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 [email protected] or Keith Rhodes at (202) 512-6412 or
[email protected].

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 [email protected] or Keith Rhodes at (202) 512-6412 or
[email protected]. 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; [email protected] Keith Rhodes
(202) 512-6412; [email protected] Steve Secrist (415) 904-2236;
[email protected] Naba Barkakati (202) 512-4499; [email protected]

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: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (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, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

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