    Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving
    Communications during Wildland Fires (26-APR-05, GAO-05-380).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-380
        ACCNO:   A22637
      TITLE:     Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and
    Improving Communications during Wildland Fires
         DATE:   04/26/2005
      SUBJECT:   Emergency preparedness
    	     Forest management
    	     Intergovernmental relations
    	     Land management
    	     National forests
    	     Property
    	     Radio frequency allocation
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Technology assessment
    	     Wildfires
    	     Interoperability
    	     Wildland fires
    	     DHS Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
    	     Communications Program

    	     National Fire Plan

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-05-380

    [IMG]

    April 2005

    TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

        Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires

                                     What GAO Found

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

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

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

    Source: Larry Korhnak.

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

    United States Government Accountability Office

                                        Contents

    Letter 1

    Executive Summary

    Purpose
    Background
    Results in Brief
    Principal Findings
    Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Key to

    Protecting Structures; Other Technologies Can Also Help

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

    Effective Adoption of Technologies to Achieve Communications
    Interoperability Requires Better Planning and Coordination
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    3

    3

    5

    8 10

    10

    12

    14 15

    Chapter 1 16

    Introduction Wildland Fires Threaten Homes in Several Ways; Homeowners and
    State and Local Governments Are Primarily Responsible for
    Preventive Steps to Protect Them 16

    Multiple Agencies Respond to Wildland Fires and Cannot Always
    Communicate Effectively with One Another 21
    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 24

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

    29 Defensible Space and Fire-resistant Roofs and Vents Are Critical to
    Protecting Structures 29 Other Technologies Play a Secondary Role 38

                                        Contents

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

    43 Time, Expense, and Other Competing Concerns Affect Whether Homeowners
    Use Protective Measures 43 Education Helps Increase Awareness of Steps
    Homeowners and Others Can Take 45 Financial and Other Assistance
    Encourages Homeowners and Communities to Take Action 49

    State or Local Laws May Require Protective Measures 51

    Some Insurance Companies Direct Homeowners to Use Protective Measures 54

    Possible Federal Government Actions to Increase Use of Protective Measures
    55

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

    58 Technologies Can Enhance Communications Interoperability 58 Planning
    and Coordination Are Key to Improving Communications

    Interoperability 62

    Appendixes

    Appendix I:

    Appendix II: Appendix III:

    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires 65 Types of Military Assets
    Available for Firefighting 65 Process for Requesting and Mobilizing
    Military Assets for

    Firefighting 69 Laws, Agreements, and Policies Governing the Use of
    Military Assets

    under Federal and State Control 71 Military Assets Used for Wildland
    Firefighting 1988-2003 75

    List of Participants in the Symposium Convened for GAO by the National
    Academy of Sciences 78

    Technologies to Protect Structures from Wildland Fires 81

                                        Contents

    Appendix IV:	Web Sites with Information on Protecting Homes from Wildland
    Fire 88

    Appendix V:	Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability 89
    Patchwork Interoperability 89 Console-to-Console Patch 92 Improved
    Communication Systems 93

    Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 97

    Appendix VII:	Comments from the Department of Commerce 98 GAO Comments 102

    Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense 103

    Appendix IX:	Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 105 GAO
    Comments 107

    Appendix X:	Comments from the Department of the Interior 108 GAO Comments
    111

    Appendix XI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 112

    Related GAO Products

    Tables  Table 1: Examples of Laws Requiring Protective Measures Adopted
                         by Jurisdictions in Five States GAO Visited           53
                  Table 2: Federal Military and MAFFS Assets Used for Wildland
                                   Firefighting 1988-2003                      76

    Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6:

    Figure 7:

    Figure 8: Figure 9:

    Ways Wildland Fire Can Threaten a Structure
    Home with Defensible Space
    A Surface Fire
    A Crown Fire
    Burning Home Surrounded by Unburned Vegetation
    Basic Components of a Land Mobile Radio
    Communication System
    Public Safety Agency Radio Frequency Bands and Their
    Location on the Spectrum
    Home with Defensible Space
    A California Community with Defensible Space That
    Survived a Wildland Fire in 2004

    7 11 17 18 19

    22

    23 31

    33 35 37 Figure 10: Roof and Vents Figure 11: Fire Experiments in Canada's
    Northwest Territories

    Contents

    Figure 12: Firefighter Applying a Chemical Agent to a Home 39 Figure 13:
    GIS Map Showing Levels of Concern in Myakka River

    District, Florida 41 Figure 14: Before and After Photos of a Firewise
    Demonstration

    Home 47 Figure 15: Fuel Break near Roslyn, Washington, Shown after

    Construction and 3 Years Later 51 Figure 16: MAFFS Used for Wildland
    Firefighting 67 Figure 17: A Helicopter Using a Water Bucket 68 Figure 18:
    Process for Requesting Military Assistance 70 Figure 19: Comparison of
    Estimated Cost of Common Fire-Resistant

    Roof-Covering Materials 82 Figure 20: An Audio Switch 90 Figure 21: A
    Crossband Repeater Used to Connect Radios Operating

    on Different Frequency Bands 91 Figure 22: Console-to-Console Patch over a
    Dedicated Link 93

    Abbreviations

    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    DOD Department of Defense
    GIS geographic information systems
    MAFFS Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting System
    NAS National Academy of Sciences
    NICC National Interagency Coordination Center
    NIFC National Interagency Fire Center
    SAFECOM Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program
    UHF ultrahigh frequency
    VHF very high frequency

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

    A

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

    April 26, 2005

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

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

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

    The Honorable Mark Udall
    House of Representatives

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

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

    Robin M. Nazzaro
    Director, Natural Resources and Environment

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

                                   Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

    Executive Summary

    because agencies operate on different radio frequencies or use different
    and, sometimes incompatible, communications equipment.3

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

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

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

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

                                   Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

    o 	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.

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

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

    Executive Summary

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

                                   Executive Summary

                 Figure 1: Ways Wildland Fire Can Threaten a Structure

         B                                          B
                     C
                 C
                                                    A
                     C
                                   Wildland fires can ignite homes and structures
                                            in different ways.
                                   Surface fires (A) can ignite a home by burning
                                            nearby vegetation.
                                   Crown fires (B) create intense heat, which can
                     A      ignite portions of structures, without direct contact
                                               from flames.
                                Spot fires (C) started by firebrands can ignite a
                              home by landing on the roof or entering a roof vent
                                            or other opening.

    Source: GAO.

                                   Executive Summary

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

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

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

    Executive Summary

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

    While a variety of communications technologies exist to aid
    interoperability in the short-term-by linking incompatible communication
    systems used by firefighting and other public safety agencies, commonly
    called patchwork interoperability-and other technologies are under
    development to upgrade communications systems to provide increased
    interoperability in the long term, technology alone cannot solve the
    interoperability problem. Effective adoption of any of these technologies,
    whether patchwork solutions, such as audio switches or crossband
    repeaters, to allow agencies to improve interoperability using existing
    radio systems, or longer-term system upgrades with radios meeting common
    standards or utilizing emerging technology, such as softwaredefined
    radios, requires planning and coordination among federal, state, and local
    agencies that work together to respond to wildland fires and other
    emergencies. Without effective planning and coordination, new investments
    in communications equipment or infrastructure may not improve
    communications interoperability among agencies. The

                                   Executive Summary

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is leading federal efforts to
    improve communications interoperability across all levels of government
    but, as GAO reported in April 2004, has made limited progress toward
    achieving interoperability among first responders. Further, GAO reported
    in July 2004 that DHS does not have the nationwide data necessary to
    assess interoperability. In that report, GAO recommended that DHS take a
    variety of actions, including developing a nationwide database and common
    terminology for public safety interoperability communications channels, to
    enhance communications interoperability nationwide. DHS agreed with those
    recommendations. According to a DHS official, as of March 2005, work is
    under way to develop baseline data. In addition to federal efforts,
    several states and local jurisdictions are pursuing initiatives to improve
    communications interoperability.

    Principal Findings

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

    Managing vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable objects within
    30 to 100 feet6 of a structure is a key protective measure. Creating such
    defensible space offers protection by breaking up continuous fuels that
    could otherwise allow a surface fire to contact and ignite a structure
    (see fig. 2). Defensible space also offers protection against crown fires.
    Reducing the density of large trees around structures decreases the
    intensity of heat from a fire, thus preventing or reducing damage to
    structures. Analysis of homes burned during wildland fires has also shown
    defensible space to be a key determinant of whether a home survives. For
    instance, the 1981 Atlas Peak Fire in California damaged or destroyed 91
    out of 111 structures that lacked adequate defensible space but only 5
    structures out of 111 that had it. A series of experiments has shown that
    defensible space can effectively reduce damage to structures from intense
    crown fires. During these experiments, walls located 33 feet from the
    crown fires ignited during three of the seven experimental fires and
    significantly scorched the other four cases. No ignition or observable
    damage occurred on walls located 66 feet from these crown fires.

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

                                   Executive Summary

                          Figure 2: Home with Defensible Space

    Defensible space: Reducing vegetation and other flammable materials within
    30 to 100 feet of a structure (the area shaded in yellow) creates
    defensible space that substantially reduces the likelihood that a wildland
    fire will damage or destroy the structure. Creating defensible space
    around a structure does not require that all trees and plants be
    eliminated, but plants or trees adjacent to structures should be carefully
    spaced and be pruned to remove the lower branches that hang over the roof.

    Source: GAO.

                                   Executive Summary

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

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

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

    Many homeowners have not used protective measures-such as creating and
    maintaining defensible space-because of the time or expense involved in
    doing so. State and local fire officials estimate that the price of
    creating defensible space can range from negligible, in cases where
    homeowners perform the work themselves, to $2,000 or more. Moreover,
    defensible space needs to be maintained, resulting in additional effort or
    expense in the future. Competing concerns also influence the use of
    protective measures. For example, although modifying landscaping to create
    defensible space has proven to be a key element in protecting structures
    from wildland fire, officials and researchers have reported that some
    homeowners are more concerned about the effect landscaping has on

    Executive Summary

    the appearance of their property, their privacy, and wildlife habitat.
    Defensible space, however, can be created in a manner that alleviates many
    of these concerns. Leaving thicker vegetation away from a structure and
    pruning plants that remain close to the structure, for instance, can help
    protect structures from wildland fire and allow them to still be
    attractive and provide privacy and wildlife habitat.

