Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires
Published: 2005-04-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. A lthough protective measures are available, many property owners have not adopted them because of the time or expense involved, competing concerns such as aesthetics or privacy, misperceptions about wildland fire risks, and lack of awareness of their shared responsibility for fire protection. Federal, state, and local governments, as well as other organizations, are attempting to increase property owners' use of protective measures through education, direct monetary assistance, and laws requiring such measures. In addition, some insurance companies have begun to direct property owners in high-risk areas to take protective steps. Existing technologies, such as audio switches, can help link incompatible communication systems, and new technologies, such as software-defined radios, are being developed following common standards or with enhanced capabilities to overcome incompatibility barriers. Technology alone, however, cannot solve communications problems for those responding to wildland fires. Rather, planning and coordination among federal, state, and local public safety agencies is needed to resolve issues such as which technologies to adopt, cost sharing, operating procedures, training, and maintenance. The Department of Homeland Security is leading federal efforts to improve communications interoperability across all levels of government. In addition to federal efforts, several states and local jurisdictions are pursuing initiatives to improve communications interoperability.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Wildland Fires Threaten Homes in Several Ways; Homeowners and State and Local Governments Are Primarily Responsible for Preventive Steps to Protect Them
paragraphs: Although people choosing to live near wildlands may enjoy many benefits  from their location, they also run the risk that their homes may be damaged  or destroyed by a wildland fire. Wildland fires have destroyed an average of  850 homes per year since 1984, according to a National Fire Protection  Association official. However, losses since 2000 have risen to an average of  1,100 homes annually. These losses occurred in many states throughout the  nation, including Arizona, California, Florida, and New Mexico, although  California has suffered the highest losses overall. Losing homes to wildland  fires has long been a problem. Severe fires across the northern United  States in 1910 resulted in the destruction of entire towns and, in California,  homes have been destroyed in nearly every decade since 1930. The  problem is not limited to the United States; wildland fires have damaged or  destroyed homes in other countries as well, including Australia, Canada,  and France. Most remote wildland fires are ignited by lightning; and  humans, intentionally or unintentionally, start the rest.
Fire requires three elements—oxygen, heat, and fuel—to ignite and  continue burning. Once a fire has begun, a number of factors—such as  terrain, weather, and the type of nearby vegetation or other fuels, including  structures—influence how fast and how intensely the fire spreads. For  example, fire can burn very rapidly up a steep slope. Adverse weather  conditions—especially hot, dry weather with high winds—together with  adequate fuels can turn a low-intensity fire into a high-intensity fire that  firefighters may be unable to control until the weather changes. Any  combustible object in a fire’s path, including homes and other structures,  can fuel a wildland fire and sustain it. If any one of these three elements is  removed, however—such as when firefighters remove vegetation or other  fuels from a strip of land near a wildland fire, called a fire break—a fire will  normally become less intense and eventually die out.
Wildland fires can threaten homes or other structures in several ways:  Surface fires burn vegetation or other fuels near the surface of the  ground, such as shrubs, fallen leaves, small branches, and roots (see fig.  3). These fires can ignite a home by burning nearby vegetation and  eventually igniting flammable portions of it, including exterior walls or  siding; attached structures, such as a fence or deck; or other flammable  materials, such as firewood or patio furniture. (In the electronic version  of this report, a video clip illustrating surface fire is available at  http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v1.mpg.)
Crown fires burn the tops, or crowns, of trees. Crown fires normally  begin as surface fires and move up the trees by burning “ladder fuel,”  such as nearby shrubs or low tree branches. Crown fires place homes at  risk because they create intense heat, which can ignite portions of  structures, if flames are within approximately 100 feet of the structure,  even without direct contact. Figure 4 shows a crown fire burning in  trees. (In the electronic version of this report, a video clip illustrating  crown fire created in an experiment in the Northwest Territories of  Canada is available at http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v2.mpg.)
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.)
Homes can be more flammable than the trees, shrubs, or other vegetation  surrounding them (see fig. 5).
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. During this same 20-year period, however,  wildland fires accounted for only about 2 percent of total insured losses  from all natural disasters. In contrast, tornadoes accounted for 32 percent  of total insured losses and hurricanes for 28 percent. In 2003, severe fires in  Southern California destroyed more than 3,600 homes, with total damages  estimated at more than $2 billion but, in comparison, hurricanes in the  Southeast in 2004 damaged an estimated one in five homes in Florida, with  estimated total damages of $42 billion. Further, houses damaged or  destroyed by wildland fires accounted for less than 1 percent of the  estimated 400,000 residential fires that occurred annually from 1994  through 1998.
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.
Addressing threats from wildland fires is a shared responsibility. However,  homeowners and state and local governments have the primary  responsibility for ensuring that preventive steps are taken to help protect  homes from wildland fires. While the federal government does not have a  primary responsibility, it has played a role through its efforts to educate  and assist communities in taking preventive steps. Because the vast  majority of structures damaged or destroyed by wildland fires are located  on private property, much of the responsibility for taking adequate steps to  minimize or prevent damage from wildland fire rests with property owners.  State and local governments, as well as the federal government and  nongovernmental groups, help to educate homeowners and others about  wildland fire and ways to minimize or prevent property damage. State and  local officials also can establish and enforce land-use restrictions and laws  that require defensible space and fire-resistant building materials. Finally,  homebuilders choose the building materials and construction methods  used, in accordance with local building codes, when building a home, and  insurance companies reimburse their clients for losses, including those  from wildland fires.
section_title: Multiple Agencies Respond to Wildland Fires and Cannot Always Communicate Effectively with One Another
paragraphs: 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, which  relay radio signals (see fig. 6).
