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

Letter

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Wildland fires can threaten homes or other structures in several ways: Surface fires burn vegetation or other fuels near the surface of the ground, such as shrubs, fallen leaves, small branches, and roots (see fig. 3). These fires can ignite a home by burning nearby vegetation and eventually igniting flammable portions of it, including exterior walls or siding; attached structures, such as a fence or deck; or other flammable materials, such as firewood or patio furniture. (In the electronic version of this report, a video clip illustrating surface fire is available at 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.

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

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

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

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

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

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

Symposium Convened for GAO by the National Academy of Sciences

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

Site Visits to Six States

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

Additional Efforts to Address Individual Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

Managing vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable materials within 30 to 100 feet of a structure creates a defensible space that substantially reduces the likelihood that a wildland fire will damage or destroy the structure. Because wildland-urban interface fires may threaten hundreds of homes simultaneously and overwhelm the firefighting resources available to protect them, the goal of defensible space is to protect a structure from wildland fire without requiring fire suppression. 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.

Other Technologies Play a Secondary Role

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

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

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

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

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.

Competing Concerns Affect Homeowners’ Use of Protective Measures, but Efforts to Increase Their Use Are Under Way

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

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

Time or the expense involved is one of the primary reasons behind homeowners’ resistance to creating defensible space or installing fire- resistant roofs, fire officials told us. 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.

Education Helps Increase Awareness of Steps Homeowners and Others Can Take

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

Federal, state, and local government agencies; universities and extension programs; nongovernmental organizations; and industry organizations are all involved in efforts to educate the public about protecting structures from wildland fires. The primary national effort to educate homeowners about protecting structures from wildland fire is the Firewise Communities program, which also promotes steps that state and local officials can take to educate homeowners. (The Firewise Communities Web site address, along with information on related Web sites, is included in app. IV.) 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.

Financial and Other Assistance Encourages Homeowners and Communities to Take Action

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

Under the National Fire Plan, 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.

State or Local Laws May Require Protective Measures

States, counties, and cities can adopt laws designed to reduce the risk to homes from wildland fires by requiring protective measures, such as creation of defensible space or the use of fire-resistant building materials. 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.

Some Insurance Companies Direct Homeowners to Use Protective Measures

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

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

Possible Federal Government Actions to Increase Use of Protective Measures

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

Should the federal government choose to continue or change its role, it can use a variety of policy options to motivate or mandate homeowners to implement measures to protect structures from wildland fires. These options include education partnerships, grants to states and localities to promote the use of protective measures, tax incentives, and building and land use regulations. 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.

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

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

Technologies Can Enhance Communications Interoperability

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

Patchwork Interoperability

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

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

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

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

Audio switches are easily transportable and can be used to create temporary interoperability, which makes them useful for wildland firefighting where multiple agencies temporarily come together to fight the fire. In addition to ease of transport, audio switches are flexible and allow a variety of communications systems, including radio and telephone, to be connected. Public safety agencies in several localities, including Washington, use them. In addition, the National Interagency Incident Communications Division at the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) recently purchased two of these devices to use to connect radio systems during major public safety incidents. An audio switch costs about $7,000 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.

Improved Communication Systems

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

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

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

Voice over Internet Protocol treats both voice and data as digital information and enables their movement over any existing Internet Protocol data network.

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.

Planning and Coordination Are Key to Improving Communications Interoperability

In the past, public safety agencies have depended on their own stand-alone communications systems, without considering interoperability with other agencies. Yet as firefighting and other public safety agencies increasingly work together to respond to emergencies, including wildland fires, personnel from different agencies need to be able to communicate with one another. Reports by GAO, 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.