone got loose in the current, the diagonal would direct them to shore.

To begin the shallow water crossing, the four rescuers—all wearing PFDs and helmets—formed a “V” pattern, with two in front in an arm lock and two behind them helping support the front two against the current. They approached the two teens from upstream, and because the water was murky, they used paddles to help feel the creek bottom.

After about 3 or 4 minutes, rescuers reached the two teens who were shivering, barely able to hold onto the tree and in need of assistance to step down off the root ball and then to stand up in the creek. They clipped the teens’ PFDs to the line anchored to the tree on shore. Each of the teens was accompanied by a rescuer to water’s edge, where they were assisted on shore by other rescuers at 1801 HRS. One of the teens was so cold that he had to be carried to the ambulance.

Once on shore, the teens were warmed with blankets and placed in the heated ambulance. The 18-year-old refused transport. The family of the 16-year-old was now on scene and refused transport on his behalf.

Sources: Montezuma Rimrock Fire District Captain Tim White provided information for this report. Some additional details were taken from accounts of the incident from The Beaver Creek Bugle and a press release from the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office.

Lessons Reinforced:
Captain Tim White notes the following: “For an operation to go smoothly, it is extremely important that everyone involved thoroughly understand the management system. This is particularly critical if several agencies are involved.

“Time was critical in this operation. Water was rising and it was getting dark, so we didn’t have the luxury of time for long discussions about formulating a rescue plan; we had to quickly agree on a plan and quickly put it into operation.

“We were able to quickly decide on a plan and quickly put it into operation because the two departments had trained and worked together, so we knew one another and had the knowledge and confidence of everyone involved. There might not have been such a successful outcome if we had gone through prolonged discussion and debate about what plan to use.

“It was 63 minutes from time of call to completion; when the operation was completed, we walked out using flashlights. It was a race to beat the dark. Overall, agency cooperation made the operation successful.”

Some additional notes from the after-action report:
What went well:

• ICS was used with members from both agencies filling key positions. The interagency on-scene planning and cooperation were very smooth.
• There were enough rescuers on scene to safely and effectively complete the rescue.
• There were no injuries to rescuers.

Lessons learned:

• Proper PPE should be worn by everyone operating in the hot zone (within 10 feet of water’s edge). At a minimum, there should be PFDs and helmets for those personnel.
• Tension diagonal was not exactly at 45 degrees to moving water.
• There needs to be recognition of operations vs. technician-level rescue.
• Organize the equipment cache at the scene. Consider assigning a “cacheman” and laying out equipment on tarps.
• Equipment should be labeled for easy identification of contents and agency.

Rescue Editor Tom Vines is the co-author of “High Angle Rescue Techniques” and “Confined Space and Structural Rope Rescue.” He operates a rope-rescue consulting group in Red Lodge, Mont.

Copyright © Elsevier Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE to FIRERESCUE