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

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

    Some state and local governments have adopted laws that require
    maintaining defensible space around structures or the use of
    fire-resistant

                                   Executive Summary

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

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

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

    Effective adoption of any of these technologies, however, requires
    planning and coordination among federal, state, and local agencies that
    work together to respond to emergencies, including wildland fires, to
    determine the best way to overcome barriers to interoperability. For
    example, neighboring jurisdictions might choose an interconnection device,
    such as an audio switch, as a way to improve their communications. To
    effectively employ the device, they must also jointly decide how to share
    its cost, ownership, and management; agree on the operating procedures for
    when and how to deploy it; and train individuals to configure, maintain,
    and use it. Without such planning and coordination, new investments in
    communications equipment or infrastructure may not improve the
    effectiveness of communications among agencies. At the federal level, the

                                   Executive Summary

    Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM)
    within the Department of Homeland Security is working on a number of
    initiatives to help state, local, and tribal public safety agencies
    improve interoperability. An April 2004 GAO report found that limited
    progress had been made in addressing SAFECOM's overall objective of
    achieving communications interoperability among entities at all levels of
    government.7 Further, a July 2004 GAO report found that nationwide data
    needed to address the issue of interoperability were not available.8 In
    that report, GAO recommended, among other things, that DHS continue to
    develop a nationwide database and common terminology for public safety
    interoperability communications channels and assess interoperability in
    specific locations against defined requirements. DHS agreed with these
    recommendations. In January 2005, SAFECOM awarded a contract to develop
    baseline information on the state of interoperability nationwide. In
    addition to federal efforts, several states and some neighboring local
    jurisdiction are working to improve interoperability.

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    We provided copies of our draft report to the Departments of Agriculture,
    Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and the Interior. The Forest
    Service, responding for the Department of Agriculture, and the Department
    of Defense concurred with our report. The Departments of Commerce,
    Homeland Security, and the Interior generally agreed with our findings but
    provided technical clarifications on the draft that we incorporated into
    the report where appropriate. Copies of the written comments from the
    departments, and our response to them, appear in appendixes VI through

    X. In addition, we provided copies to the panel of experts that
    participated in a 2-day symposium convened for GAO by NAS in August 2004.
    We have incorporated technical and other comments provided by the
    panelists, as appropriate.

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

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

    8GAO-04-740.

    Chapter 1

    Introduction

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

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

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

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

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    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:

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

                                Figure 3: A Surface Fire

                       Source: National Interagency Fire Center.

    o 	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

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    risk because they create intense heat, which can ignite portions of
    structures, if flames are within approximately 100 feet of the structure,
    even without direct contact. Figure 4 shows a crown fire burning in trees.
    (In the electronic version of this report, a video clip illustrating crown
    fire created in an experiment in the Northwest Territories of Canada is
    available at http://www.gao.gov/media/video/d05380v2.mpg.)

    Figure 4: A Crown Fire

    Source: Forest Service.

    o 	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.)

    Chapter 1 Introduction

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

    Figure 5: Burning Home Surrounded by Unburned Vegetation

    Source: Forest Service.

    Wildland fires can cause extensive and costly damage, but when compared
    with losses from other natural disasters or even other residential fires,
    losses from wildland fires are relatively low. From 1983 through 2002,
    costs and damage from wildland fires in the United States exceeded $1
    billion in 2 years and $2 billion in 3 years.1 During this same 20-year
    period, however, wildland fires accounted for only about 2 percent of
    total insured losses from all natural disasters.2 In contrast, tornadoes
    accounted for 32 percent

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

    2Insurance Information Institute, Catastrophes: Insurance Issues,
    http://www.iii.org (downloaded 10/15/04).

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    of total insured losses and hurricanes for 28 percent. In 2003, severe
    fires in Southern California destroyed more than 3,600 homes, with total
    damages estimated at more than $2 billion but, in comparison, hurricanes
    in the Southeast in 2004 damaged an estimated one in five homes in
    Florida, with estimated total damages of $42 billion. Further, houses
    damaged or destroyed by wildland fires accounted for less than 1 percent
    of the estimated 400,000 residential fires that occurred annually from
    1994 through 1998.3

    Losses from wildland fire could increase in the future, as more people
    move to wildland-urban interface areas. Census Bureau data for 2000
    through 2004 indicate that those states with the largest percentage
    increases in population growth are in the West and South, including
    Arizona, California, and Florida, where many wildland fires occur.
    Officials from California, Florida, and New Mexico told us that the
    wildland-urban interface areas in their states have grown significantly in
    recent years, and the growth is expected to continue. In California, an
    estimated 4.9 million of the state's 12 million housing units are located
    in this area, and 3.2 million of these are at significant risk from
    wildland fire.4

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

    3Marty Ahrens, Selections from the U.S. Fire Problem Overview Report:
    Leading Causes and Other Patterns and Trends: Homes (Quincy, Mass.:
    National Fire Protection Association, 2003).

    4California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, The Changing
    California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment (Sacramento, Calif.: 2003).

                                 Chapter 1 Introduction

    used, in accordance with local building codes, when building a home, and
    insurance companies reimburse their clients for losses, including those
    from wildland fires.

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

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

    Land mobile radio systems are the primary means of communication among
    public safety personnel operating in a single area. These systems consist
    of a regularly interacting set of components including a base station,
    which controls the transmission and reception of audio signals among
    radios; mobile radios in vehicles and handheld portable radios carried by
    emergency personnel; and stations, known as repeaters,5 which relay radio
    signals (see fig. 6).

    5Using repeaters increases the distance over which radio users can
    communicate with one another.

                                 Chapter 1 Introduction

    frequency bands in the radio spectrum, 10,7 scattered across the spectrum,
    are allocated to public safety agencies (see fig. 7). The radio spectrum
    is finite, however, and additional frequencies cannot be added or created.
    As a result, efforts are increasing to make more efficient use of existing
    spectrum, including moving toward narrowband radios, which use channels
    12.5 kHz wide, in contrast to the channels 25 kHz wide used by wideband
    radios.8

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

                   Sources: GAO and Department of Homeland Security.

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

    7In addition to the 10 public safety bands, the Federal Communications
    Commission's allocation of 50 MHz of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band also
    provides public safety agencies with the ability to support new broadband
    applications such as high-speed digital technologies and to implement
    on-scene wireless networks for activities including transfers of large
    amounts of data, such as for maps.

    8Federal and other public safety agencies are adopting narrowband
    capabilities at different rates. The National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration, which regulates the federal government's use
    of the radio spectrum, has mandated that federal agencies generally must
    adopt narrowband communications capability by 2008. The Federal
    Communications Commission regulates other public safety agencies in the
    VHF and UHF bands and does not generally require them to adopt narrowband
    technology until 2018.

                                 Chapter 1 Introduction

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

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

    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

    To address the first three of these objectives, as detailed below, we
    contracted with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene a
    symposium of experts and we visited six states. In addition, we reviewed

                                 Chapter 1 Introduction

    studies and other pertinent documents and conducted interviews with a
    broad range of individuals and organizations to obtain information to
    address individual objectives.

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

    Symposium Convened for GAO by the National Academy of Sciences

    We worked with NAS to convene a panel of experts for a 2-day symposium in
    August 2004.9 This symposium addressed the role of technology and other
    measures to help protect structures from wildland fires and the factors
    affecting their use. It also addressed technologies for improving
    communications among agencies fighting wildland fires. Twenty-five experts
    participated in the symposium. (See app. II for a list of participants.)
    Federal experts included scientists or specialists in fire behavior,
    building and materials technologies, and communications technologies.
    Other experts included county and city firefighting officials, university
    researchers specializing in behavioral sciences or risk management, and
    specialists on building codes and other fire protection measures.

    Site Visits to Six States	To obtain additional information on our
    objectives and to identify different approaches that regions, states, or
    communities are taking to address the risk to structures from wildland
    fire, interoperability of communications, or use of military resources, we
    conducted site visits to six states: California, Florida, Idaho, Montana,
    New Mexico, and Washington. We selected these states to evaluate a variety
    of approaches used in different regions of the country with disparate
    population densities and varied terrain and vegetation, which can affect
    the severity of wildland fires. At each location, we reviewed documents
    and interviewed officials to discuss: (1) the steps that can be taken to
    protect structures from wildland fires, including efforts that encourage
    the voluntary use of these steps and those requiring their use; (2) the
    factors affecting the use of these steps; and (3) the status of
    communications interoperability and efforts being made to address
    communications difficulties. At each location, we also interviewed

    9We have a standing contract with NAS under which NAS provides assistance
    in convening groups of experts to provide information and expertise to our
    engagements. NAS uses its scientific network to identify participants and
    uses its facilities and processes to arrange the meetings. Recording and
    using the information in a report is our responsibility.

                                 Chapter 1 Introduction

    state and local officials, including fire managers or firefighters, fire
    marshals, emergency management personnel, elected officials, and other
    government officials such as land-use planners. In addition, we
    interviewed homeowners in several of the visited states to obtain their
    perspective on the effectiveness of measures to protect structures from
    wildland fires and the efforts to increase use of such measures.

    Additional Efforts to Address Individual Objectives

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

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

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    information on the role of the insurance industry in protecting structures
    from wildland fires, we interviewed officials from the Insurances Services
    Office,10 the California FAIR plan program,11 the Personal Insurance
    Federation of California,12 state insurance agencies from several states,
    and from two insurance companies.

    To gather information on the role that technology plays in improving
    firefighting agencies' ability to communicate during wildland fires, we
    reviewed reports including previous GAO reports on interoperability and
    radio spectrum management, National Task Force on Interoperability
    reports, and Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program
    (SAFECOM)13 reports. We also interviewed officials from federal agencies
    involved in firefighting, including the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
    Management, and the National Interagency Communications Center at the
    National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, and federal agencies
    involved in communications technologies and related issues, including the
    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and the
    Naval Research Laboratory, both within the Department of Defense, and the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of Interoperability and
    Compatibility, both within the Department of Homeland Security. We
    obtained information on available communications technologies from several
    manufacturers.

    To obtain information on the use of military resources, we reviewed
    relevant legislation, agreements between DOD and federal or state
    firefighting agencies, policies, and procedures governing the use of
    military resources to fight wildland fires. We also reviewed reports
    evaluating the use of military resources including a 2004 Office of
    Management and Budget report and reports on the Southern California fires
    of 2003. We spoke with officials from the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary of Defense

    10The Insurance Services Office, based in Jersey City, NJ, provides data,
    analysis, and consulting services to the insurance industry.

    11According to an official, the state of California established the Fair
    Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) program in 1968 to assist home and
    business owners who had difficulty obtaining fire insurance.

    12The Personal Insurance Federation of California is a trade association
    representing insurance companies that provide 50 percent of personal
    insurance in California.

    13SAFECOM is managed by the Department of Homeland Security. Its goal is
    to achieve interoperability among emergency-response communications at all
    levels of government.

    Chapter 1 Introduction

    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.

    Chapter 2

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

    Creating and maintaining defensible space and using fire-resistant roofs
    and vents are critical to protecting structures from wildland fires.
    Analysis of past fires and research experiments have shown that reducing
    vegetation and other flammable materials within a radius of 30 to 100
    feet1 around a structure removes fuels that could bring a surface fire in
    contact with the structure's walls and can reduce heat generated by a
    crown fire that could otherwise damage the structure. Although defensible
    space can reduce the risk from surface and crown fires, it cannot prevent
    firebrands from igniting the roof or entering an opening and igniting a
    structure. Using fire-resistant roof-covering materials, which inhibit
    ignition, and screening exterior vents and other openings can help protect
    against firebrands and provide another important level of protection.
    Several other technologies can supplement defensible space and
    fire-resistant roofs and vents. Some of these technologies, like chemical
    agents, help protect individual structures, while others, like geographic
    information systems, help protect communities.

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

    Managing vegetation and reducing or eliminating flammable materials within
    30 to 100 feet of a structure creates a defensible space that
    substantially reduces the likelihood that a wildland fire will damage or
    destroy the structure. Because wildland-urban interface fires may threaten
    hundreds of homes simultaneously and overwhelm the firefighting resources
    available to protect them, the goal of defensible space is to protect a
    structure from wildland fire without requiring fire suppression.2
    Defensible space offers protection by breaking up continuous fuels
    (including plants, leaves, needles, or debris) that could otherwise allow
    a surface fire to contact the structure and ignite it. Defensible space
    also helps protect against crown fires. Reducing the density of large
    trees around a structure decreases the heat intensity of any nearby fire,
    thus helping to prevent structures from igniting.

    1The amount of defensible space needed can be affected by a number of
    factors, including terrain and vegetation. In certain circumstances,
    effective defensible space may need to exceed 100 feet. Ventura County,
    California, for example, recommends that homeowners create 200 feet of
    defensible space around homes located near the top of a slope, facing east
    or south, or near heavy chaparral vegetation.

    2Because of the importance of protecting a structure from wildland fire
    without requiring fire suppression efforts, some fire officials use other
    terms including "home ignition zone" or "self-defending space" to refer to
    this concept.

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

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

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

                          Figure 8: Home with Defensible Space

    Defensible space: Reducing vegetation and other flammable materials within
    30 to 100 feet of a structure (the area shaded in yellow) creates
    defensible space that substantially reduces the likelihood that a wildland
    fire will damage or destroy the structure. Creating defensible space
    around a structure does not require that all trees and plants be
    eliminated, but plants or trees adjacent to structures should be carefully
    spaced and be pruned to remove the lower branches that hang over the roof.

    Source: GAO.

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

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

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

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

    Source: Ventura County Fire Department.

    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.

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

    Roofs can be made fire-resistant by using appropriate protective covering
    materials, either when building new homes or retrofitting or remodeling
    existing homes. Materials such as asphalt composition, clay, concrete,
    metal, slate, treated wood products, and even synthetics, such as rubber,
    can all be used to achieve a "class A" roof.3 Some of these protective
    covering materials will not ignite even on direct contact with fire. These
    fire-resistant covering materials are available at costs similar to more
    flammable materials, such as cedar shakes.4 In addition to covering
    material, a roof's design, construction quality, and condition also
    influence its susceptibility to ignition. For example, certain complex
    roof patterns have valleys and crevices that can trap leaves, needles, and
    other flammable debris, increasing the likelihood of ignition.

    Even when defensible space and fire-resistant roofing protect a structure
    from the outside, it can still ignite from within if firebrands enter
    through vents or other openings. Most structures have some ventilation in
    crawl spaces or attics for moisture control (see fig. 10). Often located
    at the gable5 ends of the roof or under the eaves,6 such vents allow air
    to flow into and through the attic. Other openings may also be left by
    poor construction, deterioration, or ill-fitting joints between walls and
    roof. Covering vents and other openings with screens that will not burn or
    melt, substantially reduces the risk of entry and ignition by firebrands.
    The Firewise Communities program, a national program which educates

    3Existing standardized tests of fire resistance evaluate entire roof
    assemblies, rating them class A, B, or C according to tests approved by
    the American National Standards Institute/Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
    and the American Society for Testing and Materials. In these tests,
    burning firebrands of different sizes are placed on top of the roof
    assembly. Large brands are used to test for a class A rating, smaller
    brands for class B or C ratings. If the brand does not burn though a roof
    assembly in 90 minutes, the assembly passes the test for a given rating.
    Class A roof coverings are considered effective against severe fire
    exposures. Time-dependent ratings, however, may not be meaningful in a
    wildland fire scenario because firefighters may not be able to respond for
    many hours, if at all.

    4Composition shingles and some metal coverings, for instance, can cost
    less than wood shingles or wood shakes.

    5A gable is typically a triangular section of wall at the end of a pitched
    roof, occupying the space between the two slopes of the roof.

    6Eaves are the edges or lower borders of a roof overhanging the exterior
    walls.

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

    homeowners about wildland fire and steps to protect homes against them,
    recommends screen openings be one-eighth inch or less.7

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

    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.

    7Some building code guidance recommends screen openings be one-quarter
    inch or less. However, the Governor's Blue Ribbon Fire Commission
    established shortly after the 2003 Southern California fires to review the
    firefighting efforts and recommend improvements, found that one-quarter
    inch mesh screens were insufficient to prevent entry of firebrands.

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

    o 	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.

    o 	In the 1981 Atlas Peak Fire in California, out of the 323 structures
    threatened, only 5 of the 111 structures with defensible space were
    damaged or destroyed. In contrast, 91 of the 111 structures without
    defensible space were either damaged or destroyed.8

    o 	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.

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

    Experimental research on wildland fire has corroborated the effectiveness
    of defensible space and fire-resistant roofs. A researcher at the Forest
    Service's Fire Science Laboratory in Missoula, Montana, predicted that a
    crown fire would have to come within 100 feet of a structure for it to
    ignite; he based this prediction on a theoretical model incorporating
    conservative estimates of the heat an intense crown fire would produce and
    the ignitability of wood.9 The researcher tested the model's results in a
    series of experiments while working with a group of international fire
    researchers in Canada's Northwest Territories (see fig. 11). During these
    experiments, five-and-a-half acre plots of trees were ignited under
    conditions that produced a crown fire. Wood walls were exposed at varying
    distances to the fire's heat. Walls located 33 feet from the crown fire
    ignited during three of seven experimental fires and significantly
    scorched in the other four

    8The remaining 101 properties did not have adequate defensible space, and
    about half of the structures were damaged or destroyed.

    9Jack Cohen, "Preventing Disaster: Home Ignitability in the Wildland-Urban
    Interface." Journal of Forestry 98 (2000): 15-21.

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

    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.)

    Source: Forest Service.

    Finally, experts from the symposium convened for us by the National
    Academy of Sciences (NAS) emphasized that defensible space and
    fireresistant roofs and vents are the most critical protective measures.
    Symposium experts stated that defensible space is critical for protecting
    structures from wildland fire. These experts told us that if defensible
    space and fire-resistant roofs and vents were correctly and consistently
    used by homeowners, the risk posed by wildland fire would be significantly

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

    reduced. Moreover, in visits to California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, New
    Mexico, and Washington, we met with fire officials who confirmed the
    symposium experts' view-that 30 to 100 feet of defensible space and
    fireresistant roofs and vents are vital to protecting structures from
    wildland fires.

    Other Technologies Play a Secondary Role

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

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

    o 	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.

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

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

    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.

    Source: Thermo Technologies.

    o 	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,

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

    power and water services may not be adequate for sprinklers to function
    properly. For example, an investigation after California's 1991 Oakland
    Hills Fire noted that external sprinkler systems might have saved some
    homes if water flow and pressure had been adequate.

    In addition to technologies aimed at protecting individual structures,
    symposium experts and fire officials we met with told us that one
    important technology exists, geographic information systems (GIS) mapping,
    that can reduce the risk of wildland fire damage to an entire community.
    GIS is a computer-based information system that can be used to efficiently
    store, analyze, and display multiple forms of information on a single
    map.10 GIS technologies allow fire officials and local and regional land
    managers to combine vegetation, fuel, and topography data into separate
    layers of a single GIS map to identify areas in need of vegetation
    management or to set priorities for fuel breaks. State and county
    officials we met with emphasized the value of GIS in community education
    and community-planning efforts to protect structures and communities from
    wildland fire damage within their jurisdictions. For example, the state of
    Florida has developed the Florida Risk Assessment System. This interactive
    GIS provides Florida Division of Forestry officials a detailed visual
    representation of data on fuels, topography, and weather. Displaying these
    data on one map helps officials determine which communities are at high
    risk and identify which areas near these communities need treatments to
    reduce fuels (see fig. 13).11

    10GIS also has applications related to wildland fire suppression
    activities, including preplanning for evacuations during wildland fires.
    For additional information on how GIS can assist wildland fire management,
    see: GAO, Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise for Wildland
    Fire Management, but Challenges Remain, GAO-03-1047 (Washington, D.C.:
    Sept. 23, 2003).

