This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-380
entitled 'Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving 
Communications during Wildland Fires' which was released on April 26, 
2005.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

April 2005:

Technology Assessment:

Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland 
Fires:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-380]

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-05-380, a report to congressional requesters.

Why GAO Did This Study:

Since 1984, wildland fires have burned an average of more than 850 
homes each year in the United States and, because more people are 
moving into fire-prone areas bordering wildlands, the number of homes 
at risk is likely to grow. The primary responsibility for ensuring that 
preventive steps are taken to protect homes lies with homeowners and 
state and local governments, not the federal government. Although 
losses from wildland fires made up only 2 percent of all insured 
catastrophic losses from 1983 through 2002, fires can result in 
billions of dollars in damages. 

Once a wildland fire starts, various parties can be mobilized to fight 
it, including federal, state, local, and tribal firefighting agencies 
and, in some cases, the military. The ability to communicate among all 
partiesknown as interoperabilityis essential but, as GAO has reported 
previously, is hampered because different public safety agencies 
operate on different radio frequencies or use incompatible 
communications equipment.

GAO was asked to assess, among other issues, (1) measures that can help 
protect structures from wildland fires, (2) factors affecting use of 
protective measures, and (3) the role technology plays in improving 
firefighting agencies ability to communicate during wildland fires.

What GAO Found:

The two most effective measures for protecting structures from wildland 
fires are: (1) creating and maintaining a buffer, called defensible 
space, from 30 to 100 feet wide around a structure, where vegetation 
and other flammable objects are reduced or eliminated; and (2) using 
fire-resistant roofs and vents. In addition to roofs and vents, other 
technologiessuch as fire-resistant windows and building materials, 
chemical agents, sprinklers, and geographic information systems 
mappingcan help in protecting structures and communities, but they 
play a secondary role.

Although protective measures are available, many property owners have 
not adopted them because of the time or expense involved, competing 
concerns such as aesthetics or privacy, misperceptions about wildland 
fire risks, and lack of awareness of their shared responsibility for 
fire protection. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as 
other organizations, are attempting to increase property owners use of 
protective measures through education, direct monetary assistance, and 
laws requiring such measures. In addition, some insurance companies 
have begun to direct property owners in high-risk areas to take 
protective steps. 

Existing technologies, such as audio switches, can help link 
incompatible communication systems, and new technologies, such as 
software-defined radios, are being developed following common standards 
or with enhanced capabilities to overcome incompatibility barriers. 
Technology alone, however, cannot solve communications problems for 
those responding to wildland fires. Rather, planning and coordination 
among federal, state, and local public safety agencies is needed to 
resolve issues such as which technologies to adopt, cost sharing, 
operating procedures, training, and maintenance. The Department of 
Homeland Security is leading federal efforts to improve communications 
interoperability across all levels of government. In addition to 
federal efforts, several states and local jurisdictions are pursuing 
initiatives to improve communications interoperability.

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-380].

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or Keith 
Rhodes at (202) 512-6412.

[End of Section]

Contents:

Letter:

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

Background:

Results in Brief:

Principal Findings:

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Key to 
Protecting Structures; Other Technologies Can Also Help:

Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Limit the Use of Protective 
Measures for Structures, but Efforts to Increase Their Use Are Under 
Way:

Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve Communications 
Interoperability Requires Better Planning and Coordination:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Chapter 1:

Wildland Fires Threaten Homes in Several Ways; Homeowners and State and 
Local Governments Are Primarily Responsible for Preventive Steps to 
Protect Them:

Multiple Agencies Respond to Wildland Fires and Cannot Always 
Communicate Effectively with One Another:

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Chapter 2:

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Critical to 
Protecting Structures:

Other Technologies Play a Secondary Role:

Chapter 3:

Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Affect Whether Homeowners 
Use Protective Measures:

Education Helps Increase Awareness of Steps Homeowners and Others Can 
Take:

Financial and Other Assistance Encourages Homeowners and Communities to 
Take Action:

State or Local Laws May Require Protective Measures:

Some Insurance Companies Direct Homeowners to Use Protective Measures:

Possible Federal Government Actions to Increase Use of Protective 
Measures:

Chapter 4:

Technologies Can Enhance Communications Interoperability:

Planning and Coordination Are Key to Improving Communications 
Interoperability:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires:

Types of Military Assets Available for Firefighting:

Process for Requesting and Mobilizing Military Assets for Firefighting:

Laws, Agreements, and Policies Governing the Use of Military Assets 
under Federal and State Control:

Military Assets Used for Wildland Firefighting 1988-2003:

Appendix II: List of Participants in the Symposium Convened for GAO by 
the National Academy of Sciences:

Appendix III: Technologies to Protect Structures from Wildland Fires:

Appendix IV: Web Sites with Information on Protecting Homes from 
Wildland Fire:

Appendix V: Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability:

Patchwork Interoperability:

Console-to-Console Patch:

Improved Communication Systems:

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce:

GAO Comments:

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense:

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

GAO Comments:

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

GAO Comments:

Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: Examples of Laws Requiring Protective Measures Adopted by 
Jurisdictions in Five States GAO Visited:

Table 2: Federal Military and MAFFS Assets Used for Wildland 
Firefighting 1988-2003:

Figures:

Figure 1: Ways Wildland Fire Can Threaten a Structure:

Figure 2: Home with Defensible Space:

Figure 3: A Surface Fire:

Figure 4: A Crown Fire:

Figure 5: Burning Home Surrounded by Unburned Vegetation:

Figure 6: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System:

Figure 7: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location 
on the Spectrum:

Figure 8: Home with Defensible Space:

Figure 9: A California Community with Defensible Space That Survived a 
Wildland Fire in 2004:

Figure 10: Roof and Vents:

Figure 11: Fire Experiments in Canada's Northwest Territories:

Figure 12: Firefighter Applying a Chemical Agent to a Home:

Figure 13: GIS Map Showing Levels of Concern in Myakka River District, 
Florida:

Figure 14: Before and After Photos of a Firewise Demonstration Home:

Figure 15: Fuel Break near Roslyn, Washington, Shown after Construction 
and 3 Years Later:

Figure 16: MAFFS Used for Wildland Firefighting:

Figure 17: A Helicopter Using a Water Bucket:

Figure 18: Process for Requesting Military Assistance:

Figure 19: Comparison of Estimated Cost of Common Fire-Resistant Roof-
Covering Materials:

Figure 20: An Audio Switch:

Figure 21: A Crossband Repeater Used to Connect Radios Operating on 
Different Frequency Bands:

Figure 22: Console-to-Console Patch over a Dedicated Link:

Abbreviations:

DHS: Department of Homeland Security:

DOD: Department of Defense:

GIS: geographic information systems:

MAFFS: Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting System:

NAS: National Academy of Sciences:

NICC: National Interagency Coordination Center:

NIFC: National Interagency Fire Center:

SAFECOM: Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program:

UHF: ultrahigh frequency:

VHF: very high frequency:

Letter April 26, 2005:

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
United States Senate:

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Chairman:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers:
Chairman:
The Honorable David Wu:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Mark Udall:
House of Representatives:

Consistent with guidance in the Senate's and House's Fiscal Year 2004 
Legislative Branch Appropriations Reports (Senate Report 108-88 and 
House Report 108-186, respectively), you asked us to conduct an 
assessment of technologies used for protecting structures from and 
improving communications during wildland fires. This report discusses 
measures, including technologies, which can help protect structures 
from wildland fires; factors that affect the use of these protective 
measures; and the role that technology plays in improving firefighting 
agencies' ability to communicate during wildland fires. In addition, 
appendix I discusses the process for using military resources in 
responding to wildland fires.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture, 
Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and the Interior, as well as to 
interested congressional committees. We also will make copies available 
to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at 
no charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
ttp://www.gao.gov.

If you have questions concerning this report, please contact Robin 
Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov] or Keith 
Rhodes at (202) 512-6412 or [Hyperlink, rhodesk@gao.gov].

Signed by:

Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

Keith A. Rhodes:
Chief Technologist:
Director, Center for Technology and Engineering:

[End of section]

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

Since 1984, wildland fires have burned an average of 850 homes each 
year in the United States, according to the National Fire Protection 
Association, but because more people are moving to areas in or near 
fire-prone wildlands, the number of homes at risk is likely to grow. 
Such areas, where structures and other human development meet or 
intermingle with wildlands, are commonly referred to as the wildland-
urban interface. In California alone, 3.2 million homes located in the 
wildland-urban interface are at significant risk from wildland 
fire.[Footnote 1] When a large high-intensity wildland fire burns into 
the wildland-urban interface, it can threaten hundreds of homes at the 
same time and overwhelm available firefighting resources. Homeowners 
and state and local governments have the primary responsibility for 
ensuring that preventive steps are taken to help protect homes from 
wildland fires, but this does not always happen.[Footnote 2] While the 
federal government does not have a primary responsibility, it has 
played a role through efforts to educate and assist communities in 
taking preventive steps. Although wildland fires made up only 2 percent 
of all insured catastrophic losses from 1983 through 2002, the damage 
from these fires can be costly. For example, wildland fires in Southern 
California in 2003 caused estimated insured losses of more than $2 
billion.

Once a wildland fire starts, many different groups can be mobilized to 
fight it, including the Forest Service (within the Department of 
Agriculture); land management agencies in the Department of the 
Interior; state forestry agencies; local fire departments; private 
contract firefighting crews; and, in some cases, the military. With 
many agencies working together, effective communication is essential to 
fight the fires successfully and to ensure firefighter safety. The 
ability to communicate among all parties is known as communications 
interoperability. However, as GAO previously reported, personnel from 
firefighting and other public safety agencies responding to a fire have 
had problems communicating with one another because agencies operate on 
different radio frequencies or use different and, sometimes 
incompatible, communications equipment.[Footnote 3]

In this context, GAO's review focused on the following issues: (1) 
measures that can help protect structures from wildland fires, (2) 
factors affecting the use of these protective measures, and (3) the 
role that technology plays in improving firefighting agencies' ability 
to communicate during wildland fires. This report does not discuss fire 
suppression technologies because it was outside the scope of the study. 
In addition, GAO was asked to describe the process for using military 
resources in responding to wildland fires, and this information appears 
in appendix I.

To obtain information on technologies and other ways for protecting 
structures from wildland fires, on the factors affecting the use of 
these measures, and on technologies and other ways for improving 
communications among agencies fighting wildland fires, GAO worked with 
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a panel of experts 
for a 2-day symposium in August 2004. GAO also visited six states 
(California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington) and 
met with state and local firefighting or other officials to discuss 
efforts to protect structures and improve communications when 
responding to fires, as well as the use of military assistance for 
firefighting. We selected these states to evaluate a variety of 
approaches used in different regions of the country with disparate 
population densities and with varied terrain and vegetation, which can 
affect the severity of wildland fires. In addition, GAO reviewed 
studies and pertinent documents and interviewed officials with federal, 
state, and local agencies and organizations involved in fire research, 
prevention, and suppression. These organizations included the Forest 
Service, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Homeland Security, and the National Fire Protection 
Association. Chapter 1 describes GAO's complete scope and methodology.

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards from May 2004 to April 2005.

Background:

On average, 100,000 wildland fires are reported each year. Firefighting 
agencies succeed in suppressing more than 95 percent of these fires 
during initial suppression efforts. But fires that escape initial 
suppression can grow into large, high-intensity fires burning hundreds 
of thousands of acres and destroying homes. Under adverse weather and 
fuel conditions, wildland fires can be difficult to suppress or may be 
too dangerous to suppress until weather conditions change. Even when 
firefighters attempt fire suppression, a high-intensity fire in the 
wildland-urban interface may threaten hundreds of homes simultaneously 
and overwhelm the firefighting resources available to protect them, as 
happened during fires in Southern California in 2003. From 2000 through 
2003, these suppression efforts cost federal agencies an average of 
more than $1.3 billion annually.[Footnote 4]

Recognizing that during severe wildland fires, suppression efforts 
alone cannot protect all homes threatened by wildland fire, 
firefighting agencies and others are increasing their emphasis on 
preventive approaches that help reduce the chance that wildland fires 
will ignite homes and other structures. Because the vast majority of 
structures damaged or destroyed by wildland fires are located on 
private property, the primary responsibility for taking adequate steps 
to minimize or prevent damage from a wildland fire rests with the 
property owner and with state and local governments that can establish 
building requirements and land-use restrictions.

To be able to take effective steps to minimize or prevent damage 
requires an understanding of the different types of wildland fire and 
how they can ignite homes.

* Surface fires burn vegetation or other fuels near the surface of the 
ground, such as shrubs, fallen leaves, small branches, and roots.

* Crown fires burn the tops, or crowns, of trees. Crown fires normally 
begin as surface fires and move up the trees by burning "ladder fuel," 
such as nearby shrubs or low tree branches.

* Spot fires are new fires that are started away from the main fire by 
embers known as "firebrands." Depending on wind conditions, firebrands 
can be carried a mile or more away from an existing fire.

Each type of wildland fire threatens structures in different ways. 
Surface fires can ignite a home or other building by burning nearby 
vegetation and eventually igniting flammable portions of it, including 
exterior walls or siding; attached structures, such as a fence or deck; 
or other flammable materials close by, such as firewood or patio 
furniture. Crown fires place homes at risk because they create intense 
heat, which can ignite portions of structures even without direct 
contact from flames. Firebrands can ignite a structure by landing on 
the roof or by entering a vent or other opening. Figure 1 illustrates 
how each type of fire can take advantage of a structure's 
vulnerabilities and those of its immediate surroundings.

Figure 1: Ways Wildland Fire Can Threaten a Structure:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In responding to a wildland fire, federal, state, local, and tribal 
firefighting agencies, as well as contractors or the military, may 
provide personnel and equipment. To help ensure both effective and safe 
firefighting efforts, firefighters from different agencies need to be 
able to communicate with one another; that is, they need communications 
interoperability. During early firefighting efforts, if a number of 
different firefighting agencies respond to the fire, communications 
interoperability can become more difficult because these agencies may 
operate in different bands of the radio frequency spectrum and use 
equipment that is incompatible.[Footnote 5]

Results in Brief:

The two most effective measures for protecting structures from wildland 
fires are: (1) creating and maintaining a buffer around a structure--
often called defensible space--by eliminating or reducing trees, 
shrubs, and other flammable objects within an area from 30 to 100 feet 
around the structure and (2) using fire-resistant roofs and vents. 
Analysis of past fires and experimental research have shown that 
reducing vegetation and other flammable objects within a radius of 30 
to 100 feet around a structure, depending on the terrain and 
vegetation, removes fuels that could bring fire in contact with the 
structure's walls and can reduce heat generated by a crown fire, which 
could otherwise damage the structure. Using currently available fire-
resistant roof-covering materials, such as asphalt composition shingles 
rather than untreated wood shingles and screening vents and other 
openings reduces the likelihood of firebrands igniting a structure. 
Other technologies can also help in protecting structures and 
communities, but they play a secondary role. Fire-resistant windows, 
building materials, and sprinklers that help reduce vulnerability to 
damage from wildland fire, and technologies such as chemical agents 
(gels and foams) that coat structures with a temporary protective 
layer, can also assist in protecting individual homes. In addition, 
mapping technologies play a supporting role in reducing risk to entire 
communities. For example, some states and communities use geographic 
information systems (GIS) mapping to identify and examine the location 
of structures, fuel distribution, and topography to protect high-risk 
areas and assist with fire prevention efforts. Two emerging 
technologies, fire behavior modeling and automated fire detection 
systems, may also prove useful in the future to protect communities 
from wildland fires.

Although protective measures are available, many homeowners do not use 
them for a number of reasons--including the time or expense involved, 
competing concerns, misperceptions about how wildland fires ignite 
structures, and not being aware of their shared responsibility for fire 
protection--but efforts to increase their use are under way. Fire 
officials and researchers have reported that some homeowners are 
discouraged by the time and expense of undertaking protective measures 
or are reluctant to do so because of concerns over aesthetics or 
privacy. Officials also said that some homeowners do not recognize the 
effectiveness of protective measures, such as creating defensible 
space. Numerous organizations--including federal, state, and local 
government agencies and nongovernmental organizations--are working to 
increase the use of measures to protect structures. Some of these 
efforts seek to increase the voluntary use of protective measures, such 
as the Firewise Communities program, sponsored by federal agencies and 
other organizations, that educates homeowners about steps they can 
take. Other programs directly assist homeowners in creating defensible 
space. Some jurisdictions have begun to require the use of protective 
measures. For instance, some state and local governments have adopted 
laws requiring that homeowners create defensible space around their 
homes or that homebuilders construct homes and design communities to 
reduce the risk from wildland fire. Fire officials told GAO, however, 
that such laws are not always enforced, limiting their effectiveness. 
Finally, while the insurance industry has not placed a high priority on 
this issue in the past, some insurance companies direct homeowners in 
high-risk areas to create defensible space.

While a variety of communications technologies exist to aid 
interoperability in the short-term--by linking incompatible 
communication systems used by firefighting and other public safety 
agencies, commonly called patchwork interoperability--and other 
technologies are under development to upgrade communications systems to 
provide increased interoperability in the long term, technology alone 
cannot solve the interoperability problem. Effective adoption of any of 
these technologies, whether patchwork solutions, such as audio switches 
or crossband repeaters, to allow agencies to improve interoperability 
using existing radio systems, or longer-term system upgrades with 
radios meeting common standards or utilizing emerging technology, such 
as software-defined radios, requires planning and coordination among 
federal, state, and local agencies that work together to respond to 
wildland fires and other emergencies. Without effective planning and 
coordination, new investments in communications equipment or 
infrastructure may not improve communications interoperability among 
agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is leading federal 
efforts to improve communications interoperability across all levels of 
government but, as GAO reported in April 2004, has made limited 
progress toward achieving interoperability among first responders. 
Further, GAO reported in July 2004 that DHS does not have the 
nationwide data necessary to assess interoperability. In that report, 
GAO recommended that DHS take a variety of actions, including 
developing a nationwide database and common terminology for public 
safety interoperability communications channels, to enhance 
communications interoperability nationwide. DHS agreed with those 
recommendations. According to a DHS official, as of March 2005, work is 
under way to develop baseline data. In addition to federal efforts, 
several states and local jurisdictions are pursuing initiatives to 
improve communications interoperability.

Principal Findings:

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Key to 
Protecting Structures; Other Technologies Can Also Help:

Managing vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable objects 
within 30 to 100 feet[Footnote 6] of a structure is a key protective 
measure. Creating such defensible space offers protection by breaking 
up continuous fuels that could otherwise allow a surface fire to 
contact and ignite a structure (see fig. 2). Defensible space also 
offers protection against crown fires. Reducing the density of large 
trees around structures decreases the intensity of heat from a fire, 
thus preventing or reducing damage to structures. Analysis of homes 
burned during wildland fires has also shown defensible space to be a 
key determinant of whether a home survives. For instance, the 1981 
Atlas Peak Fire in California damaged or destroyed 91 out of 111 
structures that lacked adequate defensible space but only 5 structures 
out of 111 that had it. A series of experiments has shown that 
defensible space can effectively reduce damage to structures from 
intense crown fires. During these experiments, walls located 33 feet 
from the crown fires ignited during three of the seven experimental 
fires and significantly scorched the other four cases. No ignition or 
observable damage occurred on walls located 66 feet from these crown 
fires.

Figure 2: Home with Defensible Space:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The use of fire-resistant roofs and vents is also important in 
protecting structures from wildland fires. Many structures are damaged 
or destroyed by firebrands, which may have traveled a mile or more from 
the main fire. Fire-resistant roofing materials, such as asphalt 
composition instead of untreated wood shingles, can reduce the risk 
that these firebrands will ignite a roof, and vents can be screened 
with mesh to prevent firebrands from entering and igniting attics. 
Combining fire-resistant roofs and vents with the creation of 
defensible space is particularly effective because together these 
measures reduce the risk from surface fires, crown fires, and 
firebrands. Studies of two California fires--the 1961 Belair-Brentwood 
Fire and the 1990 Painted Cave Fire--showed that homes with a 
nonflammable roof and at least 30 feet of vegetation clearance had more 
than an 85 percent chance of surviving without active fire protection 
from firefighters. More recently, California officials attributed one 
county's success in averting home losses during the 2003 Simi Fire to 
county laws requiring both fire-resistant roofs and defensible space.

Other technologies play a secondary role in protecting structures from 
wildland fires. Installing double-paned windows and using fire-
resistant materials for siding, for instance, can help reduce risk to 
structures. Homeowners can obtain additional protection by applying 
chemical agents, such as gels and foams, to coat the structure with a 
water-retaining protective layer before a fire arrives. Mapping 
technologies are also available to improve protection of communities. 
Florida, for example, has used GIS technology to map and assess the 
wildland fire risk faced by communities in the wildland-urban 
interface. Finally, fire officials told GAO that emerging technologies, 
such as fire behavior modeling and automated detection systems, may 
prove useful in the future for planning and protecting communities from 
wildland fires.

Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Limit the Use of Protective 
Measures for Structures, but Efforts to Increase Their Use Are Under 
Way:

Many homeowners have not used protective measures--such as creating and 
maintaining defensible space--because of the time or expense involved 
in doing so. State and local fire officials estimate that the price of 
creating defensible space can range from negligible, in cases where 
homeowners perform the work themselves, to $2,000 or more. Moreover, 
defensible space needs to be maintained, resulting in additional effort 
or expense in the future. Competing concerns also influence the use of 
protective measures. For example, although modifying landscaping to 
create defensible space has proven to be a key element in protecting 
structures from wildland fire, officials and researchers have reported 
that some homeowners are more concerned about the effect landscaping 
has on the appearance of their property, their privacy, and wildlife 
habitat. Defensible space, however, can be created in a manner that 
alleviates many of these concerns. Leaving thicker vegetation away from 
a structure and pruning plants that remain close to the structure, for 
instance, can help protect structures from wildland fire and allow them 
to still be attractive and provide privacy and wildlife habitat.

Misconceptions about fire behavior and the effectiveness of protective 
measures can also influence the use of steps to protect structures from 
wildland fires. Fire officials and researchers told GAO that some 
homeowners do not recognize that a structure and its surroundings 
constitute fuel that contributes to the spread of wildland fire or 
understand exactly how a wildland fire ignites structures and, 
therefore, may not recognize they can take effective steps to reduce 
their risk. For example, an expert at the symposium convened for GAO by 
NAS said many homeowners think of wildland fires as intense crown fires 
and do not believe that any action they take can protect their homes. 
Officials said that few people realize that reducing tree density close 
to a structure can return a wildland fire to the ground, where it is 
much easier to keep away from structures, or that using fire-resistant 
roofs and screening attic vents can reduce the risk of firebrands 
igniting homes. Finally, homeowners may not use protective measures 
because they believe that fire officials are responsible for protecting 
their homes and do not recognize that they share in this responsibility.

Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as other organizations, are 
taking a variety of steps intended to increase the creation of 
defensible space and the use of fire-resistant roofs and vents. 
Government agencies and other organizations, for instance, are 
educating people about the effectiveness of simple steps they can take 
to reduce the risk to structures. Such efforts also demonstrate that 
defensible space can be attractive, provide privacy, and improve 
wildlife habitat. In addition to education, some federal, state, and 
local agencies are directly assisting homeowners in creating defensible 
space, by providing equipment or financial assistance to reduce fuels 
near structures. In some cases, government agencies are attempting to 
further decrease the risk to structures by removing or reducing 
vegetation in areas immediately adjacent to entire communities. 
Federal, state, and local agencies, for example, sponsored a project 
that thinned vegetation to reduce fuels surrounding the town of Roslyn, 
Washington.

Some state and local governments have adopted laws that require 
maintaining defensible space around structures or the use of fire-
resistant building materials. For example, California requires the 
creation and maintenance of defensible space around homes and the use 
of fire-resistant roofing materials in certain at-risk areas. Officials 
of one county GAO visited attributed the relatively few houses damaged 
by the 2003 Southern California fires in their county, in part, to its 
adoption and enforcement of laws requiring defensible space and the use 
of fire-resistant building materials. Not all states or localities at 
risk of wildland fire, however, have required such steps. Some state 
and local officials told GAO that laws had not been adopted because 
homeowners and developers resisted them. Symposium experts recognized 
this resistance but emphasized the importance of such state and local 
laws. Further, to be effective, laws that have been adopted must be 
enforced, but this does not always happen. Finally, while the insurance 
industry historically has not placed a high priority on wildland fire 
issues because of relatively low losses in comparison with other 
hazards, some insurance companies direct homeowners in high-risk areas 
to create defensible space.

Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve Communications 
Interoperability Requires Better Planning and Coordination:

Technologies are available or under development to help improve 
communications interoperability so that personnel from different public 
safety agencies responding to a fire can communicate effectively. 
Available technologies include short-term, or patchwork, 
interoperability solutions to help connect disparate radio systems and 
allow agencies to use existing communications equipment. One such 
device is an audio switch that can translate voice or data from one 
system and make it available and understandable to all other connected 
communications systems. Other technologies, such as software-defined 
radios that can transmit and receive a wide range of frequencies, are 
being developed with enhanced capabilities to overcome interoperability 
barriers.

Effective adoption of any of these technologies, however, requires 
planning and coordination among federal, state, and local agencies that 
work together to respond to emergencies, including wildland fires, to 
determine the best way to overcome barriers to interoperability. For 
example, neighboring jurisdictions might choose an interconnection 
device, such as an audio switch, as a way to improve their 
communications. To effectively employ the device, they must also 
jointly decide how to share its cost, ownership, and management; agree 
on the operating procedures for when and how to deploy it; and train 
individuals to configure, maintain, and use it. Without such planning 
and coordination, new investments in communications equipment or 
infrastructure may not improve the effectiveness of communications 
among agencies. At the federal level, the Wireless Public Safety 
Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM) within the Department of 
Homeland Security is working on a number of initiatives to help state, 
local, and tribal public safety agencies improve interoperability. An 
April 2004 GAO report found that limited progress had been made in 
addressing SAFECOM's overall objective of achieving communications 
interoperability among entities at all levels of government.[Footnote 
7] Further, a July 2004 GAO report found that nationwide data needed to 
address the issue of interoperability were not available.[Footnote 8] 
In that report, GAO recommended, among other things, that DHS continue 
to develop a nationwide database and common terminology for public 
safety interoperability communications channels and assess 
interoperability in specific locations against defined requirements. 
DHS agreed with these recommendations. In January 2005, SAFECOM awarded 
a contract to develop baseline information on the state of 
interoperability nationwide. In addition to federal efforts, several 
states and some neighboring local jurisdiction are working to improve 
interoperability.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and the Interior. 
The Forest Service, responding for the Department of Agriculture, and 
the Department of Defense concurred with our report. The Departments of 
Commerce, Homeland Security, and the Interior generally agreed with our 
findings but provided technical clarifications on the draft that we 
incorporated into the report where appropriate. Copies of the written 
comments from the departments, and our response to them, appear in 
appendixes VI through X. In addition, we provided copies to the panel 
of experts that participated in a 2-day symposium convened for GAO by 
NAS in August 2004. We have incorporated technical and other comments 
provided by the panelists, as appropriate.

If you have questions about this report, please contact Robin Nazzaro 
at (202) 512-3841 or [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov] or Keith Rhodes at 
(202) 512-6412 or [Hyperlink, rhodesk@gao.gov]. Major contributors to 
this report are listed in appendix XI.

[End of section]

Chapter 1: Introduction:

Fire is a natural process that plays an important role in maintaining 
the health of many forest and grassland ecosystems, but wildland fire 
can also endanger the homes and lives of people living in or near 
wildlands. Areas where structures and other human development meet or 
intermingle with undeveloped wildland are commonly referred to as the 
wildland-urban interface. Forest Service and university researchers 
estimate that more than 42 million homes in the lower 48 states are 
located in such areas, though the risk from wildland fire in these 
areas varies widely. When wildland fires threaten homes, personnel and 
equipment from federal, state, local, or tribal firefighting 
organizations, as well as contractors or the military, may be mobilized 
for fire suppression. Effective communication among firefighters and 
other public safety personnel, primarily using handheld portable radios 
and mobile radios in vehicles, is needed to ensure safe and successful 
firefighting efforts.

Wildland Fires Threaten Homes in Several Ways; Homeowners and State and 
Local Governments Are Primarily Responsible for Preventive Steps to 
Protect Them:

Although people choosing to live near wildlands may enjoy many benefits 
from their location, they also run the risk that their homes may be 
damaged or destroyed by a wildland fire. Wildland fires have destroyed 
an average of 850 homes per year since 1984, according to a National 
Fire Protection Association official. However, losses since 2000 have 
risen to an average of 1,100 homes annually. These losses occurred in 
many states throughout the nation, including Arizona, California, 
Florida, and New Mexico, although California has suffered the highest 
losses overall. Losing homes to wildland fires has long been a problem. 
Severe fires across the northern United States in 1910 resulted in the 
destruction of entire towns and, in California, homes have been 
destroyed in nearly every decade since 1930. The problem is not limited 
to the United States; wildland fires have damaged or destroyed homes in 
other countries as well, including Australia, Canada, and France. Most 
remote wildland fires are ignited by lightning; and humans, 
intentionally or unintentionally, start the rest.

Fire requires three elements--oxygen, heat, and fuel--to ignite and 
continue burning. Once a fire has begun, a number of factors--such as 
terrain, weather, and the type of nearby vegetation or other fuels, 
including structures--influence how fast and how intensely the fire 
spreads. For example, fire can burn very rapidly up a steep slope. 
Adverse weather conditions--especially hot, dry weather with high 
winds--together with adequate fuels can turn a low-intensity fire into 
a high-intensity fire that firefighters may be unable to control until 
the weather changes. Any combustible object in a fire's path, including 
homes and other structures, can fuel a wildland fire and sustain it. If 
any one of these three elements is removed, however--such as when 
firefighters remove vegetation or other fuels from a strip of land near 
a wildland fire, called a fire break--a fire will normally become less 
intense and eventually die out.

Wildland fires can threaten homes or other structures in several ways:

* Surface fires burn vegetation or other fuels near the surface of the 
ground, such as shrubs, fallen leaves, small branches, and roots (see 
fig. 3). These fires can ignite a home by burning nearby vegetation and 
eventually igniting flammable portions of it, including exterior walls 
or siding; attached structures, such as a fence or deck; or other 
flammable materials, such as firewood or patio furniture. (In the 
electronic version of this report, a video clip illustrating surface 
fire is available at h [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/media/video/
d05380v1.mpg.] ttp://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v1.mpg.)

Figure 3: A Surface Fire:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* Crown fires burn the tops, or crowns, of trees. Crown fires normally 
begin as surface fires and move up the trees by burning "ladder fuel," 
such as nearby shrubs or low tree branches. Crown fires place homes at 
risk because they create intense heat, which can ignite portions of 
structures, if flames are within approximately 100 feet of the 
structure, even without direct contact. Figure 4 shows a crown fire 
burning in trees. (In the electronic version of this report, a video 
clip illustrating crown fire created in an experiment in the Northwest 
Territories of Canada is available at h [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/
media/video/d053802.mpg.] ttp://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v2.mpg.)

Figure 4: A Crown Fire:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* Spot fires are started by embers, or firebrands, that can be carried 
a mile or more away from the main fire, depending on wind conditions. 
Firebrands can ignite a structure by landing on the roof or by entering 
a vent or other opening. Firebrands can ignite many homes and 
surrounding vegetation simultaneously, increasing the complexity of 
firefighting efforts. (In the electronic version of this report, a 
video clip illustrating a cloud of firebrands is available at h 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v3.mpg.]

Homes can be more flammable than the trees, shrubs, or other vegetation 
surrounding them (see fig. 5).

Figure 5: Burning Home Surrounded by Unburned Vegetation:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Wildland fires can cause extensive and costly damage, but when compared 
with losses from other natural disasters or even other residential 
fires, losses from wildland fires are relatively low. From 1983 through 
2002, costs and damage from wildland fires in the United States 
exceeded $1 billion in 2 years and $2 billion in 3 years.[Footnote 9] 
During this same 20-year period, however, wildland fires accounted for 
only about 2 percent of total insured losses from all natural 
disasters.[Footnote 10] In contrast, tornadoes accounted for 32 percent 
of total insured losses and hurricanes for 28 percent. In 2003, severe 
fires in Southern California destroyed more than 3,600 homes, with 
total damages estimated at more than $2 billion but, in comparison, 
hurricanes in the Southeast in 2004 damaged an estimated one in five 
homes in Florida, with estimated total damages of $42 billion. Further, 
houses damaged or destroyed by wildland fires accounted for less than 1 
percent of the estimated 400,000 residential fires that occurred 
annually from 1994 through 1998.[Footnote 11]

Losses from wildland fire could increase in the future, as more people 
move to wildland-urban interface areas. Census Bureau data for 2000 
through 2004 indicate that those states with the largest percentage 
increases in population growth are in the West and South, including 
Arizona, California, and Florida, where many wildland fires occur. 
Officials from California, Florida, and New Mexico told us that the 
wildland-urban interface areas in their states have grown significantly 
in recent years, and the growth is expected to continue. In California, 
an estimated 4.9 million of the state's 12 million housing units are 
located in this area, and 3.2 million of these are at significant risk 
from wildland fire.[Footnote 12]

Addressing threats from wildland fires is a shared responsibility. 
However, homeowners and state and local governments have the primary 
responsibility for ensuring that preventive steps are taken to help 
protect homes from wildland fires. While the federal government does 
not have a primary responsibility, it has played a role through its 
efforts to educate and assist communities in taking preventive steps. 
Because the vast majority of structures damaged or destroyed by 
wildland fires are located on private property, much of the 
responsibility for taking adequate steps to minimize or prevent damage 
from wildland fire rests with property owners. State and local 
governments, as well as the federal government and nongovernmental 
groups, help to educate homeowners and others about wildland fire and 
ways to minimize or prevent property damage. State and local officials 
also can establish and enforce land-use restrictions and laws that 
require defensible space and fire-resistant building materials. 
Finally, homebuilders choose the building materials and construction 
methods used, in accordance with local building codes, when building a 
home, and insurance companies reimburse their clients for losses, 
including those from wildland fires.

Multiple Agencies Respond to Wildland Fires and Cannot Always 
Communicate Effectively with One Another:

Once a wildland fire starts, many different agencies assist in the 
efforts to manage or suppress it. To fight fires, the United States 
uses an interagency system whereby needed personnel, equipment, 
aircraft, and supplies are ordered through a three-tiered--local, 
regional, and national--dispatching system. Federal, state, local, and 
tribal government agencies; private contractors; and, in some cases, 
the military, supply firefighting personnel and equipment, which is 
coordinated through various dispatch centers. The National Interagency 
Coordination Center (NICC) in Boise, Idaho, is the primary center for 
coordinating and mobilizing wildland firefighting resources nationwide. 
NICC is also responsible for coordinating with the Department of 
Defense (DOD) if military assets are needed. When requests exceed 
available resources, fires are prioritized, with those threatening 
lives and property receiving higher priority for resources. Although 
this interagency response system is an effective way to leverage 
limited firefighting resources, communications challenges may arise 
because the various agencies responding to a fire may communicate over 
different radio frequency bands or with incompatible communications 
equipment. Problems with communications interoperability occur 
primarily during the early efforts to suppress the fire, called the 
initial and extended attack phases, before national and state caches of 
interoperable radios can be deployed to the incident.

Land mobile radio systems are the primary means of communication among 
public safety personnel operating in a single area. These systems 
consist of a regularly interacting set of components including a base 
station, which controls the transmission and reception of audio signals 
among radios; mobile radios in vehicles and handheld portable radios 
carried by emergency personnel; and stations, known as 
repeaters,[Footnote 13] which relay radio signals (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio Communication System:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Radio signals travel through space in the form of waves. These waves 
vary in length, and each wavelength is associated with a particular 
radio frequency.[Footnote 14] Radio frequencies are grouped into bands. 
Of the more than 450 frequency bands in the radio spectrum, 
10,[Footnote 15] scattered across the spectrum, are allocated to public 
safety agencies (see fig. 7). The radio spectrum is finite, however, 
and additional frequencies cannot be added or created. As a result, 
efforts are increasing to make more efficient use of existing spectrum, 
including moving toward narrowband radios, which use channels 12.5 kHz 
wide, in contrast to the channels 25 kHz wide used by wideband 
radios.[Footnote 16]

Figure 7: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their Location 
on the Spectrum:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Federal firefighting agencies primarily operate in the VHF band 
(162-174 MHz) and the UHF band (406-420 MHz). State and local public 
safety agencies operate in one or more of the bands depending on their 
particular needs and circumstances.

[End of figure]

A firefighting or public safety agency typically uses a radio frequency 
band appropriate for its locale, either rural or urban. Bands at the 
lower end of the radio spectrum, such as VHF (very high frequency), 
work well in rural areas where radio signals can travel long distances 
without obstruction from buildings or other structures. Federal 
firefighting agencies, such as the Forest Service, and many state 
firefighting agencies operate radios in the VHF band. In urban areas, 
firefighting and other public safety agencies may operate radios on 
higher frequencies, such as those in the UHF (ultrahigh frequency) or 
800 MHz bands, because these frequencies can penetrate buildings and 
provide better communications capabilities for an urban setting. As we 
previously reported, when federal, state, and local emergency response 
agencies work together, for example to fight a fire in the wildland-
urban interface, they may not be able to communicate with one another 
because they operate in different bands along the radio frequency 
spectrum.

In addition to operating on different frequency bands, some agencies 
use incompatible communications systems that are not interoperable. 
Various reports have identified problems with agencies using aging or 
incompatible communications systems as a factor hampering 
communications between public safety agencies. Incompatible 
communications systems exist, in part, because some manufacturers make 
radio equipment based on their own proprietary standards that are not 
always compatible with those of other manufacturers. While there has 
been progress in developing national standards to help ensure 
interoperability, lack of funding can affect an agency's ability to 
upgrade to newer communications systems based on these standards. The 
lack of communications interoperability among firefighting and other 
first-responder agencies can impair their ability to respond to 
emergencies quickly and safely, and cost lives among responders and 
those they are trying to assist.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Our review addressed the following objectives: (1) measures that can 
help protect structures from wildland fires, (2) factors that affect 
the use of these protective measures, and (3) the role that technology 
plays in improving firefighting agencies' ability to communicate during 
wildland fires. In addition, we were asked to describe the process for 
using military resources in responding to wildland fires.

To address the first three of these objectives, as detailed below, we 
contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a 
symposium of experts and we visited six states. In addition, we 
reviewed studies and other pertinent documents and conducted interviews 
with a broad range of individuals and organizations to obtain 
information to address individual objectives.

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards from May 2004 to April 2005.

Symposium Convened for GAO by the National Academy of Sciences:

We worked with NAS to convene a panel of experts for a 2-day symposium 
in August 2004.[Footnote 17] This symposium addressed the role of 
technology and other measures to help protect structures from wildland 
fires and the factors affecting their use. It also addressed 
technologies for improving communications among agencies fighting 
wildland fires. Twenty-five experts participated in the symposium. (See 
app. II for a list of participants.) Federal experts included 
scientists or specialists in fire behavior, building and materials 
technologies, and communications technologies. Other experts included 
county and city firefighting officials, university researchers 
specializing in behavioral sciences or risk management, and specialists 
on building codes and other fire protection measures.

Site Visits to Six States:

To obtain additional information on our objectives and to identify 
different approaches that regions, states, or communities are taking to 
address the risk to structures from wildland fire, interoperability of 
communications, or use of military resources, we conducted site visits 
to six states: California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and 
Washington. We selected these states to evaluate a variety of 
approaches used in different regions of the country with disparate 
population densities and varied terrain and vegetation, which can 
affect the severity of wildland fires. At each location, we reviewed 
documents and interviewed officials to discuss: (1) the steps that can 
be taken to protect structures from wildland fires, including efforts 
that encourage the voluntary use of these steps and those requiring 
their use; (2) the factors affecting the use of these steps; and (3) 
the status of communications interoperability and efforts being made to 
address communications difficulties. At each location, we also 
interviewed state and local officials, including fire managers or 
firefighters, fire marshals, emergency management personnel, elected 
officials, and other government officials such as land-use planners. In 
addition, we interviewed homeowners in several of the visited states to 
obtain their perspective on the effectiveness of measures to protect 
structures from wildland fires and the efforts to increase use of such 
measures.

Additional Efforts to Address Individual Objectives:

To gather information on the measures that can help protect structures 
from wildland fires, we reviewed studies and pertinent documents and 
interviewed officials with federal agencies involved in fire research, 
building construction and materials design and research, fire 
prevention efforts, and fire suppression. Our sources included the 
Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture and several of its 
research stations, including the Fire Science Laboratory, the Missoula 
Technology and Development Center, and the Forest Products Laboratory; 
the Department of the Interior, including the Bureau of Land 
Management; the National Institute of Standards and Technology within 
the Department of Commerce; and the National Interagency Fire Center in 
Boise, Idaho. We also interviewed representatives from other 
organizations including the Institute for Business and Home Safety, the 
National Fire Protection Association, and the National Association of 
Homebuilders. The scope of our study included technologies that could 
be incorporated into structures or into communities to help them better 
withstand wildland fires, but it did not include technologies for the 
suppression of wildland fires.

To identify factors affecting the use of protective measures and the 
steps being taken to increase their use, we carried out a number of 
activities. First, because the primary national effort to reduce fire 
risk to structures is the Firewise Communities program, we reviewed 
Firewise Communities program documents and interviewed program 
officials and a range of program participants. We also attended a 2004 
national Firewise Communities conference in Denver, Colorado, which 
addressed current efforts and remaining challenges, and a 2004 Forest 
Service conference in Boise, Idaho, which addressed wildland fire 
issues. Second, we reviewed government and other research studies 
examining the use of protective measures and the effectiveness of 
programs designed to increase their use. Third, to expand the 
geographic coverage of our study and to identify broader concerns, we 
reviewed documents or interviewed officials from federal firefighting 
agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department 
of Homeland Security, the National Association of Counties, and the 
Western Governors' Association. Finally, to obtain information on the 
role of the insurance industry in protecting structures from wildland 
fires, we interviewed officials from the Insurances Services 
Office,[Footnote 18] the California FAIR plan program,[Footnote 19] the 
Personal Insurance Federation of California,[Footnote 20] state 
insurance agencies from several states, and from two insurance 
companies.