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. 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 (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.
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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review addressed the following objectives: (1) measures that can help  protect structures from wildland fires, (2) factors that affect the use of  these protective measures, and (3) the role that technology plays in  improving firefighting agencies’ ability to communicate during wildland  fires. In addition, we were asked to describe the process for using military  resources in responding to wildland fires.
To address the first three of these objectives, as detailed below, we  contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a  symposium of experts and we visited six states. In addition, we reviewed  studies and other pertinent documents and conducted interviews with a  broad range of individuals and organizations to obtain information to  address individual objectives.
We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards from May 2004 to April 2005.
subsections: section_title: Symposium Convened for GAO by the National Academy of Sciences
paragraphs: We worked with NAS to convene a panel of experts for a 2-day symposium  in August 2004. 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.
section_title: Site Visits to Six States
paragraphs: To obtain additional information on our objectives and to identify different  approaches that regions, states, or communities are taking to address the  risk to structures from wildland fire, interoperability of communications,  or use of military resources, we conducted site visits to six states:  California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington. We  selected these states to evaluate a variety of approaches used in different  regions of the country with disparate population densities and varied  terrain and vegetation, which can affect the severity of wildland fires. At  each location, we reviewed documents and interviewed officials to discuss:  (1) the steps that can be taken to protect structures from wildland fires,  including efforts that encourage the voluntary use of these steps and those  requiring their use; (2) the factors affecting the use of these steps; and (3)  the status of communications interoperability and efforts being made to  address communications difficulties. At each location, we also interviewed  state and local officials, including fire managers or firefighters, fire  marshals, emergency management personnel, elected officials, and other  government officials such as land-use planners. In addition, we interviewed  homeowners in several of the visited states to obtain their perspective on  the effectiveness of measures to protect structures from wildland fires and  the efforts to increase use of such measures.
section_title: Additional Efforts to Address Individual Objectives
paragraphs: To gather information on the measures that can help protect structures  from wildland fires, we reviewed studies and pertinent documents and  interviewed officials with federal agencies involved in fire research,  building construction and materials design and research, fire prevention  efforts, and fire suppression. Our sources included the Forest Service  within the Department of Agriculture and several of its research stations,  including the Fire Science Laboratory, the Missoula Technology and  Development Center, and the Forest Products Laboratory; the Department  of the Interior, including the Bureau of Land Management; the National  Institute of Standards and Technology within the Department of  Commerce; and the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. We  also interviewed representatives from other organizations including the  Institute for Business and Home Safety, the National Fire Protection  Association, and the National Association of Homebuilders. The scope of  our study included technologies that could be incorporated into structures  or into communities to help them better withstand wildland fires, but it did  not include technologies for the suppression of wildland fires.
To identify factors affecting the use of protective measures and the steps  being taken to increase their use, we carried out a number of activities.  First, because the primary national effort to reduce fire risk to structures is  the Firewise Communities program, we reviewed Firewise Communities  program documents and interviewed program officials and a range of  program participants. We also attended a 2004 national Firewise  Communities conference in Denver, Colorado, which addressed current  efforts and remaining challenges, and a 2004 Forest Service conference in  Boise, Idaho, which addressed wildland fire issues. Second, we reviewed  government and other research studies examining the use of protective  measures and the effectiveness of programs designed to increase their use.  Third, to expand the geographic coverage of our study and to identify  broader concerns, we reviewed documents or interviewed officials from  federal firefighting agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency  within the Department of Homeland Security, the National Association of  Counties, and the Western Governors’ Association. Finally, to obtain  information on the role of the insurance industry in protecting structures  from wildland fires, we interviewed officials from the Insurances Services  Office, the California FAIR plan program, the Personal Insurance  Federation of California, 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) reports. We also interviewed officials from federal  agencies involved in firefighting, including the Forest Service, the Bureau  of Land Management, and the National Interagency Communications  Center at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, and federal  agencies involved in communications technologies and related issues,  including the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland  Defense and the Naval Research Laboratory, both within the Department of  Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of  Interoperability and Compatibility, both within the Department of  Homeland Security. We obtained information on available communications  technologies from several manufacturers.
To obtain information on the use of military resources, we reviewed  relevant legislation, agreements between DOD and federal or state  firefighting agencies, policies, and procedures governing the use of military  resources to fight wildland fires. We also reviewed reports evaluating the  use of military resources including a 2004 Office of Management and  Budget report and reports on the Southern California fires of 2003. We  spoke with officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense  for Homeland Defense and fire or military officials in California, Florida,  Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington to obtain their perspectives on the use  of military resources to assist wildland fire suppression efforts in those  states.
section_title: Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Key to Protecting Structures; Other Technologies Can Also Help
paragraphs: Creating and maintaining defensible space and using fire-resistant roofs  and vents are critical to protecting structures from wildland fires. Analysis  of past fires and research experiments have shown that reducing  vegetation and other flammable materials within a radius of 30 to 100 feet  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.
subsections: section_title: Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Critical to Protecting Structures
paragraphs: 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.  Defensible space offers protection by breaking up continuous fuels  (including plants, leaves, needles, or debris) that could otherwise allow a  surface fire to contact the structure and ignite it. Defensible space also  helps protect against crown fires. Reducing the density of large trees  around a structure decreases the heat intensity of any nearby fire, thus  helping to prevent structures from igniting.
