United States

Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

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. 

Highlights of GAO-05-380, a report to 

congressional requesters 

April 2005

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 

Protecting Structures and Improving 

Communications during Wildland Fires 

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 technologies—such as 

fire-resistant windows and building materials, chemical agents, sprinklers, 

and geographic information systems mapping—can 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 highrisk 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. 

Source: Larry Korhnak.

Before and after photos illustrating measures to protect a home from wildland fire. 

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 

parties—known as 

interoperability—is 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. 
Page i GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Contents

Letter 1

Executive Summary 3

Purpose 3

Background 5

Results in Brief 8

Principal Findings 10

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Key to 

Protecting Structures; Other Technologies Can Also Help 10

Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Limit the Use of 

Protective Measures for Structures, but Efforts to Increase Their 

Use Are Under Way 12

Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve Communications 

Interoperability Requires Better Planning and Coordination 14

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 15

Chapter 1

Introduction

16

Wildland Fires Threaten Homes in Several Ways; Homeowners and 

State and Local Governments Are Primarily Responsible for 

Preventive Steps to Protect Them 16

Multiple Agencies Respond to Wildland Fires and Cannot Always 

Communicate Effectively with One Another 21

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 24

Chapter 2

Defensible Space and 

Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to 

Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies 

Can Also Help

29

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Critical to 

Protecting Structures 29

Other Technologies Play a Secondary Role 38
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Chapter 3

Competing Concerns 

Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective 

Measures, but Efforts 

to Increase Their Use 

Are Under Way

43

Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Affect Whether 

Homeowners Use Protective Measures 43

Education Helps Increase Awareness of Steps Homeowners and 

Others Can Take 45

Financial and Other Assistance Encourages Homeowners and 

Communities to Take Action 49

State or Local Laws May Require Protective Measures 51

Some Insurance Companies Direct Homeowners to Use Protective 

Measures 54

Possible Federal Government Actions to Increase Use of Protective 

Measures 55

Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of 

Technologies to 

Achieve 

Communications 

Interoperability 

Requires Better 

Planning and 

Coordination

58

Technologies Can Enhance Communications Interoperability 58

Planning and Coordination Are Key to Improving Communications 

Interoperability 62

Appendixes

Appendix I: Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires 65

Types of Military Assets Available for Firefighting 65

Process for Requesting and Mobilizing Military Assets for 

Firefighting 69

Laws, Agreements, and Policies Governing the Use of Military Assets 

under Federal and State Control 71

Military Assets Used for Wildland Firefighting 1988-2003 75

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

the National Academy of Sciences 78

Appendix III: Technologies to Protect Structures from Wildland Fires 81
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix IV: Web Sites with Information on Protecting Homes from 

Wildland Fire 88

Appendix V: Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability 89

Patchwork Interoperability 89

Console-to-Console Patch 92

Improved Communication Systems 93

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 97

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Commerce 98

GAO Comments 102

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense 103

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 105

GAO Comments 107

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of the Interior 108

GAO Comments 111

Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 112

Related GAO Products 113

Tables Table 1: Examples of Laws Requiring Protective Measures Adopted 

by Jurisdictions in Five States GAO Visited 53

Table 2: Federal Military and MAFFS Assets Used for Wildland 

Firefighting 1988-2003 76

Figures Figure 1: Ways Wildland Fire Can Threaten a Structure 7

Figure 2: Home with Defensible Space 11

Figure 3: A Surface Fire 17

Figure 4: A Crown Fire 18

Figure 5: Burning Home Surrounded by Unburned Vegetation 19

Figure 6: Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio 

Communication System 22

Figure 7: Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their 

Location on the Spectrum 23

Figure 8: Home with Defensible Space 31

Figure 9: A California Community with Defensible Space That 

Survived a Wildland Fire in 2004 33

Figure 10: Roof and Vents 35

Figure 11: Fire Experiments in Canada’s Northwest Territories 37
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 12: Firefighter Applying a Chemical Agent to a Home 39