    11The Forest Service and Department of the Interior are currently
    developing a national data and modeling GIS system, called LANDFIRE. More
    information on LANDFIRE can be found in GAO, Wildland Fire Management:
    Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a
    Cohesive Strategy, GAO-05-147 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005).

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

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

                                         Legend
                                   Levels of Concern

    Non-Burnable	Level 1

    Level 2

    Level 3	Level 4	Level 5	Level 6

    Level 7	Level 8

    Level 9

    Townships & Ranges	Sections	Counties	Roads

                                      Locator Map

                                           N

    0 2 4 6 8Miles

                                   Map Scale: 175,000

    Map Date: December 2002

    Source: Florida Division of Forestry.

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

    o 	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

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

    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.

    o 	Automated detection systems. Sensors using infrared, ultraviolet, or
    temperature-sensitive devices12 can be placed around a community13 to
    detect the presence of wildland fire. On detecting a fire, a sensor could
    set off an audible alarm or could be connected via radio or satellite to a
    device that would notify homeowners or emergency personnel. Several such
    sensors could be networked together to provide broad coverage of the area
    surrounding a community. According to fire officials, sensor systems may
    prove particularly helpful in protecting communities in areas of rugged
    terrain or poor access where wildland fire might be difficult to locate.
    Many of these systems are still in development, however, and false alarms
    are a concern.

    12Infrared and ultraviolet technologies sense the electromagnetic
    radiation from a fire outside the visible band that humans can see.
    Temperature sensitive devices, such as heat sensitive resistant wires, do
    not sense radiation but react to temperature differentials.

    13Sensors can also be placed around individual structures.

    Chapter 3

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

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

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

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

    1Fire officials and representatives of the homebuilding industry said that
    concerns about cost can also affect homebuilders' decisions about building
    materials and landscaping.

    2Holly Bender, Ingrid M. Martin, and Carol Raish, What Motivates
    Homeowners to Protect Themselves from Risks? (Boulder, Colo.: Integrated
    Resource Solutions, 2005).

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

    forestry official estimated that removing such trees could cost $800 to
    $2,000 each. Second, regarding fire-resistant roofs, if homeowners wait
    until their existing roofs need replacement, cost does not have to be a
    major factor because fire-resistant roof-covering materials are available
    at similar cost to more flammable ones.

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

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

    In addition, homeowners may not use protective measures because they
    believe that fire officials are responsible for protecting their homes and
    do not recognize they share in this responsibility. Fire officials told us
    that

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

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

    Education Helps Increase Awareness of Steps Homeowners and Others Can Take

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

    Federal, state, and local government agencies; universities and extension
    programs; nongovernmental organizations; and industry organizations are
    all involved in efforts to educate the public about protecting structures
    from wildland fires. The primary national effort to educate homeowners
    about protecting structures from wildland fire is the Firewise Communities
    program, which also promotes steps that state and local officials can take
    to educate homeowners. (The Firewise Communities Web site address, along
    with information on related Web sites, is included in app. IV.)3 Because
    it seeks to increase voluntary use of protective measures, the Firewise
    Communities program requires homeowner and community involvement to be
    successful. To this end, since 1998, the Firewise

    3Firewise Communities is jointly sponsored by the International
    Association of Fire Chiefs, National Emergency Management Association,
    National Association of State Fire Marshals, National Association of State
    Foresters, National Fire Protection Association, Federal Emergency
    Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration, Forest Service, Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
    the National Park Service. Numerous state and local fire and forestry
    officials also participate in Firewise program activities.

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

    Communities program has conducted more than 30 workshops, attended by
    approximately 3,000 people from 44 states, and has supported over 500
    local or regional workshops reaching over 15,000 participants. The program
    has also distributed videos, books, brochures, and other materials that
    promote Firewise landscaping and construction. Finally, the program has
    recognized more than 100 communities in 26 states as "Firewise"
    communities. Homeowners in these communities, along with fire officials,
    assessed the community's wildland fire risk, developed a plan to mitigate
    those risks, and undertook activities to implement the plan.

    Other education efforts are directed at state and local government
    officials and professionals, such as landscape architects and planners.
    For example, the American Planning Association and the National Fire
    Protection Association reported in February 20054 on approaches to
    educating planners about the risks wildland fires pose to communities and
    steps that local governments can take to reduce those risks. The report
    provides examples of planning approaches that have been adopted and
    discusses their shortcomings and is expected to be distributed to
    approximately 1,300 planning agencies nationwide. An American Planning
    Association official said that, as more development occurs in the
    wildland-urban interface, local governments must plan development wisely
    to help reduce the risk from wildland fire.

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

    o 	The Institute of Business and Home Safety; the U.S. Forest Service;
    Alachua County, Florida; and others sponsored a demonstration project near
    Gainesville, Florida, that included landscaping a house to create
    defensible space and replacing the roof and siding with fire-resistant
    materials (see fig. 14). This project was intended to increase fire
    awareness among homeowners in the community and to show that creating
    defensible space could also be attractive and provide other amenities.
    Information on the project, including many photographs, was included on a
    Forest Service Web site so that other homeowners could view the project.5

    4James Schwab, Stuart Meck, and Jamie Simone, Planning for Wildfires
    (Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association, 2005).

    5See: http://www.interfacesouth.org/fire/firewisehome/. For additional
    information on this project, see http://www.firewise.org/vrhome/.

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

    Before After Source: Larry Korhnak.

    o 	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

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

    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.

    o 	In Florida, the Department of Community Affairs and Division of
    Forestry published a handbook in April 2004 that describes different
    wildland fire mitigation strategies that communities in Florida have
    adopted. The handbook contains information directed at homeowners,
    homebuilders, government officials, and professionals such as planners and
    landscape architects.6 The section on landscaping, for instance, provides
    examples of less flammable plants-such as azaleas, dogwoods, and
    oaks-appropriate for planting in areas at risk of wildland fire.

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

    6Florida Department of Community Affairs and Florida Department of
    Agriculture and Consumer Services, Wildfire Mitigation in Florida: Land
    Use Planning Strategies and Development Practices (Tallahassee: April
    2004). (Available at
    http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/DCP/publications/Wildfire_Mitigation_in_FL.pdf).

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

    Financial and Other Assistance Encourages Homeowners and Communities to
    Take Action

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

    Under the National Fire Plan,7 federal firefighting agencies provide
    grants or otherwise assist in reducing fuels on private land. For
    instance, the Forest Service provided approximately $11.6 million
    (adjusted for inflation) to the New Mexico Forestry Division from fiscal
    year 2001 through 2004 that the state could use to assist reduction of
    fuels on nonfederal land.8 Grants to reduce fuels on private property
    typically require the homeowner to pay a portion of project costs.9
    National Fire Plan funds have also been used to create fuel breaks around
    communities. For example, the Washington Department of Natural Resources
    received a $340,000 grant that it used to create a fuel break around the
    town of Roslyn, reducing fuels in an approximately 150-foot-wide buffer
    zone. Fire officials told us the fuel break by itself would not prevent a
    wildland fire from entering the community, but that it would assist
    suppression efforts by reducing fire intensity close to the community. The
    grant also funded creation of defensible space for an additional 144 homes
    located outside the fuel break.

    State and local governments have provided similar assistance. The Florida
    Division of Forestry, for instance, has used state and federal funds to
    establish four mitigation teams that reduce fuels on private lands by
    conducting prescribed burns and mechanically removing vegetation to

    7The National Fire Plan was developed by the Department of Agriculture and
    the Department of the Interior after severe wildland fires in 2000. In
    fiscal year 2001, Congress almost doubled funding for federal firefighting
    agencies to help meet the plan's objectives to (1) increase fire
    suppression preparedness; (2) rehabilitate and restore lands and
    communities damaged by wildland fire; (3) reduce hazardous fuels; and (4)
    assist communities through education, hazard mitigation, and training and
    equipment for rural and volunteer fire departments.

    8The $11.3 million includes funds provided under the National Fire Plan
    and other federal programs. In addition to reducing fuels on nonfederal
    land, some of these funds may also have been used to assist local fire
    departments or to otherwise address wildland fire concerns.

    9Grants to the East Mountain community near Albuquerque, for instance,
    capped eligible project costs at $1,700 for the acre immediately
    surrounding the house and approximately $1,150 per acre for up to 4
    additional acres if they posed a risk to the structure; the homeowner was
    required to pay 30 percent of eligible costs.

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

    create fuel breaks around communities at high risk of wildland fires. In
    other cases, local governments have helped homeowners to chip or remove
    vegetation produced by the creation of defensible space. Santa Fe County,
    New Mexico, for instance, bought two grinders in 2003 to chip vegetation
    and established locations where homeowners from participating communities
    could bring plant material they removed from their property. The county
    fire marshal told us that this program had assisted approximately 1,000
    residents.

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

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

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

    State or Local Laws May Require Protective Measures

    States, counties, and cities can adopt laws designed to reduce the risk to
    homes from wildland fires by requiring protective measures, such as
    creation of defensible space or the use of fire-resistant building
    materials.10 Local governments can also improve fire safety through
    land-use planning, by restricting development or requiring additional
    protective measures in particularly fire-prone areas. Ventura County,
    California, fire officials attribute the relatively few houses in that
    county damaged by the 2003 Southern California fires to, in part, the
    county's adoption and enforcement of laws requiring 100 feet of defensible
    space and the use of fire-resistant building materials. Such steps are
    particularly effective at reducing the risk of wildland fires for new
    developments because it is cheaper to select building materials and
    incorporate fire-resistant community design before construction begins.
    After the 2003 Southern California fires, for instance, San Bernardino
    County officials reported that communities developed more recently under
    requirements regarding vegetation and building materials sustained far
    less damage during those fires than did older

    10State or local governments can also adopt laws that establish standards
    for water supply and emergency access. These requirements assist
    suppression efforts and are beyond the scope of this study.

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

    communities.11 Symposium experts told us that as more people move into the
    wildland-urban interface, the benefits of local governments' requiring
    protective measures are likely to increase.

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

    11Governor's Blue Ribbon Fire Commission, Report to the Governor
    (Sacramento, Calif.: 2004).

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

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

    States

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

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

    Counties

    Ada County,

    The county has identified lands at high risk of wildland fire and, since
    1997, has required homeowners in this area

    Idaho to maintain at least 50 feet of defensible space around new
    structures. New construction in the high-risk area must comply with
    additional requirements, including at least class B roofing materials;
    screened vents; enclosed eaves; nonflammable gutters; and fire-resistant
    exterior walls, windows, and decks.

    Ventura County, The county requires 100 feet of defensible space and
    further recommends that owners of homes at particularly

    California	high risk increase defensible space to 200 feet. In
    high-fire-hazard areas, the county requires structures be constructed with
    class A roofing materials and fire-resistant building materials. In
    addition, all new structures larger than 5,000 square feet or more than 5
    miles from a fire station are required to install a sprinkler system.

    Cities

    Ormond Beach, Since 2003, new construction in areas identified by the city
    as at medium or high risk for wildland fires must

    Florida	develop vegetation management plans establishing at least 30 feet
    of defensible space around a structure. A 30foot buffer zone must also be
    created around the perimeter of a new planned development or residential
    subdivision and be maintained by homeowners or a homeowners' association
    according to a management plan approved by the city.

    Santa Fe, In 2004, fire officials worked with city officials to modify a
    city ordinance requiring homes built on ridgelines or in

    New Mexico	the foothills to plant and maintain evergreen trees at the same
    density as in the adjacent natural landscape to reduce the visual impact
    of such development. Under the amended ordinance, homeowners may use some
    deciduous trees, which are less flammable, and can also reduce vegetation
    density to a level approved by the city.

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

    For laws and land-use planning to be an effective tool in reducing damage
    to structures from wildland fires, individual state and local governments
    must adopt and enforce them. State and local fire officials told us that
    although no one has compiled a complete list of governments that have
    adopted laws designed to reduce the risk to structures from wildland fire,
    many at-risk jurisdictions have adopted laws, and many others have not.12

    12The Forest Service's Southern Research Station has compiled a list of
    state and local governments reporting they have adopted codes or other
    measures designed to reduce the risk to structures from wildland fires.
    This information is available on the World Wide Web at
    www.wildfireprograms.com/.

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

    Symposium experts and fire officials said that the primary reason for not
    adopting laws is community opposition to them. Other officials,
    homeowners, and a homebuilding industry representative expressed concern
    that some proposed laws may not offer significant additional protection
    from wildland fire or may not be cost-effective, considering the low
    probability that a home would be destroyed. Symposium experts recognized
    opposition to such laws but stressed the importance of state and local
    governments' adoption of them. Moreover, once adopted, laws must be
    enforced to be effective. Effective enforcement requires confirming that
    homeowners and others comply with requirements and ensuring that
    requirements are not weakened by exemptions for individual developments.
    Ventura County officials told us that active enforcement of their laws was
    an important factor in the relatively few houses damaged in that county
    during the 2003 Southern California fires.13 They also said that
    compliance increased as homeowners became more familiar with the
    requirements and the enforcement program. Nevertheless, symposium experts
    said many fire departments, counties, and cities do not have sufficient
    resources to effectively enforce laws, or they may be pressured by
    homeowners or developers not to. In addition, the effectiveness of laws
    can be undercut by variances exempting individual developments from
    specific requirements, such as emergency access. In some cases, officials
    said such variances may be warranted, for instance if the proposed
    development is not at significant risk, or if additional measures are
    incorporated to increase protection. In other cases, county or city
    officials may be pressured to approve a variance even if the development
    is at risk.

    Some Insurance Companies Direct Homeowners to Use Protective Measures

    Although wildland fire has not resulted in significant losses for the
    insurance industry in comparison with other disasters, some insurance
    companies have instituted programs designed to increase policyholders' use
    of protective measures in some at-risk areas. Since 1993, for instance,
    one major company has evaluated high-risk properties in California for
    defensible space before underwriting new policies. A company official said
    that 200 to 500 feet of defensible space is often required, depending on
    factors such as topography, vegetation density, and type of construction.
    In 2004, the company began expanding this program to other western states.
    Another major company initiated a pilot program in 2003 in Colorado, Utah,

    13In April each year, the county fire department notifies approximately
    14,000 homeowners that they need to create defensible space by June 1. If
    a homeowner does not do so, the county charges him or her for the cost of
    a contractor to do the work.

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

    and Wyoming, under which the company inspected properties of policyholders
    living in certain high-risk areas in those states and notified
    policyholders of any actions needed to establish defensible space
    according to the standards required or recommended by their local fire
    departments. Policyholders would have at least 18 months to perform any
    work needed to meet those standards, according to the company official in
    charge of the program and, if the corrective actions were not completed,
    the company could choose not to renew the policy. The official said that
    it is too early to evaluate the program's success but he expects the
    program to continue and perhaps expand to other regions of the country.

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

    Possible Federal Government Actions to Increase Use of Protective Measures

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

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

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

    promote the use of protective measures, tax incentives, and building and
    land use regulations.14 However, additional information in several areas
    would be helpful in more clearly defining the problem and determining the
    appropriate level of federal efforts to address it. Such information
    includes the scope and scale of the risk to homes from wildland fires, the
    actual losses incurred from wildland fires, the extent of efforts
    homeowners are already making to address wildland fire risks, and the
    extent to which homeowners cannot obtain private insurance. Most of this
    information, including the scope and scale of the risk, is not readily
    available or easily quantifiable.

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

    Tax incentives are the result of special exclusions, exemptions,
    deductions, credits, deferrals, or tax rates in the federal tax laws.
    Unlike grants, tax incentives do not generally permit the same degree of
    federal targeting and oversight, and they generally are available to all
    potential beneficiaries who satisfy congressionally established criteria.
    In the case of wildland fire, while potentially millions of homes are at
    risk and might qualify for tax incentives, the number of homes that
    actually are damaged or destroyed by

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

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

    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.

    Chapter 4

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

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

    Technologies Can A number of current and emerging technologies can help
    overcome

    differences in frequencies or communications equipment and improveEnhance
    communications interoperability among firefighting agencies. These
    Communications include technologies for short-term solutions-often called
    patchwork Interoperability interoperability-to interconnect disparate
    communications systems and

    longer-term improvements to communications equipment and

    infrastructure.1

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

    1One solution to improve interoperability is to have a cache of portable
    radios that can be distributed to responding personnel during an
    emergency. For example, Florida has a system of radio caches, one cache
    located in each of the seven regions of the state. The nation's cache of
    approximately 8,000 radios is operated by the National Interagency
    Incident Communications Division at the National Interagency Fire Center
    in Boise, Idaho. These radios are routinely used for large fires and also
    for other incidents including hurricanes and the terrorist attacks on
    September 11, 2001, according to a National Interagency Fire Center
    official.

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

    available. Appendix V provides more detail about each of these
    technologies.

    o 	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.

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

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

    Audio switches are easily transportable and can be used to create
    temporary interoperability, which makes them useful for wildland
    firefighting where multiple agencies temporarily come together to fight
    the fire. In addition to ease of transport, audio switches are flexible
    and allow a variety of communications systems, including radio and
    telephone, to be connected. Public safety agencies in several localities,
    including Washington, use them. In addition, the National Interagency
    Incident Communications Division at the National Interagency Fire Center
    (NIFC) recently purchased two of these devices to use to connect radio
    systems during major public safety incidents. An audio switch costs about
    $7,0002 without the radio interface modules3 or cables. Each interface
    module costs about $1,100, and cables are available for about $140 each.

    A crossband repeater provides interoperability between systems operating
    on different radio frequency bands by changing the frequency of the signal
    received and sending it out on another frequency. For example, a

    2Cost estimates for communications technologies were obtained from the
    General Services Administration (www.gsaadvantage.gov) or directly from
    manufacturers.

    3A radio interface module is a device that plugs into the chassis of the
    audio switch. Each radio system being interconnected through the switch
    connects through a radio interface module. The interface module separates
    out the audio and other signals needed to control the radios connected to
    the switch.

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

    crossband repeater can receive a VHF (very high frequency) signal and
    retransmit it as a UHF (ultrahigh frequency) signal. Crossband repeaters
    can connect base stations4 or mobile radios, whether hand carried or in
    vehicles. A variety of crossband repeaters are available ranging in price
    from $4,000 to $33,000 each. Crossband repeaters can cost more than audio
    switches, which may put them beyond the reach of jurisdictions with
    limited funding. Still, according to a communications specialist at NIFC,
    crossband repeaters are an effective interoperability solution often used
    by federal firefighting agencies.

    Unlike audio switches or crossband repeaters, a console-to-console patch
    is not an "on-the-scene" device but instead the connection occurs between
    consoles located at the dispatch centers where calls for assistance are
    received. The costs of such a connection vary widely, depending on whether
    consoles are patched together temporarily over a public telephone line, or
    permanently over a dedicated leased line or a dedicated microwave or fiber
    link.5 The costs for a dedicated leased line would consist primarily of
    recurring telephone line charges. In contrast, a microwave link connecting
    two locations about 15 to 25 miles apart could require an initial
    investment of about $70,000.

    Improved Communication Systems

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

    o 	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.

    4A base station contains the equipment for transmitting and receiving the
    radio signals that allow portable radios to communicate with each other.

    5A leased line refers to a permanent telephone connection set up by a
    telecommunications provider between two geographic locations. A fiber link
    uses light sent over a glass or plastic fiber to carry communication
    signals. A microwave link uses radio beams of extremely high frequencies
    to send information between two fixed geographic sites.

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

    o 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.

    o 	Voice over Internet Protocol treats both voice and data as digital
    information and enables their movement over any existing Internet Protocol
    data network.6

    Project 25, also called APCO 25, was established in 1989 to provide
    detailed standards for digital two-way wireless communications systems so
    that all purchasers of Project 25-compatible equipment can communicate
    with each other.7 They can also communicate with older, analog radios.
    Project 25 radios, at about $1,700 to $2,500 each, cost more than other
    available radios that cost around $1,200 each. Federal, state, and local
    officials we spoke with agreed that, while Project 25 radios could provide
    interoperability benefits, funding and other limitations will likely
    result in phased adoption. For example, a federal communications
    specialist said that the Forest Service will be purchasing Project 25
    radios over a 10-year replacement cycle. As of December 2003, the state of
    Washington had about 400 Project 25-compatible radios, of a total of 8,000
    portable radios owned by the state. None of the 400, however, are owned by
    the agency responsible for wildland firefighting.

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

    6In some cases, this is the Internet; and in others, it is a private data
    network.

    7Project 25 standards are being developed jointly by the Association of
    Public Safety Communications Officials International; the National
    Association of State Telecommunications Directors; the National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration; the Department of
    Homeland Security's National Communications System; and the Department of
    Defense.

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

    different modulations (such as AM or FM). However, software-defined radios
    are still being developed and are not yet available for use by public
    safety agencies.

    Planning and Coordination Are Key to Improving Communications
    Interoperability

    In the past, public safety agencies have depended on their own stand-alone
    communications systems, without considering interoperability with other
    agencies. Yet as firefighting and other public safety agencies
    increasingly work together to respond to emergencies, including wildland
    fires, personnel from different agencies need to be able to communicate
    with one another. Reports by GAO,8 the National Task Force on
    Interoperability, and others have identified lack of planning and
    coordination as key reasons for lack of communications interoperability
    among responding agencies. According to these reports, federal, state, and
    local government agencies have not worked together to identify their
    communications needs and develop a coordinated plan to meet them.

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

    In recent years, the federal government has focused increased attention on
    improving planning and coordination to achieve communications
    interoperability. The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications
    Program (SAFECOM) within DHS's Office of Interoperability and
    Compatibility9 is responsible for addressing interoperability and
    compatibility of emergency responder equipment, including communications.
    SAFECOM was established to address public safety communications issues
    within the federal government and to help state,

    8See GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable
    Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
    6, 2003).

    9The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program,
    otherwise known as SAFECOM, was first established as an Office of
    Management and Budget e-initiative in 2001.

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

    local, and tribal public safety agencies improve their responses through
    more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications. We
    reported, in April 2004, that SAFECOM had made limited progress in
    addressing its overall program objective of achieving communications
    interoperability among entities at all levels of government.10 Further, we
    reported in July 2004 that the nationwide data needed to compare current
    communications interoperability conditions and needs, develop plans for
    improvement, and measure progress over time were not available. In that
    report, we recommended, among other things, that DHS continue to develop a
    nationwide database and common terminology for public safety
    interoperability communications channels and assess interoperability in
    specific locations against defined requirements. DHS agreed with these
    recommendations.

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

    In addition to federal efforts, a variety of steps have been taken by
    state and local agencies. Several states, including California, Florida,
    Idaho, Missouri, and Washington, as well as the commonwealth of Virginia
    have developed statewide groups to address communications
    interoperability. For example, Washington established the Washington State
    Interoperability

    10See GAO-04-494.

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

    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.

    Appendix I

                     Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

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

    Types of Military Assets Available for Firefighting

    The federal government and the states can provide a variety of military
    equipment and personnel to assist in firefighting, including large
    fixed-wing aircraft that can be converted to tankers for dropping
    retardant on fires; helicopters to carry personnel, equipment, or external
    buckets to drop water on fires; battalions of military personnel to serve
    as firefighters or mop-up crews; or other specialized personnel and
    equipment.1 The federal government controls active military, military
    reserve, and federalized

    1DOD military bases can also enter into mutual aid agreements with
    federal, state, or local firefighting agencies. Depending on the terms of
    these agreements, civilian firefighting forces stationed at a military
    base can either provide or receive assistance. It was beyond our scope to
    gather representative data on how extensively such military assistance is
    actually used for firefighting in wildlands or the wildland-urban
    interface. Consequently, we excluded such assistance from our discussion.

    Appendix I
    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    National Guard assets,2 and state governments control all other National
    Guard assets.3

    One of the primary military aids for wildland firefighting is the Modular
    Airborne Fire-Fighting System (MAFFS). This joint program of the Forest
    Service and DOD has been operating since 1974. When contracted air
    resources4 are not readily available,5 the Forest Service can request
    C-130 fixed-wing aircraft from DOD. There are eight of these aircraft in
    the nation. Six are under the control of state National Guard units: two
    each in California, North Carolina, and Wyoming. The remaining two are
    under the control of the Air Force Reserve in Colorado.6 The Forest
    Service owns self-contained, reusable 3,000-gallon aerial fluid dispersal
    systems, which can be installed on these aircraft for holding fire
    retardant until it is dropped on a wildland fire (see fig. 16).

    2The National Guard has both a federal and a state mission. The federal
    mission is to be available for prompt mobilization during war and provide
    assistance during national emergencies, such as natural disasters or civil
    disturbances. When not mobilized or under federal control, National Guard
    units report to the governors of their respective states or territories.

    3Local military commanders or responsible officials of DOD agencies may,
    under the "immediate response criteria," take necessary action to save
    lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage prior to
    receiving approval to do so.

    4According to officials from the National Interagency Fire Center, the
    Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have a fleet of
    approximately 700 aircraft, including both large and small fixed-wing
    aircraft and helicopters. Many of these are contracted aircraft. Until May
    10, 2004, there were also 33 privately owned large air tankers under
    contract to the Forest Service, which were used to drop retardant on
    wildland fires. These contracts were cancelled, however, due to concerns
    about the safety and airworthiness of these aircraft. According to an NIFC
    official, a contract was issued in March 2005 for at least 20 large air
    tankers, pending operational service life determination.

    5The agreements with the states of California and Wyoming, in effect,
    define "readily available" as able to be moved into the local area within
    2 hours.

    6The Governors of California, North Carolina, and Wyoming may also
    activate the Air National Guard Unit in their state for MAFFS missions
    within state boundaries provided such action is covered by an appropriate
    Memorandum(s) of Understanding and Collection Agreement with the military
    authority and the Forest Service. They must request permission to use the
    Forest Service-owned equipment.

    Appendix I
    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    Source: DOD.

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

    Appendix I
    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    Source: DOD.

                     Page 68 GAO-05-380 Wildland Fire Technologies

                                       Appendix I
                     Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

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

                                 Process for Requesting
                                and Mobilizing Military
                                Assets for Firefighting

    To begin the process of requesting federal military aid, NICC, located at
    the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) in Boise, Idaho, must first
    determine if such aid is needed. NICC is responsible for monitoring fire
    activity and firefighting resource availability across the nation. On the
    basis of this information, the NICC coordinator recommends a national
    preparedness level ranging from 1 to 5. Preparedness level 1 indicates
    minimal fire activity nationwide with little or no commitment of national
    resources. In contrast, preparedness level 5 indicates that several
    geographic areas7 are experiencing major incidents having the potential to
    exhaust all agency fire resources. As the nation moves to level 3 or 4,
    the NICC coordinator advises DOD that a defense coordinating officer (also
    called a military liaison officer) is needed to assist NIFC in working
    with the military, helping with terminology, and coordinating with DOD
    organizations in case military assets are needed to assist in
    firefighting. If level 5 is reached and additional firefighting resources
    are needed, NIFC may request assistance from DOD.8 Because wildland
    firefighting is not the primary mission of DOD, federally controlled
    military resources are normally used only after the nation's federal,
    state, local, tribal, and contract firefighting resources have been
    depleted. If DOD officials believe that the request meets the criteria
    laid out in DOD Directive 3025.15, which includes legality,
    appropriateness, and cost criteria, they may make resources available (see
    fig. 18).

    7To provide cost-effective and timely coordination of emergency response,
    the nation is divided into 11 geographic areas, each of which is served by
    a geographic area coordination center.

    8MAFFS may be requested when contracted air resources are not readily
    available, which is not directly related to the nation's preparedness
    level.

    Appendix I
    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    Figure 18: Process for Requesting Military Assistance

    Federal military assistance State National Guard

    Can request military assistance if Agreement must be in place civilian
    resources are unavailable Governor signs proclamation of

    DOD evaluates request against emergency criteria including:

    --Availability of resources

    --Impact on ability to perform primary mission

    Sources: GAO and DOD.

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

    Advance planning is needed to facilitate the mobilization of military
    assets for firefighting. NIFC policies and procedures state that
    qualifying a military unit for a nondesignated military mission, such as
    dropping water on a wildland fire, is a major undertaking, requiring
    extensive planning by both the military and the firefighting agencies. For
    example, a number of steps must be taken before a MAFFS crew and aircraft
    are ready for a wildland firefighting mission. Before the fire season
    starts, initial and refresher training is required for pilots and flight
    crews. When a firefighting

                                       Appendix I
                     Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    agency requests MAFFS assistance, qualified military aviation units must
    be identified, approved, and recalled to the base, which may take several
    hours. In addition, the plane must be readied for firefighting by removing
    external fuel tanks, loading and testing the MAFFS, conducting preflight
    checks, and fueling the aircraft. Together these steps may require as long
    as 24 hours to complete.

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

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

    The primary law that allows federally controlled military assistance in
    wildland firefighting is the Economy Act of 1932,9 which provides general
    authority to federal agencies to use the services of other agencies. The
    act authorizes an agency to obtain the services of another agency when

    o  funds are available,

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

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

    931 U.S.C. S: 1535.

                                       Appendix I
                     Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

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

    As the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pointed out in its 2004
    report,10 the Economy Act requires that officials evaluate whether the
    needed goods or services can be provided as conveniently or cheaply by a
    commercial enterprise, but it does not require that all commercial
    resources be exhausted before requesting assistance from another federal
    agency.

    The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act11
    provides additional authority for federal support to state and local
    governments to both prepare for and respond to major disasters, including
    wildland fires. The Stafford Act establishes a process for requesting and
    obtaining a presidential disaster declaration, defines the type and scope
    of available federal assistance, and sets conditions for obtaining that
    assistance. The act requires that the Governor of the affected state
    request a presidential declaration based upon a finding that effective
    response is beyond the capabilities of the state and affected local
    governments and that federal assistance is necessary. The act authorizes
    the President to direct any federal agency to provide assistance-including
    grants, equipment, supplies, and personnel-to any state or local
    government for the mitigation, management, and control of any fire on
    public or private forest land or grassland if it threatens to become a
    major disaster.

    Agreements Governing the Use of Military Assets under Federal Control

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

    10Office of Management and Budget, A Review of Existing Authorities and
    Procedures for Using Military Assets in Fighting Wildfires, (Washington,
    D.C.: May 17, 2004).

    1142 U.S.C. S:S: 5121-5206.

                                       Appendix I
                     Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    o 	DOD can provide assistance when NIFC12 has requested it and DOD has
    determined that military assistance is required and justified to suppress
    a wildland fire. Assistance can be requested for fires on federal, state,
    or private property. Requests should state that all available or suitable
    civilian resources have been committed and that requested support does not
    compete with private enterprise.

    o 	DOD can provide assistance when a forest or grassland fire on state or
    private land is declared a major disaster, or a determination for
    emergency assistance is made by the President, and the required military
    support is requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional
    Director,13 under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.

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

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

    Policies and Procedures Governing the Use of Federally Controlled Military
    Assets

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

    12NIFC was formerly called the Boise Interagency Fire Center (BIFC); the
    agency's name was changed in 1993.

    13The agreement refers to the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
    (FDAA), now part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
    Homeland Security.

    Appendix I
    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    o  legality (compliance with laws),

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

    o  risk (safety of DOD forces),

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

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

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

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

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

    According to NICC and DOD officials, current laws, agreements, and
    policies and procedures for requesting military aid for firefighting have
    proven adequate, and the process generally works well. NICC and DOD
    officials meet annually to discuss any needed changes to the process or
    procedures. Officials said that having a military liaison on-site at NIFC,
    when a fire season becomes severe, is a key factor in effective
    communications between NIFC and DOD. A May 2004 OMB report also found that
    authorities and policies for using military resources to fight wildland
    fires have generally worked well and continue to be appropriate.

                                       Appendix I
                     Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    The report stated that existing authorities are being used in a manner
    consistent with the available capabilities of DOD assets to fight wildland
    fires in the most expeditious and efficacious way to minimize the risk to
    public safety.

    Procedures Governing the Use of Military Assets under State Control

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

    Military Assets Used NIFC maintains information on the use of military
    assets under federal

    control, including military personnel, as well as MAFFS air tankers,for
    Wildland operated by either the Air Force Reserve or National Guard.
    According to a Firefighting 1988-2003 NICC official, military personnel
    and equipment were rarely used for

    firefighting before 1988. From 1988 through 2003, however, severe fire
    seasons have resulted in the use of federal military resources or MAFFS in
    9 of 16 years (see table 2).

    Appendix I
    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    Table 2: Federal Military and MAFFS Assets Used for Wildland Firefighting
    19882003

    Days in

    preparedness Year level 5a Military assets

    2003 48	1 Army battalion with medical evacuation helicopter 8 Air National
    Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS) 6 Marine Corps
    helicopters 4 Navy Reserve helicopters

                2002  62                                         1 Army battalion
                         8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers
                                                                          (MAFFS)
                2001  16                                        2 Army battalions
                         8 Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers
                                                                          (MAFFS)
                2000  40                                        4 Army battalions
                                                         1 Marine Corps battalion

    1996 21	1 Army battalion 1 Marine Corps battalion 8 Air National Guard and
    Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS)

    1994 46	5 Army battalions 2 Marine Corps battalions 8 Air National Guard
    and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS)

    1990 Not available	4 Army battalions 8 Air National Guard and Air Force
    Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS)

    1989 Not available	4 Army battalions 19 helicopters 8 Air National Guard
    and Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS)

    1988 Not available	6 Army battalions 2 Marine Corps battalions 57
    helicopters (including 2 with infrared scanners) 8 Air National Guard and
    Air Force Reserve C-130 tankers (MAFFS)

    Source: NIFC.

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

    Complete information on National Guard assets assisting federal or state
    wildland firefighting efforts was not readily available on a national
    level. National Guard helicopters, military personnel, or other resources,

    Appendix I
    Use of Military Assets to Fight Wildland Fires

    however, have been used in a number of states in recent years including
    California, Florida, Montana, and Oregon. According to a California
    National Guard official, National Guard helicopters have been used in each
    of the last 15 years to assist in wildland firefighting. The Florida
    Division of Forestry Air Tactical Coordinator said that Florida used
    National Guard helicopters and military personnel each year from 1998
    through 2002.14 Oregon has also used National Guard resources, such as
    during the severe 2002 fire season.

    14The number of National Guard personnel used by the Florida Division of
    Forestry ranged from 30 to 150.

    Appendix II

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

    Hank Blackwell
    Fire Marshal
    Assistant Chief
    Santa Fe County Fire Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jeffrey T. Inks
    Assistant Staff Vice President

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

    Codes and Standards Advocacy Group
    National Association of Home Builders

    Rich Just
    Director, Fire Operations
    Thermo Technologies, LLC

    Paul Kleindorfer
    Professor
    The Wharton School
    University of Pennsylvania

    Judith Leraas Cook
    Project Manager, Firewise Communities/USA

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

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

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

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

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

    William M. Raichle
    Assistant Vice President
    Insurance Services Office

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

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

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

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

    Joe Stutler
    Forestry Specialist
    Deschutes County (Oregon)

    Jim Tidwell
    National Director, Fire Service Activities
    International Code Council

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

    Joseph Zicherman
    President
    Fire Safety Consultant
    Fire Cause Analysis

    Appendix III

                 Technologies to Protect Structures from Wildland Fires

                         Fire-resistant roof-covering materials

    What they do and A variety of noncombustible or fire-resistant materials
    are available to construct roofs. During a wildland fire,

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

    Types of roofcovering materials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                      Appendix III
                        Technologies to Protect Structures from
                                     Wildland Fires

    (Continued From Previous Page)

                         Fire-resistant roof-covering materials

    Key factors affecting A number of factors can affect the cost of
    roof-covering materials. Asphalt composition and metal roof-covering

    cost	materials are less expensive or comparably priced to untreated wood.
    Other roofing materials, such as concrete or clay tiles, may be more
    expensive and some, such as slate, may be substantially more expensive
    (see fig. 19). However, these costs can vary depending on the geographic
    location of the home.

    Untreated wood shake

                                                              Asphalt composition
                                                                             Clay
                                                                         Concrete
                                                                     Fiber-cement
                                                                            Metal

    Slate

    Synthetic rubber

    Treated wood

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

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

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

                                      Appendix III
                        Technologies to Protect Structures from
                                     Wildland Fires

    Fire-resistant windows What they do and

    Exposure to intense heat from a wildland fire can crack a glass window,
    even without direct contact, and allow

                                   how they are used

    fire to enter a structure. Conventional glass windows may crack after
    approximately 5 minutes of heat exposure. A variety of fire-resistant
    windows are available to help protect a structure from igniting by
    providing more resistance to cracking.

    Types of fire-resistant windows

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

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

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

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

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

                                      Appendix III
                        Technologies to Protect Structures from
                                     Wildland Fires

                           Fire-resistant building materials

    What they do and A variety of noncombustible and fire-resistant materials
    are available to construct exterior components, such as

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

    Types of fire-resistant building materials

    Fiber-cement: Cement combined with wood fiber. Available in a wood-grain
    finish. Noncombustible but may need an underlying gypsum sheathing to
    achieve a 1-hour rating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Key factors affecting Estimated costs of fire-resistant building materials
    vary widely. Using a nationally-recognized construction cost

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

                                      Appendix III
                        Technologies to Protect Structures from
                                     Wildland Fires

                                    Chemical agents

    What they do and Chemical agents are used with water to provide a
    temporary protective coating that inhibit ignition of flammable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                      Appendix III
                        Technologies to Protect Structures from
                                     Wildland Fires

                                   Sprinkler systems

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

    Types of sprinkler Interior sprinklers: Often used to protect from
    more-typical structural fires-such as those caused by systems cooking,
    smoking, or other hazards-but also offer protection from fires that start
    with firebrands entering a

    house through a vent or other opening, especially if the sprinkler is
    mounted in the attic. Frequently activated automatically.

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

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

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

    Key factors affecting The cost of sprinkler systems varies considerably
    depending on whether the system is interior or exterior,

    cost	permanent or portable. Advanced features, such as automated detection
    and activation, can also affect the cost.

                                      Appendix III
                        Technologies to Protect Structures from
                                     Wildland Fires

                             Geographic information systems

    What they do and Geographic information systems (GIS) are a computer-based
    information system for storing, analyzing, and

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

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

    Key factors affecting The cost of GIS systems varies widely, depending on
    the system and scope of use. The cost associated with

    cost	collecting and maintaining data for GIS use can be substantial. Some
    GIS systems offer public access to data on the Internet without charging
    access fees to users.

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

    Appendix IV

           Web Sites with Information on Protecting Homes from Wildland Fire

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

    Firewise Communities www.firewise.org/

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

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

    National Association of State Foresters www.stateforesters.org/

    National Fire Plan www.fireplan.gov/

    National Interagency Fire Center www.nifc.gov/

    Appendix V

               Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability

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

    Patchwork 	Patchwork interoperability uses technology to interconnect two
    or more disparate radio systems so that voice or data from one system can
    be made

    Interoperability	available to all systems. A key advantage of this
    solution is that it can tie together existing communications systems and
    requires only minimal additional equipment. Three primary patchwork
    solutions exist.

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

    Appendix V Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability

    Source: Raytheon JPS Communications.

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

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

         Appendix V Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability

    Crossband Repeater	A crossband repeater provides interoperability between
    systems operating on different radio frequency bands by changing
    frequencies between two radio systems. Crossband repeaters can connect
    base stations1 or mobile radios, either in vehicles or handheld (see fig.
    21). The repeater is also useful for extending the communications coverage
    beyond the range of a single radio. Crossband repeaters can also be linked
    together to overcome distances or geographical features blocking
    communication among users utilizing one repeater.

    Sources: GAO, DHS, and Nova Development Corp.

    According to a communications specialist at NIFC, crossband repeaters are
    an effective interoperability solution often used by federal firefighting
    agencies. For example, federal firefighting agencies operate on both VHF
    and UHF when fighting a wildland fire. VHF (AM and FM) is used for
    tactical communications by personnel at the fire line and tactical
    aircraft flying over the fire and UHF (AM) is used in the base camp for
    logistical or other nontactical uses. When federal firefighting agencies
    are at an incident, a crossband repeater can be temporarily set up on a
    nearby hilltop

    1A base station contains the equipment for transmitting and receiving the
    radio signals that allow portable radios to communicate with each other.

         Appendix V Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability

    to transmit signals between these different frequency bands. The device
    receives a VHF signal and retransmits it as a UHF signal, for example.
    NIFC has crossband repeaters available and can quickly transport them to
    the incident. Ranging in price from $4,000 to $33,000 each, crossband
    repeaters can cost more than audio switches, which may put them beyond the
    reach of small state and local jurisdictions with limited funding.

    Console-to-Console Patch

    A console-to-console patch achieves interoperability by making an audio
    connection between the dispatch consoles of two different radio systems.
    Unlike patchwork solutions that can be transported to the emergency or
    incident, console-to-console patches connect consoles located at the
    dispatch centers where personnel receive incoming calls. These patches can
    connect personnel from an agency using one radio system to personnel from
    an agency using a different radio system. Connections between dispatch
    consoles can be made temporarily, as needed, through a public telephone
    line or permanently over a dedicated leased line or a dedicated microwave
    or fiber link.2 The costs for this type of solution primarily depend on
    the type of link used. For example, the costs for a console-toconsole
    patch over a telephone line or a dedicated leased line are fairly minimal
    and would primarily consist of the recurring telephone line charges. In
    contrast, dedicated microwave or fiber links require a significant initial
    investment. For example, a typical microwave link connecting two locations
    about 3 to 5 miles apart would require an initial investment of around
    $35,000 whereas connecting two locations about 15 to 25 miles apart would
    double the investment to about $70,000. Figure 22 illustrates the concept
    of a console-to-console patch over a dedicated link.

    2A leased line refers to a permanent telephone connection set up by a
    telecommunications provider between two geographic locations. A fiber link
    uses light sent over a glass or plastic fiber to carry communication
    signals. A microwave link uses radio beams of extremely high frequencies
    to send information between two fixed geographic sites.

    Appendix V Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability

    systems so that all purchasers of Project 25-compatible equipment can
    communicate with each other. Project 25 has two main phases. During the
    first phase, five standards were completed and published. Equipment
    compatible with these standards are available from multiple vendors. Phase
    2 of the project focuses on developing standards for other components of
    the systems, such as dispatch consoles and base stations.

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

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

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

         Appendix V Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability

    Service is not expected to take place until about 2012. In the case of
    NIFC, it has 1,500 Project 25 radios in its cache, out of a total of 8,000
    radios, according to a NIFC communications specialist.

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

    Software-Defined Radios 	Software-defined radios, first developed by the
    Department of Defense (DOD),3 are an emerging technology that holds
    potential for public safety agencies, including firefighting agencies.
    These radios use software to determine operating parameters such as the
    frequency band (such as VHF or UHF) and modulation type (such as AM or
    FM). Because these parameters are determined by software, a
    software-defined radio could be programmed to transmit and receive on any
    frequency and to use any desired modulation within the limits of its
    hardware design. Softwaredefined radios will allow interoperability
    between agencies using different frequency bands, different operational
    modes (digital or analog), proprietary systems from different
    manufacturers, or different modulation (AM or FM). For example, a
    software-defined radio can be programmed to work as a conventional UHF
    radio but in another operating mode can function as an 800 MHz radio. Some
    software-defined radios could be used to identify unused frequencies and
    automatically make use of them, which is important in making efficient use
    of limited radio spectrum. The software-defined radio technology may also
    provide integrated voice and data over the same channel, a useful feature
    for firefighters who need maps, weather, and fire behavior data. These
    radios, however, are still being developed and are not yet available for
    use by public safety agencies.

    Voice over Internet Protocol	Voice over Internet Protocol can connect
    different radio systems by using the Internet as the connecting mechanism.
    Voice over Internet Protocol converts analog voice signals from a radio
    into digital data packets that

    3This technology began within DOD's SPEAKeasy research program in 1992 and
    beginning in 1997 became part of DOD's Joint Tactical Radio System
    Program.

    Appendix V Technologies for Improving Communications Interoperability

    travel over an Internet Protocol network.4 At their destination, the
    digital information is converted back to analog audio and can be heard on
    the recipient's radio. Voice over Internet Protocol enables
    interoperability between agencies using different frequency bands,
    different operational modes (digital or analog), or proprietary systems
    from different manufacturers.

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

    4In some cases, this is the Internet; and in others, it is a private data
    network.

    Appendix VI

                      Comments from the Department of Agriculture

    Appendix VII

                        Comments from the Department of Commerce

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    Appendix VII
    Comments from the Department of
    Commerce

    Appendix VII
    Comments from the Department of
    Commerce

                                     See comment 1.

    Appendix VII
    Comments from the Department of
    Commerce

                                     See comment 2.

                                      Appendix VII
                            Comments from the Department of
                                        Commerce

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

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

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

                                     Appendix VIII

                        Comments from the Department of Defense

    Appendix VIII
    Comments from the Department of Defense

    Appendix IX

                   Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    See comment 1.

    See comment 2.

    Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

             Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

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

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

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

    Appendix X

                      Comments from the Department of the Interior

    Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
    end of this appendix.

    Appendix X
    Comments from the Department of the
    Interior

    Now on p. 8. See comment 1.

    Now on p. 12.

    Now on p. 13.

    Now on p. 14.

    Appendix X
    Comments from the Department of the
    Interior

    Now on p. 43.

    Now on p. 45.

    Now on p. 58. See comment 2.

    Now on p. 66. See comment 3.

    Now on p. 91. See comment 4.

                                       Appendix X
                          Comments from the Department of the
                                        Interior

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

    GAO Comments 1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

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

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

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

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

    Appendix XI

                         GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

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

    Staff 	In addition to the individuals named above, Dave Bixler, William
    Carrigg, Ellen W. Chu, Jonathan Dent, Janet Frisch, Robert Hadley, Barry
    T. Hill,

    Acknowledgments	Nicholas Larson, Kim Raheb, and Jena Sinkfield made key
    contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were
    Michael Armes, Mark Braza, Joyce Evans, Timothy Guinane, Richard Hung,
    Chester Joy, Doug Manor, Cynthia Taylor, and Amy Webbink.

                                  Related GAO Products

    Previous Technology Technology Assessment: Cybersecurity for Critical
    Infrastructure Assessments Protection. GAO-04-321. Washington, D.C.: May
    28, 2004.

    Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security. GAO-03174.
    Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2002.

    Selected GAO Products Related to Wildland Fire Management

    Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges
    Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy. GAO-05-147. Washington, D.C.:
    January 14, 2005.

    Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a
    Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects.

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

    Federal Land Management: Additional Guidance on Community Involvement
    Could Enhance Effectiveness of Stewardship Contracting.

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

    Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and
    Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management Disruptions. GAO04-612.
    Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004.

    Forest Service: Information on Appeals and Litigation Involving Fuel
    Reduction Activities. GAO-04-52. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2003.

    Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise for Wildland Fire
    Management, but Challenges Remain. GAO-03-1047. Washington, D.C.:
    September 23, 2003.

    Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better Identify
    and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction. GAO-03-805. Washington,
    D.C.: August 15, 2003.

    Wildland Fire Management: Reducing the Threat of Wildland Fires Requires
    Sustained and Coordinated Effort. GAO-02-843T. Washington, D.C: June 13,
    2002.

    Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better
    Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs. GAO-02-158. Washington, D.C.:
    March 29, 2002.

                                  Related GAO Products

    Severe Wildland Fires: Leadership and Accountability Needed to Reduce
    Risks to Communities and Resources. GAO-02-259. Washington, D.C.: January
    31, 2002.

    The National Fire Plan: Federal Agencies Are Not Organized to Effectively
    and Efficiently Implement the Plan. GAO-01-1022T. Washington, D.C.: July
    31, 2001.

    Reducing Wildfire Threats: Funds Should be Targeted to the Highest Risk
    Areas. GAO/T-RCED-00-296. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2000.

    Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address
    Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington, D.C.: April 2,
    1999.

    Selected GAO Products Related to Communications Interoperability and
    Spectrum Management

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

    Spectrum Management: Better Knowledge Needed to Take Advantage of
    Technologies That May Improve Spectrum Efficiency. GAO-04-666. Washington,
    D.C.: May 28, 2004.

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

    Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications
    for First Responders. GAO-04-231T. Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2003.

    Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review of U.S. Spectrum Management with
    Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed. GAO-03-277. Washington, D.C.:
    January 31, 2003.

    GAO's Mission

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
    released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
    GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:

    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
    512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
    NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548

                                     RECYCLED PAPER
    *** End of document. ***