To gather information on the role that technology plays in improving 
firefighting agencies' ability to communicate during wildland fires, we 
reviewed reports including previous GAO reports on interoperability and 
radio spectrum management, National Task Force on Interoperability 
reports, and Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications 
Program (SAFECOM)[Footnote 21] reports. We also interviewed officials 
from federal agencies involved in firefighting, including the Forest 
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Interagency 
Communications Center at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, 
Idaho, and federal agencies involved in communications technologies and 
related issues, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Homeland Defense and the Naval Research Laboratory, both 
within the Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency and the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, both 
within the Department of Homeland Security. We obtained information on 
available communications technologies from several manufacturers.

To obtain information on the use of military resources, we reviewed 
relevant legislation, agreements between DOD and federal or state 
firefighting agencies, policies, and procedures governing the use of 
military resources to fight wildland fires. We also reviewed reports 
evaluating the use of military resources including a 2004 Office of 
Management and Budget report and reports on the Southern California 
fires of 2003. We spoke with officials from the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and fire or military 
officials in California, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington to 
obtain their perspectives on the use of military resources to assist 
wildland fire suppression efforts in those states.

[End of section]

Chapter 2: Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Key 
to Protecting Structures; Other Technologies Can Also Help:

Creating and maintaining defensible space and using fire-resistant 
roofs and vents are critical to protecting structures from wildland 
fires. Analysis of past fires and research experiments have shown that 
reducing vegetation and other flammable materials within a radius of 30 
to 100 feet[Footnote 22] around a structure removes fuels that could 
bring a surface fire in contact with the structure's walls and can 
reduce heat generated by a crown fire that could otherwise damage the 
structure. Although defensible space can reduce the risk from surface 
and crown fires, it cannot prevent firebrands from igniting the roof or 
entering an opening and igniting a structure. Using fire-resistant roof-
covering materials, which inhibit ignition, and screening exterior 
vents and other openings can help protect against firebrands and 
provide another important level of protection. Several other 
technologies can supplement defensible space and fire-resistant roofs 
and vents. Some of these technologies, like chemical agents, help 
protect individual structures, while others, like geographic 
information systems, help protect communities.

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Critical to 
Protecting Structures:

Managing vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable materials 
within 30 to 100 feet of a structure creates a defensible space that 
substantially reduces the likelihood that a wildland fire will damage 
or destroy the structure. Because wildland-urban interface fires may 
threaten hundreds of homes simultaneously and overwhelm the 
firefighting resources available to protect them, the goal of 
defensible space is to protect a structure from wildland fire without 
requiring fire suppression.[Footnote 23] Defensible space offers 
protection by breaking up continuous fuels (including plants, leaves, 
needles, or debris) that could otherwise allow a surface fire to 
contact the structure and ignite it. Defensible space also helps 
protect against crown fires. Reducing the density of large trees around 
a structure decreases the heat intensity of any nearby fire, thus 
helping to prevent structures from igniting.

Defensible space begins at the outer limit of any exterior component of 
a structure and does not require that all trees and plants be 
eliminated (see fig. 8). The 30 to 100 feet of defensible space extends 
beyond exterior components such as decks, fences, or porches and, under 
certain conditions, homeowners may keep some plants or trees adjacent 
to their homes. Plants within the 30-to-100-foot radius should be 
carefully spaced and not highly flammable. Trees should have their 
lower branches removed, with no branches hanging over the roof. In 
addition, moving other flammable materials, such as firewood piles and 
flammable outdoor furniture, away from the structure also contributes 
to defensible space.

Figure 8: Home with Defensible Space:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

When individual homeowners do not own 30 to 100 feet of property around 
their homes, as is the case in many subdivisions, homeowners may need 
to cooperate with neighbors or adjacent property owners to ensure that 
adequate defensible space is created and maintained across multiple 
properties. Figure 9 shows a subdivision in California that managed 
vegetation between homes and around the community and survived a 
wildland fire in 2004.

Figure 9: A California Community with Defensible Space That Survived a 
Wildland Fire in 2004:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In addition to creating and maintaining defensible space, effective 
wildland fire protection calls for both roofing with fire-resistant 
materials and screening exterior vents or openings to keep out 
firebrands, which can travel a mile or more through the air. Although 
defensible space can reduce the risk from crown and surface fires, it 
cannot prevent firebrands from entering and igniting a structure's 
highly flammable interior.

Roofs can be made fire-resistant by using appropriate protective 
covering materials, either when building new homes or retrofitting or 
remodeling existing homes. Materials such as asphalt composition, clay, 
concrete, metal, slate, treated wood products, and even synthetics, 
such as rubber, can all be used to achieve a "class A" roof.[Footnote 
24] Some of these protective covering materials will not ignite even on 
direct contact with fire. These fire-resistant covering materials are 
available at costs similar to more flammable materials, such as cedar 
shakes.[Footnote 25] In addition to covering material, a roof's design, 
construction quality, and condition also influence its susceptibility 
to ignition. For example, certain complex roof patterns have valleys 
and crevices that can trap leaves, needles, and other flammable debris, 
increasing the likelihood of ignition.

Even when defensible space and fire-resistant roofing protect a 
structure from the outside, it can still ignite from within if 
firebrands enter through vents or other openings. Most structures have 
some ventilation in crawl spaces or attics for moisture control (see 
fig. 10). Often located at the gable[Footnote 26] ends of the roof or 
under the eaves,[Footnote 27] such vents allow air to flow into and 
through the attic. Other openings may also be left by poor 
construction, deterioration, or ill-fitting joints between walls and 
roof. Covering vents and other openings with screens that will not burn 
or melt, substantially reduces the risk of entry and ignition by 
firebrands. The Firewise Communities program, a national program which 
educates homeowners about wildland fire and steps to protect homes 
against them, recommends screen openings be one-eighth inch or 
less.[Footnote 28]

Figure 10: Roof and Vents:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Analysis of fires over the last half century has demonstrated the 
importance of defensible space and fire-resistant roofs and vents as 
protective measures for structures.

* In the 1961 Belair-Brentwood Fire and the 1990 Painted Cave Fire, 
both in California, 85 to 95 percent of homes with a nonflammable roof, 
and at least 30 feet of defensible space, survived without fire 
department intervention.

* In the 1981 Atlas Peak Fire in California, out of the 323 structures 
threatened, only 5 of the 111 structures with defensible space were 
damaged or destroyed. In contrast, 91 of the 111 structures without 
defensible space were either damaged or destroyed.[Footnote 29]

* In the 1985 Palm Coast Fire in Florida, 130 homes were damaged or 
destroyed. Two of the most predictive factors for whether homes in this 
fire burned or survived were fire-resistant vents and defensible space. 
Those homes with flammable, unprotected vents were identified as 
particularly vulnerable.

* In 2003, the Simi Fire in Ventura County, California, threatened 
thousands of structures. According to the Ventura County fire marshal, 
of the few structures actually destroyed during these fires, most did 
not observe the county's ordinance requiring 100 feet of defensible 
space between the structure and flammable vegetation, or they lacked 
county-recommended fire-resistant roofs and properly screened vents.

Experimental research on wildland fire has corroborated the 
effectiveness of defensible space and fire-resistant roofs. A 
researcher at the Forest Service's Fire Science Laboratory in Missoula, 
Montana, predicted that a crown fire would have to come within 100 feet 
of a structure for it to ignite; he based this prediction on a 
theoretical model incorporating conservative estimates of the heat an 
intense crown fire would produce and the ignitability of wood.[Footnote 
30] The researcher tested the model's results in a series of 
experiments while working with a group of international fire 
researchers in Canada's Northwest Territories (see fig. 11). During 
these experiments, five-and-a-half acre plots of trees were ignited 
under conditions that produced a crown fire. Wood walls were exposed at 
varying distances to the fire's heat. Walls located 33 feet from the 
crown fire ignited during three of seven experimental fires and 
significantly scorched in the other four fires. Walls located 66 feet 
from the crown fire did not ignite or sustain visible damage. These 
experiments also demonstrated that fire-resistant roofs can effectively 
protect structures' highly flammable interiors from igniting. Using a 
model structure with a roof covering made from composition shingles, 
fire researchers also set fire to the pine needles completely covering 
the roof. The composition roof did not ignite, and the structure 
remained undamaged. (In the electronic version of this report, a video 
clip illustrating this experiment is available at h [Hyperlink, http:/
/www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v4.mpg.] ttp://www.gao.gov/media/video/
d05380v4.mpg.)

Figure 11: Fire Experiments in Canada's Northwest Territories:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Finally, experts from the symposium convened for us by the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) emphasized that defensible space and fire-
resistant roofs and vents are the most critical protective measures. 
Symposium experts stated that defensible space is critical for 
protecting structures from wildland fire. These experts told us that if 
defensible space and fire-resistant roofs and vents were correctly and 
consistently used by homeowners, the risk posed by wildland fire would 
be significantly reduced. Moreover, in visits to California, Florida, 
Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington, we met with fire officials 
who confirmed the symposium experts' view--that 30 to 100 feet of 
defensible space and fire-resistant roofs and vents are vital to 
protecting structures from wildland fires.

Other Technologies Play a Secondary Role:

Symposium experts and fire officials we spoke with identified other 
technologies that can help protect individual structures from wildland 
fires. A few of these technologies, like fire-resistant building 
materials (other than roofing), are permanent, requiring little 
intervention by homeowners or firefighters, while other technologies, 
like chemical agents, are temporary and require active human 
intervention. Still other technologies, like geographic information 
systems (GIS) mapping, can be used to help protect entire communities. 
See appendix III for more information on these technologies.

* Fire-resistant windows. Fire-resistant windows help protect a 
structure from wildland fire by reducing the risk a window will break 
and allow fire to enter a structure. Windows constructed of double-
paned glass, glass block, or tempered glass can help resist breakage.

* Fire-resistant building materials. Fire-resistant building materials 
for walls, siding, decks, and doors play an important role in 
protecting structures by helping to prevent ignition. During a wildland 
fire, flames or firebrands may come in contact with a structure or 
intense heat may either ignite the exterior of a structure or melt it, 
thus exposing the structure's interior to the fire. Exterior walls, 
siding, decks, and doors made of fire-resistant building materials, 
such as fiber-cement, brick, stone, metal, and stucco, help structures 
resist such damage and destruction.

* Chemical agents. Firefighting chemical agents, such as foams and 
gels, are temporary protective measures that can be applied as an 
exterior coating shortly before a wildland fire reaches a structure. 
Foams, typically detergent based, are combined with water or forced 
air. Gels are polymers (plastics) that can hold many times their weight 
in water. Both are designed to be sprayed onto a structure, coating it 
with a protective outer shield against ignition (see fig. 12). For 
example, California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection officials 
estimated that in 2003, using gels helped save between 75 and 100 homes 
from the Paradise Fire and more than 300 homes from the Cedar Fire in 
San Diego County. The disadvantages of using foams and gels are that 
they often need to be applied to a structure by a homeowner or 
firefighter. Chemical agents may also need to be periodically reapplied 
or sprayed with water to remain effective, and they can be difficult to 
clean up.

Figure 12: Firefighter Applying a Chemical Agent to a Home:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* Sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems, which can be installed inside 
or outside a structure, lower the risk of ignition or damage. For 
example, the California Governor's Blue Ribbon Commission recommended 
adding internal attic sprinklers to revised building codes as a 
response to lessons learned from the 2003 wildland fires. Sprinklers, 
however, require reliable sources of water and, in some cases, 
electricity to be effective. Several firefighting officials told us 
that during wildland fires, power and water services may not be 
adequate for sprinklers to function properly. For example, an 
investigation after California's 1991 Oakland Hills Fire noted that 
external sprinkler systems might have saved some homes if water flow 
and pressure had been adequate.

In addition to technologies aimed at protecting individual structures, 
symposium experts and fire officials we met with told us that one 
important technology exists, geographic information systems (GIS) 
mapping, that can reduce the risk of wildland fire damage to an entire 
community. GIS is a computer-based information system that can be used 
to efficiently store, analyze, and display multiple forms of 
information on a single map.[Footnote 31] GIS technologies allow fire 
officials and local and regional land managers to combine vegetation, 
fuel, and topography data into separate layers of a single GIS map to 
identify areas in need of vegetation management or to set priorities 
for fuel breaks. State and county officials we met with emphasized the 
value of GIS in community education and community-planning efforts to 
protect structures and communities from wildland fire damage within 
their jurisdictions. For example, the state of Florida has developed 
the Florida Risk Assessment System. This interactive GIS provides 
Florida Division of Forestry officials a detailed visual representation 
of data on fuels, topography, and weather. Displaying these data on one 
map helps officials determine which communities are at high risk and 
identify which areas near these communities need treatments to reduce 
fuels (see fig. 13).[Footnote 32]

Figure 13: GIS Map Showing Levels of Concern in Myakka River District, 
Florida:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Some emerging technologies could assist in protecting communities, 
although they need more research, testing, and time to fully develop. 
Emerging technologies are as follows:

* Fire behavior modeling. Forest Service and other researchers have 
developed computer models to predict wildland fire behavior, but these 
models do not accurately predict fire behavior in the wildland-urban 
interface. Existing models have helped officials identify areas likely 
to experience intense wildland fires, identify suitable locations for 
fuel breaks, predict the effect of a fuel break on fire behavior, and 
aid suppression by predicting overall behavior of a given fire. These 
models do not, however, consider the effect that structures and 
landscaping have on wildland fire behavior. Some researchers told us 
that developing models that consider how fire spreads from house to 
house might help improve the design of communities in the wildland-
urban interface. Such models might also help homeowners compare how 
different landscaping options could alter fire behavior. The Forest 
Service, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Los Alamos 
National Laboratory have proposed a 5-year, $10 million project to 
develop such models.

* Automated detection systems. Sensors using infrared, ultraviolet, or 
temperature-sensitive devices[Footnote 33] can be placed around a 
community[Footnote 34] to detect the presence of wildland fire. On 
detecting a fire, a sensor could set off an audible alarm or could be 
connected via radio or satellite to a device that would notify 
homeowners or emergency personnel. Several such sensors could be 
networked together to provide broad coverage of the area surrounding a 
community. According to fire officials, sensor systems may prove 
particularly helpful in protecting communities in areas of rugged 
terrain or poor access where wildland fire might be difficult to 
locate. Many of these systems are still in development, however, and 
false alarms are a concern.

[End of section]

Chapter 3: Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners' Use of Protective 
Measures, but Efforts to Increase Their Use Are Under Way:

Homeowners may not take steps to protect their homes from wildland 
fires because of the time or expense involved, competing concerns such 
as aesthetics or privacy, lack of understanding of the nature of 
wildland fire risks, and failure to recognize that they share 
responsibility for protecting their homes. Government agencies and 
other organizations are engaged in a variety of efforts to increase the 
use of protective measures, such as defensible space and fire-resistant 
building materials and design. These efforts include education to 
increase awareness by homeowners and others about steps they can take 
to reduce risks from wildland fire, monetary assistance to create 
defensible space, and laws requiring the use of protective measures. In 
addition, some insurance companies direct homeowners in high-risk areas 
to create defensible space. Fire officials told us that each of these 
approaches provided benefits but also posed challenges.

Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Affect Whether Homeowners 
Use Protective Measures:

Time or the expense involved is one of the primary reasons behind 
homeowners' resistance to creating defensible space or installing fire-
resistant roofs, fire officials told us.[Footnote 35] Homeowners 
surveyed in three communities recently threatened by wildland fires in 
Colorado and Oregon also most frequently cited expense and time as 
impediments to creating defensible space.[Footnote 36] Creating and 
maintaining defensible space involves trade-offs between money and 
time. Out-of-pocket expenses may be negligible when homeowners create 
defensible space themselves but completing the work can require 
substantial time and effort. Homeowners may also find it difficult to 
clear and transport any vegetation to appropriate disposal sites. 
Alternatively, homeowners can pay someone to create defensible space on 
their property. Fire officials estimate that the price of this work--
including thinning trees and some replanting but not major landscaping-
-can be several thousand dollars or more depending on vegetation type 
and the topography of, and access to, a particular property. The New 
Mexico Forestry Division, for example, has estimated the price of 
creating 1 acre of defensible space around a structure in heavily 
forested areas in that state at about $1,700 to $2,400, although this 
estimate excludes the expense of removing large trees that are close to 
structures. A state forestry official estimated that removing such 
trees could cost $800 to $2,000 each. Second, regarding fire-resistant 
roofs, if homeowners wait until their existing roofs need replacement, 
cost does not have to be a major factor because fire-resistant roof-
covering materials are available at similar cost to more flammable ones.

Homeowners may also be reluctant to create defensible space because of 
the importance they place on other considerations, such as the role of 
vegetation in their property's appearance, privacy, and wildlife 
habitat. Homeowners' concerns about the effect of defensible space on 
these features can be critical since such features influence 
homeowners' decisions to move nearer to wildlands in the first place. 
The design of defensible space is flexible, however, and can be done in 
ways that minimize the impact on appearance or wildlife habitat or even 
enhance them. When deciding whether to create defensible space, 
homeowners may also weigh the effects of landscaping on shade, energy 
efficiency, and water use, and they may sometimes receive contradictory 
advice from different government agencies about landscaping choices. 
For instance, water management districts in Florida promote landscaping 
choices that conserve water, but some of these choices may increase 
risk from wildland fire.

Another reason homeowners may not take protective measures is that they 
may not understand how wildland fires damage or destroy homes or how 
effective protective measures can be. An expert at the symposium 
convened for us by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said that 
because many homeowners think of wildland fires as intense crown fires, 
they do not believe that relatively simple steps like creating 
defensible space can be effective and, therefore, do not take such 
steps. On the contrary, however, defensible space can lessen the 
intensity of crown fires and, together with fire-resistant roofs and 
vents, can effectively protect against firebrands or low-intensity 
surface fires, which often damage structures. Forest Service 
researchers have reported that some homeowners do not think it 
worthwhile to create defensible space because they have seen a fire 
jump a six-lane highway. Fire officials said that these homeowners do 
not understand that defensible space is not intended to stop a fire 
from spreading but only to prevent it from reaching and igniting 
structures.

In addition, homeowners may not use protective measures because they 
believe that fire officials are responsible for protecting their homes 
and do not recognize they share in this responsibility. Fire officials 
told us that homeowners who have recently moved to the wildland-urban 
interface may not have experienced a wildland fire and may not realize 
their homes are at risk and that they should consider protective steps. 
Fire officials also said such newcomers may expect the same level of 
service they received in more urban areas and do not understand that 
rural areas may have fewer available firefighters and longer response 
times. Also, when a wildland fire burns near communities, so many 
houses may be threatened simultaneously that firefighters may be unable 
to protect them all. In such cases, defensible space and fire-resistant 
building materials greatly reduce a structure's risk.

Education Helps Increase Awareness of Steps Homeowners and Others Can 
Take:

Educating homeowners about the risks posed by wildland fire and the 
steps that can be taken to mitigate these risks is a critical step in 
increasing the use of measures to protect homes from wildland fires. 
Educating homeowners is effective in part because it can help overcome 
their reluctance to use protective measures, for instance, by showing 
them that defensible space can preserve or enhance their property's 
appearance and that even large trees can remain close to a structure, 
as long as defensible space is designed to protect those trees. 
Education also helps state and local government officials and 
professionals, such as landscape architects and planners, who influence 
where and how development occurs.

Federal, state, and local government agencies; universities and 
extension programs; nongovernmental organizations; and industry 
organizations are all involved in efforts to educate the public about 
protecting structures from wildland fires. The primary national effort 
to educate homeowners about protecting structures from wildland fire is 
the Firewise Communities program, which also promotes steps that state 
and local officials can take to educate homeowners. (The Firewise 
Communities Web site address, along with information on related Web 
sites, is included in app. IV.)[Footnote 37] Because it seeks to 
increase voluntary use of protective measures, the Firewise Communities 
program requires homeowner and community involvement to be successful. 
To this end, since 1998, the Firewise Communities program has conducted 
more than 30 workshops, attended by approximately 3,000 people from 44 
states, and has supported over 500 local or regional workshops reaching 
over 15,000 participants. The program has also distributed videos, 
books, brochures, and other materials that promote Firewise landscaping 
and construction. Finally, the program has recognized more than 100 
communities in 26 states as "Firewise" communities. Homeowners in these 
communities, along with fire officials, assessed the community's 
wildland fire risk, developed a plan to mitigate those risks, and 
undertook activities to implement the plan.

Other education efforts are directed at state and local government 
officials and professionals, such as landscape architects and planners. 
For example, the American Planning Association and the National Fire 
Protection Association reported in February 2005[Footnote 38] on 
approaches to educating planners about the risks wildland fires pose to 
communities and steps that local governments can take to reduce those 
risks. The report provides examples of planning approaches that have 
been adopted and discusses their shortcomings and is expected to be 
distributed to approximately 1,300 planning agencies nationwide. An 
American Planning Association official said that, as more development 
occurs in the wildland-urban interface, local governments must plan 
development wisely to help reduce the risk from wildland fire.