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

District, Florida 41

Figure 14: Before and After Photos of a Firewise Demonstration 

Home 47

Figure 15: Fuel Break near Roslyn, Washington, Shown after 

Construction and 3 Years Later 51

Figure 16: MAFFS Used for Wildland Firefighting 67

Figure 17: A Helicopter Using a Water Bucket 68

Figure 18: Process for Requesting Military Assistance 70

Figure 19: Comparison of Estimated Cost of Common Fire-Resistant 

Roof-Covering Materials 82

Figure 20: An Audio Switch 90

Figure 21: A Crossband Repeater Used to Connect Radios Operating 

on Different Frequency Bands 91

Figure 22: Console-to-Console Patch over a Dedicated Link 93

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

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 26, 2005 Letr

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 http://www.gao.gov.
Page 2 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

If you have questions concerning this report, please contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov or Keith Rhodes at (202) 512-6412 or 

rhodesk@gao.gov. 

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Keith A. Rhodes

Chief Technologist

Director, Center for Technology and Engineering
Page 3 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.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.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 

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.
Executive Summary

Page 4 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

because agencies operate on different radio frequencies or use different 

and, sometimes incompatible, communications equipment.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.

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).
Executive Summary

Page 5 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.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.

4

These figures have been adjusted for inflation with fiscal year 2004 as the base year.
Executive Summary

Page 6 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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. 
Executive Summary

Page 7 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 1: Ways Wildland Fire Can Threaten a Structure 

C

C

Source: GAO.

Wildland fires can ignite homes and structures 

in different ways.

Surface fires (A) can ignite a home by burning 

nearby vegetation.

Crown fires (B) create intense heat, which can 

ignite portions of structures, without direct contact 

from flames.

Spot fires (C) started by firebrands can ignite a 

home by landing on the roof or entering a roof vent 

or other opening.

B

C

C

CC

A

A

B B

A

B
Executive Summary

Page 8 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.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. 

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.
Executive Summary

Page 9 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 softwaredefined 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 
Executive Summary

Page 10 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 feet6 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. 

6

The distance needed depends on a number of factors, including terrain and vegetation, 

which can affect fire behavior.
Executive Summary

Page 11 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 2: Home with Defensible Space

Source: GAO.

Defensible space: Reducing vegetation and other 

flammable materials within 30 to 100 feet of a 

structure (the area shaded in yellow) creates 

defensible space that substantially reduces the 

likelihood that a wildland fire will damage or 

destroy the structure. Creating defensible space 

around a structure does not require that all trees 

and plants be eliminated, but plants or trees 

adjacent to structures should be carefully spaced 

and be pruned to remove the lower branches that 

hang over the roof.
Executive Summary

Page 12 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 
Executive Summary

Page 13 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 
Executive Summary

Page 14 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 
Executive Summary

Page 15 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.7

 Further, a July 2004 GAO report found that nationwide data 

needed to address the issue of interoperability were not available.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 nazzaror@gao.gov or Keith Rhodes at (202) 512-6412 or 

rhodesk@gao.gov. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix XI.

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.
Page 16 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Chapter 1

Introduction Chapte1r

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 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 17 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v1.mpg.)

Figure 3: A Surface Fire 

• 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 

Source: National Interagency Fire Center.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 18 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v2.mpg.)

Figure 4: A Crown Fire

• 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

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v3.mpg.)

Source: Forest Service.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 19 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 

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.1

 During this same 20-year period, however, 

wildland fires accounted for only about 2 percent of total insured losses 

from all natural disasters.2

 In contrast, tornadoes accounted for 32 percent 

1

National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Billion 

Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters, 1980–2004 (December 2004), 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.

2

Insurance Information Institute, Catastrophes: Insurance Issues, http://www.iii.org

(downloaded 10/15/04).

Source: Forest Service.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 20 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 1998.3

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.4

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 

3

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). 

4

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, The Changing California: Forest 

and Range 2003 Assessment (Sacramento, Calif.: 2003). 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 21 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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,5

 which 

relay radio signals (see fig. 6).

5

Using repeaters increases the distance over which radio users can communicate with one 

another.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 22 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

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.6

 Radio frequencies are grouped into bands. Of the more than 450 

Sources: GAO, Department of Homeland Security, and Nova Development Corp.

Base station/

repeater site

Portable

radio user

Mobile

radio user

Transmitter

tower

transmit

receive

transmit

receive

6

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.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 23 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

frequency bands in the radio spectrum, 10,7 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.8

 

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

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.

7

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.

8

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.

VLF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF

25 - 50 138 - 144 220 - 222 406 - 420 764 - 776 806 - 824 4940 - 4990

148 - 174 450 - 470 794 - 806 851 - 869

30 kHz 3 MHz 30 MHz 300 MHz 3 GHz 4.9 GHz

Location on the

frequency spectrum

Location and

frequency bands

Frequency bands

allocated to public safety

Sources: GAO and Department of Homeland Security. 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 24 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 25 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 2004.9

 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 

9

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.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 26 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 27 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

information on the role of the insurance industry in protecting structures 

from wildland fires, we interviewed officials from the Insurances Services 

Office,10 the California FAIR plan program,11 the Personal Insurance 

Federation of California,12 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)13 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 

10The Insurance Services Office, based in Jersey City, NJ, provides data, analysis, and 

consulting services to the insurance industry. 

11According 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.

12The Personal Insurance Federation of California is a trade association representing 

insurance companies that provide 50 percent of personal insurance in California.

13SAFECOM is managed by the Department of Homeland Security. Its goal is to achieve 

interoperability among emergency-response communications at all levels of government.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 28 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Page 29 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and 

Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; Other 

Technologies Can Also Help Chapte2r

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 feet1

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.2

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.

1

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.

2

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.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 30 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 31 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 8: Home with Defensible Space

Source: GAO.

Defensible space: Reducing vegetation and other 

flammable materials within 30 to 100 feet of a 

structure (the area shaded in yellow) creates 

defensible space that substantially reduces the 

likelihood that a wildland fire will damage or 

destroy the structure. Creating defensible space 

around a structure does not require that all trees 

and plants be eliminated, but plants or trees 

adjacent to structures should be carefully spaced 

and be pruned to remove the lower branches that 

hang over the roof.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 32 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 33 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

Fire in 2004 

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.

Source: Ventura County Fire Department.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 34 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.3

 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.4

 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 

gable5

 ends of the roof or under the eaves,6 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 

3

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.

4

Composition shingles and some metal coverings, for instance, can cost less than wood 

shingles or wood shakes.

5

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.

6

Eaves are the edges or lower borders of a roof overhanging the exterior walls.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 35 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

homeowners about wildland fire and steps to protect homes against them, 

recommends screen openings be one-eighth inch or less.7

Figure 10: Roof and Vents

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. 

7

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.

Sources: Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and GAO.

Gable vent

Eave

Gutter

Soffit vent

Roof

Covering vents and other 

openings with screens that 

will not burn or melt, and 

whose mesh openings are 

no larger than one-eighth 

inch, substantially reduces 

the risk of entry and ignition 

by firebrands.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 36 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

• 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.8

• 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 countyrecommended 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.9

 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 

8

The remaining 101 properties did not have adequate defensible space, and about half of the 

structures were damaged or destroyed. 

9

Jack Cohen, “Preventing Disaster: Home Ignitability in the Wildland-Urban Interface.” 

Journal of Forestry 98 (2000): 15-21.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 37 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v4.mpg.)

Figure 11: Fire Experiments in Canada’s Northwest Territories 

Finally, experts from the symposium convened for us by the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) emphasized that defensible space and fireresistant 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 

Source: Forest Service.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 38 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 fireresistant 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 doublepaned 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 
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 39 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

• 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, 

Source: Thermo Technologies.
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 40 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.10 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).11

10GIS 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).

11The 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).
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 41 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

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 

Source: Florida Division of Forestry.

Non-Burnable

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

Level 7

Level 8

Level 9

Townships & Ranges

Sections

Counties

Roads

Legend

Levels of Concern

Locator Map

Map Scale: 175,000

Map Date: December 2002

Miles

N

202468
Chapter 2

Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs 

and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; 

Other Technologies Can Also Help

Page 42 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 devices12 can be placed around a community13 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.

