Wildland Fire Management: Progress and Future Challenges, Protecting Structures, and Improving Communications
Published: 2005-04-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Wildland fires are increasingly threatening communities and ecosystems. In recent years, they have become more intense due to excess vegetation that has accumulated, partly as a result of past suppression efforts. The cost to suppress these fires is increasing and, as more people move into fire-prone areas near wildlands, the number of homes at risk is growing. During these wildland fires, effective communications among the public safety agencies responding from various areas is critical, but can be hampered by incompatible radio equipment. This testimony discusses (1) progress made and future challenges to managing wildland fire, (2) measures to help protect structures, and (3) the role of technology in improving responder communications during fires. It is based on two GAO reports: Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy ( GAO-05-147 , Jan. 14, 2005) and Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires ( GAO-05-380 , Apr. 26, 2005).
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Over the last 5 years, the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and land management agencies in the Department of the Interior, working with the Congress, have made important progress in responding to wildland fires. Most notably, the agencies have adopted various national strategy documents addressing the need to reduce wildland fire risks, established a priority to protect communities in the wildland-urban interface, and increased efforts and amounts of funding committed to addressing wildland fire problems. However, despite producing numerous planning and strategy documents, the agencies have yet to develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the long-term options and related funding needed to reduce excess vegetation that fuels fires in national forests and rangelands. Reducing these fuels lowers risks to communities and ecosystems and helps contain suppression costs. As GAO noted in 1999, such a strategy would help the agencies and the Congress to determine the most effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland fire problems. Completing this strategy will require finishing several efforts now under way to improve a key wildland fire data and modeling system, local fire management planning, and a new system designed to identify the most cost-effective means for allocating fire management budget resources, each of which has its own challenges. Without completing these tasks, the agencies will have difficulty determining the extent and location of wildland fire threats, targeting and coordinating their efforts and resources, and resolving wildland fire problems in the most timely and cost-effective manner over the long term. The two most effective measures for protecting structures from wildland fires are (1) creating and maintaining a buffer around a structure 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. Other technologies--such as fire-resistant building materials, chemical agents, and geographic information system mapping tools--can help in protecting structures and communities, but they play a secondary role. Many homeowners, however, are not using the protective measures because of the time or expense involved, competing values or concerns, misperceptions about wildland fires, or lack of awareness of their shared responsibility for home protection. Federal, state, and local governments and others are attempting to address this problem through a variety of educational, financial assistance, and regulatory efforts. Technologies exist and others are being developed to address communications problems among emergency responders using different radio frequencies or equipment. However, technology alone cannot solve this problem. Effective adoption of these technologies requires planning and coordination among federal, state, and local agencies involved. The Department of Homeland Security, as well as several states and local jurisdictions, are pursuing initiatives to improve communications.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss two GAO reports that reviewed  several wildland fire issues—one issued in January 2005 that reviews the  status of the federal government’s efforts to address our nation’s wildland  fire problems and another, being released today, that discusses ways to  help protect homes and improve communications during such fires.  Each  report is presented separately below.
Wildland fire is a natural process that plays an important role in the health  of many fire-adapted ecosystems, but it also can cause catastrophic  damages to communities and ecosystems.  The trend of increasing  wildland fire threats to communities and ecosystems that we reported on 5  years ago has been continuing.  The average acreage of lands burned by  wildland fires annually from 2000 through 2003 was 56 percent greater  than the average amount burned annually during the 1990s.  Also, since  2000, wildland fires have burned an average of 1,100 homes each year in  the United States, according to the National Fire Protection Association.   In 2003 alone, more than 3,600 homes were destroyed by wildland fires in  Southern California and resulted in more than $2 billion in insured losses.   Experts believe that catastrophic damages from wildland fires probably  will continue to increase until an adequate long-term federal response,  coordinated with other levels of government, is implemented and  individuals living in at-risk areas take preventive measures to protect their  homes from wildland fires.
subsections: section_title: WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT: Forest Service and Interior Need to Specify Steps and a Schedule for Identifying Long-Term Options and Their Costs
paragraphs: First, let me summarize the findings of GAO’s January 2005 report that  discusses the progress the federal government has made over the last 5  years and key challenges it faces in developing and implementing a long- term response to wildland fire problems.  This report is based primarily  on over 25 reviews we conducted in recent years of federal wildland fire  management that focused largely on the activities of the Forest Service in  the Department of Agriculture and the land management agencies in the  Department of the Interior, which together manage about 95 percent of all  federal lands.
section_title: Background
paragraphs: Wildland fire triggered by lightning is a normal, inevitable, and necessary  ecological process that nature uses to periodically remove excess  undergrowth, small trees, and vegetation to renew ecosystem productivity.  However, various human land use and management practices, including  several decades of fire suppression activities, have reduced the normal  frequency of wildland fires in many forest and rangeland ecosystems and  have resulted in abnormally dense and continuous accumulations of  vegetation that can fuel uncharacteristically large and intense wildland  fires. Such large intense fires increasingly threaten catastrophic ecosystem  damage and also increasingly threaten human lives, health, property, and  infrastructure in the wildland-urban interface. Federal researchers  estimate that vegetative conditions that can fuel such fires exist on  approximately 190 million acres––or more than 40 percent––of federal  lands in the contiguous United States but could vary from 90 million to 200  million acres, and that these conditions also exist on many nonfederal  lands.
Our reviews over the last 5 years identified several weaknesses in the  federal government’s management response to wildland fire issues. These  weaknesses included the lack of a national strategy that addressed the  likely high costs of needed fuel reduction efforts and the need to prioritize  these efforts. Our reviews also found shortcomings in federal  implementation at the local level, where over half of all federal land  management units’ fire management plans did not meet agency  requirements designed to restore fire’s natural role in ecosystems  consistent with human health and safety. These plans are intended to  identify needed local fuel reduction, preparedness, suppression, and  rehabilitation actions. The agencies also lacked basic data, such as the  amount and location of lands needing fuel reduction, and research on the  effectiveness of different fuel reduction methods on which to base their  fire management plans and specific project decisions. Furthermore,  coordination among federal agencies and collaboration between these  agencies and nonfederal entities were ineffective. This kind of cooperation  is needed because wildland fire is a shared problem that transcends land  ownership and administrative boundaries. Finally, we found that better  accountability for federal expenditures and performance in wildland fire  management was needed. Agencies were unable to assess the extent to  which they were reducing wildland fire risks or to establish meaningful  fuel reduction performance measures, as well as to determine the cost- effectiveness of these efforts, because they lacked both monitoring data  and sufficient data on the location of lands at high risk of catastrophic  fires to know the effects of their actions. As a result, their performance  measures created incentives to reduce fuels on all acres, as opposed to  focusing on high-risk acres.
Because of these weaknesses, and because experts said that wildland fire  problems could take decades to resolve, we said that a cohesive, long- term, federal wildland fire management strategy was needed. We said that  this cohesive strategy needed to focus on identifying options for reducing  fuels over the long term in order to decrease future wildland fire risks and  related costs. We also said that the strategy should identify the costs  associated with those different fuel reduction options over time, so that  the Congress could make cost-effective, strategic funding decisions.
section_title: Important Progress Has Been Made in Addressing Federal Wildland Fire Management Problems over the Last 5 Years
paragraphs: The federal government has made important progress over the last 5 years  in improving its management of wildland fire. Nationally it has established  strategic priorities and increased resources for implementing these  priorities. Locally, it has enhanced data and research, planning,  coordination, and collaboration with other parties. With regard to  accountability, it has improved performance measures and established a  monitoring framework.
subsections: section_title: Progress in National Strategy: Priorities Have Been Clarified and Funding Has Been Increased for Identified Needs
paragraphs: Over the last 5 years, the federal government has been formulating a  national strategy known as the National Fire Plan, composed of several  strategic documents that set forth a priority to reduce wildland fire risks to  communities. Similarly, the recently enacted Healthy Forests Restoration  Act of 2003 directs that at least 50 percent of funding for fuel reduction  projects authorized under the act be allocated to wildland-urban interface  areas. While we have raised concerns about the way the agencies have   defined these areas and the specificity of their prioritization guidance, we  believe that the act’s clarification of the community protection priority  provides a good starting point for identifying and prioritizing funding  needs. Similarly, in contrast to fiscal year 1999, when we reported that the  Forest Service had not requested increased funding to meet the growing  fuel reduction needs it had identified, fuel reduction funding for both the  Forest Service and Interior quadrupled by fiscal year 2004. The Congress,  in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, also authorized $760 million per  year to be appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction activities, including  projects for reducing fuels on up to 20 million acres of land. Moreover,  appropriations for both agencies’ overall wildland fire management  activities, including preparedness, suppression, and rehabilitation, have  nearly tripled, from about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 to over $2.7 billion  in fiscal year 2004.
section_title: Progress in Local Implementation: Data and Research, Fire Management Planning, and Coordination and Collaboration Have Been Strengthened
paragraphs: The agencies have strengthened local wildland fire management  implementation by making significant improvements in federal data and  research on wildland fire over the past 5 years, including an initial  mapping of fuel hazards nationwide. Additionally, in 2003, the agencies  approved funding for development of a geospatial data and modeling  system, called LANDFIRE, to map wildland fire hazards with greater  precision and uniformity. LANDFIRE—estimated to cost $40 million and  scheduled for nationwide implementation in 2009––will enable  comparisons of conditions between different field locations nationwide,  thus permitting better identification of the nature and magnitude of  wildland fire risks confronting different community and ecosystem  resources, such as residential and commercial structures, species habitat,  air and water quality, and soils.
The agencies also have improved local fire management planning by  adopting and executing an expedited schedule to complete plans for all  land units that had not been in compliance with agency requirements. The  agencies also adopted a common interagency template for preparing plans  to ensure greater consistency in their contents.
Coordination among federal agencies and their collaboration with  nonfederal partners, critical to effective implementation at the local level,  also has been improved. In 2001, as a result of congressional direction, the  agencies jointly formulated a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy with the  Western Governors’ Association to involve the states as full partners in  their efforts. An implementation plan adopted by the agencies in 2002  details goals, time lines, and responsibilities of the different parties for a  wide range of activities, including collaboration at the local level to  identify fuel reduction priorities in different areas. Also in 2002, the  agencies established an interagency body, the Wildland Fire Leadership  Council, composed of senior Agriculture and Interior officials and  nonfederal representatives, to improve coordination of their activities with  each other and nonfederal parties.
section_title: Progress in Accountability: Better Performance Measures and a Results Monitoring Framework Have Been Developed
paragraphs: Accountability for the results the federal government achieves from its  investments in wildland fire management activities also has been  strengthened. The agencies have adopted a performance measure that  identifies the amount of acres moved from high-hazard to low-hazard fuel  conditions, replacing a performance measure for fuel reductions that  measured only the total acres of fuel reductions and created an incentive  to treat less costly acres rather than the acres that presented the greatest  hazards. Additionally, in 2004, to have a better baseline for measuring  progress, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council approved a nationwide  framework for monitoring the effects of wildland fire. While an  implementation plan is still needed for this framework, it nonetheless  represents a critical step toward enhancing wildland fire management  accountability.
section_title: Agencies Face Several Challenges to Completing a Long- Needed Cohesive Strategy for Reducing Fuels and Responding to Wildland Fire Problems
paragraphs: While the federal government has made important progress over the past 5  years in addressing wildland fire, a number of challenges still must be met  to complete development of a cohesive strategy that explicitly identifies  available long-term options and funding needed to reduce fuels on the  nation’s forests and rangelands. Without such a strategy, the Congress will  not have an informed understanding of when, how, and at what cost  wildland fire problems can be brought under control. None of the strategic  documents adopted by the agencies to date have identified these options  and related funding needs, and the agencies have yet to delineate a plan or  schedule for doing so. To identify these options and funding needs, the  agencies will have to address several challenging tasks related to their  data systems, fire management plans, and assessing the cost-effectiveness  and affordability of different options for reducing fuels.
subsections: section_title: Completing and Implementing the LANDFIRE System Is Essential to Identifying and Addressing Wildland Fire Threats
paragraphs: The agencies face several challenges to completing and implementing  LANDFIRE, so that they can more precisely identify the extent and  location of wildland fire threats and better target fuel reduction efforts.  These challenges include using LANDFIRE to better reconcile the effects  of fuel reduction activities with the agencies’ other stewardship  responsibilities for protecting ecosystem resources, such as air, water,  soils, and species habitat, which fuel reduction efforts can adversely  affect. The agencies also need LANDFIRE to help them better measure and  assess their performance. For example, the data produced by LANDFIRE  will help them devise a separate performance measure for maintaining  conditions on low-hazard lands to ensure that their conditions do not  deteriorate to more hazardous conditions while funding is being focused  on lands with high-hazard conditions.
In implementing LANDFIRE, however, the agencies will have to overcome  the challenges presented by the current lack of a consistent approach to  assessing the risks of wildland fires to ecosystem resources as well as the  lack of an integrated, strategic, and unified approach to managing and  using information systems and data, including those such as LANDFIRE, in  wildland fire decision making. Currently, software, data standards,  equipment, and training vary among the agencies and field units in ways  that hamper needed sharing and consistent application of the data. Also,  LANDFIRE data and models may need to be revised to take into account  recent research findings that suggest part of the increase in wildland fire in  recent years has been caused by a shift in climate patterns. This research  also suggests that these new climate patterns may continue for decades,  resulting in further increases in the amount of wildland fire. Thus, the  nature, extent, and geographical distribution of hazards initially identified  in LANDFIRE, as well as the costs for addressing them, may have to be  reassessed.
section_title: Fire Management Plans Will Need to Be Updated with Latest Data and Research on Wildland Fire
paragraphs: The agencies will need to update their local fire management plans when  more detailed, nationally consistent LANDFIRE data become available.  The plans also will have to be updated to incorporate recent agency fire  research on approaches to more effectively address wildland fire threats.  For example, a 2002 interagency analysis found that protecting wildland- urban interface communities more effectively—as well as more cost- effectively—might require locating a higher proportion of fuel reduction  projects outside of the wildland-urban interface than currently envisioned,  so that fires originating in the wildlands do not become too large to  suppress by the time they arrive at the interface. Moreover, other agency  research suggests that placing fuel reduction treatments in specific  geometric patterns may, for the same cost, provide protection for up to  three times as many community and ecosystem resources as do other  approaches, such as placing fuel breaks around communities and  ecosystems resources. Timely updating of fire management plans with the  latest research findings on optimal design and location of treatments also  will be critical to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these plans.  The Forest Service indicated that this updating could occur during annual  reviews of fire management plans to determine whether any changes to  them may be needed.
section_title: Ongoing Efforts to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness and Affordability of Fuel Reduction Options Need to Be Completed
paragraphs: Completing the LANDFIRE data and modeling system and updating fire  management plans should enable the agencies to formulate a range of  options for reducing fuels. However, to identify optimal and affordable  choices among these options, the agencies will have to complete certain  cost-effectiveness analysis efforts they currently have under way. These  efforts include an initial 2002 interagency analysis of options and costs for  reducing fuels, congressionally-directed improvements to their budget  allocation systems, and a new strategic analysis framework that considers  affordability.
The Interagency Analysis of Options and Costs: In 2002, a team of Forest  Service and Interior experts produced an estimate of the funds needed to  implement eight different fuel reduction options for protecting  communities and ecosystems across the nation over the next century.  Their analysis also considered the impacts of fuels reduction activities on  future costs for other principal wildland fire management activities, such  as preparedness, suppression, and rehabilitation, if fuels were not  reduced. The team concluded that the option that would result in reducing  the risks to communities and ecosystems across the nation could require  an approximate tripling of current fuel reduction funding to about $1.4  billion for an initial period of a few years. These initially higher costs  would decline after fuels had been reduced enough to use less expensive  controlled burning methods in many areas and more fires could be  suppressed at lower cost, with total wildland fire management costs, as  well as risks, being reduced after 15 years. Alternatively, the team said that  not making a substantial short-term investment using a landscape focus  could increase both costs and risks to communities and ecosystems in the  long term. More recently, however, Interior has said that the costs and  time required to reverse current increasing risks may be less when other  vegetation management activities—such as timber harvesting and habitat  improvements—are considered that were not included in the interagency  team’s original assessment but also can influence wildland fire.
The cost of the 2002 interagency team’s option that reduced risks to  communities and ecosystems over the long term is consistent with a June  2002 National Association of State Foresters’ projection of the funding  needed to implement the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy developed by  the agencies and the Western Governors’ Association the previous year.  The state foresters projected a need for steady increases in fuel reduction  funding up to a level of about $1.1 billion by fiscal year 2011. This is  somewhat less than that of the interagency team’s estimate, but still about  2-1/2 times current levels.
The interagency team of experts who prepared the 2002 analysis of  options and associated costs said their estimates of long-term costs could  only be considered an approximation because the data used for their  national-level analysis were not sufficiently detailed. They said a more  accurate estimate of the long-term federal costs and consequences of  different options nationwide would require applying this national analysis  framework in smaller geographic areas using more detailed data, such as  that produced by LANDFIRE, and then aggregating these smaller-scale  results.
The New Budget Allocation System: Agency officials told us that a tool for  applying this interagency analysis at a smaller geographic scale for  aggregation nationally may be another management system under  development—the Fire Program Analysis system. This system, being  developed in response to congressional committee direction to improve  budget allocation tools, is designed to identify the most cost-effective  allocations of annual preparedness funding for implementing agency field  units’ local fire management plans. Eventually, the Fire Program Analysis  system, being initially implemented in 2005, will use LANDFIRE data and  provide a smaller geographical scale for analyses of fuel reduction options  and thus, like LANDFIRE, will be critical for updating fire management  plans. Officials said that this preparedness budget allocation  systemwhen integrated with an additional component now being  considered for allocating annual fuel reduction funding—could be  instrumental in identifying the most cost-effective long-term levels, mixes,  and scheduling of these two wildland fire management activities.  Completely developing the Fire Program Analysis system, including the  fuel reduction funding component, is expected to cost about $40 million  and take until at least 2007 and perhaps until 2009.
The New Strategic Analysis Effort: In May 2004, Agriculture and Interior  began the initial phase of a wildland fire strategic planning effort that also  might contribute to identifying long-term options and needed funding for  reducing fuels and responding to the nation’s wildland fire problems. This  effortthe Quadrennial Fire and Fuels Reviewis intended to result in an  overall federal interagency strategic planning document for wildland fire  management and risk reduction and to provide a blueprint for developing  affordable and integrated fire preparedness, fuels reduction, and fire  suppression programs. Because of this effort’s consideration of  affordability, it may provide a useful framework for developing a cohesive  strategy that includes identifying long-term options and related funding  needs. The preliminary planning, analysis, and internal review phases of  this effort are currently being completed and an initial report is expected  in 2005.
The improvements in data, modeling, and fire behavior research that the  agencies have under way, together with the new cost-effectiveness focus  of the Fire Program Analysis system to support local fire management  plans, represent important tools that the agencies can begin to use now to  provide the Congress with initial and successively more accurate  assessments of long-term fuel reduction options and related funding  needs. Moreover, a more transparent process of interagency analysis in  framing these options and their costs will permit better identification and  resolution of differing assumptions, approaches, and values. This  transparency provides the best assurance of accuracy and consensus  among differing estimates, such as those of the interagency team and the  National Association of State Foresters.
section_title: A Recent Western Governors’ Association Report Is Consistent with GAO’s Findings and Recommendation
paragraphs: In November 2004, the Western Governors’ Association issued a report  prepared by its Forest Health Advisory Committee that assessed  implementation of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which the  association had jointly devised with the agencies in 2001. Although the  association’s report had a different scope than our review, its findings and  recommendations are, nonetheless, generally consistent with ours about  the progress made by the federal government and the challenges it faces  over the next 5 years. In particular, it recommends, as we do, completion  of a long-term federal cohesive strategy for reducing fuels. It also cites the  need for continued efforts to improve, among other things, data on  hazardous fuels, fire management plans, the Fire Program Analysis system,  and cost-effectiveness in fuel reductions––all challenges we have  emphasized today.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The progress made by the federal government over the last 5 years has  provided a sound foundation for addressing the problems that wildland  fire will increasingly present to communities, ecosystems, and federal  budgetary resources over the next few years and decades. But, as yet,  there is no clear single answer about how best to address these problems  in either the short or long term. Instead, there are different options, each  needing further development to understand the trade-offs among the risks  and funding involved. The Congress needs to understand these options  and trade-offs in order to make informed policy and appropriations  decisions on this 21st century challenge.
This is the same message we provided in 1999 when we first called for  development of a cohesive strategy identifying options and funding needs.  But it still has not been completed. While the agencies are now in a better  position to do so, they must build on the progress made to date by  completing data and modeling efforts underway, updating their fire  management plans with the results of these data efforts and ongoing  research, and following through on recent cost-effectiveness and  affordability initiatives. However, time is running out. Further delay in  completing a strategy that cohesively integrates these activities to identify  options and related funding needs will only result in increased long-term  risks to communities, ecosystems, and federal budgetary resources.
Because there is an increasingly urgent need for a cohesive federal  strategy that identifies long-term options and related funding needs for  reducing fuels, we have recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture  and the Interior provide the Congress, in time for its consideration of the  agencies’ fiscal year 2006 wildland fire management budgets, with a joint  tactical plan outlining the critical steps the agencies will take, together  with related time frames, to complete such a cohesive strategy.
In an April 2005 letter, Agriculture and Interior said that they will produce  by August 2005, for the Wildland Fire Leadership Council’s review and  approval, a .joint tactical plan that will identify the steps and time frames  for developing a cohesive strategy.
section_title: WILDLAND FIRE: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications
paragraphs: Next, I would like to summarize the findings of our second report, being  released today, that discusses ways to help protect homes and improve  communications during wildland fires.  Although wildland fire is a natural  process that plays an important role in the health of many fire-adapted  ecosystems, it has the potential to damage or destroy homes located in or  near these wildlands, in the area commonly called the wildland-urban  interface.  Since 1984, wildland fires have burned an average of 850 homes  each year in the United States, according to the National Fire Protection  Association. However, losses since 2000 have risen to an average of 1,100  homes annually.  In 2003, more than 3,600 homes were destroyed by  wildland fires in Southern California and resulted in more than $2 billion  in insured losses.
Many homes are located in the wildland-urban interface nationwide, and  the number is growing, although the risk to these homes from wildland fire  varies widely. In California, for example, an estimated 4.9 million of the  state’s 12 million housing units are located in or near the wildlands, and  3.2 million of these are at significant risk from wildland fire. As people  continue to move to areas in or near fire-prone wildlands, the number of  homes at risk from wildland fire is likely to grow. When a large high- intensity wildland fire occurs near inhabited areas, it can threaten  hundreds of homes at the same time and overwhelm available firefighting  resources. Homeowners can play an important role in protecting their  homes from a wildland fire, however, by taking preventive steps to reduce  their home’s ignition potential. These preventive measures can  significantly improve a home’s chance of surviving a wildland fire, even  without intervention by firefighting agencies.
Once a wildland fire starts, many different agencies may assist in the  efforts to manage or suppress 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. Effective  communications among responders—commonly called communications  interoperability—is essential to fighting wildland fires successfully and  ensuring both firefighter and public safety. Communications  interoperability can be hampered because the various agencies responding  to a fire may communicate over different radio frequency bands or with  incompatible communications equipment.
My testimony today summarizes key findings from our report released  today and addresses: (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.
section_title: Background
paragraphs: To understand how preventive steps can help protect homes from  wildland fire requires an understanding of what wildland fire is, how it  spreads, and how it can threaten homes. Fire requires three elements— oxygen, heat, and fuel—to ignite and continue burning. Once a fire has  begun, a number of factors—including weather conditions and the type of  nearby vegetation or other fuels—influence how fast and how intensely  the fire spreads. Any combustible object in a fire’s path, including homes,  can fuel a wildland fire. In fact, homes can sometimes be more flammable  than the trees, shrubs, or other vegetation surrounding them. If any one of  the three required elements are removed, however, such as when  firefighters remove vegetation and other fuels from a strip of land near a  fire—called a fire break—a fire will normally become less intense and  eventually die out.
Wildland fire can threaten homes or other structures in the following  ways:
Surface fires burn vegetation or other fuels near the surface of the  ground, such as shrubs, fallen leaves, small branches, and roots. These  fires can ignite a home by burning nearby vegetation and eventually  igniting flammable portions of the home, including exterior walls or  siding; attached structures, such as a fence or deck; or other  flammable materials, such as firewood or patio furniture.
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 create intense  heat and if close enough—within approximately 100 feet—can ignite  portions of structures even without direct contact from flames.
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 and may accumulate on or near homes.
Firebrands can start many new spot fires or ignite many homes  simultaneously, increasing the complexity of firefighting efforts.
Recognizing that during severe wildland fires, suppression efforts alone  cannot protect all homes threatened by wildland fire, firefighting and  community officials 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.
When a wildland fire occurs, personnel from firefighting and other  emergency agencies responding to it primarily use land mobile radio  systems for communications. These systems include mobile radios in  vehicles and handheld portable radios and operate using radio signals,  which travel through space in the form of waves. These waves vary in  length, and each wavelength is associated with a particular radio  frequency. Radio frequencies are grouped into bands. Of the more than  450 frequency bands in the radio spectrum, 10, scattered across the  spectrum, are allocated to public safety agencies. 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 provide  better communications capabilities for an urban setting. 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.
section_title: Defensible Space and Fire-Resistant Roofs and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; Other Technologies Can Also Help
paragraphs: Managing vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable objects— often called defensible space—within 30 to 100 feet 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. 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 the  chance of ignition and damage to structures. Analysis of homes burned  during wildland fires has 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 91out of 111 structures that lacked  adequate defensible space but only 5 structures out of 111 that had it.
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 that can travel a mile or more from the main fire. Firebrands  can land on a roof or enter a home through an opening, such as an attic  vent and ignite a home hours after the fire has passed. Fire-resistant  roofing materials 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.
Other technologies can also help protect individual structures from  wildland fires.
Fire-resistant windows constructed of double-paned glass, tempered  glass, or glass block help protect a structure from wildland fire by  reducing the risk of the window breaking and allowing fire to enter the  structure.
Fire-resistant building materials—such as fiber-cement, brick, stone,  metal, and stucco—can be used for walls, siding, decks, and doors to  help prevent ignition and subsequent damage from wildland fire.
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. Although these agents have  successfully been used to protect homes, such as during the Southern  California fires in 2003, they require that someone be available to apply  them and, possibly, reapply or rewet them to ensure they remain  effective. They can also be difficult to clean up.
Sprinkler systems, which can be installed inside or outside a structure,  lower the risk of ignition or damage from wildland fires. Sprinklers,  however, require reliable sources of water and, in some cases,  electricity to be effective. According to firefighting officials, adequate  water and electricity may not be available during a wildland fire.
In addition to technologies aimed at protecting individual structures,  technologies also exist or are being developed which can help 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.  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 and prioritize areas needing vegetation  management. State and county officials we met with emphasized the value  of GIS in community-planning efforts to protect structures and  communities from wildland fire damage within their jurisdictions.
Fire behavior modeling has been used to predict wildland fire behavior,  but these models do not accurately predict fire behavior in the wildland- urban interface. Existing models can help identify areas likely to  experience intense wildland fires, identify suitable locations for vegetation  management, predict the effect of vegetation treatments on fire behavior,  and aid suppression by predicting the overall behavior of a given fire.  These models do not, however, consider the effect that structures and  landscaping have on wildland fire behavior.
Automated detection systems use infrared, ultraviolet, or temperature- sensitive sensors placed around a community, or an individual home, to  detect the presence of a 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 fires might be difficult to  locate. These systems are still in development, however, and false alarms  are a concern.
section_title: Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Limit the Use of Protective Measures for Structures, but Efforts to Increase Their Use Are Under Way
paragraphs: Many homeowners have not used protective measures—such as creating  and maintaining defensible space—for four primary reasons:
Time or expense.  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. Further, while fire-resistant  roofing materials are available that are comparable in cost to more  flammable options and, for a home under construction may result in  no additional expense, replacing a roof on an existing home can cost  thousands of dollars.
Competing concerns. Although modifying landscaping to create  defensible space has proven to be a key element in protecting  structures from wildland fire, officials and researchers have reported  that some homeowners are more concerned about the effect  landscaping has on the appearance and privacy of their property, as  well as on habitat for wildlife.
Misconceptions about wildland fire behavior. Fire officials and  researchers told us 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. Further, they may not know that they can take  effective steps to reduce their risk.
Lack of awareness of homeowners’ responsibility. Fire officials told  us that some homeowners in the wildland urban interface may expect  the same level of service they received in more urban areas and do not  understand that rural areas may have less firefighting personnel and  equipment 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 all of them.
Federal, state, and local agencies and other organizations are taking steps  in three main areas to help increase the use of protective measures. First,  government agencies and other organizations are educating people about  the effectiveness of simple steps they can take to reduce the risk to homes  and communities. The primary national education effort is the Firewise  Communities program, which both educates homeowners about available  protective measures and also promotes additional steps that state and  local officials can take to educate homeowners. Education efforts help  demonstrate that defensible space can be attractive, provide privacy, and  improve wildlife habitat.
Second, 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. Under the National  Fire Plan, for instance, federal firefighting agencies provide grants or  otherwise assist in reducing fuels on private land. State and local  governments have provided similar assistance.
Third, some state and local governments have adopted laws that require  maintaining defensible space around structures or the use of fire-resistant  building materials. For example, California requires the creation and  maintenance of defensible space around homes and the use of fire- resistant roofing materials in certain at-risk areas. Officials of one county  we visited attributed the relatively few houses damaged by the 2003  Southern California fires in the 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  us that laws had not been adopted because homeowners and developers  resisted them. Furthermore, to be effective, laws that have been adopted  must be enforced, and this does not always happen.
section_title: Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve Communications Interoperability Requires Better Planning and Coordination
paragraphs: Technologies are available or under development to help improve  communications interoperability so that personnel from different public  safety agencies responding to an emergency, such as a wildland fire, can  communicate effectively with one another. Short-term, or patchwork,  interoperability solutions use 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.  Patchwork solutions include the following:
Audio switches that 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 that provide interoperability between systems  operating on different radio frequency bands by changing frequencies  between the two radio systems.
Console-to-console patches that are not “on-the-scene” devices but  instead connect consoles located at the dispatch centers where calls  for assistance are received. The device links the dispatch consoles of  two radio systems so that the radios connected to each system can  communicate with one another.
Other interoperability solutions involve developing and adopting more  sophisticated radio or communications 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. These include:
Project 25 radios, which must meet a set of standards for digital two- way radio systems that allow for interoperability between all  jurisdictions using these systems. These radios are beginning to be  adopted by a variety of federal, state, and local agencies.
Software-defined radios that will allow interoperability among  agencies using different frequency bands, proprietary systems from  different manufacturers, or different modulation types (such as AM or  FM). Software-defined radios, however, are still being developed and  are not yet available for use by public safety agencies.
Voice over Internet Protocol that treats both voice and data as digital  information and enables their movement over any existing Internet  Protocol data network. 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.
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.  State 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 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, the National Task Force on Interoperability, and others have  identified lack of planning and coordination as key reasons hampering  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. Without such planning and coordination,  new investments in communications equipment or infrastructure may not  improve the effectiveness of communications among agencies.
In recent years, the federal government, as well as several states and local  jurisdictions, have focused increased attention on improving planning and  coordination to achieve communications interoperability. The Wireless  Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM), within  the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Interoperability and  Compatibility, was established to address public safety communications  issues within the federal government and to help state, local, and tribal  public safety agencies improve their responses through more effective and  efficient interoperable wireless communications. SAFECOM has  undertaken a number of initiatives to enhance communications  interoperability. For example, in a joint project with the commonwealth of  Virginia, SAFECOM developed a methodology that could be used by states  to assist them in developing a locally driven statewide strategic plan for  enhancing communications interoperability. Several states have  established statewide groups to address communications interoperability.  For example, in Washington, the communications committee has  developed a statewide public safety communication plan and an inventory  of state government-operated public safety communications systems.  Finally, some local jurisdictions are working together to identify and  address communications interoperability issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee  may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact me at   (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov, or Keith Rhodes at (202) 512-6412 or  rhodesk@gao.gov.  Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  included Jonathan Altshul, Naba Barkakati, David P. Bixler, William  Carrigg, Ellen Chu, Jonathan Dent, Janet Frisch, Barry T. Hill, Richard  Johnson, Chester Joy, Nicholas Larson, Steve Secrist, and Amy Webbink.
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.