Examples of other education efforts from the states we visited include 
the following:

* The Institute of Business and Home Safety; the U.S. Forest Service; 
Alachua County, Florida; and others sponsored a demonstration project 
near Gainesville, Florida, that included landscaping a house to create 
defensible space and replacing the roof and siding with fire-resistant 
materials (see fig. 14). This project was intended to increase fire 
awareness among homeowners in the community and to show that creating 
defensible space could also be attractive and provide other amenities. 
Information on the project, including many photographs, was included on 
a Forest Service Web site so that other homeowners could view the 
project.[Footnote 39]

Figure 14: Before and After Photos of a Firewise Demonstration Home:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

* The Sonoran Institute and the National Association of Counties 
sponsored a September 2004 workshop attended by county officials from 
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to discuss the role of zoning and other 
growth management approaches in reducing the wildland fire risk to new 
development. The workshop discussed the costs associated with new 
development in the wildland-urban interface, such as increased fire 
suppression costs, and the importance of land-use planning and other 
approaches to reduce risks from wildland fires, according to the 
workshop organizer.

* In Florida, the Department of Community Affairs and Division of 
Forestry published a handbook in April 2004 that describes different 
wildland fire mitigation strategies that communities in Florida have 
adopted. The handbook contains information directed at homeowners, 
homebuilders, government officials, and professionals such as planners 
and landscape architects.[Footnote 40] The section on landscaping, for 
instance, provides examples of less flammable plants--such as azaleas, 
dogwoods, and oaks--appropriate for planting in areas at risk of 
wildland fire.

Federal, state, and local officials we met with said that although 
education efforts are critical to increasing awareness of the risks of 
wildland fire and of the steps that can be taken to reduce those risks, 
they face challenges that will take time to overcome. Because 
homeowners have concerns other than reducing the risk from wildland 
fires, providing information on risks and steps to reduce those risks, 
officials and researchers said, may not result in homeowners taking 
action. Similarly, providing information to state or local government 
officials--for instance, about laws or land-use planning strategies to 
reduce the risks to structures from wildland fire--may not lead those 
officials to adopt such measures. To increase the likelihood of 
success, symposium experts and other officials said those conducting 
education programs should recognize that multiple approaches exist to 
making a structure more fire-resistant, and educators should assist 
homeowners to find the approach that best suits their needs. 
Information describing defensible space, for instance, can show several 
different ways of making a structure more fire-resistant so that 
homeowners can see the effect on the appearance of their property.

Financial and Other Assistance Encourages Homeowners and Communities to 
Take Action:

Federal, state, and local agencies are also taking steps to directly 
assist individual homeowners and communities in creating defensible 
space and reducing hazardous fuels. This assistance can help homeowners 
balance the trade-offs between expense and time in creating defensible 
space.

Under the National Fire Plan,[Footnote 41] federal firefighting 
agencies provide grants or otherwise assist in reducing fuels on 
private land. For instance, the Forest Service provided approximately 
$11.6 million (adjusted for inflation) to the New Mexico Forestry 
Division from fiscal year 2001 through 2004 that the state could use to 
assist reduction of fuels on nonfederal land.[Footnote 42] Grants to 
reduce fuels on private property typically require the homeowner to pay 
a portion of project costs.[Footnote 43] National Fire Plan funds have 
also been used to create fuel breaks around communities. For example, 
the Washington Department of Natural Resources received a $340,000 
grant that it used to create a fuel break around the town of Roslyn, 
reducing fuels in an approximately 150-foot-wide buffer zone. Fire 
officials told us the fuel break by itself would not prevent a wildland 
fire from entering the community, but that it would assist suppression 
efforts by reducing fire intensity close to the community. The grant 
also funded creation of defensible space for an additional 144 homes 
located outside the fuel break.

State and local governments have provided similar assistance. The 
Florida Division of Forestry, for instance, has used state and federal 
funds to establish four mitigation teams that reduce fuels on private 
lands by conducting prescribed burns and mechanically removing 
vegetation to create fuel breaks around communities at high risk of 
wildland fires. In other cases, local governments have helped 
homeowners to chip or remove vegetation produced by the creation of 
defensible space. Santa Fe County, New Mexico, for instance, bought two 
grinders in 2003 to chip vegetation and established locations where 
homeowners from participating communities could bring plant material 
they removed from their property. The county fire marshal told us that 
this program had assisted approximately 1,000 residents.

Federal, state, and local fire officials and homeowners told us that 
efforts such as these are helpful but also raise some concerns. First, 
because vegetation grows back, fuel breaks and defensible space need to 
be maintained to be effective (see fig. 15). To address this concern, 
Florida Division of Forestry officials told us that the division 
requires communities it assists to sign an agreement to maintain the 
defensible space or fuel breaks. Second, fire officials said it is 
difficult to identify sources for grants and other assistance. In some 
of the states we visited, federal and state officials are working to 
assist homeowners and local officials to identify such sources. 
Firewise Communities program officials said they have identified 
assistance available in many states and posted a list on their Web site 
(see app. IV). Finally, some homeowners raised concerns about grant 
eligibility requirements. New Mexico, for instance, requires grants or 
assistance to be distributed to homeowners through another government 
entity, for example, a city fire department or local governmental 
district. If a local government is not able to sponsor the grant, 
residents must incorporate as a not-for-profit organization to be 
eligible, a process a participating homeowner told us was frustrating 
and time-consuming.

Figure 15: Fuel Break near Roslyn, Washington, Shown after Construction 
and 3 Years Later:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

State or Local Laws May Require Protective Measures:

States, counties, and cities can adopt laws designed to reduce the risk 
to homes from wildland fires by requiring protective measures, such as 
creation of defensible space or the use of fire-resistant building 
materials.[Footnote 44] Local governments can also improve fire safety 
through land-use planning, by restricting development or requiring 
additional protective measures in particularly fire-prone areas. 
Ventura County, California, fire officials attribute the relatively few 
houses in that county damaged by the 2003 Southern California fires to, 
in part, the county's adoption and enforcement of laws requiring 100 
feet of defensible space and the use of fire-resistant building 
materials. Such steps are particularly effective at reducing the risk 
of wildland fires for new developments because it is cheaper to select 
building materials and incorporate fire-resistant community design 
before construction begins. After the 2003 Southern California fires, 
for instance, San Bernardino County officials reported that communities 
developed more recently under requirements regarding vegetation and 
building materials sustained far less damage during those fires than 
did older communities.[Footnote 45] Symposium experts told us that as 
more people move into the wildland-urban interface, the benefits of 
local governments' requiring protective measures are likely to increase.

States or local governments can adopt or adapt model laws requiring 
protective measures developed by one of several organizations, 
including the International Code Council and the National Fire 
Protection Association, or they can develop their own requirements. 
Laws adopted by individual jurisdictions vary but can include 
requirements for the creation of defensible space and use of fire-
resistant building materials and design (see table 1). Some 
jurisdictions have applied land-use planning to restrict development in 
areas that are at particularly high risk of wildland fire. Alachua 
County, Florida, for instance, amended its comprehensive plan in 2002 
to address wildland fire risks. Under the plan, the county will not 
approve new developments unless they are designed to provide adequate 
protection from wildland fire, as determined by the county fire chief.

Table 1: Examples of Laws Requiring Protective Measures Adopted by 
Jurisdictions in Five States GAO Visited:

Jurisdiction: States: California; 
Requirements: In 2005, California increased its statewide defensible 
space requirements from 30 feet to 100 feet and explicitly allowed 
local governments or insurance companies to require even greater 
clearance. In very-high-fire-hazard-severity areas, class A roofing 
materials are required for new construction.

Jurisdiction: States: Washington; 
Requirements: In 1999, the state's Department of Natural Resources 
developed a model ordinance recommending that structures in areas at 
risk from wildland fire maintain a minimum of 50 feet of defensible 
space and use fire-resistant building materials, among others things. 
Although not binding, state officials disseminated the model ordinance 
to county and city officials.

Jurisdiction: Counties: Ada County, Idaho; 
Requirements: The county has identified lands at high risk of wildland 
fire and, since 1997, has required homeowners in this area to maintain 
at least 50 feet of defensible space around new structures. New 
construction in the high-risk area must comply with additional 
requirements, including at least class B roofing materials; screened 
vents; enclosed eaves; nonflammable gutters; and fire-resistant 
exterior walls, windows, and decks.

Jurisdiction: Counties: Ventura County, California; 
Requirements: The county requires 100 feet of defensible space and 
further recommends that owners of homes at particularly high risk 
increase defensible space to 200 feet. In high-fire-hazard areas, the 
county requires structures be constructed with class A roofing 
materials and fire-resistant building materials. In addition, all new 
structures larger than 5,000 square feet or more than 5 miles from a 
fire station are required to install a sprinkler system.

Jurisdiction: Cities: Ormond Beach, Florida; 
Requirements: Since 2003, new construction in areas identified by the 
city as at medium or high risk for wildland fires must develop 
vegetation management plans establishing at least 30 feet of defensible 
space around a structure. A 30-foot buffer zone must also be created 
around the perimeter of a new planned development or residential 
subdivision and be maintained by homeowners or a homeowners' 
association according to a management plan approved by the city.

Jurisdiction: Cities: Santa Fe, New Mexico; 
Requirements: In 2004, fire officials worked with city officials to 
modify a city ordinance requiring homes built on ridgelines or in the 
foothills to plant and maintain evergreen trees at the same density as 
in the adjacent natural landscape to reduce the visual impact of such 
development. Under the amended ordinance, homeowners may use some 
deciduous trees, which are less flammable, and can also reduce 
vegetation density to a level approved by the city.

Source: GAO analysis of state, county, and city data.

[End of table]

For laws and land-use planning to be an effective tool in reducing 
damage to structures from wildland fires, individual state and local 
governments must adopt and enforce them. State and local fire officials 
told us that although no one has compiled a complete list of 
governments that have adopted laws designed to reduce the risk to 
structures from wildland fire, many at-risk jurisdictions have adopted 
laws, and many others have not.[Footnote 46] Symposium experts and fire 
officials said that the primary reason for not adopting laws is 
community opposition to them. Other officials, homeowners, and a 
homebuilding industry representative expressed concern that some 
proposed laws may not offer significant additional protection from 
wildland fire or may not be cost-effective, considering the low 
probability that a home would be destroyed. Symposium experts 
recognized opposition to such laws but stressed the importance of state 
and local governments' adoption of them. Moreover, once adopted, laws 
must be enforced to be effective. Effective enforcement requires 
confirming that homeowners and others comply with requirements and 
ensuring that requirements are not weakened by exemptions for 
individual developments. Ventura County officials told us that active 
enforcement of their laws was an important factor in the relatively few 
houses damaged in that county during the 2003 Southern California 
fires.[Footnote 47] They also said that compliance increased as 
homeowners became more familiar with the requirements and the 
enforcement program. Nevertheless, symposium experts said many fire 
departments, counties, and cities do not have sufficient resources to 
effectively enforce laws, or they may be pressured by homeowners or 
developers not to. In addition, the effectiveness of laws can be 
undercut by variances exempting individual developments from specific 
requirements, such as emergency access. In some cases, officials said 
such variances may be warranted, for instance if the proposed 
development is not at significant risk, or if additional measures are 
incorporated to increase protection. In other cases, county or city 
officials may be pressured to approve a variance even if the 
development is at risk.

Some Insurance Companies Direct Homeowners to Use Protective Measures:

Although wildland fire has not resulted in significant losses for the 
insurance industry in comparison with other disasters, some insurance 
companies have instituted programs designed to increase policyholders' 
use of protective measures in some at-risk areas. Since 1993, for 
instance, one major company has evaluated high-risk properties in 
California for defensible space before underwriting new policies. A 
company official said that 200 to 500 feet of defensible space is often 
required, depending on factors such as topography, vegetation density, 
and type of construction. In 2004, the company began expanding this 
program to other western states. Another major company initiated a 
pilot program in 2003 in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, under which the 
company inspected properties of policyholders living in certain high-
risk areas in those states and notified policyholders of any actions 
needed to establish defensible space according to the standards 
required or recommended by their local fire departments. Policyholders 
would have at least 18 months to perform any work needed to meet those 
standards, according to the company official in charge of the program 
and, if the corrective actions were not completed, the company could 
choose not to renew the policy. The official said that it is too early 
to evaluate the program's success but he expects the program to 
continue and perhaps expand to other regions of the country.

Some fire officials have said that the insurance industry should take a 
larger role in encouraging use of protective measures, such as by 
offering discounts on premiums to policyholders who have defensible 
space. Insurance industry officials we spoke with said that the share 
of premiums associated with wildland fire risk is relatively low and 
would not provide a meaningful incentive for homeowners. Although 
industry losses have been low historically, officials from the 
Insurance Services Office told us that recent trends toward increased 
fire severity and more people living in at-risk areas mean that future 
losses may be higher.

Possible Federal Government Actions to Increase Use of Protective 
Measures:

As we previously mentioned, homeowners and state and local governments 
have the primary responsibility for taking preventive steps to protect 
homes from wildland fires. Nevertheless, the federal government 
currently funds education for homeowners and communities, primarily 
through the Firewise Communities program, and provides grants to states 
and communities to use on preventive measures to protect structures, 
under the National Fire Plan and other sources. Key to choosing the 
appropriate approach will be determining what the federal role should 
be in this area, given that the majority of the structures damaged by 
wildland fires are located on private property, and losses are normally 
covered by the fire portion of homeowners' insurance. In addition, 
although many homes are at risk from wildland fire, only a small 
fraction of those are actually damaged or destroyed in any given year, 
and damages and insured losses from wildland fire are significantly 
less than from either other natural disasters or other types of 
structure fires.

Should the federal government choose to continue or change its role, it 
can use a variety of policy options to motivate or mandate homeowners 
to implement measures to protect structures from wildland fires. These 
options include education partnerships, grants to states and localities 
to promote the use of protective measures, tax incentives, and building 
and land use regulations.[Footnote 48] However, additional information 
in several areas would be helpful in more clearly defining the problem 
and determining the appropriate level of federal efforts to address it. 
Such information includes the scope and scale of the risk to homes from 
wildland fires, the actual losses incurred from wildland fires, the 
extent of efforts homeowners are already making to address wildland 
fire risks, and the extent to which homeowners cannot obtain private 
insurance. Most of this information, including the scope and scale of 
the risk, is not readily available or easily quantifiable.

There are three main considerations regarding education partnerships 
and grants to undertake preventive measures. First, because resources 
are scarce, spending decisions must be based on a careful assessment of 
whether the benefits to the nation from these efforts to reduce the 
risk to privately owned structures exceed their costs. Second, it is 
important to strike a balance between accountability and flexibility. 
Accountability can be achieved by establishing performance measures and 
outcome goals and measuring results. Doing so would allow flexibility 
in how funds are used, while at the same time ensuring national 
oversight. For example, information measuring the results and the 
effectiveness of federal grant making under the National Fire Plan 
would be useful in determining whether continued or additional funding 
for the program is needed. However, developing the appropriate 
performance measures is complicated because it is difficult to 
determine the number of structures that would have been destroyed or 
damaged if preventive measures had not been taken. The third 
consideration is targeting the funds to those with the greatest need. 
To effectively target grants to address the greatest threats to 
structures from wildland fires requires information on the relative 
risks from wildland fires faced by different communities.

Tax incentives are the result of special exclusions, exemptions, 
deductions, credits, deferrals, or tax rates in the federal tax laws. 
Unlike grants, tax incentives do not generally permit the same degree 
of federal targeting and oversight, and they generally are available to 
all potential beneficiaries who satisfy congressionally established 
criteria. In the case of wildland fire, while potentially millions of 
homes are at risk and might qualify for tax incentives, the number of 
homes that actually are damaged or destroyed by wildland fires each 
year is a small fraction of those at risk. To make a reasoned judgment 
about the effectiveness of this policy option, additional information 
would be needed on the number of homeowners that could qualify for tax 
incentives and possible cost and benefits of the incentives.

The federal government has little authority over land-use planning or 
building on private land. The authority to develop, adopt, administer, 
and enforce building and land-use regulations has traditionally rested 
with the states, which in turn have delegated some or all of their 
authority to local governments. In a few instances, such as the Coastal 
Zone Management Act, the federal government has provided incentives for 
state and local governments to adopt development plans that meet 
specific criteria. Congress could provide similar incentives for state 
and local governments to adopt building and land-use regulations 
addressing threats to structures from wildland fires. However, state 
and local officials we spoke with expressed concern about having the 
federal government take a role in these types of regulations rather 
than leaving responsibility at the state and local level.

[End of section]

Chapter 4: Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve Communications 
Interoperability Requires Better Planning and Coordination:

While a variety of existing technologies can help link incompatible 
communications systems and others are being developed to provide 
enhanced interoperability, effective adoption of any technology 
requires planning and coordination among federal, state, local, and 
tribal agencies that work together to respond to emergencies, including 
wildland fires. Without such planning and coordination, new investments 
in communications equipment or infrastructure may not improve the 
effectiveness of communications between agencies. The Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) is leading federal efforts to address 
interoperability problems across all levels of government, but as we 
previously reported, progress so far has been limited. Some state and 
local government efforts are also under way to improve communications 
interoperability.

Technologies Can Enhance Communications Interoperability:

A number of current and emerging technologies can help overcome 
differences in frequencies or communications equipment and improve 
communications interoperability among firefighting agencies. These 
include technologies for short-term solutions--often called patchwork 
interoperability--to interconnect disparate communications systems and 
longer-term improvements to communications equipment and 
infrastructure.[Footnote 49]

Patchwork Interoperability:

Patchwork interoperability uses technology to interconnect two or more 
disparate radio systems so that voice or data from one system can be 
made available to all systems. The principal advantage of this solution 
is that agencies can continue to use existing communications systems, 
an important consideration when funds to buy new equipment are limited. 
According to an official from DHS's Office for Interoperability and 
Compatibility, a major disadvantage to all patchwork solutions is that 
they require twice as much spectrum since they have to tie up channels 
on both connected systems. Three main patchwork technologies are 
currently available. Appendix V provides more detail about each of 
these technologies.

* Audio switches provide interoperability by connecting radio and other 
communications systems to a device that sends the audio signal from one 
agency's radio to all other connected radio systems. Audio switches can 
interconnect several different radio systems, regardless of the 
frequency bands or type of equipment used.

* Crossband repeaters provide interoperability between systems 
operating on different radio frequency bands by changing frequencies 
between the two radio systems.

* Console-to-console patches link the dispatch consoles of two radio 
systems so that the radios connected to each system can communicate 
with one another. Dispatch consoles are located at the dispatch center 
where dispatchers receive incoming radio calls.

Audio switches are easily transportable and can be used to create 
temporary interoperability, which makes them useful for wildland 
firefighting where multiple agencies temporarily come together to fight 
the fire. In addition to ease of transport, audio switches are flexible 
and allow a variety of communications systems, including radio and 
telephone, to be connected. Public safety agencies in several 
localities, including Washington, use them. In addition, the National 
Interagency Incident Communications Division at the National 
Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) recently purchased two of these devices 
to use to connect radio systems during major public safety incidents. 
An audio switch costs about $7,000[Footnote 50] without the radio 
interface modules[Footnote 51] or cables. Each interface module costs 
about $1,100, and cables are available for about $140 each.

A crossband repeater provides interoperability between systems 
operating on different radio frequency bands by changing the frequency 
of the signal received and sending it out on another frequency. For 
example, a crossband repeater can receive a VHF (very high frequency) 
signal and retransmit it as a UHF (ultrahigh frequency) signal. 
Crossband repeaters can connect base stations[Footnote 52] or mobile 
radios, whether hand carried or in vehicles. A variety of crossband 
repeaters are available ranging in price from $4,000 to $33,000 each. 
Crossband repeaters can cost more than audio switches, which may put 
them beyond the reach of jurisdictions with limited funding. Still, 
according to a communications specialist at NIFC, crossband repeaters 
are an effective interoperability solution often used by federal 
firefighting agencies.

Unlike audio switches or crossband repeaters, a console-to-console 
patch is not an "on-the-scene" device but instead the connection occurs 
between consoles located at the dispatch centers where calls for 
assistance are received. The costs of such a connection vary widely, 
depending on whether consoles are patched together temporarily over a 
public telephone line, or permanently over a dedicated leased line or a 
dedicated microwave or fiber link.[Footnote 53] The costs for a 
dedicated leased line would consist primarily of recurring telephone 
line charges. In contrast, a microwave link connecting two locations 
about 15 to 25 miles apart could require an initial investment of about 
$70,000.

Improved Communication Systems:

Other interoperability solutions involve developing and adopting more 
sophisticated radio systems that follow common standards or can be 
programmed to work on any frequency and to use any desired modulation 
type, such as AM or FM. Project 25 radios, software-defined radios, and 
Voice over Internet Protocol are the primary examples of these improved 
communications systems. Appendix V provides more detail about each of 
these technologies.

* Project 25 radios, which are currently available, must meet a set of 
standards for digital two-way radio systems that allow for 
interoperability between all jurisdictions using these systems.

* Software-defined radios, which are still being developed, are 
designed to transmit and receive over a wide range of frequencies and 
use any desired modulations, such as AM or FM.

* Voice over Internet Protocol treats both voice and data as digital 
information and enables their movement over any existing Internet 
Protocol data network.[Footnote 54]

Project 25, also called APCO 25, was established in 1989 to provide 
detailed standards for digital two-way wireless communications systems 
so that all purchasers of Project 25-compatible equipment can 
communicate with each other.[Footnote 55] They can also communicate 
with older, analog radios. Project 25 radios, at about $1,700 to $2,500 
each, cost more than other available radios that cost around $1,200 
each. Federal, state, and local officials we spoke with agreed that, 
while Project 25 radios could provide interoperability benefits, 
funding and other limitations will likely result in phased adoption. 
For example, a federal communications specialist said that the Forest 
Service will be purchasing Project 25 radios over a 10-year replacement 
cycle. As of December 2003, the state of Washington had about 400 
Project 25-compatible radios, of a total of 8,000 portable radios owned 
by the state. None of the 400, however, are owned by the agency 
responsible for wildland firefighting.

Software-defined radios and Voice over Internet Protocol appear to hold 
promise for improving interoperability among firefighting and other 
public safety agencies. Voice over Internet Protocol offers the 
flexibility to transmit both voice and data over a data network. This 
could be useful for firefighting agencies that need weather and other 
information when making decisions affecting fire suppression efforts. 
However, no standards exist for radio communications using Voice over 
Internet Protocol and, as a result, manufacturers have produced 
proprietary systems that may not be interoperable. Software-defined 
radios will allow interoperability among agencies using different 
frequency bands, different operational modes (digital or analog), 
proprietary systems from different manufacturers, or different 
modulations (such as AM or FM). However, software-defined radios are 
still being developed and are not yet available for use by public 
safety agencies.

Planning and Coordination Are Key to Improving Communications 
Interoperability:

In the past, public safety agencies have depended on their own stand-
alone communications systems, without considering interoperability with 
other agencies. Yet as firefighting and other public safety agencies 
increasingly work together to respond to emergencies, including 
wildland fires, personnel from different agencies need to be able to 
communicate with one another. Reports by GAO,[Footnote 56] the National 
Task Force on Interoperability, and others have identified lack of 
planning and coordination as key reasons for lack of communications 
interoperability among responding agencies. According to these reports, 
federal, state, and local government agencies have not worked together 
to identify their communications needs and develop a coordinated plan 
to meet them.

Whether the solution is a short-term patchwork approach or a long-term 
communications upgrade, officials we spoke with explained that planning 
and coordination among agencies are critical for successfully 
determining which technology to adopt and for agreeing on funding 
sources, timing, training, maintenance, and other key operational and 
management issues. States and local governments play an important role 
in developing and implementing plans for interoperable communications 
because they own most of the physical infrastructure for public safety 
systems, such as radios, base stations, repeaters, and other equipment.

In recent years, the federal government has focused increased attention 
on improving planning and coordination to achieve communications 
interoperability. The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable 
Communications Program (SAFECOM) within DHS's Office of 
Interoperability and Compatibility[Footnote 57] is responsible for 
addressing interoperability and compatibility of emergency responder 
equipment, including communications. SAFECOM was established to address 
public safety communications issues within the federal government and 
to help state, local, and tribal public safety agencies improve their 
responses through more effective and efficient interoperable wireless 
communications. We reported, in April 2004, that SAFECOM had made 
limited progress in addressing its overall program objective of 
achieving communications interoperability among entities at all levels 
of government.[Footnote 58] Further, we reported in July 2004 that the 
nationwide data needed to compare current communications 
interoperability conditions and needs, develop plans for improvement, 
and measure progress over time were not available. In that report, we 
recommended, among other things, that DHS continue to develop a 
nationwide database and common terminology for public safety 
interoperability communications channels and assess interoperability in 
specific locations against defined requirements. DHS agreed with these 
recommendations.

DHS has been working on a number of initiatives since SAFECOM began. In 
March 2004, SAFECOM published a Statement of Requirements for Public 
Safety Wireless Communications and Interoperability to begin 
identifying the specific communications needs of public safety 
agencies. The statement of requirements is being updated to further 
refine the information and is scheduled for release to the public by 
June 30, 2005. In addition, SAFECOM published the Statewide 
Communication Interoperability Planning Methodology in November 2004, 
which was developed in a joint project with the commonwealth of 
Virginia. The methodology describes a step-by-step process for 
developing a locally driven statewide strategic plan for enhancing 
communications interoperability, including key steps and time frames. 
Finally, in January 2005, SAFECOM awarded a contract to develop and 
execute a nationwide interoperability baseline study, which SAFECOM 
officials anticipate will be completed by December 30, 2005. According 
to officials, this study will provide an understanding of the current 
state of interoperability nationwide, as well as serving as a tool to 
measure future improvements made through local, state, and federal 
public safety communications initiatives.

In addition to federal efforts, a variety of steps have been taken by 
state and local agencies. Several states, including California, 
Florida, Idaho, Missouri, and Washington, as well as the commonwealth 
of Virginia have developed statewide groups to address communications 
interoperability. For example, Washington established the Washington 
State Interoperability Executive Committee in July 2003. According to a 
state official, the committee was created to ensure communications 
interoperability by managing and coordinating the state's investments 
in communications systems. The committee's responsibilities included 
completing an inventory of state government-operated public safety 
communications systems, preparing a statewide public safety 
communications plan, establishing standards for radios, seeking funding 
for wireless communications, and fostering cooperation among emergency 
response organizations. By December 2003, the group had developed an 
inventory of state-operated public safety communications systems and in 
March 2004 the group published an interim statewide public safety 
communications systems plan.

In some cases, neighboring jurisdictions or public safety agencies are 
working together to address communications issues. To improve 
interoperability between federal, state, and local responders in Los 
Angeles County, the Los Angeles Regional Tactical Communications 
Systems Executive Committee was formed. According to a county fire 
official, barriers to interoperability in the county and with 
neighboring counties include agencies operating on different radio 
frequencies and using incompatible technologies, as well as a lack of 
funding for communications systems. The group is using a two-track 
effort to improve communications: (1) acquiring and using 
interconnection devices, such as audio switches, with existing 
communication resources to enhance interoperability and (2) rebuilding 
communications infrastructures for improved interoperability in the 
long-term. As of February 2005, the Los Angeles County Fire Department 
had acquired three audio switch units, according to a county fire 
official.

[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires:

The federal government and the states can provide a variety of military 
assets, including aircraft and military personnel, to assist in 
wildland firefighting. The process used to request, authorize, and 
deploy these assets varies depending on whether the asset is under 
federal or state control. The National Interagency Coordination Center 
(NICC), which coordinates firefighting resources on a national level, 
is responsible for requesting federal military aid for firefighting 
from the Department of Defense (DOD). A state firefighting agency is 
responsible for requesting state military aid from its governor's 
office. Federally controlled military resources are normally used only 
after the nation's federal, state, local, tribal, and contract 
firefighting resources have been depleted. Various laws, agreements, 
and policies specify when federal military assets can be used and the 
process for requesting them. According to key participants in the 
process, current procedures for requesting and using federal military 
resources to fight wildland fires have generally worked well and 
continue to be appropriate. Federal military resources have been used 
to fight wildland fires in 9 out of the 16 years from 1988 through 2003.

Types of Military Assets Available for Firefighting:

The federal government and the states can provide a variety of military 
equipment and personnel to assist in firefighting, including large 
fixed-wing aircraft that can be converted to tankers for dropping 
retardant on fires; helicopters to carry personnel, equipment, or 
external buckets to drop water on fires; battalions of military 
personnel to serve as firefighters or mop-up crews; or other 
specialized personnel and equipment.[Footnote 59] The federal 
government controls active military, military reserve, and federalized:

National Guard assets,[Footnote 60] and state governments control all 
other National Guard assets.[Footnote 61]

One of the primary military aids for wildland firefighting is the 
Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting System (MAFFS). This joint program of 
the Forest Service and DOD has been operating since 1974. When 
contracted air resources[Footnote 62] are not readily 
available,[Footnote 63] the Forest Service can request C-130 fixed-wing 
aircraft from DOD. There are eight of these aircraft in the nation. Six 
are under the control of state National Guard units: two each in 
California, North Carolina, and Wyoming. The remaining two are under 
the control of the Air Force Reserve in Colorado.[Footnote 64] The 
Forest Service owns self-contained, reusable 3,000-gallon aerial fluid 
dispersal systems, which can be installed on these aircraft for holding 
fire retardant until it is dropped on a wildland fire (see fig. 16).

Figure 16: MAFFS Used for Wildland Firefighting:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

A variety of helicopters are available to transport personnel, 
supplies, or equipment, or they can be outfitted with external water 
buckets to drop water on fires (see fig. 17). For example, a UH-1 
helicopter can carry 420 gallons of water, and a Chinook 47 can carry 
2,600 gallons.

Figure 17: A Helicopter Using a Water Bucket:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Other military assets may also assist in firefighting. These can 
include military personnel for firefighting or for mop-up activities 
ensuring that the fire has been completely extinguished after the main 
fire suppression effort. The military may also provide equipment or 
personnel specializing in communications, geospatial imagery, remote 
weather forecasting, or medical services.

Process for Requesting and Mobilizing Military Assets for Firefighting:

To begin the process of requesting federal military aid, NICC, located 
at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho, must 
first determine if such aid is needed. NICC is responsible for 
monitoring fire activity and firefighting resource availability across 
the nation. On the basis of this information, the NICC coordinator 
recommends a national preparedness level ranging from 1 to 5. 
Preparedness level 1 indicates minimal fire activity nationwide with 
little or no commitment of national resources. In contrast, 
preparedness level 5 indicates that several geographic areas[Footnote 
65] are experiencing major incidents having the potential to exhaust 
all agency fire resources. As the nation moves to level 3 or 4, the 
NICC coordinator advises DOD that a defense coordinating officer (also 
called a military liaison officer) is needed to assist NIFC in working 
with the military, helping with terminology, and coordinating with DOD 
organizations in case military assets are needed to assist in 
firefighting. If level 5 is reached and additional firefighting 
resources are needed, NIFC may request assistance from DOD.[Footnote 
66] Because wildland firefighting is not the primary mission of DOD, 
federally controlled military resources are normally used only after 
the nation's federal, state, local, tribal, and contract firefighting 
resources have been depleted. If DOD officials believe that the request 
meets the criteria laid out in DOD Directive 3025.15, which includes 
legality, appropriateness, and cost criteria, they may make resources 
available (see fig. 18).

Figure 18: Process for Requesting Military Assistance:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

To request state military aid, the state agency responsible for 
wildland firefighting coordinates with the governor's office, which 
controls these National Guard assets. State-controlled assets are 
normally used only after the governor has declared a state of emergency.

Advance planning is needed to facilitate the mobilization of military 
assets for firefighting. NIFC policies and procedures state that 
qualifying a military unit for a nondesignated military mission, such 
as dropping water on a wildland fire, is a major undertaking, requiring 
extensive planning by both the military and the firefighting agencies. 
For example, a number of steps must be taken before a MAFFS crew and 
aircraft are ready for a wildland firefighting mission. Before the fire 
season starts, initial and refresher training is required for pilots 
and flight crews. When a firefighting agency requests MAFFS assistance, 
qualified military aviation units must be identified, approved, and 
recalled to the base, which may take several hours. In addition, the 
plane must be readied for firefighting by removing external fuel tanks, 
loading and testing the MAFFS, conducting preflight checks, and fueling 
the aircraft. Together these steps may require as long as 24 hours to 
complete.

For federally controlled military personnel, approximately 5 days are 
needed for training, supplying them necessary clothing and equipment, 
and traveling to the fire. These personnel need classroom and actual 
firefighter training to learn about fire behavior; firefighting 
equipment and techniques; and the proper use of safety equipment, such 
as fire shelters. Carrying out these activities is a major undertaking, 
given that typically a battalion--consisting of 25 crews of 20 persons 
each, or more than 500 individuals including all supporting personnel-
-is typically mobilized for firefighting. Up to 60 federal firefighting 
managers and other personnel are needed to train and supervise military 
personnel, according to federal officials, which can be difficult in 
severe fire seasons when there are often not enough personnel to fill 
all demands. Federal firefighting and DOD officials explained that it 
would not be an effective use of resources to train military personnel 
ahead of the fire season because it is uncertain whether military 
assistance will be needed in any given fire season, and any personnel 
trained may be deployed for other missions and unavailable when called 
upon for wildland firefighting.

Laws, Agreements, and Policies Governing the Use of Military Assets 
under Federal and State Control:

The primary law that allows federally controlled military assistance in 
wildland firefighting is the Economy Act of 1932,[Footnote 67] which 
provides general authority to federal agencies to use the services of 
other agencies. The act authorizes an agency to obtain the services of 
another agency when:

* funds are available,

* the head of the ordering agency decides it is in the best interest of 
the government,

* the performing agency is able to provide or obtain by contract the 
ordered good or services, and:

* the head of the ordering agency decides that the resources cannot be 
provided by contract "as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial 
enterprise."

As the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pointed out in its 2004 
report,[Footnote 68] the Economy Act requires that officials evaluate 
whether the needed goods or services can be provided as conveniently or 
cheaply by a commercial enterprise, but it does not require that all 
commercial resources be exhausted before requesting assistance from 
another federal agency.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act[Footnote 69] provides additional authority for federal support to 
state and local governments to both prepare for and respond to major 
disasters, including wildland fires. The Stafford Act establishes a 
process for requesting and obtaining a presidential disaster 
declaration, defines the type and scope of available federal 
assistance, and sets conditions for obtaining that assistance. The act 
requires that the Governor of the affected state request a presidential 
declaration based upon a finding that effective response is beyond the 
capabilities of the state and affected local governments and that 
federal assistance is necessary. The act authorizes the President to 
direct any federal agency to provide assistance--including grants, 
equipment, supplies, and personnel--to any state or local government 
for the mitigation, management, and control of any fire on public or 
private forest land or grassland if it threatens to become a major 
disaster.

Agreements Governing the Use of Military Assets under Federal Control:

In addition to the laws providing broad authority for using military 
aid in wildland firefighting, two agreements govern the use of military 
assets controlled by the federal government. The first is an agreement 
among DOD, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the 
Interior that outlines general guidelines, responsibilities, and 
reimbursement for wildland firefighting. Under this agreement DOD, 
consistent with defense priorities, provides assistance in the 
following two situations:

* DOD can provide assistance when NIFC[Footnote 70] has requested it 
and DOD has determined that military assistance is required and 
justified to suppress a wildland fire. Assistance can be requested for 
fires on federal, state, or private property. Requests should state 
that all available or suitable civilian resources have been committed 
and that requested support does not compete with private enterprise.

* DOD can provide assistance when a forest or grassland fire on state 
or private land is declared a major disaster, or a determination for 
emergency assistance is made by the President, and the required 
military support is requested by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency Regional Director,[Footnote 71] under the Disaster Relief Act of 
1974.

This agreement between federal firefighting agencies and DOD was first 
signed in 1975 and is in the process of being updated, although it had 
not been signed, as of February 2005. According to officials, the most 
significant change proposed in the 2005 update is a new interpretation 
of the agreement's reimbursement clause, which would require federal 
agencies to reimburse DOD, not only for costs exceeding normal 
operating expenses such as those for firefighting boots, but for all 
costs of using military personnel, including payroll costs.

The second agreement, between DOD and NIFC, governs the use of military 
helicopters for transporting passengers, cargo, or water in external 
buckets. This agreement outlines responsibilities, operational 
procedures, and related issues. The agreement emphasizes that flight 
safety standards will not be compromised in carrying out a firefighting 
mission.

Policies and Procedures Governing the Use of Federally Controlled 
Military Assets:

Finally, both DOD and NIFC have policies and procedures providing more 
specific guidance governing the use of federally controlled military 
assets for wildland firefighting. DOD directive 3025.15 establishes DOD 
policy and assigns responsibilities for providing military assistance 
to civil authorities. Specifically, it states that DOD approval 
authorities evaluate all requests by civil authorities for DOD military 
assistance against the following criteria:

* legality (compliance with laws),

* lethality (potential use of lethal force by or against DOD forces),

* risk (safety of DOD forces),

* cost (who pays and the impact on DOD's budget),

* appropriateness (whether the requested mission is in DOD's interest 
to conduct), and:

* readiness (impact on DOD's ability to perform its primary mission; 
defense of the nation).

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense evaluates 
requests for DOD military assistance on the basis of these criteria to 
determine whether resources are available and what the impact their use 
for firefighting would have on military readiness. The Joint Director 
of Military Support determines which assets would best meet NIFC's 
request, and the Secretary of Defense approves the order to deploy DOD 
resources to the fire. NIFC officials said that DOD has normally 
provided requested resources.

NIFC policies and procedures are contained in two primary guides, the 
National Interagency Mobilization Guide and the Military Use Handbook. 
Together these lay out under what circumstances military assets can be 
used; the process for ordering these resources; training requirements 
for personnel, including pilots, and military personnel managing 
aviation assets; limitations on the use of these assets; and other 
operational issues. Both guides state that before military assets can 
be mobilized, all civilian resources must be committed to ongoing 
suppression efforts.

According to NICC and DOD officials, current laws, agreements, and 
policies and procedures for requesting military aid for firefighting 
have proven adequate, and the process generally works well. NICC and 
DOD officials meet annually to discuss any needed changes to the 
process or procedures. Officials said that having a military liaison on-
site at NIFC, when a fire season becomes severe, is a key factor in 
effective communications between NIFC and DOD. A May 2004 OMB report 
also found that authorities and policies for using military resources 
to fight wildland fires have generally worked well and continue to be 
appropriate. The report stated that existing authorities are being used 
in a manner consistent with the available capabilities of DOD assets to 
fight wildland fires in the most expeditious and efficacious way to 
minimize the risk to public safety.

Procedures Governing the Use of Military Assets under State Control:

In contrast to the process for obtaining military resources under 
federal control for federal firefighting purposes, the use of National 
Guard units under state control is outlined in memorandums of 
understanding among federal agencies, state agencies, and specific 
National Guard units. National Guard assets under state control 
normally do not operate outside their state boundaries. The agreements 
authorizing their use vary in specificity, but National Guard assets 
are generally deployed only after a state's governor has declared a 
state of emergency. The agreements or other associated documents, such 
as operating plans, may include the circumstances under which the 
assets can be used, process for requesting the assets, and training and 
reimbursement requirements. For MAFFS, the Forest Service develops an 
annual operating plan that includes this information. Procedures or 
operating plans governing the use of other National Guard assets, such 
as helicopters, are prepared by the state. In California, the 
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection worked with the California 
National Guard, the Forest Service, and the National Park Service to 
develop detailed operating plans and training guides for the use of 
military helicopters. Not all states that use these resources for 
wildland firefighting have developed such guidance, however.

Military Assets Used for Wildland Firefighting 1988-2003:

NIFC maintains information on the use of military assets under federal 
control, including military personnel, as well as MAFFS air tankers, 
operated by either the Air Force Reserve or National Guard. According 
to a NICC official, military personnel and equipment were rarely used 
for firefighting before 1988. From 1988 through 2003, however, severe 
fire seasons have resulted in the use of federal military resources or 
MAFFS in 9 of 16 years (see table 2).

Table 2: Federal Military and MAFFS Assets Used for Wildland 
Firefighting 1988-2003:

Year: 2003; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: 48; 
Military assets: 1 Army battalion with medical evacuation helicopter; 8 
Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS); 6 
Marine Corps helicopters; 4 Navy Reserve helicopters.

Year: 2002; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: 62; 
Military assets: 1 Army battalion; 8 Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS).

Year: 2001; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: 16; 
Military assets: 2 Army battalions; 8 Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS).

Year: 2000; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: 40; 
Military assets: 4 Army battalions; 1 Marine Corps battalion.

Year: 1996; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: 21; 
Military assets: 1 Army battalion; 1 Marine Corps battalion; 8 Air 
National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS).

Year: 1994; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: 46; 
Military assets: 5 Army battalions; 2 Marine Corps battalions; 8 Air 
National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS).

Year: 1990; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: Not available; 
Military assets: 4 Army battalions; 8 Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS).

Year: 1989; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: Not available; 
Military assets: 4 Army battalions; 19 helicopters; 8 Air National 
Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS).

Year: 1988; 
Days in preparedness level 5[A]: Not available; 
Military assets: 6 Army battalions; 2 Marine Corps battalions; 57 
helicopters (including 2 with infrared scanners); 8 Air National Guard 
and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS).

Source: NIFC.

[A] During 1995, 1997, 1998, and 1999, the nation never reached 
preparedness level 5 and no active military or MAFFS assets were used 
for firefighting. Information on days in preparedness level 5 was not 
available for 1993 or earlier.

[End of table]

Complete information on National Guard assets assisting federal or 
state wildland firefighting efforts was not readily available on a 
national level. National Guard helicopters, military personnel, or 
other resources, however, have been used in a number of states in 
recent years including California, Florida, Montana, and Oregon. 
According to a California National Guard official, National Guard 
helicopters have been used in each of the last 15 years to assist in 
wildland firefighting. The Florida Division of Forestry Air Tactical 
Coordinator said that Florida used National Guard helicopters and 
military personnel each year from 1998 through 2002.[Footnote 72] 
Oregon has also used National Guard resources, such as during the 
severe 2002 fire season.

[End of section]

Appendix II: List of Participants in the Symposium Convened for GAO by 
the National Academy of Sciences:

Hank Blackwell:
Fire Marshal:
Assistant Chief:
Santa Fe County Fire Department:

Thomas Chirhart:
SAFECOM Spectrum Program Manager:
Office of Science & Technology:
Department of Homeland Security:

Jack D. Cohen:
Research Physical Scientist, Fire Sciences Laboratory:
USDA Forest Service:

Ed Dickerhoof:
Economist:
Resource Valuation and Use Research Staff:
Research and Development Division:
USDA Forest Service:

Doug Dierdorf:
Senior Scientist, Fire Research Group:
Air Force Research Laboratory:

David D. Evans:
Fire Protection Engineer:
Building and Fire Research Laboratory:
National Institute of Standards and Technology:

Nicholas Flores:
Associate Professor of Economics:
Research Associate, Institute of Behavioral Sciences:
University of Colorado:

Jeffrey W. Gilman Research Chemist Materials and Products Group Fire 
Research Division National Institute of Standards and Technology:

Jeffrey T. Inks:
Assistant Staff Vice President:
Codes and Standards Advocacy Group:
National Association of Home Builders:

Rich Just:
Director, Fire Operations:
Thermo Technologies, LLC:

Paul Kleindorfer:
Professor:
The Wharton School:
University of Pennsylvania:

Judith Leraas Cook:
Project Manager, Firewise Communities/USA:

Chris Lewis:
Office of the Chief Information Officer:
Telecommunications System Division:
Department of the Interior:

Tara McGee:
Associate Professor:
Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences:
University of Alberta:

Julio "Rick" Murphy:
Telecommunications Specialist:
Wireless Management Office:
Department of Homeland Security:

Robert D. Neamy:
Deputy Chief:
Los Angeles City Fire Department (Retired):

Don Oaks:
Viking Research Co-Chair, California Fire Chiefs Association Urban-
Wildland Committee, Fire Prevention Officers Section Southern Division:

William M. Raichle:
Assistant Vice President:
Insurance Services Office:

Ronald G. Rehm:
Fellow:
Building and Fire Research Laboratory:
National Institute of Standards and Technology:

Jim Ridgell:
Vice President and General Manager, Federal Business:
EF Johnson:

James C. Smalley:
Manager, Wildland Fire Protection:
National Fire Protection Association:

Joe Stutler:
Forestry Specialist Deschutes County (Oregon):

Jim Tidwell:
National Director, Fire Service Activities:
International Code Council:

Robert H. White:
Project Leader, Fire Safety Research Work Unit:
Forest Products Laboratory:
USDA Forest Service:

Joseph Zicherman:
President:
Fire Safety Consultant:
Fire Cause Analysis:

[End of section]

Appendix III: Technologies to Protect Structures from Wildland Fires:

Fire-resistant roof-covering materials: What they do and how they are 
used; 
A variety of noncombustible or fire-resistant materials are available 
to construct roofs. During a wildland fire, they protect against 
firebrands landing on a roof and igniting it. Noncombustible materials 
will not catch fire. Fire-resistant ones will not catch fire 
immediately but may eventually ignite. The overall fire resistance of a 
roof is determined by the design and construction of the entire roofing 
assembly, including any intermediate layers, called "underlayments," 
the roof decking, and the outermost layer. Roofing assemblies are 
evaluated according to standardized methods as class A, class B, or 
class C. Class A roofs are recommended for protection of structures in 
areas of extreme wildland fire risk, while class C roofs are 
recommended for areas of low risk. These fire-resistant roofing 
materials can be used for roofs on new homes or when roofs are replaced 
on existing homes.

Fire-resistant roof-covering materials: Types of roof-covering 
materials; 
Asphalt composition: Fiberglass or paper mats combined with asphalt and 
coated with small amounts of minerals or stone. Typically available in 
class A or C. The most widely used roofing material and one of the most 
inexpensive fire-resistant roofing materials. 

Clay: Fine-grained earthy material that hardens when heated and is 
widely used to make bricks and tiles. Noncombustible, class A. Is more 
expensive than many other materials and may be too heavy for some uses. 

Concrete: Usually a mix of cement, sand, gravel, and water that can be 
made to look like wood shingles. Noncombustible, class A. Can cost and 
weigh less than clay. 

Fiber-cement: Cement combined with wood fiber that can be molded to 
look like shingles and shakes. Noncombustible, requires underlayment to 
achieve class A. May be susceptible to water damage. 

Metal: Generally steel or aluminum, available in flat sheets with seams 
or a finish that looks like wood. Noncombustible but requires gypsum 
underlayment under the outer covering to restrict heat transfer to 
achieve a class A rating. Lightweight and durable. 

Slate: A fine-grained rock that can be split into thin, smooth layers. 
Noncombustible, class A. Highly durable but more expensive than many 
other coverings. May require additional roof support because of its 
weight. 

Synthetic rubber: Often made from recycled rubber and molded to look 
like traditional wood or slate. Available in class A, B, or C but may 
need additional underlayments to achieve a specific rating. Is cheaper 
and can weigh less than real slate. 

Treated wood: Wood may be pressure treated with chemicals to make it 
fire resistant. Combustible, available in class A, B, or C but may need 
additional underlayments to achieve a specific rating. Fire-resistant 
treatment may deteriorate over time.

Fire-resistant roof-covering materials: Effectiveness; 
The use of noncombustible or fire-resistant roofing materials has been 
shown to be a critical factor in protecting structures from wildland 
fire. Class A roofs are more fire resistant than class B or C roofs, 
but all offer some protection from wildland fire. While none will 
readily allow fire to spread across the roof, a noncombustible material 
may offer better protection. Some combustible materials depend on 
chemical treatments for their fire performance, and experts are 
concerned about whether such treatments will last the lifetime of the 
roof. Moreover, it is important to evaluate the entire roof assembly, 
not just the roof covering, when determining effectiveness. Metal, for 
instance, is noncombustible but can transfer heat to the materials 
underlying it and ignite them.

Fire-resistant roof-covering materials: Key factors affecting cost;
A number of factors can affect the cost of roof-covering materials. 
Asphalt composition and metal roof-covering materials are less 
expensive or comparably priced to untreated wood. Other roofing 
materials, such as concrete or clay tiles, may be more expensive and 
some, such as slate, may be substantially more expensive (see fig. 19). 
However, these costs can vary depending on the geographic location of 
the home.

Figure 19: Comparison of Estimated Cost of Common Fire-Resistant Roof-
Covering Materials:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Using a nationally-recognized construction cost guide, we 
estimated the cost of roof-covering materials needed for a 2,000-
square-foot, two-story home with no garage. Costs illustrated represent 
the cost of the roof-covering material and installation, as compared 
with the cost of an untreated wood shake roof. Due to the weight of 
some roof-covering materials, such as clay or slate, additional costs 
may be required to strengthen the roof structure.

[End of figure]

Fire-resistant windows: What they do and how they are used; 
Exposure to intense heat from a wildland fire can crack a glass window, 
even without direct contact, and allow fire to enter a structure. 
Conventional glass windows may crack after approximately 5 minutes of 
heat exposure. A variety of fire-resistant windows are available to 
help protect a structure from igniting by providing more resistance to 
cracking.

Fire-resistant windows: Types of fire-resistant windows; 
Dual-paned glass: Contains two layers of glass. The first layer 
partially protects the second layer and roughly doubles the amount of 
time before a window cracks when exposed to the heat from a wildland 
fire. Frequently used because it increases energy efficiency. 

Glass blocks: Most fire-resistant glass material available. Use may be 
limited because it allows light to enter a structure but does not 
provide a clear view through the glass. 

Tempered glass: Has been strengthened to resist breaking from heat. Can 
also offer protection from flying debris.

Fire-resistant windows: Effectiveness; 
Fire-resistant glass provides more protection than conventional glass 
from the heat generated by a wildland fire. If a window does crack from 
exposure to heat, a smaller window is more likely to stay in place and 
continue to protect the inside of a structure. The frame holding a 
glass window in place also needs to be able to withstand fire. Aluminum 
frames offer more protection than wood frames, which are highly 
combustible, or vinyl frames, which can melt and allow the glass to 
fall away. Finally, metal shutters or screens can offer additional 
protection for windows by decreasing the duration of a window's 
exposure to heat.

Fire-resistant windows: Key factors affecting cost; Fire-resistant 
windows: A variety of factors affect the cost of windows, including 
glass type, style, size, quality, and framing materials.

Fire-resistant building materials: What they do and how they are used;
A variety of noncombustible and fire-resistant materials are available 
to construct exterior components, such as walls, siding, and doors. 
These materials protect against flames or intense heat igniting or 
melting away a structure's exterior. They can also be used to construct 
such things as decks and fences which, if ignited, can lead fire to the 
dwelling. Noncombustible building materials will not catch fire, and 
fire-resistant ones will not catch fire for a period of time but may 
eventually ignite. The overall fire resistance of a building component 
is often determined by the length of time its entire assembly can 
contain a fire or maintain its structural integrity against fire. This 
fire performance is often rated according to standardized methods as 20-
minute, 1-hour, 2-hour, or 4-hour.

Fire-resistant building materials: Types of fire-resistant building 
materials; 
Fiber-cement: Cement combined with wood fiber. Available in a wood-
grain finish. Noncombustible but may need an underlying gypsum 
sheathing to achieve a 1-hour rating. 

Heavy timber: Combustible, but the low surface-to-volume ratio of 
thick timbers--typically, a minimum thickness of 6 inches for exterior 
siding--causes them to resist ignition and burn slowly. Very durable. 

Masonry: Brick, stone, or block. Noncombustible, usually 2-hour rated. 
Very durable. 

Metal: Metal siding--generally steel or aluminum--available in flat 
sheets with seams or a finish that looks like wood. Noncombustible but 
requires an underlying gypsum sheathing to achieve a 1-hour rating. 

Plastics and wood-plastic composites: Plastics, sometimes combined with 
natural wood fiber, that can be manufactured to look like wood. Used 
mainly for decking and fences. Low combustibility. 

Stucco: Plaster typically made of cement, sand, and lime, applied in 
two or three coats over a metal reinforcing mesh to form a three-
fourths-inch to one-inch finished layer. Stucco can be colored and 
scored to appear like brick, stone, or other materials. Noncombustible, 
1-hour rated. It can be prone to cracking if not applied correctly. 

Treated wood: Wood may be pressure treated with chemicals to make it 
fire-resistant. Combustible. Fire-resistant treatment may deteriorate 
over time.

Fire-resistant building materials: Effectiveness; 
The use of noncombustible or fire-resistant building materials has been 
shown to be helpful in reducing a structure's vulnerability to wildland 
fire. Longer-rated materials offer more protection than shorter-rated 
materials. Time-dependent ratings, however, may not be meaningful in 
wildland fires because firefighters may not be able to respond for many 
hours, if at all. Noncombustible materials can offer better protection. 
As with roofs, it is important to evaluate the entire assembly, not 
just the outer layer of material, when determining effectiveness. Some 
materials require additional layers to achieve a particular fire 
performance.

Fire-resistant building materials: Key factors affecting cost; 
Estimated costs of fire-resistant building materials vary widely. Using 
a nationally-recognized construction cost guide, we estimated the 
construction cost of a 2,000-square-foot, two-story home with no 
garage or basement. The estimated construction costs for a wood-framed 
home using wood, metal, or stucco exterior building materials were 
comparable. The estimated costs using brick exterior building materials 
was about 10 percent more, and stone was about 20 percent more. For 
decking material, the cost of plastic and composite materials is 
comparable to the higher-end wood products, such as redwood, but more 
expensive than treated wood. However, these costs can vary depending on 
the geographic location of the home.

Chemical agents: What they do and how they are used; 
Chemical agents are used with water to provide a temporary protective 
coating that inhibit ignition of flammable surfaces. They are designed 
to overcome some of water's drawbacks, including its tendency to bead 
and to run off vertical surfaces. Chemical agents can be applied by 
firefighters or by homeowners. Homeowners can apply them using plastic 
containers attached to a standard garden hose or using portable pump 
systems. Permanently installed units are also available. These systems 
are often provided with their own water and power, and some can be set 
up to distribute the agent to nozzles mounted on the roof.

Chemical agents: Types of chemical agents; 
Foams: A mass of air-filled bubbles formed by forcibly mixing water and 
a wetting agent with air. Often composed of ingredients found in 
natural or synthetic detergents, such as dishwashing liquid or shampoo. 

Gels: Superabsorbent molecules (polymers) that retain hundreds of times 
their weight in water. They adhere well to vertical surfaces such as 
walls. 

Wetting agents: Surfactants (surface active agents) that reduce water's 
surface tension, increasing its ability to permeate a surface. Often a 
component of a foam or gel.

Chemical agents: Effectiveness; 
Chemical agents have been shown to be effective in temporarily 
protecting structures from fires. These agents increase the efficiency 
of water as a firefighting tool, reducing the amount of water needed 
for effective suppression. For example, research at the University of 
Toronto has shown that coating structures with surfactants can reduce 
the amount of water needed to fight a fire by as much as 60 percent. 
Unlike passive protection systems such as fire-resistant building 
materials, application of chemical agents typically requires either 
firefighters or homeowners to be present. In addition, foams and gels 
may dry out before the wildland fire risk has passed and need to be 
reapplied. They are not effective once the water has evaporated. 
Further, once applied, gels can be difficult to clean up and may 
require multiple washings to remove after a fire has passed. The Forest 
Service maintains a qualified list of wildland fire chemical agents 
that have been tested against environmental and health standards.

Chemical agents: Key factors affecting cost; 
A variety of factors affect the cost of chemical agents, including 
whether the system used to apply chemical agents is portable or 
installed and whether power and water are supplied with the system. 

The cost of systems to apply chemical agents varies widely depending on 
features. These systems can cost more when power and water are supplied 
with the dispensing systems.

Sprinkler systems: What they do and how they are used; 
Sprinkler systems spray water on the inside or outside of a structure. 
Some external sprinklers can also spray chemical agents.

Sprinkler systems: Types of sprinkler systems; 
Interior sprinklers: Often used to protect from more-typical structural 
fires--such as those caused by cooking, smoking, or other hazards--but 
also offer protection from fires that start with firebrands entering a 
house through a vent or other opening, especially if the sprinkler is 
mounted in the attic. Frequently activated automatically. 

Exterior portable sprinklers: Some can be attached directly to a garden 
hose or to a small portable pump to increase water pressure. Some can 
be placed on the roof. 

Exterior permanent sprinklers: Permanently installed systems that often 
require large sources of water. One such system includes retractable 
roof-mounted sprinkler nozzles that emerge when needed and retract when 
not in use. Some can be activated automatically.

Sprinkler systems: Effectiveness; 
Sprinkler systems provide additional protection for structures by 
decreasing a structure's flammability and reducing the chance of 
ignition. Exterior sprinklers can also decrease the flammability of 
nearby vegetation, further increasing protection. Sprinkler systems, 
however, may be ineffective in a wildland fire because of shortages of 
water or power. In addition, temporary sprinkler systems require 
homeowners to be present to set up and activate them.

Sprinkler systems: Key factors affecting cost; 
The cost of sprinkler systems varies considerably depending on whether 
the system is interior or exterior, permanent or portable. Advanced 
features, such as automated detection and activation, can also affect 
the cost.

Geographic information systems: What they do and how they are used;
Geographic information systems (GIS) are a computer-based information 
system for storing, analyzing, and displaying complex information. GIS 
links sets of data and displays the information as maps with many 
different layers, each representing a particular "theme," or feature. 
For example, one theme could map all the homes in a specified 
community, another could map the streets in the same area, and still 
others could map vegetation or water resources. Analyzing the 
relationships among these features can significantly aid decision 
makers with complex choices, such as where to place new fuel breaks.

Geographic information systems: Effectiveness; 
GIS has been shown to be an effective tool for community planning to 
protect structures and communities from wildland fires. GIS allows fire 
officials to analyze vegetation distribution, predicted fire behavior, 
and location of structures to identify areas most at risk. This 
information can be used to determine where action--such as vegetation 
management, fuel breaks, or educational outreach programs--is most 
needed. For example, the Los Angeles County Fire Department uses GIS to 
identify high-risk areas within its jurisdiction and then assesses its 
resources and prescribes vegetation management accordingly.

Geographic information systems: Key factors affecting cost; 
The cost of GIS systems varies widely, depending on the system and 
scope of use. The cost associated with collecting and maintaining data 
for GIS use can be substantial. Some GIS systems offer public access to 
data on the Internet without charging access fees to users.

Source: GAO analysis of federal, state, local, nongovernmental, and 
commercial data.

[End of Table]

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Web Sites with Information on Protecting Homes from 
Wildland Fire:

Federal Emergency Management Agency:
www.fema.gov/hazards/fires/wildfires.shtm:

Firewise Communities:
www.firewise.org/:

Forest Service Database of Wildland Fire Mitigation Programs:
www.wildfireprograms.com/:

Florida Demonstration Home:
www.interfacesouth.org/fire/firewisehome/:

National Association of State Foresters:
www.stateforesters.org/:

National Fire Plan:
www.fireplan.gov/:

National Interagency Fire Center:
www.nifc.gov/:

[End of section]

Appendix V: Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability:

Firefighting and other public safety personnel responding to wildland 
fires need to be able to communicate with one another. The ability of 
any public safety official to talk to whomever they need to, whenever 
they need to, is commonly called communications interoperability. Many 
agencies, however, either operate on different radio frequency bands or 
use incompatible communications systems. Technologies are currently 
available, and others are being developed, to help public safety 
agencies overcome these barriers. These technologies can be grouped 
into short-term, or patchwork, solutions to interconnect existing radio 
systems and longer-term solutions to upgrade communications systems for 
increased interoperability.

Patchwork Interoperability:

Patchwork interoperability uses technology to interconnect two or more 
disparate radio systems so that voice or data from one system can be 
made available to all systems. A key advantage of this solution is that 
it can tie together existing communications systems and requires only 
minimal additional equipment. Three primary patchwork solutions exist.

Audio Switch:

An audio switch provides interoperability by sending audio from one 
radio system to all other connected systems. An audio switch can be 
either stationary or mobile. One popular audio switch (see fig. 20) 
consists of a chassis with slots, into which different hardware modules 
can be installed to control and interconnect different communications 
systems, such as VHF (very high frequency) and UHF (ultrahigh 
frequency) radios, as well as telephones. The audio switch can hold up 
to 12 interface modules, each capable of connecting a radio system. 
Further, two chassis can be linked, doubling the number of radio 
systems that can be connected.

Figure 20: An Audio Switch:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Audio switches are useful for wildland firefighting where multiple 
agencies temporarily come together to fight the fire because they are 
easily transportable and can be used to create temporary 
interoperability. A portable audio switch is available for easy 
transport. Audio switches also provide flexibility because different 
agencies can be connected in different incidents or situations, 
although a different type of cable is needed for each type of radio 
connected. Finally, audio switches may cost less than some other 
interconnection devices, such as crossband repeaters, although audio 
switches still may be out of reach of agencies facing funding 
constraints. For example, one audio switch costs approximately $7,000 
for the chassis without the radio interface modules or cables. An 
interface module and a cable are needed for each radio connected. The 
module costs approximately $1,100, and the cables are available for 
approximately $140 each.

Audio switches are relatively new. According to an official with the 
National Interagency Fire Center's (NIFC) National Interagency Incident 
Communications Division, which maintains the nation's radio cache, has 
acquired two audio switch units that will be available to firefighting 
agencies for the first time in the 2005 fire season.

Crossband Repeater:

A crossband repeater provides interoperability between systems 
operating on different radio frequency bands by changing frequencies 
between two radio systems. Crossband repeaters can connect base 
stations[Footnote 73] or mobile radios, either in vehicles or handheld 
(see fig. 21). The repeater is also useful for extending the 
communications coverage beyond the range of a single radio. Crossband 
repeaters can also be linked together to overcome distances or 
geographical features blocking communication among users utilizing one 
repeater.

Figure 21: A Crossband Repeater Used to Connect Radios Operating on 
Different Frequency Bands:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to a communications specialist at NIFC, crossband repeaters 
are an effective interoperability solution often used by federal 
firefighting agencies. For example, federal firefighting agencies 
operate on both VHF and UHF when fighting a wildland fire. VHF (AM and 
FM) is used for tactical communications by personnel at the fire line 
and tactical aircraft flying over the fire and UHF (AM) is used in the 
base camp for logistical or other nontactical uses. When federal 
firefighting agencies are at an incident, a crossband repeater can be 
temporarily set up on a nearby hilltop to transmit signals between 
these different frequency bands. The device receives a VHF signal and 
retransmits it as a UHF signal, for example. NIFC has crossband 
repeaters available and can quickly transport them to the incident. 
Ranging in price from $4,000 to $33,000 each, crossband repeaters can 
cost more than audio switches, which may put them beyond the reach of 
small state and local jurisdictions with limited funding.

Console-to-Console Patch:

A console-to-console patch achieves interoperability by making an audio 
connection between the dispatch consoles of two different radio 
systems. Unlike patchwork solutions that can be transported to the 
emergency or incident, console-to-console patches connect consoles 
located at the dispatch centers where personnel receive incoming calls. 
These patches can connect personnel from an agency using one radio 
system to personnel from an agency using a different radio system. 
Connections between dispatch consoles can be made temporarily, as 
needed, through a public telephone line or permanently over a dedicated 
leased line or a dedicated microwave or fiber link.[Footnote 74] The 
costs for this type of solution primarily depend on the type of link 
used. For example, the costs for a console-to-console patch over a 
telephone line or a dedicated leased line are fairly minimal and would 
primarily consist of the recurring telephone line charges. In contrast, 
dedicated microwave or fiber links require a significant initial 
investment. For example, a typical microwave link connecting two 
locations about 3 to 5 miles apart would require an initial investment 
of around $35,000 whereas connecting two locations about 15 to 25 miles 
apart would double the investment to about $70,000. Figure 22 
illustrates the concept of a console-to-console patch over a dedicated 
link.

Figure 22: Console-to-Console Patch over a Dedicated Link:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Improved Communication Systems:

Beyond patchwork solutions, improved interoperability can also be 
achieved by adopting better communications systems that use a set of 
common technical standards or provide more sophisticated communications 
capabilities. These new technologies require replacing or gradually 
phasing out existing radio systems.

Project 25 Systems:

Project 25, also called APCO 25, was begun in 1989 by representatives 
from the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials 
International, the National Association of State Telecommunications 
Directors, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, the National Communications System, and the Department 
of Defense, to provide detailed standards for digital two-way wireless 
communications systems so that all purchasers of Project 25-compatible 
equipment can communicate with each other. Project 25 has two main 
phases. During the first phase, five standards were completed and 
published. Equipment compatible with these standards are available from 
multiple vendors. Phase 2 of the project focuses on developing 
standards for other components of the systems, such as dispatch 
consoles and base stations.

Project 25 radios provide several benefits for users. First, they can 
carry both voice and data. This feature can be useful in wildland 
firefighting because it can provide firefighters with important 
information about subjects such as weather or fire behavior. Second, 
Project 25 digital radios can operate in narrowband frequencies, which 
allow more users within the existing public safety radio frequency 
bands. Current analog public safety radios use 25 kHz-wide channels for 
each conversation. Project 25 radios use 12.5 kHz-wide channels, so 
that two conversations can take place in the space where only one used 
to fit. Eventually, these radios will use 6.25 kHz-wide channels, 
allowing four times as many conversations as analog radios. At the same 
time, however, Project 25 radios are "backward compatible" so they can 
still communicate with analog radios and operate in analog mode on 25 
kHz channels. This backward compatibility enables agencies to make the 
transition to digital Project 25 radios gradually, while continuing to 
use their analog equipment.

While Project 25 radios provide additional capabilities, they are also 
more costly, which is a barrier for many public safety agencies with 
limited funding. For example, Project 25 portable radios, priced 
between $1,700 and $2,500, cost more than other available radios that 
cost around $1,200 each.

Although the federal government has begun moving to Project 25 
standards, it will take several years for the federal government to 
replace all existing radios with Project 25 radios. According to 
federal officials, the Department of the Interior and the Forest 
Service did not adopt Project 25 radio standards at the same time. In 
1996, the Department of the Interior adopted both narrowband and 
Project 25 digital standards. According to an official, by October 
2004, the department had converted just over half of the communications 
infrastructure to Project 25 digital technology. In contrast, the 
Forest Service initially adopted narrowband analog, but not digital, 
standards. The Forest Service completed the migration to narrowband by 
January 2005, according to a Forest Service official and, in October 
2004, began requiring that all new radios purchased meet Project 25 
digital standards. Full implementation of Project 25 within the Forest 
Service is not expected to take place until about 2012. In the case of 
NIFC, it has 1,500 Project 25 radios in its cache, out of a total of 
8,000 radios, according to a NIFC communications specialist.

It will also take time for other jurisdictions to migrate to these 
radios. For example, a December 2003 inventory of communications 
equipment in Washington State showed that about 400 state-owned 
portable radios are Project 25 compatible, however, none of these are 
owned by the Department of Natural Resources, which is responsible for 
wildland firefighting.

Software-Defined Radios:

Software-defined radios, first developed by the Department of Defense 
(DOD),[Footnote 75] are an emerging technology that holds potential for 
public safety agencies, including firefighting agencies. These radios 
use software to determine operating parameters such as the frequency 
band (such as VHF or UHF) and modulation type (such as AM or FM). 
Because these parameters are determined by software, a software-defined 
radio could be programmed to transmit and receive on any frequency and 
to use any desired modulation within the limits of its hardware design. 
Software-defined radios will allow interoperability between agencies 
using different frequency bands, different operational modes (digital 
or analog), proprietary systems from different manufacturers, or 
different modulation (AM or FM). For example, a software-defined radio 
can be programmed to work as a conventional UHF radio but in another 
operating mode can function as an 800 MHz radio. Some software-defined 
radios could be used to identify unused frequencies and automatically 
make use of them, which is important in making efficient use of limited 
radio spectrum. The software-defined radio technology may also provide 
integrated voice and data over the same channel, a useful feature for 
firefighters who need maps, weather, and fire behavior data. These 
radios, however, are still being developed and are not yet available 
for use by public safety agencies.

Voice over Internet Protocol:

Voice over Internet Protocol can connect different radio systems by 
using the Internet as the connecting mechanism. Voice over Internet 
Protocol converts analog voice signals from a radio into digital data 
packets that travel over an Internet Protocol network.[Footnote 76] At 
their destination, the digital information is converted back to analog 
audio and can be heard on the recipient's radio. Voice over Internet 
Protocol enables interoperability between agencies using different 
frequency bands, different operational modes (digital or analog), or 
proprietary systems from different manufacturers.

Voice over Internet Protocol holds promise as a relatively low-cost 
solution to communications interoperability, but some key issues will 
need to be resolved before it can be an effective solution. It works 
using Internet Protocol, which is a widely used technology standard, so 
commercial off-the-shelf network equipment is available from many 
vendors which keeps costs relatively low. However, no standards exist 
for radio communications using Voice over Internet Protocol and, as a 
result, manufacturers have produced proprietary systems that may not be 
interoperable. In addition, the system does not yet have reliable voice 
quality. During periods of network congestion, packets of voice 
information can be distorted or dropped. A communications specialist 
with NIFC explained that while data packets can be sent again, normally 
without adverse consequences, delayed or dropped voice communication 
packets can mean that personnel on the receiving end of the 
communication may not hear all critical information and this could put 
firefighters' safety at risk.

[End of section]

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:

United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:

File Code: 1310/1430:

Date: March 31, 2005:

Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and the Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Nazzaro:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, GAO-05-380, "Technology 
Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during 
Wildland Fires". The Forest Service concurs with the facts presented in 
the report and believes that it provides an accurate, balanced 
assessment of the challenges and various efforts underway to protect 
structures and improve communication during wildland fires.

We look forward to working with GAO on future reviews. If you have any 
technical questions regarding this review, please contact Tory 
Henderson, Equipment and Chemical Branch Chief, at (208) 387-5348. For 
general questions, please contact Sandy T. Coleman, Agency Audit 
Liaison, at (703) 605-4940.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

Dale N. Bosworth:
Chief:

cc: Christine Roye:

[End of section]

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce:

United States Department Of Commerce:
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy:
Washington, D.C. 20230:

Postmarked April 7, 2005:

Mr. Naba Barkakati:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Barkakati:

Enclosed are comments from the Department of Commerce to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) proposed report entitled Technology 
Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during 
Wildland Fires (GAO-05 380). Thank you for giving us an opportunity to 
review the report before it is issued in final form. I commend the GAO 
for this study on an issue of such national importance, protecting 
structures during wildland fires.

The authors have done an excellent job of describing the problem, 
assessing the vulnerabilities of individual structures to wildland 
fires, and developing recommendations for (1) the protection of 
structures subjected to wildland fires, and (2) development of 
technologies to assist Federal agencies working together more 
effectively during the fires.

We recognize that developing new physics-based computer models for the 
wildland-urban interface would greatly assist communities in (1) 
assessing fire risk, (2) developing new fire mitigation/prevention 
strategies, (3) evaluating the cost effectiveness of risk-reduction 
changes, and (4) designing improved fire safety and evacuation routes.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 
Daniel W. Caprio

Enclosure:

Comments on Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report entitled 
"Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures from and Improving 
Communications during Wildland Fires" made by the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce:

1. The GAO team should be commended for the study. The report provides 
a very good assessment of the vulnerability of individual structures to 
wildland fires, and how this vulnerability can be substantially reduced 
by some relatively simple and inexpensive changes. It also makes a good 
assessment of the communication technologies needed so there can be 
effective action between agencies during wildland fires.

2. The authors make an important distinction between the terms 
"wildfires," and "wildland-urban-interface fires" or "WUI fires." 
Generally, these two sets of terms are used imprecisely, and therefore, 
in a potentially confusing way. Wildfires are simply fires involving 
only wildland, or vegetation fuels. In contrast, the wildland-urban-
interface (WUI) is carefully defined as an area where wildland 
materials (trees, shrubs and grass, for example) reside intermingled 
with structures. WUI fires are ones that burn in a heterogeneous 
environment. This definition also implies that there may be multiple 
structures, as well as multiple trees, shrubs, etc., in the area of 
concern. The distinction between "wildfires" and "WUI fires" becomes 
very important when the discussion turns to the physics of fire spread 
in WUI fuels. In contrast to wildfires, where the fuel bed can be 
considered statistically homogeneous, in WUI fires, the fuel is 
heterogeneous and occurs in discrete elements such as individual 
structures, shrubs, and isolated trees--each of which burns in a unique 
manner. The energy content and heat release from a structural fire are 
normally much greater than for an equivalent area of forest land.

3. This report addresses a very serious issue. The philosophy of land 
management within the United States has undergone substantial change 
during the past few decades. During most of the twentieth century, fire 
in wildland areas was regarded as harmful and therefore, land-
management practice attempted to suppress these fires completely. The 
"Smokey-the-Bear" campaign was designed to reduce wildfires to the 
greatest extent possible.

Fire in wildlands today is regarded as natural and so-called 
"prescribed burns" are used as a tool to help keep these areas healthy. 
However, decades of accumulated fuels in wildland areas, that would 
have been removed naturally by fire, have left these areas vulnerable 
to large, very dangerous fires. Therefore, at a time when new homes are 
increasing the area associated with the WUI, the results of past land-
management practices have left these areas at risk to extreme, 
potentially catastrophic fires.

4. Revolutionary advances in computer hardware at ever decreasing 
costs, coupled with the development of advanced computational 
algorithms and a better understanding of phenomena, have changed 
computations in science and engineering. These advances have opened the 
door to the development of a new generation of models for predicting 
the behavior of wildland and WUI fires. However, the development of 
such new-generation models still would require a multi-person, multi-
year research program since these models are fundamentally different 
from current so-called "operational models," which are the tools used 
regularly to predict behavior of wildfires. Unfortunately, the research 
and science incorporated into these operational models is based on 
decades-old understanding of fire phenomena.

To be of practical predictive value, numerical simulations must be a 
physics-based model and developed specifically for outdoor fires, 
including considerations of vegetation, structures, topography and 
meteorology. Computer models must be able to describe fire from first 
principles, including use of current Geographic Information Systems 
(GIS) technology, and promises to be much better able to predict fire 
behavior under realistic outdoor conditions. The research needed for 
such a new model must also include a substantial experimental program 
to generate new data for model validation.

Over the past few decades, NIST has carried out an active experimental 
research and model development program related to fires within 
buildings. This research has produced new generation models that are 
highly regarded and useful for the prediction of building fires, 
outdoor smoke plumes, and other fire phenomena. The cost to develop one 
model, the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), has been estimated to be 
between 100 and 200 person-years and can be used as a guide to estimate 
the level of research required to develop such a new generation model 
for outdoor fires. The National Institute of Standards and Technology 
simulation models have been freely distributed (http://
www.fire.nist.gov/) and have been used for hundreds of:applications. A 
recent and very important application of FDS has been its use to 
determine the contribution of fire to the collapse of the World Trade 
Center Towers.

Physics-based models can play an important role in: 

-assessing community fire risk:
-developing new fire mitigation/prevention strategies 
-testing existing assessment methodologies 
-community outreach and education:
-evaluating the cost effectiveness of risk-reduction changes 
-community design to improve fire safety and evacuation routes, and 
-predicting the smoke-plume trajectory from an approaching wild fire, 
so that responders can choose the best evacuation routes.

5. Key conclusions of this report are that "the two most effective 
measures for protecting structures from wildland fires are: (i) 
creating and maintaining a buffer around a structure-called a 
defensible space-by eliminating or reducing trees, shrubs, and other 
flammable objects within an area of from 30 to 100 feet around the 
structure, and (ii) using fire-resistant roofs and vents." The 
recommended defensible-space distance is based on post-fire 
observations and a very limited set of large-scale experiments, 
covering only a very restricted range of conditions related to winds, 
number of structures, topography, etc., that are present in WUI fires. 
Additional full-scale, single structure-burn experiments should be 
conducted but will be permitted rarely and always will be expensive. 
Full-scale, multiple-structure experimental burns probably will never 
be permitted. A new-generation physics-based simulation model, such as 
the one described above, could augment the limited set of large-scale 
experiments and serve as a cost-effective means of developing more 
robust recommendations for protection of structures in the WUI.

6. The communications section of the report addresses the problems 
related to hardware interoperability, but does not address issues of 
information interoperability. Examples of questions related to 
information interoperability are: What kinds of information do fire 
fighters require to deal effectively with WUI fires? What type of 
information should be incorporated into GIS displays and how should it 
be presented? What are the real-time information requirements for 
managing and mitigating a WUI fire? What information standards are 
required for seamless information flow to multiple responding 
organizations?

The following are GAO's comments on the letter from the Department of 
Commerce, postmarked April 7, 2005.

GAO Comments:

1. Federal, state, and local materials designed to educate homeowners 
and local officials, including those published by the Firewise 
Communities program, and researchers and fire officials we spoke with, 
indicated that 30 to 100 feet of defensible space is generally 
sufficient to protect structures from wildland fire. In determining the 
amount of defensible space needed in a particular location, it is 
important to consider factors such as terrain, type of vegetation, and 
the structure's construction. Fire officials told us that, in many 
cases, local fire officials can assist homeowners in determining the 
appropriate amount of defensible space needed in their particular 
location.

2. A discussion of information interoperability for wildland 
firefighting was outside the scope of our study.

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense:

Director Of Defense Research And Engineering:
3030 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-3030:

Ms. Robin Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
April 13, 2005:

Dear Ms. Nazzaro:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, "Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving 
Communications during Wildland Fires," dated March 15, 2005 (GAO Code 
360474/GAO-05-380).

The draft report has been reviewed for technical accuracy and is deemed 
sufficient in its description of processes, usage and types of military 
assets to fight wildland fires. The Department concurs with the 
report's observation that the current laws, agreements, policies and 
procedures for requesting military aid for firefighting have worked 
well and remain appropriate.

Sincerely,

Signed by:
Charles J. Holland for Ronald M. Sega:

Director Of Defense Research And Engineering:
3030 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-3030:
April 13, 2005:

Mr. Keith Rhodes:
Director, Center for Technology and Engineering:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Rhodes:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, "Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving 
Communications during Wildland Fires," dated March 15, 2005 (GAO Code 
360474/GAO-05-380).

The draft report has been reviewed for technical accuracy and is deemed 
sufficient in its description of processes, usage and types of military 
assets to fight wildland fires. The Department concurs with the 
report's observation that the current laws, agreements, policies and 
procedures for requesting military aid for firefighting have worked 
well and remain appropriate.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

Charles J. Holland for Ronald M. Sega

[End of section]

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
March 31, 2005:

Mr. Barry Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Hill:

Re: Draft Report GAO-05-380, Technology Assessment Protecting 
Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft 
report. The report is factual and accurate providing a good assessment 
of the challenges facing the wildland fire community in their efforts 
to protect structures and other improvements prior to a wildfire event. 
The issue of improving communications during wildland fires has been a 
problem for many years as frequency availability decreases with greater 
demand and the need for technological solutions increases.

The issue of non-compatible communications is primarily during the 
initial and extended attack phases of an incident. While this is a 
critical period technological solutions would best fit during this 
period. Large fire operations can be supported by the state, regional, 
and national radio cache systems.

With the increase of homes in the wildland urban interface coupled with 
the severe climate conditions due to drought, the wildland fire 
agencies have to divert their efforts in perimeter control to structure 
protection. This ultimately leads to larger incidents and higher cost 
of suppression. This report is a good focus on the actions that can be 
taken prior to the incident which over time will reduce cost and fire 
size.

In the GIS mapping discussion it should be noted that a primary use for 
this tool is pre-planning for evacuations and public education.

As stated in the report the responsibility for land use planning 
resides with states and local government authorities. While this is 
true it should be noted that if this is not done well the effect is 
that the Federal Wildland Fire Agencies become involved in the 
suppression effort both from assisting other local fire agencies as 
well as protecting federal lands from fires starting on local 
jurisdictions.

The Department's Science and Technology Directorate's Office for 
Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) continues to refine and 
enhance the SAFECOM Program.

Since the release of v1.0 of the Public Safety Communications and 
Interoperability Statement of Requirements (SoR), SAFECOM has been in 
the process of developing v1.1 of the SoR. SoR v1.1 will reorganize the 
requirements contained within v1.0 into a layered structure, 
reclassifying the requirements into Network Functional Requirements, 
Device Functional Requirements, and Application/Services Functional 
Requirements. SAFECOM is currently vetting v1.1 of the SoR with the 
public safety practitioner community and anticipates releasing v1.1 to 
the public by June 30, 2005.

Development of v2.0 of the SoR is currently underway. SoR v2.0 will add 
additional quantitative values to the functional requirements contained 
in v1.1, as well as addressing National Incident Management System 
(NIMS) compliance. SAFECOM anticipates that it will be able to vet the 
draft of this version with the public safety community beginning in 
early 2006.

Additionally, SAFECOM awarded the contract to develop and execute the 
nationwide interoperability baseline study in January 2005. The purpose 
of the study is to quantify the extent to which the nation's public 
safety first responders are interoperable technically and 
operationally. Throughout the study, SAFECOM will utilize public safety 
practitioner input and analytical review by chartering a Baseline 
Practitioner Working Group. When it is complete, the baseline will 
provide understanding of the current state of interoperability 
nationwide. In addition, the baseline will serve as a tool to measure 
future improvements made through local, state, and federal public 
safety communications initiatives. Through the baseline, SAFECOM will 
be able to identify areas needing additional resources for 
interoperability, track the impact of federal programs and measure the 
success of these programs, establish an on-going process and mechanism 
to measure the state of interoperability on a recurring basis, and 
develop an interoperability baseline self-assessment tool for local and 
state public safety agencies. SAFECOM anticipates that it will complete 
the National Interoperability Baseline by December 30, 2005.

SAFECOM also recently developed the Statewide Communications 
Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology. SAFECOM partnered with 
the Commonwealth of Virginia to develop a strategic plan for statewide 
communications and interoperability. The locally driven approach used 
to develop this plan can serve as a model for any state or region 
interested in developing a strategic plan for interoperability.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review the draft report.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Acting Director:
Departmental GAO-OIG liaison:

The following are GAO's comments on the letter from the Department of 
Homeland Security, dated March 31, 2005.

GAO Comments:

1. We have revised the text to clarify that problems with 
communications interoperability occur primarily during the early stages 
of fire suppression efforts, called the initial and extended attack 
phases of the incident, before radio caches can be deployed.

2. We revised the text to clarify that GIS can also be used for 
community education efforts. The issue of preplanning for evacuations 
during wildland fires, while outside the scope of our study, was 
mentioned in the footnote citing previous GAO work on the uses of GIS. 
For more information on GIS applications for wildland fire management, 
see our report Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise for 
Wildland Fire Management, but Challenges Remain (G [Hyperlink, http://
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1047] AO-03-1047).

[End of section]

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary Policy, Management And Budget:
Washington, DC 20240:
April 12, 2005:

Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Director Nazzaro:

The Department of the Interior is in substantial agreement with the 
major findings of the GAO draft report, "Technology Assessment: 
Protecting Structures and Improving Communications During Wildland 
Fires," (GAO-05-380) (Job Code 360474). The principal findings (1. 
defensible space and fire-resistant roofs and vents are key to 
protecting structures; 2. time, expense and other competing concerns 
limit the use of protective measures for structures, but efforts to 
increase their use are under way; and, 3. effective adoption of 
technologies to achieve communications interoperability requires better 
planning and coordination) are consistent with the views of wildland 
fire management professionals.

The first two findings are particularly consistent with the views of 
Secretary Gale A. Norton, who has devoted considerable time and 
attention to the importance of educating the public on measures they 
can take to help protect their homes and property from catastrophic 
wildfires. Cooperation and collaboration with the public is a central 
focus for this Department's comprehensive approach to fire management. 
Community Wildfire Protection Plans need to be considered in the 
hazardous fuels reduction project selection process. Federal fire 
prevention efforts will be increasingly integrated with community 
efforts in the future.

The third major finding describes a number of tactical issues related 
to technology and communications and accurately points out that 
planning and coordination among federal, state, and local public 
agencies are necessary in order to work together to resolve 
communications interoperability issues. To that end, the Wildland Fire 
Leadership Council has commissioned the development of a National 
Wildland Fire Enterprise Architecture team to improve interagency 
information technology and business practices. One of the focus areas 
for this effort will be geographic information systems used in wildland 
fire management by federal, state, tribal, and local agencies.

Following are several specific comments to the draft report that we 
hope you will find useful in producing the final report.

Page 10, Paragraph 1: Research by Jack Cohen, et al. (USDA Forest 
Service) indicates home ignitions are not caused by radiant heat 
generated from passing crown fires or flame fronts. Rather, showers of 
burning embers occur and are carried upwards via convection from fires 
often some distance away. Collecting in a fashion similar to snow 
drifts, piles of embers accumulate on areas such as flammable roofs, 
corners where decks and wooden walls meet; on flammable adjacent 
objects like patio furniture cushions; under decks where leaves and 
other materials have collected; or they cascade and accumulate into 
vent openings in attics, igniting flammable materials within. 
Structures often ignite several hours after the fire has passed, as 
these small piles of embers heat ignitable surfaces over time, finally 
causing an ignition.

Clearing a defensible space zone, and using less flammable construction 
materials helps minimize the number of ignitable surfaces, so when 
embers do accumulate there is less probability they will cause an 
ignition. Surface or crown fires certainly can ignite a structure, if 
fuels are actually touching or closely adjacent to a structure. With a 
modest clearance zone, radiant heat should be less of a factor.

Page 14, Paragraph 2: Homeowners are especially concerned about costs 
related to improving the fire survivability of their homes. A fire-
resistant roof, Firewise landscaping, and improved water access and 
delivery are some of the more effective and cost efficient measures for 
homeowners to take. Double-pane windows are a prudent requirement, for 
new homes, not only for fire protection but for energy efficiency. 
There is also a bit of controversy over whether protective gels and 
foams are effective or if it is prudent for citizens to take time to 
apply them when they could either be evacuating in a timely manner or 
engaging in other, possibly more effective, activities if they do 
choose to stay (i.e. removing vegetation, extinguishing small spot 
fires, etc.) On the other hand, foams have been effectively used by 
professionally trained firefighters with specialized application 
equipment.

Page 15: It is true that many homeowners believe fire officials are 
responsible for protecting their homes. Fully trained and highly 
equipped municipal fire departments responded to many of the historical 
WUl incidents cited in this report, with multiple alarms as well as 
with mutual aid providers from adjacent communities to assist. In many 
of these incidents, and in the Oakland Hills fire specifically, these 
forces were overwhelmed by multiple structural ignitions, the resulting 
lack of water and pressure, poor access, and extreme fire behavior. 
Less equipped rural and volunteer departments would certainly be 
overwhelmed by similar scenarios. Firefighters will often be unable to 
access, much less protect, most individual homes, particularly in a 
high-density housing, multiple-ignition scenario, hence the need for 
wise preparation by individual homeowners.

Page 16 Paragraph 2: The report's assertion, that insurance companies 
have historically not placed emphasis on wildland fire in the past, is 
correct. While there had been some early pilot efforts by individual 
companies in the intermountain West, in general, industry 
representatives in California have said that losses from the 2003 fires 
have prompted concern and the contemporary efforts to now more 
vigorously enforce various requirements, such as defensible space and 
fire resistant roofing.

Page 46: The University of Nevada Cooperative Extension has done 
extensive research on factors that affect homeowner motivation to take 
preventive measures to protect their properties.

Page 49: Community involvement is essential for the success of Firewise 
Communities programs. Even with ample funding, these programs will not 
be effective without community and individual participation. 
Governments, universities, nonprofits and other organizations can only 
provide the tools to initiate change. Personal responsibility is an 
essential theme in ongoing education efforts.

Page 62: The last sentence of footnote 46 should be changed to say, 
"These radios are routinely used for large fires and..." to properly 
state the common use of the radios.

Page 71: The National Interagency Coordination Center records a figure 
closer to 500 aircraft for the number of tactical and support aircraft 
utilized annually, instead of the 800 figure cited in footnote 59 of 
the report.

Page 96: The second to last sentence on the page should be changed to 
say, "VHF (AM and FM) is used by personnel and tactical aircraft on and 
over the fire line for tactical communications and UHF (AM) is used in 
the base camp for logistical, or other non tactical uses".

Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft report which 
provides a very useful overview of technology issues surrounding 
structure protection and communications during wildland fires. We look 
forward to the final report.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

P. Lynn Scarlett:
Acting Assistant Secretary Policy, Management and Budget:

The following are GAO's comments on the letter from the Department of 
the Interior, dated April 12, 2005.

GAO Comments:

1. Crown fires can threaten structures if adequate defensible space is 
not present. In such cases, the flames from a crown fire can come into 
contact with a structure or the heat from the fire can damage a 
structure even without direct contact. Taking the protective measures 
discussed in our report--creating and maintaining defensible space and 
using fire-resistant roofs and vents--will reduce the risk of damage or 
destruction from wildland fire threats.

2. We revised the text to reflect that the radios in the cache are 
routinely used for large fires.

3. According to officials at the National Interagency Fire Center, the 
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have a fleet of 
approximately 700 aircraft, including both large and small fixed-wing 
aircraft and helicopters. These include both government-owned and 
contracted aircraft. We have revised the text to reflect this 
information.

4. We revised the text to reflect that VHF (AM and FM) is used for 
tactical communications by federal firefighting personnel on the fire 
line and by tactical aircraft flying over the fire and UHF (AM) is used 
in the base camp for logistical, or other nontactical uses.

[End of section]

Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Robin Nazzaro (202) 512-3841; [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov]
Keith Rhodes (202) 512-6412; [Hyperlink, rhodesk@gao.gov] 
Steve Secrist (415) 904-2236; [Hyperlink, secrists@gao.gov] 
Naba Barkakati (202) 512-4499; [Hyperlink, barkakatin@gao.gov]

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the individuals named above, Dave Bixler, William 
Carrigg, Ellen W. Chu, Jonathan Dent, Janet Frisch, Robert Hadley, 
Barry T. Hill, Nicholas Larson, Kim Raheb, and Jena Sinkfield made key 
contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were 
Michael Armes, Mark Braza, Joyce Evans, Timothy Guinane, Richard Hung, 
Chester Joy, Doug Manor, Cynthia Taylor, and Amy Webbink.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

Previous Technology Assessments:

Technology Assessment: Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure 
Protection. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-321]. 
Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.

Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-174]. Washington, 
D.C.: November 15, 2002.

Selected GAO Products Related to Wildland Fire Management:

Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but 
Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-147]. Washington, D.C.: 
January 14, 2005.

Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a 
Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-705]. Washington, 
D.C.: June 24, 2004.

Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community Involvement 
Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-652]. Washington, D.C.: June 
14, 2004.

Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and 
Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management Disruptions. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-612]. Washington, D.C.: June 
2, 2004.

Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving Fuel 
Reduction Activities. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/
getrpt?GAO-04-52]. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2003.

Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise for Wildland Fire 
Management, but Challenges Remain. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1047]. Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2003.

Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better 
Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-805]. Washington, D.C.: August 
15, 2003.

Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires 
Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-843T]. Washington, D.C: June 
13, 2002.

Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better 
Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-158]. Washington, D.C.: March 
29, 2002.

Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce 
Risks to Communities and Resources. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-02-259]. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002.

The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to 
Effectively and Efficiently Implement the Plan. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-1022T]. Washington, D.C.: July 
31, 2001.

Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should be Targeted to the Highest Risk 
Areas. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-00-
296]. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2000.

Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address 
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-99-65]. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 1999.

Selected GAO Products Related to Communications Interoperability and 
Spectrum Management:

Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation 
Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications. 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740]. Washington, 
D.C.: July 20, 2004.

Spectrum Management: Better Knowledge Needed to Take Advantage of 
Technologies That May Improve Spectrum Efficiency. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-666]. Washington, D.C.: May 
28, 2004.

Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort 
Requires Stronger Collaboration. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-494]. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004.

Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications 
for First Responders. [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-231T]. Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2003.

Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review of U.S. Spectrum Management 
with Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed. [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-277]. Washington, D.C.: 
January 31, 2003.

(360474):

FOOTNOTES

[1] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, The Changing 
California: Forest and Range Assessment 2003 (Sacramento, Calif.: 2003).

[2] In addition to homes, other structures including multiple family 
dwellings and commercial properties are also threatened by wildland 
fires. Throughout this report, the terms homes and homeowners refer 
also to these other structures and property owners.

[3] See GAO, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and 
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder 
Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 
2004).

[4] These figures have been adjusted for inflation with fiscal year 
2004 as the base year.

[5] According to officials, problems with communication occur primarily 
during the early stages, called the initial and extended attack phases, 
of an incident. Interoperable radios from national, state, and regional 
caches can be deployed for large fire operations.

[6] The distance needed depends on a number of factors, including 
terrain and vegetation, which can affect fire behavior.

[7] GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications 
Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: 
April 16, 2004).

[8] GAO-04-740.

[9] National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters, 1980-2004 
(December 2004), [Hyperlink, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov](downloaded 
1/7/05). According to the report, these cost data include both insured 
and uninsured losses and were adjusted to 2002 dollars using a gross 
national product inflation/wealth index.

[10] Insurance Information Institute, Catastrophes: Insurance Issues, 
[Hyperlink, http://www.iii.org] (downloaded 10/15/04).

[11] Marty Ahrens, Selections from the U.S. Fire Problem Overview 
Report: Leading Causes and Other Patterns and Trends: Homes (Quincy, 
Mass.: National Fire Protection Association, 2003). 

[12] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, The 
Changing California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment (Sacramento, 
Calif.: 2003). 

[13] Using repeaters increases the distance over which radio users can 
communicate with one another.

[14] Radio frequencies are measured in Hertz (Hz); the term kilohertz 
(kHz) refers to thousands of Hertz, megahertz (MHz) to millions of 
Hertz, and gigahertz (GHz) to billions of Hertz.

[15] In addition to the 10 public safety bands, the Federal 
Communications Commission's allocation of 50 MHz of spectrum in the 4.9 
GHz band also provides public safety agencies with the ability to 
support new broadband applications such as high-speed digital 
technologies and to implement on-scene wireless networks for activities 
including transfers of large amounts of data, such as for maps.

[16] Federal and other public safety agencies are adopting narrowband 
capabilities at different rates. The National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, which regulates the federal government's 
use of the radio spectrum, has mandated that federal agencies generally 
must adopt narrowband communications capability by 2008. The Federal 
Communications Commission regulates other public safety agencies in the 
VHF and UHF bands and does not generally require them to adopt 
narrowband technology until 2018.

[17] We have a standing contract with NAS under which NAS provides 
assistance in convening groups of experts to provide information and 
expertise to our engagements. NAS uses its scientific network to 
identify participants and uses its facilities and processes to arrange 
the meetings. Recording and using the information in a report is our 
responsibility.

[18] The Insurance Services Office, based in Jersey City, NJ, provides 
data, analysis, and consulting services to the insurance industry. 

[19] According to an official, the state of California established the 
Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) program in 1968 to assist 
home and business owners who had difficulty obtaining fire insurance.

[20] The Personal Insurance Federation of California is a trade 
association representing insurance companies that provide 50 percent of 
personal insurance in California.

[21] SAFECOM is managed by the Department of Homeland Security. Its 
goal is to achieve interoperability among emergency-response 
communications at all levels of government.

[22] The amount of defensible space needed can be affected by a number 
of factors, including terrain and vegetation. In certain circumstances, 
effective defensible space may need to exceed 100 feet. Ventura County, 
California, for example, recommends that homeowners create 200 feet of 
defensible space around homes located near the top of a slope, facing 
east or south, or near heavy chaparral vegetation.

[23] Because of the importance of protecting a structure from wildland 
fire without requiring fire suppression efforts, some fire officials 
use other terms including "home ignition zone" or "self-defending 
space" to refer to this concept.

[24] Existing standardized tests of fire resistance evaluate entire 
roof assemblies, rating them class A, B, or C according to tests 
approved by the American National Standards Institute/Underwriters 
Laboratories Inc. and the American Society for Testing and Materials. 
In these tests, burning firebrands of different sizes are placed on top 
of the roof assembly. Large brands are used to test for a class A 
rating, smaller brands for class B or C ratings. If the brand does not 
burn though a roof assembly in 90 minutes, the assembly passes the test 
for a given rating. Class A roof coverings are considered effective 
against severe fire exposures. Time-dependent ratings, however, may not 
be meaningful in a wildland fire scenario because firefighters may not 
be able to respond for many hours, if at all.

[25] Composition shingles and some metal coverings, for instance, can 
cost less than wood shingles or wood shakes.

[26] A gable is typically a triangular section of wall at the end of a 
pitched roof, occupying the space between the two slopes of the roof.

[27] Eaves are the edges or lower borders of a roof overhanging the 
exterior walls.

[28] Some building code guidance recommends screen openings be one-
quarter inch or less. However, the Governor's Blue Ribbon Fire 
Commission established shortly after the 2003 Southern California fires 
to review the firefighting efforts and recommend improvements, found 
that one-quarter inch mesh screens were insufficient to prevent entry 
of firebrands.

[29] The remaining 101 properties did not have adequate defensible 
space, and about half of the structures were damaged or destroyed. 

[30] Jack Cohen, "Preventing Disaster: Home Ignitability in the 
Wildland-Urban Interface." Journal of Forestry 98 (2000): 15-21.

[31] GIS also has applications related to wildland fire suppression 
activities, including preplanning for evacuations during wildland 
fires. For additional information on how GIS can assist wildland fire 
management, see: GAO, Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise 
for Wildland Fire Management, but Challenges Remain, GAO-03-1047 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2003).

[32] The Forest Service and Department of the Interior are currently 
developing a national data and modeling GIS system, called LANDFIRE. 
More information on LANDFIRE can be found in GAO, Wildland Fire 
Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to 
Completing a Cohesive Strategy, GAO-05-147 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 
2005).

[33] Infrared and ultraviolet technologies sense the electromagnetic 
radiation from a fire outside the visible band that humans can see. 
Temperature sensitive devices, such as heat sensitive resistant wires, 
do not sense radiation but react to temperature differentials.

[34] Sensors can also be placed around individual structures.

[35] Fire officials and representatives of the homebuilding industry 
said that concerns about cost can also affect homebuilders' decisions 
about building materials and landscaping.

[36] Holly Bender, Ingrid M. Martin, and Carol Raish, What Motivates 
Homeowners to Protect Themselves from Risks? (Boulder, Colo.: 
Integrated Resource Solutions, 2005).

[37] Firewise Communities is jointly sponsored by the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs, National Emergency Management Association, 
National Association of State Fire Marshals, National Association of 
State Foresters, National Fire Protection Association, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration, Forest Service, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the National Park Service. Numerous state and local fire 
and forestry officials also participate in Firewise program activities.

[38] James Schwab, Stuart Meck, and Jamie Simone, Planning for 
Wildfires (Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association, 2005).

[39] See: http://www.interfacesouth.org/fire/firewisehome/. For 
additional information on this project, see http://www.firewise.org/
vrhome/. 

[40] Florida Department of Community Affairs and Florida Department of 
Agriculture and Consumer Services, Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land 
Use Planning Strategies and Development Practices (Tallahassee: April 
2004). (Available at http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/publications/
Wildfire_Mitigation_in_FL.pdf).

[41] The National Fire Plan was developed by the Department of 
Agriculture and the Department of the Interior after severe wildland 
fires in 2000. In fiscal year 2001, Congress almost doubled funding for 
federal firefighting agencies to help meet the plan's objectives to (1) 
increase fire suppression preparedness; (2) rehabilitate and restore 
lands and communities damaged by wildland fire; (3) reduce hazardous 
fuels; and (4) assist communities through education, hazard mitigation, 
and training and equipment for rural and volunteer fire departments. 

[42] The $11.3 million includes funds provided under the National Fire 
Plan and other federal programs. In addition to reducing fuels on 
nonfederal land, some of these funds may also have been used to assist 
local fire departments or to otherwise address wildland fire concerns.

[43] Grants to the East Mountain community near Albuquerque, for 
instance, capped eligible project costs at $1,700 for the acre 
immediately surrounding the house and approximately $1,150 per acre for 
up to 4 additional acres if they posed a risk to the structure; the 
homeowner was required to pay 30 percent of eligible costs.

[44] State or local governments can also adopt laws that establish 
standards for water supply and emergency access. These requirements 
assist suppression efforts and are beyond the scope of this study.

[45] Governor's Blue Ribbon Fire Commission, Report to the Governor 
(Sacramento, Calif.: 2004).

[46] The Forest Service's Southern Research Station has compiled a list 
of state and local governments reporting they have adopted codes or 
other measures designed to reduce the risk to structures from wildland 
fires. This information is available on the World Wide Web at 
www.wildfireprograms.com/.

[47] In April each year, the county fire department notifies 
approximately 14,000 homeowners that they need to create defensible 
space by June 1. If a homeowner does not do so, the county charges him 
or her for the cost of a contractor to do the work.

[48] Some of these options can be carried out under existing law; 
others would require new legislation.

[49] One solution to improve interoperability is to have a cache of 
portable radios that can be distributed to responding personnel during 
an emergency. For example, Florida has a system of radio caches, one 
cache located in each of the seven regions of the state. The nation's 
cache of approximately 8,000 radios is operated by the National 
Interagency Incident Communications Division at the National 
Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. These radios are routinely 
used for large fires and also for other incidents including hurricanes 
and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, according to a 
National Interagency Fire Center official.

[50] Cost estimates for communications technologies were obtained from 
the General Services Administration (www.gsaadvantage.gov) or directly 
from manufacturers.

[51] A radio interface module is a device that plugs into the chassis 
of the audio switch. Each radio system being interconnected through the 
switch connects through a radio interface module. The interface module 
separates out the audio and other signals needed to control the radios 
connected to the switch.

[52] A base station contains the equipment for transmitting and 
receiving the radio signals that allow portable radios to communicate 
with each other. 

[53] A leased line refers to a permanent telephone connection set up by 
a telecommunications provider between two geographic locations. A fiber 
link uses light sent over a glass or plastic fiber to carry 
communication signals. A microwave link uses radio beams of extremely 
high frequencies to send information between two fixed geographic sites.

[54] In some cases, this is the Internet; and in others, it is a 
private data network. 

[55] Project 25 standards are being developed jointly by the 
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International; 
the National Association of State Telecommunications Directors; the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration; the 
Department of Homeland Security's National Communications System; and 
the Department of Defense.

[56] See GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 
Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 6, 2003).

[57] The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program, 
otherwise known as SAFECOM, was first established as an Office of 
Management and Budget e-initiative in 2001.

[58] See GAO-04-494.

[59] DOD military bases can also enter into mutual aid agreements with 
federal, state, or local firefighting agencies. Depending on the terms 
of these agreements, civilian firefighting forces stationed at a 
military base can either provide or receive assistance. It was beyond 
our scope to gather representative data on how extensively such 
military assistance is actually used for firefighting in wildlands or 
the wildland-urban interface. Consequently, we excluded such assistance 
from our discussion.

[60] The National Guard has both a federal and a state mission. The 
federal mission is to be available for prompt mobilization during war 
and provide assistance during national emergencies, such as natural 
disasters or civil disturbances. When not mobilized or under federal 
control, National Guard units report to the governors of their 
respective states or territories.

[61] Local military commanders or responsible officials of DOD agencies 
may, under the "immediate response criteria," take necessary action to 
save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage 
prior to receiving approval to do so.

[62] According to officials from the National Interagency Fire Center, 
the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have a fleet of 
approximately 700 aircraft, including both large and small fixed-wing 
aircraft and helicopters. Many of these are contracted aircraft. Until 
May 10, 2004, there were also 33 privately owned large air tankers 
under contract to the Forest Service, which were used to drop retardant 
on wildland fires. These contracts were cancelled, however, due to 
concerns about the safety and airworthiness of these aircraft. 
According to an NIFC official, a contract was issued in March 2005 for 
at least 20 large air tankers, pending operational service life 
determination. 

[63] The agreements with the states of California and Wyoming, in 
effect, define "readily available" as able to be moved into the local 
area within 2 hours.

[64] The Governors of California, North Carolina, and Wyoming may also 
activate the Air National Guard Unit in their state for MAFFS missions 
within state boundaries provided such action is covered by an 
appropriate Memorandum(s) of Understanding and Collection Agreement 
with the military authority and the Forest Service. They must request 
permission to use the Forest Service-owned equipment.

[65] To provide cost-effective and timely coordination of emergency 
response, the nation is divided into 11 geographic areas, each of which 
is served by a geographic area coordination center. 

[66] MAFFS may be requested when contracted air resources are not 
readily available, which is not directly related to the nation's 
preparedness level.

[67] 31 U.S.C.  1535.

[68] Office of Management and Budget, A Review of Existing Authorities 
and Procedures for Using Military Assets in Fighting Wildfires, 
(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004).

[69] 42 U.S.C.  5121-5206.

[70] NIFC was formerly called the Boise Interagency Fire Center (BIFC); 
the agency's name was changed in 1993.

[71] The agreement refers to the Federal Disaster Assistance 
Administration (FDAA), now part of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

[72] The number of National Guard personnel used by the Florida 
Division of Forestry ranged from 30 to 150.

[73] A base station contains the equipment for transmitting and 
receiving the radio signals that allow portable radios to communicate 
with each other. 

[74] A leased line refers to a permanent telephone connection set up by 
a telecommunications provider between two geographic locations. A fiber 
link uses light sent over a glass or plastic fiber to carry 
communication signals. A microwave link uses radio beams of extremely 
high frequencies to send information between two fixed geographic sites.

[75] This technology began within DOD's SPEAKeasy research program in 
1992 and beginning in 1997 became part of DOD's Joint Tactical Radio 
System Program.

[76] In some cases, this is the Internet; and in others, it is a 
private data network.

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone:

Voice: (202) 512-6000:

TDD: (202) 512-2537:

Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: