CRISIS RELOCATION PLANNING (CRP):  United States.  1974-1981.  A component of the Nuclear Civil Protection program.  Crisis Relocation Planning envisioned the relocation of people from some or all of approximately 400 risk areas in the United States at the request of the President to State Governors during a gradual buildup of international tensions.  Federal Emergency Management Agency information suggested in 1981 that Crisis Relocation would save 80-85 million lives in a nuclear war; in conjunction with Community Shelter Planning, Crisis Relocation Planning offered the potential for survival of 80 percent of the United States population. 

 

Crisis relocation plans for specific risk areas were based on the conglomerate concept.  Crisis Relocation Planning assumptions included:

 

(1)  Government would ensure the provision of essential resources and services, including the commercial provision of food, fuel, and communications.

 

(2)  Spontaneous evacuations from high risk areas would occur prior to implementation of crisis relocation.  Many of these evacuees would have the resources needed to be self-sufficient, including housing with friends or relatives or in vacation homes.

 

(3)  Relocation would be for a minimum of 7 days, with a probable maximum period of 14 days.

 

(4)  Residents of host areas would be encouraged, but not compelled, to accommodate evacuees in their homes.  The expectation, based on past experience in natural disasters, was that a reasonable number of people could be housed in this way.

 

(5)  Evacuees were expected to bring key supplies with them, including food, tools, and other similar resources.  The evacuee population was expected to provide able-bodied workers to build expedient shelters for fallout protection.

 

(6)  The economy would be maintained in its pre-crisis state to as great a degree as possible, and businesses and institutions would be protected.  The short term duration of relocation would not allow time for introduction of formal economic controls such as rationing, although local measures might be required in individual jurisdictions.  However, measures would be implemented to ensure that financial need would not deny anyone basic necessities. 

 

(7)  Essential activities and services would continue in the risk areas after crisis relocation.  Essential personnel would be expected to commute to the risk area from the closest host areas.

 

Planning efforts included the gathering of extensive data on the risk and host areas.  Examples of data cited were:

 

(1)  Transportation – how many people could use private automobiles and how many would require public transportation for evacuation?

 

(2)  Medical care – what were the normal patient bed counts in hospitals, how many doctors of what specialties were available in the area, and how many patients were on life support machines?

 

(3)  Local news media – how would these disseminate official survival information by television, radio, or print media?

 

(4)  Earth moving equipment – what equipment was available to move earth for shielding of structures suitable for use as shelters?

 

(5)  Congregate care facilities – what was the space, meal preparation, sanitary, and potable water capacity of schools, churches, and other facilities where evacuees could be temporarily housed?

 

Clanahan, Russell B., “Georgia Tackles Crisis Relocation,” Emergency Management, Volume 1, Number 2, Winter 1981, pp. 2-5.  

 

Entry 0118