Defensible space begins at the outer limit of any exterior component of a  structure and does not require that all trees and plants be eliminated (see  fig. 8). The 30 to 100 feet of defensible space extends beyond exterior  components such as decks, fences, or porches and, under certain  conditions, homeowners may keep some plants or trees adjacent to their  homes. Plants within the 30-to-100-foot radius should be carefully spaced  and not highly flammable. Trees should have their lower branches  removed, with no branches hanging over the roof. In addition, moving  other flammable materials, such as firewood piles and flammable outdoor  furniture, away from the structure also contributes to defensible space.
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.
In addition to creating and maintaining defensible space, effective wildland  fire protection calls for both roofing with fire-resistant materials and  screening exterior vents or openings to keep out firebrands, which can  travel a mile or more through the air. Although defensible space can reduce  the risk from crown and surface fires, it cannot prevent firebrands from  entering and igniting a structure’s highly flammable interior.
Roofs can be made fire-resistant by using appropriate protective covering  materials, either when building new homes or retrofitting or remodeling  existing homes. Materials such as asphalt composition, clay, concrete,  metal, slate, treated wood products, and even synthetics, such as rubber,  can all be used to achieve a “class A” roof. 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. In addition to covering  material, a roof’s design, construction quality, and condition also influence  its susceptibility to ignition. For example, certain complex roof patterns  have valleys and crevices that can trap leaves, needles, and other  flammable debris, increasing the likelihood of ignition.
Even when defensible space and fire-resistant roofing protect a structure  from the outside, it can still ignite from within if firebrands enter through  vents or other openings. Most structures have some ventilation in crawl  spaces or attics for moisture control (see fig. 10). Often located at the  gable ends of the roof or under the eaves, such vents allow air to flow into  and through the attic. Other openings may also be left by poor  construction, deterioration, or ill-fitting joints between walls and roof.  Covering vents and other openings with screens that will not burn or melt,  substantially reduces the risk of entry and ignition by firebrands. The  Firewise Communities program, a national program which educates  homeowners about wildland fire and steps to protect homes against them,  recommends screen openings be one-eighth inch or less.
Analysis of fires over the last half century has demonstrated the  importance of defensible space and fire-resistant roofs and vents as  protective measures for structures.
In the 1961 Belair-Brentwood Fire and the 1990 Painted Cave Fire, both  in California, 85 to 95 percent of homes with a nonflammable roof, and  at least 30 feet of defensible space, survived without fire department  intervention.
In the 1981 Atlas Peak Fire in California, out of the 323 structures  threatened, only 5 of the 111 structures with defensible space were  damaged or destroyed. In contrast, 91 of the 111 structures without  defensible space were either damaged or destroyed.
In the 1985 Palm Coast Fire in Florida, 130 homes were damaged or  destroyed. Two of the most predictive factors for whether homes in this  fire burned or survived were fire-resistant vents and defensible space.  Those homes with flammable, unprotected vents were identified as  particularly vulnerable.
In 2003, the Simi Fire in Ventura County, California, threatened  thousands of structures. According to the Ventura County fire marshal,  of the few structures actually destroyed during these fires, most did not  observe the county’s ordinance requiring 100 feet of defensible space  between the structure and flammable vegetation, or they lacked county- recommended fire-resistant roofs and properly screened vents.
Experimental research on wildland fire has corroborated the effectiveness  of defensible space and fire-resistant roofs. A researcher at the Forest  Service’s Fire Science Laboratory in Missoula, Montana, predicted that a  crown fire would have to come within 100 feet of a structure for it to ignite;  he based this prediction on a theoretical model incorporating conservative  estimates of the heat an intense crown fire would produce and the  ignitability of wood. The researcher tested the model’s results in a series of  experiments while working with a group of international fire researchers in  Canada’s Northwest Territories (see fig. 11). During these experiments,  five-and-a-half acre plots of trees were ignited under conditions that  produced a crown fire. Wood walls were exposed at varying distances to  the fire’s heat. Walls located 33 feet from the crown fire ignited during three  of seven experimental fires and significantly scorched in the other four  fires. Walls located 66 feet from the crown fire did not ignite or sustain  visible damage. These experiments also demonstrated that fire-resistant  roofs can effectively protect structures’ highly flammable interiors from  igniting. Using a model structure with a roof covering made from  composition shingles, fire researchers also set fire to the pine needles  completely covering the roof. The composition roof did not ignite, and the  structure remained undamaged. (In the electronic version of this report, a  video clip illustrating this experiment is available at  http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v4.mpg.)
Finally, experts from the symposium convened for us by the National  Academy of Sciences (NAS) emphasized that defensible space and fire- resistant roofs and vents are the most critical protective measures.  Symposium experts stated that defensible space is critical for protecting  structures from wildland fire. These experts told us that if defensible space  and fire-resistant roofs and vents were correctly and consistently used by  homeowners, the risk posed by wildland fire would be significantly  reduced. Moreover, in visits to California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New  Mexico, and Washington, we met with fire officials who confirmed the  symposium experts’ view—that 30 to 100 feet of defensible space and fire- resistant roofs and vents are vital to protecting structures from wildland  fires.
section_title: Other Technologies Play a Secondary Role
paragraphs: Symposium experts and fire officials we spoke with identified other  technologies that can help protect individual structures from wildland  fires. A few of these technologies, like fire-resistant building materials  (other than roofing), are permanent, requiring little intervention by  homeowners or firefighters, while other technologies, like chemical agents,  are temporary and require active human intervention. Still other  technologies, like geographic information systems (GIS) mapping, can be  used to help protect entire communities. See appendix III for more  information on these technologies.
Fire-resistant windows. Fire-resistant windows help protect a  structure from wildland fire by reducing the risk a window will break  and allow fire to enter a structure. Windows constructed of double- paned glass, glass block, or tempered glass can help resist breakage.
Fire-resistant building materials. Fire-resistant building materials for  walls, siding, decks, and doors play an important role in protecting  structures by helping to prevent ignition. During a wildland fire, flames  or firebrands may come in contact with a structure or intense heat may  either ignite the exterior of a structure or melt it, thus exposing the  structure’s interior to the fire. Exterior walls, siding, decks, and doors  made of fire-resistant building materials, such as fiber-cement, brick,  stone, metal, and stucco, help structures resist such damage and  destruction.
Chemical agents. Firefighting chemical agents, such as foams and gels,  are temporary protective measures that can be applied as an exterior  coating shortly before a wildland fire reaches a structure. Foams,  typically detergent based, are combined with water or forced air. Gels  are polymers (plastics) that can hold many times their weight in water.  Both are designed to be sprayed onto a structure, coating it with a  protective outer shield against ignition (see fig. 12). For example,  California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection officials estimated  that in 2003, using gels helped save between 75 and 100 homes from the  Paradise Fire and more than 300 homes from the Cedar Fire in San  Diego County. The disadvantages of using foams and gels are that they  often need to be applied to a structure by a homeowner or firefighter.  Chemical agents may also need to be periodically reapplied or sprayed  with water to remain effective, and they can be difficult to clean up.
Sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems, which can be installed inside or  outside a structure, lower the risk of ignition or damage. For example,  the California Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission recommended  adding internal attic sprinklers to revised building codes as a response  to lessons learned from the 2003 wildland fires. Sprinklers, however,  require reliable sources of water and, in some cases, electricity to be  effective. Several firefighting officials told us that during wildland fires,  power and water services may not be adequate for sprinklers to function  properly. For example, an investigation after California’s 1991 Oakland  Hills Fire noted that external sprinkler systems might have saved some  homes if water flow and pressure had been adequate.
In addition to technologies aimed at protecting individual structures,  symposium experts and fire officials we met with told us that one  important technology exists, geographic information systems (GIS)  mapping, that can reduce the risk of wildland fire damage to an entire  community. GIS is a computer-based information system that can be used  to efficiently store, analyze, and display multiple forms of information on a  single map. 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).
Some emerging technologies could assist in protecting communities,  although they need more research, testing, and time to fully develop.  Emerging technologies are as follows:  Fire behavior modeling. Forest Service and other researchers have  developed computer models to predict wildland fire behavior, but these  models do not accurately predict fire behavior in the wildland-urban  interface. Existing models have helped officials identify areas likely to  experience intense wildland fires, identify suitable locations for fuel  breaks, predict the effect of a fuel break on fire behavior, and aid  suppression by predicting overall behavior of a given fire. These models  do not, however, consider the effect that structures and landscaping  have on wildland fire behavior. Some researchers told us that  developing models that consider how fire spreads from house to house  might help improve the design of communities in the wildland-urban  interface. Such models might also help homeowners compare how  different landscaping options could alter fire behavior. The Forest  Service, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Los Alamos  National Laboratory have proposed a 5-year, $10 million project to  develop such models.
Automated detection systems. Sensors using infrared, ultraviolet, or  temperature-sensitive devices can be placed around a community 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.
section_title: Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to Increase Their Use Are Under Way
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Affect Whether Homeowners Use Protective Measures
paragraphs: Time or the expense involved is one of the primary reasons behind  homeowners’ resistance to creating defensible space or installing fire- resistant roofs, fire officials told us. 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. Creating and maintaining defensible space involves  trade-offs between money and time. Out-of-pocket expenses may be  negligible when homeowners create defensible space themselves but  completing the work can require substantial time and effort. Homeowners  may also find it difficult to clear and transport any vegetation to  appropriate disposal sites. Alternatively, homeowners can pay someone to  create defensible space on their property. Fire officials estimate that the  price of this work—including thinning trees and some replanting but not  major landscaping—can be several thousand dollars or more depending on  vegetation type and the topography of, and access to, a particular property.  The New Mexico Forestry Division, for example, has estimated the price of  creating 1 acre of defensible space around a structure in heavily forested  areas in that state at about $1,700 to $2,400, although this estimate excludes  the expense of removing large trees that are close to structures. A state  forestry official estimated that removing such trees could cost $800 to  $2,000 each. Second, regarding fire-resistant roofs, if homeowners wait  until their existing roofs need replacement, cost does not have to be a  major factor because fire-resistant roof-covering materials are available at  similar cost to more flammable ones.
Homeowners may also be reluctant to create defensible space because of  the importance they place on other considerations, such as the role of  vegetation in their property’s appearance, privacy, and wildlife habitat.  Homeowners’ concerns about the effect of defensible space on these  features can be critical since such features influence homeowners’  decisions to move nearer to wildlands in the first place. The design of  defensible space is flexible, however, and can be done in ways that  minimize the impact on appearance or wildlife habitat or even enhance  them. When deciding whether to create defensible space, homeowners may  also weigh the effects of landscaping on shade, energy efficiency, and water  use, and they may sometimes receive contradictory advice from different  government agencies about landscaping choices. For instance, water  management districts in Florida promote landscaping choices that  conserve water, but some of these choices may increase risk from wildland  fire.
Another reason homeowners may not take protective measures is that they  may not understand how wildland fires damage or destroy homes or how  effective protective measures can be. An expert at the symposium  convened for us by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said that  because many homeowners think of wildland fires as intense crown fires,  they do not believe that relatively simple steps like creating defensible  space can be effective and, therefore, do not take such steps. On the  contrary, however, defensible space can lessen the intensity of crown fires  and, together with fire-resistant roofs and vents, can effectively protect  against firebrands or low-intensity surface fires, which often damage  structures. Forest Service researchers have reported that some  homeowners do not think it worthwhile to create defensible space because  they have seen a fire jump a six-lane highway. Fire officials said that these  homeowners do not understand that defensible space is not intended to  stop a fire from spreading but only to prevent it from reaching and igniting  structures.
In addition, homeowners may not use protective measures because they  believe that fire officials are responsible for protecting their homes and do  not recognize they share in this responsibility. Fire officials told us that  homeowners who have recently moved to the wildland-urban interface may  not have experienced a wildland fire and may not realize their homes are at  risk and that they should consider protective steps. Fire officials also said  such newcomers may expect the same level of service they received in  more urban areas and do not understand that rural areas may have fewer  available firefighters and longer response times. Also, when a wildland fire  burns near communities, so many houses may be threatened  simultaneously that firefighters may be unable to protect them all. In such  cases, defensible space and fire-resistant building materials greatly reduce  a structure’s risk.
section_title: Education Helps Increase Awareness of Steps Homeowners and Others Can Take
paragraphs: 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.)  Because it seeks to increase voluntary use of protective measures, the  Firewise Communities program requires homeowner and community  involvement to be successful. To this end, since 1998, the Firewise  Communities program has conducted more than 30 workshops, attended  by approximately 3,000 people from 44 states, and has supported over 500  local or regional workshops reaching over 15,000 participants. The  program has also distributed videos, books, brochures, and other materials  that promote Firewise landscaping and construction. Finally, the program  has recognized more than 100 communities in 26 states as “Firewise”  communities. Homeowners in these communities, along with fire officials,  assessed the community’s wildland fire risk, developed a plan to mitigate  those risks, and undertook activities to implement the plan.
Other education efforts are directed at state and local government officials  and professionals, such as landscape architects and planners. For example,  the American Planning Association and the National Fire Protection  Association reported in February 2005 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.
The Sonoran Institute and the National Association of Counties  sponsored a September 2004 workshop attended by county officials  from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to discuss the role of zoning and  other growth management approaches in reducing the wildland fire risk  to new development. The workshop discussed the costs associated with  new development in the wildland-urban interface, such as increased fire  suppression costs, and the importance of land-use planning and other  approaches to reduce risks from wildland fires, according to the  workshop organizer.
In Florida, the Department of Community Affairs and Division of  Forestry published a handbook in April 2004 that describes different  wildland fire mitigation strategies that communities in Florida have  adopted. The handbook contains information directed at homeowners,  homebuilders, government officials, and professionals such as planners  and landscape architects. 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.
section_title: Financial and Other Assistance Encourages Homeowners and Communities to Take Action
paragraphs: 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, 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. Grants to reduce fuels on private property typically  require the homeowner to pay a portion of project costs. National Fire  Plan funds have also been used to create fuel breaks around communities.  For example, the Washington Department of Natural Resources received a  $340,000 grant that it used to create a fuel break around the town of Roslyn,  reducing fuels in an approximately 150-foot-wide buffer zone. Fire officials  told us the fuel break by itself would not prevent a wildland fire from  entering the community, but that it would assist suppression efforts by  reducing fire intensity close to the community. The grant also funded  creation of defensible space for an additional 144 homes located outside  the fuel break.
State and local governments have provided similar assistance. The Florida  Division of Forestry, for instance, has used state and federal funds to  establish four mitigation teams that reduce fuels on private lands by  conducting prescribed burns and mechanically removing vegetation to  create fuel breaks around communities at high risk of wildland fires. In  other cases, local governments have helped homeowners to chip or remove  vegetation produced by the creation of defensible space. Santa Fe County,  New Mexico, for instance, bought two grinders in 2003 to chip vegetation  and established locations where homeowners from participating  communities could bring plant material they removed from their property.  The county fire marshal told us that this program had assisted  approximately 1,000 residents.
Federal, state, and local fire officials and homeowners told us that efforts  such as these are helpful but also raise some concerns. First, because  vegetation grows back, fuel breaks and defensible space need to be  maintained to be effective (see fig. 15). To address this concern, Florida  Division of Forestry officials told us that the division requires communities  it assists to sign an agreement to maintain the defensible space or fuel  breaks. Second, fire officials said it is difficult to identify sources for grants  and other assistance. In some of the states we visited, federal and state  officials are working to assist homeowners and local officials to identify  such sources. Firewise Communities program officials said they have  identified assistance available in many states and posted a list on their Web  site (see app. IV). Finally, some homeowners raised concerns about grant  eligibility requirements. New Mexico, for instance, requires grants or  assistance to be distributed to homeowners through another government  entity, for example, a city fire department or local governmental district. If  a local government is not able to sponsor the grant, residents must  incorporate as a not-for-profit organization to be eligible, a process a  participating homeowner told us was frustrating and time-consuming.
section_title: State or Local Laws May Require Protective Measures
paragraphs: 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.  Local governments can also improve fire safety through land-use planning,  by restricting development or requiring additional protective measures in  particularly fire-prone areas. Ventura County, California, fire officials  attribute the relatively few houses in that county damaged by the 2003  Southern California fires to, in part, the county’s adoption and enforcement  of laws requiring 100 feet of defensible space and the use of fire-resistant  building materials. Such steps are particularly effective at reducing the risk  of wildland fires for new developments because it is cheaper to select  building materials and incorporate fire-resistant community design before  construction begins. After the 2003 Southern California fires, for instance,  San Bernardino County officials reported that communities developed  more recently under requirements regarding vegetation and building  materials sustained far less damage during those fires than did older  communities. 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.
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.
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. 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.
section_title: Some Insurance Companies Direct Homeowners to Use Protective Measures
paragraphs: Although wildland fire has not resulted in significant losses for the  insurance industry in comparison with other disasters, some insurance  companies have instituted programs designed to increase policyholders’  use of protective measures in some at-risk areas. Since 1993, for instance,  one major company has evaluated high-risk properties in California for  defensible space before underwriting new policies. A company official said  that 200 to 500 feet of defensible space is often required, depending on  factors such as topography, vegetation density, and type of construction. In  2004, the company began expanding this program to other western states.  Another major company initiated a pilot program in 2003 in Colorado, Utah,  and Wyoming, under which the company inspected properties of  policyholders living in certain high-risk areas in those states and notified  policyholders of any actions needed to establish defensible space  according to the standards required or recommended by their local fire  departments. Policyholders would have at least 18 months to perform any  work needed to meet those standards, according to the company official in  charge of the program and, if the corrective actions were not completed,  the company could choose not to renew the policy. The official said that it  is too early to evaluate the program’s success but he expects the program  to continue and perhaps expand to other regions of the country.
Some fire officials have said that the insurance industry should take a  larger role in encouraging use of protective measures, such as by offering  discounts on premiums to policyholders who have defensible space.  Insurance industry officials we spoke with said that the share of premiums  associated with wildland fire risk is relatively low and would not provide a  meaningful incentive for homeowners. Although industry losses have been  low historically, officials from the Insurance Services Office told us that  recent trends toward increased fire severity and more people living in at- risk areas mean that future losses may be higher.
section_title: Possible Federal Government Actions to Increase Use of Protective Measures
paragraphs: As we previously mentioned, homeowners and state and local governments  have the primary responsibility for taking preventive steps to protect  homes from wildland fires. Nevertheless, the federal government currently  funds education for homeowners and communities, primarily through the  Firewise Communities program, and provides grants to states and  communities to use on preventive measures to protect structures, under  the National Fire Plan and other sources. Key to choosing the appropriate  approach will be determining what the federal role should be in this area,  given that the majority of the structures damaged by wildland fires are  located on private property, and losses are normally covered by the fire  portion of homeowners’ insurance. In addition, although many homes are  at risk from wildland fire, only a small fraction of those are actually  damaged or destroyed in any given year, and damages and insured losses  from wildland fire are significantly less than from either other natural  disasters or other types of structure fires.
Should the federal government choose to continue or change its role, it can  use a variety of policy options to motivate or mandate homeowners to  implement measures to protect structures from wildland fires. These  options include education partnerships, grants to states and localities to  promote the use of protective measures, tax incentives, and building and  land use regulations. However, additional information in several areas  would be helpful in more clearly defining the problem and determining the  appropriate level of federal efforts to address it. Such information includes  the scope and scale of the risk to homes from wildland fires, the actual  losses incurred from wildland fires, the extent of efforts homeowners are  already making to address wildland fire risks, and the extent to which  homeowners cannot obtain private insurance. Most of this information,  including the scope and scale of the risk, is not readily available or easily  quantifiable.
There are three main considerations regarding education partnerships and  grants to undertake preventive measures. First, because resources are  scarce, spending decisions must be based on a careful assessment of  whether the benefits to the nation from these efforts to reduce the risk to  privately owned structures exceed their costs. Second, it is important to  strike a balance between accountability and flexibility. Accountability can  be achieved by establishing performance measures and outcome goals and  measuring results. Doing so would allow flexibility in how funds are used,  while at the same time ensuring national oversight. For example,  information measuring the results and the effectiveness of federal grant  making under the National Fire Plan would be useful in determining  whether continued or additional funding for the program is needed.  However, developing the appropriate performance measures is  complicated because it is difficult to determine the number of structures  that would have been destroyed or damaged if preventive measures had not  been taken. The third consideration is targeting the funds to those with the  greatest need. To effectively target grants to address the greatest threats to  structures from wildland fires requires information on the relative risks  from wildland fires faced by different communities.
Tax incentives are the result of special exclusions, exemptions, deductions,  credits, deferrals, or tax rates in the federal tax laws. Unlike grants, tax  incentives do not generally permit the same degree of federal targeting and  oversight, and they generally are available to all potential beneficiaries who  satisfy congressionally established criteria. In the case of wildland fire,  while potentially millions of homes are at risk and might qualify for tax  incentives, the number of homes that actually are damaged or destroyed by  wildland fires each year is a small fraction of those at risk. To make a  reasoned judgment about the effectiveness of this policy option, additional  information would be needed on the number of homeowners that could  qualify for tax incentives and possible cost and benefits of the incentives.
The federal government has little authority over land-use planning or  building on private land. The authority to develop, adopt, administer, and  enforce building and land-use regulations has traditionally rested with the  states, which in turn have delegated some or all of their authority to local  governments. In a few instances, such as the Coastal Zone Management  Act, the federal government has provided incentives for state and local  governments to adopt development plans that meet specific criteria.  Congress could provide similar incentives for state and local governments  to adopt building and land-use regulations addressing threats to structures  from wildland fires. However, state and local officials we spoke with  expressed concern about having the federal government take a role in  these types of regulations rather than leaving responsibility at the state and  local level.
section_title: Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve Communications Interoperability Requires Better Planning and Coordination
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Technologies Can Enhance Communications Interoperability
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Patchwork Interoperability
paragraphs: Patchwork interoperability uses technology to interconnect two or more  disparate radio systems so that voice or data from one system can be made  available to all systems. The principal advantage of this solution is that  agencies can continue to use existing communications systems, an  important consideration when funds to buy new equipment are limited.  According to an official from DHS’s Office for Interoperability and  Compatibility, a major disadvantage to all patchwork solutions is that they  require twice as much spectrum since they have to tie up channels on both  connected systems. Three main patchwork technologies are currently  available. Appendix V provides more detail about each of these  technologies.
Audio switches provide interoperability by connecting radio and other  communications systems to a device that sends the audio signal from  one agency’s radio to all other connected radio systems. Audio switches  can interconnect several different radio systems, regardless of the  frequency bands or type of equipment used.
Crossband repeaters provide interoperability between systems  operating on different radio frequency bands by changing frequencies  between the two radio systems.
Console-to-console patches link the dispatch consoles of two radio  systems so that the radios connected to each system can communicate  with one another. Dispatch consoles are located at the dispatch center  where dispatchers receive incoming radio calls.
Audio switches are easily transportable and can be used to create  temporary interoperability, which makes them useful for wildland  firefighting where multiple agencies temporarily come together to fight the  fire. In addition to ease of transport, audio switches are flexible and allow a  variety of communications systems, including radio and telephone, to be  connected. Public safety agencies in several localities, including  Washington, use them. In addition, the National Interagency Incident  Communications Division at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC)  recently purchased two of these devices to use to connect radio systems  during major public safety incidents. An audio switch costs about $7,000  without the radio interface modules or cables. Each interface module  costs about $1,100, and cables are available for about $140 each.
A crossband repeater provides interoperability between systems operating  on different radio frequency bands by changing the frequency of the signal  received and sending it out on another frequency. For example, a  crossband repeater can receive a VHF (very high frequency) signal and  retransmit it as a UHF (ultrahigh frequency) signal. Crossband repeaters  can connect base stations 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. 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.
section_title: Improved Communication Systems
paragraphs: Other interoperability solutions involve developing and adopting more  sophisticated radio systems that follow common standards or can be  programmed to work on any frequency and to use any desired modulation  type, such as AM or FM. Project 25 radios, software-defined radios, and  Voice over Internet Protocol are the primary examples of these improved  communications systems. Appendix V provides more detail about each of  these technologies.
Project 25 radios, which are currently available, must meet a set of  standards for digital two-way radio systems that allow for  interoperability between all jurisdictions using these systems.
Software-defined radios, which are still being developed, are designed  to transmit and receive over a wide range of frequencies and use any  desired modulations, such as AM or FM.
Voice over Internet Protocol treats both voice and data as digital  information and enables their movement over any existing Internet  Protocol data network.
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. They can also communicate with older, analog radios. Project  25 radios, at about $1,700 to $2,500 each, cost more than other available  radios that cost around $1,200 each. Federal, state, and local officials we  spoke with agreed that, while Project 25 radios could provide  interoperability benefits, funding and other limitations will likely result in  phased adoption. For example, a federal communications specialist said  that the Forest Service will be purchasing Project 25 radios over a 10-year  replacement cycle. As of December 2003, the state of Washington had  about 400 Project 25-compatible radios, of a total of 8,000 portable radios  owned by the state. None of the 400, however, are owned by the agency  responsible for wildland firefighting.
Software-defined radios and Voice over Internet Protocol appear to hold  promise for improving interoperability among firefighting and other public  safety agencies. Voice over Internet Protocol offers the flexibility to  transmit both voice and data over a data network. This could be useful for  firefighting agencies that need weather and other information when making  decisions affecting fire suppression efforts. However, no standards exist  for radio communications using Voice over Internet Protocol and, as a  result, manufacturers have produced proprietary systems that may not be  interoperable. Software-defined radios will allow interoperability among  agencies using different frequency bands, different operational modes  (digital or analog), proprietary systems from different manufacturers, or  different modulations (such as AM or FM). However, software-defined  radios are still being developed and are not yet available for use by public  safety agencies.
section_title: Planning and Coordination Are Key to Improving Communications Interoperability
paragraphs: 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 for  lack of communications interoperability among responding agencies.  According to these reports, federal, state, and local government agencies  have not worked together to identify their communications needs and  develop a coordinated plan to meet them.
Whether the solution is a short-term patchwork approach or a long-term  communications upgrade, officials we spoke with explained that planning  and coordination among agencies are critical for successfully determining  which technology to adopt and for agreeing on funding sources, timing,  training, maintenance, and other key operational and management issues.  States and local governments play an important role in developing and  implementing plans for interoperable communications because they own  most of the physical infrastructure for public safety systems, such as  radios, base stations, repeaters, and other equipment.
In recent years, the federal government has focused increased attention on  improving planning and coordination to achieve communications  interoperability. The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications  Program (SAFECOM) within DHS’s Office of Interoperability and  Compatibility is responsible for addressing interoperability and  compatibility of emergency responder equipment, including  communications. SAFECOM was established to address public safety  communications issues within the federal government and to help state,  local, and tribal public safety agencies improve their responses through  more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications. We  reported, in April 2004, that SAFECOM had made limited progress in  addressing its overall program objective of achieving communications  interoperability among entities at all levels of government. Further, we  reported in July 2004 that the nationwide data needed to compare current  communications interoperability conditions and needs, develop plans for  improvement, and measure progress over time were not available. In that  report, we recommended, among other things, that DHS continue to  develop a nationwide database and common terminology for public safety  interoperability communications channels and assess interoperability in  specific locations against defined requirements. DHS agreed with these  recommendations.
DHS has been working on a number of initiatives since SAFECOM began.  In March 2004, SAFECOM published a Statement of Requirements for  Public Safety Wireless Communications and Interoperability to begin  identifying the specific communications needs of public safety agencies.  The statement of requirements is being updated to further refine the  information and is scheduled for release to the public by June 30, 2005. In  addition, SAFECOM published the Statewide Communication  Interoperability Planning Methodology in November 2004, which was  developed in a joint project with the commonwealth of Virginia. The  methodology describes a step-by-step process for developing a locally  driven statewide strategic plan for enhancing communications  interoperability, including key steps and time frames. Finally, in January  2005, SAFECOM awarded a contract to develop and execute a nationwide  interoperability baseline study, which SAFECOM officials anticipate will be  completed by December 30, 2005. According to officials, this study will  provide an understanding of the current state of interoperability  nationwide, as well as serving as a tool to measure future improvements  made through local, state, and federal public safety communications  initiatives.
In addition to federal efforts, a variety of steps have been taken by state  and local agencies. Several states, including California, Florida, Idaho,  Missouri, and Washington, as well as the commonwealth of Virginia have  developed statewide groups to address communications interoperability.  For example, Washington established the Washington State Interoperability  Executive Committee in July 2003. According to a state official, the  committee was created to ensure communications interoperability by  managing and coordinating the state’s investments in communications  systems. The committee’s responsibilities included completing an  inventory of state government-operated public safety communications  systems, preparing a statewide public safety communications plan,  establishing standards for radios, seeking funding for wireless  communications, and fostering cooperation among emergency response  organizations. By December 2003, the group had developed an inventory of  state-operated public safety communications systems and in March 2004  the group published an interim statewide public safety communications  systems plan.
In some cases, neighboring jurisdictions or public safety agencies are  working together to address communications issues. To improve  interoperability between federal, state, and local responders in Los Angeles  County, the Los Angeles Regional Tactical Communications Systems  Executive Committee was formed. According to a county fire official,  barriers to interoperability in the county and with neighboring counties  include agencies operating on different radio frequencies and using  incompatible technologies, as well as a lack of funding for communications  systems. The group is using a two-track effort to improve communications:   (1) acquiring and using interconnection devices, such as audio switches,  with existing communication resources to enhance interoperability and (2)  rebuilding communications infrastructures for improved interoperability in  the long-term. As of February 2005, the Los Angeles County Fire  Department had acquired three audio switch units, according to a county  fire official.