12Infrared 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.

13Sensors can also be placed around individual structures.
Page 43 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way Chapte3r

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 fireresistant roofs, fire officials told us.1

 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.2

 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 

1

Fire officials and representatives of the homebuilding industry said that concerns about 

cost can also affect homebuilders’ decisions about building materials and landscaping.

2

Holly Bender, Ingrid M. Martin, and Carol Raish, What Motivates Homeowners to Protect 

Themselves from Risks? (Boulder, Colo.: Integrated Resource Solutions, 2005).
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 44 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 45 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.)3

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 

3

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.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 46 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 20054

 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.5

4

James Schwab, Stuart Meck, and Jamie Simone, Planning for Wildfires (Washington, D.C.: 

American Planning Association, 2005).

5

See: http://www.interfacesouth.org/fire/firewisehome/. For additional information on this 

project, see http://www.firewise.org/vrhome/. 
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 47 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

• 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 

Before After

Before After

Source: Larry Korhnak.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 48 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.6

 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. 

6

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).
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 49 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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,7

 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.8

 Grants to reduce fuels on private property typically 

require the homeowner to pay a portion of project costs.9 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 

7

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. 

8

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.

9

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.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 50 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 51 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

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.10

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 

Source: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Source: GAO.

10State 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.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 52 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

communities.11 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.

11Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission, Report to the Governor (Sacramento, Calif.: 

2004).
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 53 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

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

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.12

Jurisdiction Requirements

States

California 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-hazardseverity areas, class A roofing materials are required for new construction. 

Washington 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 fireresistant building materials, among others things. Although not binding, state officials disseminated the model 

ordinance to county and city officials. 

Counties

Ada County,

Idaho

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. 

Ventura County,

California

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.

Cities

Ormond Beach,

Florida

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. 

Santa Fe,

New Mexico

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.

12The 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/.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 54 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.13 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, 

13In 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.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 55 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 atrisk 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 
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 56 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

promote the use of protective measures, tax incentives, and building and 

land use regulations.14 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 

14Some of these options can be carried out under existing law; others would require new 

legislation.
Chapter 3

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ 

Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to 

Increase Their Use Are Under Way

Page 57 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Page 58 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve 

Communications Interoperability Requires 

Better Planning and Coordination Chapte4r

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.1

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 

1

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.
Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of Technologies to 

Achieve Communications Interoperability 

Requires Better Planning and Coordination

Page 59 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 $7,0002

without the radio interface modules3

 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 

2

Cost estimates for communications technologies were obtained from the General Services 

Administration (www.gsaadvantage.gov) or directly from manufacturers.

3

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.
Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of Technologies to 

Achieve Communications Interoperability 

Requires Better Planning and Coordination

Page 60 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

crossband repeater can receive a VHF (very high frequency) signal and 

retransmit it as a UHF (ultrahigh frequency) signal. Crossband repeaters 

can connect base stations4

 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.5

 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. 

4

A base station contains the equipment for transmitting and receiving the radio signals that 

allow portable radios to communicate with each other. 

5

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.
Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of Technologies to 

Achieve Communications Interoperability 

Requires Better Planning and Coordination

Page 61 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

• 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.6

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.7

 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 

6

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

7

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.
Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of Technologies to 

Achieve Communications Interoperability 

Requires Better Planning and Coordination

Page 62 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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,8

 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 

Compatibility9

 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, 

8

See GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications 

for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).

9

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.
Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of Technologies to 

Achieve Communications Interoperability 

Requires Better Planning and Coordination

Page 63 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.10 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 

10See GAO-04-494.
Chapter 4

Effective Adoption of Technologies to 

Achieve Communications Interoperability 

Requires Better Planning and Coordination

Page 64 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Page 65 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires ApApenednxidexiIs

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.1

 The federal 

government controls active military, military reserve, and federalized 

1

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.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 66 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

National Guard assets,2 and state governments control all other National 

Guard assets.3

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 

resources4

 are not readily available,5 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.6

 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). 

2

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.

3

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.

4

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. 

5

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.

6

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.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 67 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 16: MAFFS Used for Wildland Firefighting 

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. 

Source: DOD.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 68 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 17: A Helicopter Using a Water Bucket 

Source: DOD.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 69 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 areas7

 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.8

 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).

7

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. 

8

MAFFS may be requested when contracted air resources are not readily available, which is 

not directly related to the nation’s preparedness level.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 70 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 18: Process for Requesting Military Assistance

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 

Sources: GAO and DOD.

Incident

Can request military assistance if 

civilian resources are unavailable

DOD evaluates request against 

criteria including:

--Availability of resources

--Impact on ability to perform 

primary mission

Agreement must be in place

Governor signs proclamation of 

emergency

DOD

Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for 

Homeland Defense

NICC

State Coordinating 

Officer

State Adjutant General 

(National Guard)

Governor

Federal military assistance State National Guard
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 71 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 1932,9

 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

9

31 U.S.C. § 1535.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 72 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

• 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,10 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 Act11

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:

10Office of Management and Budget, A Review of Existing Authorities and Procedures for 

Using Military Assets in Fighting Wildfires, (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004).

1142 U.S.C. §§ 5121–5206.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 73 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

• DOD can provide assistance when NIFC12 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,13 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: 

12NIFC was formerly called the Boise Interagency Fire Center (BIFC); the agency’s name 

was changed in 1993.

13The agreement refers to the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA), now part 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 74 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

• 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. 
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 75 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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). 
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 76 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

2003

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.

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, 

Year

Days in 

preparedness 

level 5a Military assets

2003 48 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

2002 62 1 Army battalion

8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers 

(MAFFS)

2001 16 2 Army battalions 

8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers 

(MAFFS)

2000 40 4 Army battalions 

1 Marine Corps battalion

1996 21 1 Army battalion

1 Marine Corps battalion

8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers 

(MAFFS) 

1994 46 5 Army battalions

2 Marine Corps battalions

8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers 

(MAFFS)

1990 Not available 4 Army battalions

8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers 

(MAFFS) 

1989 Not available 4 Army battalions

19 helicopters

8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers 

(MAFFS)

1988 Not available 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)
Appendix I

Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

Page 77 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 2002.14

Oregon has also used National Guard resources, such as during the severe 

2002 fire season.

14The number of National Guard personnel used by the Florida Division of Forestry ranged 

from 30 to 150.
Page 78 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix II

List of Participants in the Symposium 

Convened for GAO by the National Academy 

of Sciences ApendxiI

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
Appendix II

List of Participants in the Symposium 

Convened for GAO by the National Academy 

of Sciences

Page 79 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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
Appendix II

List of Participants in the Symposium 

Convened for GAO by the National Academy 

of Sciences

Page 80 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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
Page 81 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix III

Technologies to Protect Structures from 

Wildland Fires ApendxiI

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.

Types of roofcovering materialsAsphalt 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. 

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.
Appendix III

Technologies to Protect Structures from 

Wildland Fires

Page 82 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

Materials

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.

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.

(Continued From Previous Page)

Fire-resistant roof-covering materials

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

Asphalt composition

Clay

Concrete

Fiber-cement

Metal

Slate

Synthetic rubber

Treated wood

Cost in dollars

Source: GAO analysis of Marshall & Swift 2004 Residential Cost Handbook data.

Untreated wood shake
Appendix III

Technologies to Protect Structures from 

Wildland Fires

Page 83 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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. 

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. 

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. 

Key factors affecting 

cost

A variety of factors affect the cost of windows, including glass type, style, size, quality, and framing materials.
Appendix III

Technologies to Protect Structures from 

Wildland Fires

Page 84 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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. 

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. Fireresistant treatment may deteriorate over time. 

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.

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.
Appendix III

Technologies to Protect Structures from 

Wildland Fires

Page 85 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.

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.

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. 

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. 
Appendix III

Technologies to Protect Structures from 

Wildland Fires

Page 86 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.

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.

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. 

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.
Appendix III

Technologies to Protect Structures from 

Wildland Fires

Page 87 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

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.

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.

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.
Page 88 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix IV

Web Sites with Information on Protecting 

Homes from Wildland Fire ApendxiIV

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/ 
Page 89 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability ApendxiV

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 shortterm, 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. 
Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability

Page 90 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Figure 20: An Audio Switch 

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.

Source: Raytheon JPS Communications.
Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability

Page 91 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 stations1

 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

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 

1

A base station contains the equipment for transmitting and receiving the radio signals that 

allow portable radios to communicate with each other. 

Agency A Agency B

Crossband

repeater

(converts

frequencies)

Portable Mobile

Sources: GAO, DHS, and Nova Development Corp. 

Transmit on

frequency

band 1

Receive on

frequency

band 1

Receive on

frequency

band 2

Transmit on

frequency

band 2
Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability

Page 92 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.2

 The costs for this type of solution primarily 

depend on the type of link used. For example, the costs for a console-toconsole 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. 

2

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.
Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability

Page 93 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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

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 

Sources: GAO, DHS, and Nova Development Corp.

Agency A dispatch console Agency B dispatch console Microwave link

Dedicated telephone line

Fiber link services

or

or
Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability

Page 94 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 kHzwide 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 
Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability

Page 95 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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),3 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. Softwaredefined 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 

3

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.
Appendix V

Technologies for Improving Communications 

Interoperability

Page 96 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

travel over an Internet Protocol network.4 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 offthe-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.

4

In some cases, this is the Internet; and in others, it is a private data network.
Page 97 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of 

Agriculture ApendxiVI
Page 98 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 99 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 100 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

See comment 1.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 101 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

See comment 2.
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 102 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Page 103 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix VIII

Comments from the Department of Defense ApendxiVI
Appendix VIII

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 104 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies
Page 105 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix IX

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security ApendxiIX

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix IX

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security

Page 106 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies
Appendix IX

Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security

Page 107 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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 (GAO-03-1047).
Page 108 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix X

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior ApendxiX

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix X

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 109 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Now on p. 8.

See comment 1.

Now on p. 12.

Now on p. 13.

Now on p. 14.
Appendix X

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 110 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Now on p. 43.

Now on p. 45.

Now on p. 58.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 66.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 91.

See comment 4.
Appendix X

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior

Page 111 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

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.
Page 112 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Appendix XI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiXI

GAO Contacts Robin Nazzaro (202) 512-3841; nazzaror@gao.gov

Keith Rhodes (202) 512-6412; rhodesk@gao.gov

Steve Secrist (415) 904-2236; secrists@gao.gov

Naba Barkakati (202) 512-4499; 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.
Page 113 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Related GAO Products

Previous Technology 

Assessments

Technology Assessment: Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure 

Protection. GAO-04-321. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.

Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security. 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. 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. 

GAO-04-705. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004.

Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community 

Involvement Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting. 

GAO-04-652. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2004.

Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations 

and Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management Disruptions. GAO04-612. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004.

Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving Fuel 

Reduction Activities. GAO-04-52. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2003.

Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise for Wildland Fire 

Management, but Challenges Remain. GAO-03-1047. Washington, D.C.: 

September 23, 2003.

Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better 

Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction. GAO-03-805. 

Washington, D.C.: August 15, 2003.

Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires 

Requires Sustained and Coordinated Effort. GAO-02-843T. Washington, 

D.C: June 13, 2002. 

Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies 

Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158. 

Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002.
Related GAO Products

Page 114 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce 

Risks to Communities and Resources. 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. GAO-01-1022T. 

Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001.

Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should be Targeted to the Highest Risk 

Areas. GAO/T-RCED-00-296. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2000.

Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address 

Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. 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. GAO-04-740. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.

Spectrum Management: Better Knowledge Needed to Take Advantage of 

Technologies That May Improve Spectrum Efficiency. GAO-04-666. 

Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.

Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications 

Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration. GAO-04-494. Washington, D.C.: 

April 16, 2004.

Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 

Communications for First Responders. GAO-04-231T. Washington, D.C.: 

November 6, 2003.

Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review of U.S. Spectrum 

Management with Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed. GAO-03-277. 

Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2003.

(360474)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER