Wildland Fire Management
Progress and Future Challenges, Protecting Structures, and Improving Communications Gao ID: GAO-05-627T April 26, 2005Wildland fires are increasingly threatening communities and ecosystems. In recent years, they have become more intense due to excess vegetation that has accumulated, partly as a result of past suppression efforts. The cost to suppress these fires is increasing and, as more people move into fire-prone areas near wildlands, the number of homes at risk is growing. During these wildland fires, effective communications among the public safety agencies responding from various areas is critical, but can be hampered by incompatible radio equipment. This testimony discusses (1) progress made and future challenges to managing wildland fire, (2) measures to help protect structures, and (3) the role of technology in improving responder communications during fires. It is based on two GAO reports: Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy (GAO-05-147, Jan. 14, 2005) and Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications during Wildland Fires (GAO-05-380, Apr. 26, 2005).
Over the last 5 years, the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and land management agencies in the Department of the Interior, working with the Congress, have made important progress in responding to wildland fires. Most notably, the agencies have adopted various national strategy documents addressing the need to reduce wildland fire risks, established a priority to protect communities in the wildland-urban interface, and increased efforts and amounts of funding committed to addressing wildland fire problems. However, despite producing numerous planning and strategy documents, the agencies have yet to develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the long-term options and related funding needed to reduce excess vegetation that fuels fires in national forests and rangelands. Reducing these fuels lowers risks to communities and ecosystems and helps contain suppression costs. As GAO noted in 1999, such a strategy would help the agencies and the Congress to determine the most effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland fire problems. Completing this strategy will require finishing several efforts now under way to improve a key wildland fire data and modeling system, local fire management planning, and a new system designed to identify the most cost-effective means for allocating fire management budget resources, each of which has its own challenges. Without completing these tasks, the agencies will have difficulty determining the extent and location of wildland fire threats, targeting and coordinating their efforts and resources, and resolving wildland fire problems in the most timely and cost-effective manner over the long term. The two most effective measures for protecting structures from wildland fires are (1) creating and maintaining a buffer around a structure by eliminating or reducing trees, shrubs, and other flammable objects within an area from 30 to 100 feet around the structure and (2) using fire-resistant roofs and vents. Other technologies--such as fire-resistant building materials, chemical agents, and geographic information system mapping tools--can help in protecting structures and communities, but they play a secondary role. Many homeowners, however, are not using the protective measures because of the time or expense involved, competing values or concerns, misperceptions about wildland fires, or lack of awareness of their shared responsibility for home protection. Federal, state, and local governments and others are attempting to address this problem through a variety of educational, financial assistance, and regulatory efforts. Technologies exist and others are being developed to address communications problems among emergency responders using different radio frequencies or equipment. However, technology alone cannot solve this problem. Effective adoption of these technologies requires planning and coordination among federal, state, and local agencies involved. The Department of Homeland Security, as well as several states and local jurisdictions, are pursuing initiatives to improve communications.
GAO-05-627T, Wildland Fire Management: Progress and Future Challenges, Protecting Structures, and Improving Communications
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-627T
entitled 'Wildland Fire Management: Progress and Future Challenges,
Protecting Structures, and Improving Communications' which was released
on April 26, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Tuesday, April 26, 2005:
Wildland Fire Management:
Progress and Future Challenges, Protecting Structures, and Improving
Communications:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-05-627T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-627T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S.Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Wildland fires are increasingly threatening communities and ecosystems.
In recent years, they have become more intense due to excess vegetation
that has accumulated, partly as a result of past suppression efforts.
The cost to suppress these fires is increasing and, as more people move
into fire-prone areas near wildlands, the number of homes at risk is
growing. During these wildland fires, effective communications among
the public safety agencies responding from various areas is critical,
but can be hampered by incompatible radio equipment.
This testimony discusses
(1) progress made and future challenges to managing wildland fire, (2)
measures to help protect structures, and (3) the role of technology in
improving responder communications during fires. It is based on two GAO
reports: Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made,
but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy (GAO-05-147,
Jan. 14, 2005) and Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and
Improving Communications during Wildland Fires (GAO-05-380, Apr. 26,
2005).
What GAO Found:
Over the last 5 years, the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture and land management agencies in the Department of the
Interior, working with the Congress, have made important progress in
responding to wildland fires. Most notably, the agencies have adopted
various national strategy documents addressing the need to reduce
wildland fire risks, established a priority to protect communities in
the wildland-urban interface, and increased efforts and amounts of
funding committed to addressing wildland fire problems. However,
despite producing numerous planning and strategy documents, the
agencies have yet to develop a cohesive strategy that identifies the
long-term options and related funding needed to reduce excess
vegetation that fuels fires in national forests and rangelands.
Reducing these fuels lowers risks to communities and ecosystems and
helps contain suppression costs. As GAO noted in 1999, such a strategy
would help the agencies and the Congress to determine the most
effective and affordable long-term approach for addressing wildland
fire problems. Completing this strategy will require finishing several
efforts now under way to improve a key wildland fire data and modeling
system, local fire management planning, and a new system designed to
identify the most cost-effective means for allocating fire management
budget resources, each of which has its own challenges. Without
completing these tasks, the agencies will have difficulty determining
the extent and location of wildland fire threats, targeting and
coordinating their efforts and resources, and resolving wildland fire
problems in the most timely and cost-effective manner over the long
term.
The two most effective measures for protecting structures from wildland
fires are (1) creating and maintaining a buffer around a structure by
eliminating or reducing trees, shrubs, and other flammable objects
within an area from 30 to 100 feet around the structure and (2) using
fire-resistant roofs and vents. Other technologies”such as fire-
resistant building materials, chemical agents, and geographic
information system mapping tools”can help in protecting structures and
communities, but they play a secondary role. Many homeowners, however,
are not using the protective measures because of the time or expense
involved, competing values or concerns, misperceptions about wildland
fires, or lack of awareness of their shared responsibility for home
protection. Federal, state, and local governments and others are
attempting to address this problem through a variety of educational,
financial assistance, and regulatory efforts.
Technologies exist and others are being developed to address
communications problems among emergency responders using different
radio frequencies or equipment. However, technology alone cannot solve
this problem. Effective adoption of these technologies requires
planning and coordination among federal, state, and local agencies
involved. The Department of Homeland Security, as well as several
states and local jurisdictions, are pursuing initiatives to improve
communications.
What GAO Recommends:
In its report, GAO recommended that the Departments of Agriculture and
the Interior develop a plan for completing a cohesive strategy that
identifies options and funding needed to address wildland fire
problems. The departments agreed.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-627T]
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
[Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov]
[End of Section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss two GAO reports that reviewed
several wildland fire issues--one issued in January 2005 that reviews
the status of the federal government's efforts to address our nation's
wildland fire problems and another, being released today, that
discusses ways to help protect homes and improve communications during
such fires. Each report is presented separately below.
Wildland fire is a natural process that plays an important role in the
health of many fire-adapted ecosystems, but it also can cause
catastrophic damages to communities and ecosystems. The trend of
increasing wildland fire threats to communities and ecosystems that we
reported on 5 years ago has been continuing. The average acreage of
lands burned by wildland fires annually from 2000 through 2003 was 56
percent greater than the average amount burned annually during the
1990s. Also, since 2000, wildland fires have burned an average of 1,100
homes each year in the United States, according to the National Fire
Protection Association. In 2003 alone, more than 3,600 homes were
destroyed by wildland fires in Southern California and resulted in more
than $2 billion in insured losses. Experts believe that catastrophic
damages from wildland fires probably will continue to increase until an
adequate long-term federal response, coordinated with other levels of
government, is implemented and individuals living in at-risk areas take
preventive measures to protect their homes from wildland fires.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT: Forest Service and Interior Need to Specify
Steps and a Schedule for Identifying Long-Term Options and Their Costs:
First, let me summarize the findings of GAO's January 2005 report that
discusses the progress the federal government has made over the last 5
years and key challenges it faces in developing and implementing a long-
term response to wildland fire problems.[Footnote 1] This report is
based primarily on over 25 reviews we conducted in recent years of
federal wildland fire management that focused largely on the activities
of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the land
management agencies in the Department of the Interior, which together
manage about 95 percent of all federal lands.
Summary:
In the past 5 years, the federal government has made important progress
in putting into place the basic components of a framework for managing
and responding to the nation's wildland fire problems, including:
* establishing a priority to protect communities near wildlands--called
the wildland-urban interface;
* increasing the amount of effort and funds available for addressing
fire-related concerns, such as fuel reduction on federal lands;
* improving data and research on wildland fire, local fire management
plans, interagency coordination, and collaboration with nonfederal
partners; and:
* refining performance measures and results monitoring for wildland
fire management.
While this progress has been important, many challenges remain for
addressing wildland fire problems in a timely and effective manner.
Most notably, the land management agencies need to complete a cohesive
strategy that identifies the long-term options and related funding
needed for reducing fuels and responding to wildland fires when they
occur. A recent Western Governors' Association report also called for
completing such a cohesive federal strategy. The agencies and the
Congress need such a strategy to make decisions about an effective and
affordable long-term approach for addressing problems that have been
decades in the making and will take decades more to resolve. However,
completing and implementing such a strategy will require that the
agencies complete several challenging tasks, including:
* developing data systems needed to identify the extent, severity, and
location of wildland fire threats to the nation's communities and
ecosystems;
* updating local fire management plans to better specify the actions
needed to effectively address these threats; and:
* assessing the cost-effectiveness and affordability of options for
reducing fuels.
In our January 2005 report, we recommended that the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior provide the Congress, in time for its
consideration of the agencies' fiscal year 2006 wildland fire
management budgets, with a joint tactical plan outlining the critical
steps the agencies will take, together with related time frames, to
complete a cohesive strategy that identifies long-term options and
needed funding for reducing and maintaining fuels at acceptable levels
and responding to the nation's wildland fire problems. The Departments
of Agriculture and the Interior have said that they will produce such a
joint tactical plan by August 2005.
Background:
Wildland fire triggered by lightning is a normal, inevitable, and
necessary ecological process that nature uses to periodically remove
excess undergrowth, small trees, and vegetation to renew ecosystem
productivity. However, various human land use and management practices,
including several decades of fire suppression activities, have reduced
the normal frequency of wildland fires in many forest and rangeland
ecosystems and have resulted in abnormally dense and continuous
accumulations of vegetation that can fuel uncharacteristically large
and intense wildland fires. Such large intense fires increasingly
threaten catastrophic ecosystem damage and also increasingly threaten
human lives, health, property, and infrastructure in the wildland-urban
interface. Federal researchers estimate that vegetative conditions that
can fuel such fires exist on approximately 190 million acres--or more
than 40 percent--of federal lands in the contiguous United States but
could vary from 90 million to 200 million acres, and that these
conditions also exist on many nonfederal lands.
Our reviews over the last 5 years identified several weaknesses in the
federal government's management response to wildland fire issues. These
weaknesses included the lack of a national strategy that addressed the
likely high costs of needed fuel reduction efforts and the need to
prioritize these efforts. Our reviews also found shortcomings in
federal implementation at the local level, where over half of all
federal land management units' fire management plans did not meet
agency requirements designed to restore fire's natural role in
ecosystems consistent with human health and safety. These plans are
intended to identify needed local fuel reduction, preparedness,
suppression, and rehabilitation actions. The agencies also lacked basic
data, such as the amount and location of lands needing fuel reduction,
and research on the effectiveness of different fuel reduction methods
on which to base their fire management plans and specific project
decisions. Furthermore, coordination among federal agencies and
collaboration between these agencies and nonfederal entities were
ineffective. This kind of cooperation is needed because wildland fire
is a shared problem that transcends land ownership and administrative
boundaries. Finally, we found that better accountability for federal
expenditures and performance in wildland fire management was needed.
Agencies were unable to assess the extent to which they were reducing
wildland fire risks or to establish meaningful fuel reduction
performance measures, as well as to determine the cost-effectiveness of
these efforts, because they lacked both monitoring data and sufficient
data on the location of lands at high risk of catastrophic fires to
know the effects of their actions. As a result, their performance
measures created incentives to reduce fuels on all acres, as opposed to
focusing on high-risk acres.
Because of these weaknesses, and because experts said that wildland
fire problems could take decades to resolve, we said that a cohesive,
long-term, federal wildland fire management strategy was
needed.[Footnote 2] We said that this cohesive strategy needed to focus
on identifying options for reducing fuels over the long term in order
to decrease future wildland fire risks and related costs. We also said
that the strategy should identify the costs associated with those
different fuel reduction options over time, so that the Congress could
make cost-effective, strategic funding decisions.
Important Progress Has Been Made in Addressing Federal Wildland Fire
Management Problems over the Last 5 Years:
The federal government has made important progress over the last 5
years in improving its management of wildland fire. Nationally it has
established strategic priorities and increased resources for
implementing these priorities. Locally, it has enhanced data and
research, planning, coordination, and collaboration with other parties.
With regard to accountability, it has improved performance measures and
established a monitoring framework.
Progress in National Strategy: Priorities Have Been Clarified and
Funding Has Been Increased for Identified Needs:
Over the last 5 years, the federal government has been formulating a
national strategy known as the National Fire Plan, composed of several
strategic documents that set forth a priority to reduce wildland fire
risks to communities. Similarly, the recently enacted Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003 directs that at least 50 percent of funding for
fuel reduction projects authorized under the act be allocated to
wildland-urban interface areas. While we have raised concerns about the
way the agencies have defined these areas and the specificity of their
prioritization guidance, we believe that the act's clarification of the
community protection priority provides a good starting point for
identifying and prioritizing funding needs. Similarly, in contrast to
fiscal year 1999, when we reported that the Forest Service had not
requested increased funding to meet the growing fuel reduction needs it
had identified, fuel reduction funding for both the Forest Service and
Interior quadrupled by fiscal year 2004. The Congress, in the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act, also authorized $760 million per year to be
appropriated for hazardous fuels reduction activities, including
projects for reducing fuels on up to 20 million acres of land.
Moreover, appropriations for both agencies' overall wildland fire
management activities, including preparedness, suppression, and
rehabilitation, have nearly tripled, from about $1 billion in fiscal
year 1999 to over $2.7 billion in fiscal year 2004.
Progress in Local Implementation: Data and Research, Fire Management
Planning, and Coordination and Collaboration Have Been Strengthened:
The agencies have strengthened local wildland fire management
implementation by making significant improvements in federal data and
research on wildland fire over the past 5 years, including an initial
mapping of fuel hazards nationwide. Additionally, in 2003, the agencies
approved funding for development of a geospatial data and modeling
system, called LANDFIRE, to map wildland fire hazards with greater
precision and uniformity. LANDFIRE--estimated to cost $40 million and
scheduled for nationwide implementation in 2009--will enable
comparisons of conditions between different field locations nationwide,
thus permitting better identification of the nature and magnitude of
wildland fire risks confronting different community and ecosystem
resources, such as residential and commercial structures, species
habitat, air and water quality, and soils.
The agencies also have improved local fire management planning by
adopting and executing an expedited schedule to complete plans for all
land units that had not been in compliance with agency requirements.
The agencies also adopted a common interagency template for preparing
plans to ensure greater consistency in their contents.
Coordination among federal agencies and their collaboration with
nonfederal partners, critical to effective implementation at the local
level, also has been improved. In 2001, as a result of congressional
direction, the agencies jointly formulated a 10-Year Comprehensive
Strategy with the Western Governors' Association to involve the states
as full partners in their efforts. An implementation plan adopted by
the agencies in 2002 details goals, time lines, and responsibilities of
the different parties for a wide range of activities, including
collaboration at the local level to identify fuel reduction priorities
in different areas. Also in 2002, the agencies established an
interagency body, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, composed of
senior Agriculture and Interior officials and nonfederal
representatives, to improve coordination of their activities with each
other and nonfederal parties.
Progress in Accountability: Better Performance Measures and a Results
Monitoring Framework Have Been Developed:
Accountability for the results the federal government achieves from its
investments in wildland fire management activities also has been
strengthened. The agencies have adopted a performance measure that
identifies the amount of acres moved from high-hazard to low-hazard
fuel conditions, replacing a performance measure for fuel reductions
that measured only the total acres of fuel reductions and created an
incentive to treat less costly acres rather than the acres that
presented the greatest hazards. Additionally, in 2004, to have a better
baseline for measuring progress, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council
approved a nationwide framework for monitoring the effects of wildland
fire. While an implementation plan is still needed for this framework,
it nonetheless represents a critical step toward enhancing wildland
fire management accountability.
Agencies Face Several Challenges to Completing a Long-Needed Cohesive
Strategy for Reducing Fuels and Responding to Wildland Fire Problems:
While the federal government has made important progress over the past
5 years in addressing wildland fire, a number of challenges still must
be met to complete development of a cohesive strategy that explicitly
identifies available long-term options and funding needed to reduce
fuels on the nation's forests and rangelands. Without such a strategy,
the Congress will not have an informed understanding of when, how, and
at what cost wildland fire problems can be brought under control. None
of the strategic documents adopted by the agencies to date have
identified these options and related funding needs, and the agencies
have yet to delineate a plan or schedule for doing so. To identify
these options and funding needs, the agencies will have to address
several challenging tasks related to their data systems, fire
management plans, and assessing the cost-effectiveness and
affordability of different options for reducing fuels.
Completing and Implementing the LANDFIRE System Is Essential to
Identifying and Addressing Wildland Fire Threats:
The agencies face several challenges to completing and implementing
LANDFIRE, so that they can more precisely identify the extent and
location of wildland fire threats and better target fuel reduction
efforts. These challenges include using LANDFIRE to better reconcile
the effects of fuel reduction activities with the agencies' other
stewardship responsibilities for protecting ecosystem resources, such
as air, water, soils, and species habitat, which fuel reduction efforts
can adversely affect. The agencies also need LANDFIRE to help them
better measure and assess their performance. For example, the data
produced by LANDFIRE will help them devise a separate performance
measure for maintaining conditions on low-hazard lands to ensure that
their conditions do not deteriorate to more hazardous conditions while
funding is being focused on lands with high-hazard conditions.
In implementing LANDFIRE, however, the agencies will have to overcome
the challenges presented by the current lack of a consistent approach
to assessing the risks of wildland fires to ecosystem resources as well
as the lack of an integrated, strategic, and unified approach to
managing and using information systems and data, including those such
as LANDFIRE, in wildland fire decision making. Currently, software,
data standards, equipment, and training vary among the agencies and
field units in ways that hamper needed sharing and consistent
application of the data. Also, LANDFIRE data and models may need to be
revised to take into account recent research findings that suggest part
of the increase in wildland fire in recent years has been caused by a
shift in climate patterns. This research also suggests that these new
climate patterns may continue for decades, resulting in further
increases in the amount of wildland fire. Thus, the nature, extent, and
geographical distribution of hazards initially identified in LANDFIRE,
as well as the costs for addressing them, may have to be reassessed.
Fire Management Plans Will Need to Be Updated with Latest Data and
Research on Wildland Fire:
The agencies will need to update their local fire management plans when
more detailed, nationally consistent LANDFIRE data become available.
The plans also will have to be updated to incorporate recent agency
fire research on approaches to more effectively address wildland fire
threats. For example, a 2002 interagency analysis found that protecting
wildland-urban interface communities more effectively--as well as more
cost-effectively--might require locating a higher proportion of fuel
reduction projects outside of the wildland-urban interface than
currently envisioned, so that fires originating in the wildlands do not
become too large to suppress by the time they arrive at the interface.
Moreover, other agency research suggests that placing fuel reduction
treatments in specific geometric patterns may, for the same cost,
provide protection for up to three times as many community and
ecosystem resources as do other approaches, such as placing fuel breaks
around communities and ecosystems resources. Timely updating of fire
management plans with the latest research findings on optimal design
and location of treatments also will be critical to the effectiveness
and cost-effectiveness of these plans. The Forest Service indicated
that this updating could occur during annual reviews of fire management
plans to determine whether any changes to them may be needed.
Ongoing Efforts to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness and Affordability of
Fuel Reduction Options Need to Be Completed:
Completing the LANDFIRE data and modeling system and updating fire
management plans should enable the agencies to formulate a range of
options for reducing fuels. However, to identify optimal and affordable
choices among these options, the agencies will have to complete certain
cost-effectiveness analysis efforts they currently have under way.
These efforts include an initial 2002 interagency analysis of options
and costs for reducing fuels, congressionally-directed improvements to
their budget allocation systems, and a new strategic analysis framework
that considers affordability.
The Interagency Analysis of Options and Costs: In 2002, a team of
Forest Service and Interior experts produced an estimate of the funds
needed to implement eight different fuel reduction options for
protecting communities and ecosystems across the nation over the next
century. Their analysis also considered the impacts of fuels reduction
activities on future costs for other principal wildland fire management
activities, such as preparedness, suppression, and rehabilitation, if
fuels were not reduced. The team concluded that the option that would
result in reducing the risks to communities and ecosystems across the
nation could require an approximate tripling of current fuel reduction
funding to about $1.4 billion for an initial period of a few years.
These initially higher costs would decline after fuels had been reduced
enough to use less expensive controlled burning methods in many areas
and more fires could be suppressed at lower cost, with total wildland
fire management costs, as well as risks, being reduced after 15 years.
Alternatively, the team said that not making a substantial short-term
investment using a landscape focus could increase both costs and risks
to communities and ecosystems in the long term. More recently, however,
Interior has said that the costs and time required to reverse current
increasing risks may be less when other vegetation management
activities--such as timber harvesting and habitat improvements--are
considered that were not included in the interagency team's original
assessment but also can influence wildland fire.
The cost of the 2002 interagency team's option that reduced risks to
communities and ecosystems over the long term is consistent with a June
2002 National Association of State Foresters' projection of the funding
needed to implement the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy developed by the
agencies and the Western Governors' Association the previous year. The
state foresters projected a need for steady increases in fuel reduction
funding up to a level of about $1.1 billion by fiscal year 2011. This
is somewhat less than that of the interagency team's estimate, but
still about 2-1/2 times current levels.
The interagency team of experts who prepared the 2002 analysis of
options and associated costs said their estimates of long-term costs
could only be considered an approximation because the data used for
their national-level analysis were not sufficiently detailed. They said
a more accurate estimate of the long-term federal costs and
consequences of different options nationwide would require applying
this national analysis framework in smaller geographic areas using more
detailed data, such as that produced by LANDFIRE, and then aggregating
these smaller-scale results.
The New Budget Allocation System: Agency officials told us that a tool
for applying this interagency analysis at a smaller geographic scale
for aggregation nationally may be another management system under
development--the Fire Program Analysis system. This system, being
developed in response to congressional committee direction to improve
budget allocation tools, is designed to identify the most cost-
effective allocations of annual preparedness funding for implementing
agency field units' local fire management plans. Eventually, the Fire
Program Analysis system, being initially implemented in 2005, will use
LANDFIRE data and provide a smaller geographical scale for analyses of
fuel reduction options and thus, like LANDFIRE, will be critical for
updating fire management plans. Officials said that this preparedness
budget allocation systemæwhen integrated with an additional component
now being considered for allocating annual fuel reduction funding--
could be instrumental in identifying the most cost-effective long-term
levels, mixes, and scheduling of these two wildland fire management
activities. Completely developing the Fire Program Analysis system,
including the fuel reduction funding component, is expected to cost
about $40 million and take until at least 2007 and perhaps until 2009.
The New Strategic Analysis Effort: In May 2004, Agriculture and
Interior began the initial phase of a wildland fire strategic planning
effort that also might contribute to identifying long-term options and
needed funding for reducing fuels and responding to the nation's
wildland fire problems. This effortæthe Quadrennial Fire and Fuels
Reviewæis intended to result in an overall federal interagency
strategic planning document for wildland fire management and risk
reduction and to provide a blueprint for developing affordable and
integrated fire preparedness, fuels reduction, and fire suppression
programs. Because of this effort's consideration of affordability, it
may provide a useful framework for developing a cohesive strategy that
includes identifying long-term options and related funding needs. The
preliminary planning, analysis, and internal review phases of this
effort are currently being completed and an initial report is expected
in 2005.
The improvements in data, modeling, and fire behavior research that the
agencies have under way, together with the new cost-effectiveness focus
of the Fire Program Analysis system to support local fire management
plans, represent important tools that the agencies can begin to use now
to provide the Congress with initial and successively more accurate
assessments of long-term fuel reduction options and related funding
needs. Moreover, a more transparent process of interagency analysis in
framing these options and their costs will permit better identification
and resolution of differing assumptions, approaches, and values. This
transparency provides the best assurance of accuracy and consensus
among differing estimates, such as those of the interagency team and
the National Association of State Foresters.
A Recent Western Governors' Association Report Is Consistent with GAO's
Findings and Recommendation:
In November 2004, the Western Governors' Association issued a report
prepared by its Forest Health Advisory Committee that assessed
implementation of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which the
association had jointly devised with the agencies in 2001.[Footnote 3]
Although the association's report had a different scope than our
review, its findings and recommendations are, nonetheless, generally
consistent with ours about the progress made by the federal government
and the challenges it faces over the next 5 years. In particular, it
recommends, as we do, completion of a long-term federal cohesive
strategy for reducing fuels. It also cites the need for continued
efforts to improve, among other things, data on hazardous fuels, fire
management plans, the Fire Program Analysis system, and cost-
effectiveness in fuel reductions--all challenges we have emphasized
today.
Conclusions:
The progress made by the federal government over the last 5 years has
provided a sound foundation for addressing the problems that wildland
fire will increasingly present to communities, ecosystems, and federal
budgetary resources over the next few years and decades. But, as yet,
there is no clear single answer about how best to address these
problems in either the short or long term. Instead, there are different
options, each needing further development to understand the trade-offs
among the risks and funding involved. The Congress needs to understand
these options and trade-offs in order to make informed policy and
appropriations decisions on this 21st century challenge.
This is the same message we provided in 1999 when we first called for
development of a cohesive strategy identifying options and funding
needs. But it still has not been completed. While the agencies are now
in a better position to do so, they must build on the progress made to
date by completing data and modeling efforts underway, updating their
fire management plans with the results of these data efforts and
ongoing research, and following through on recent cost-effectiveness
and affordability initiatives. However, time is running out. Further
delay in completing a strategy that cohesively integrates these
activities to identify options and related funding needs will only
result in increased long-term risks to communities, ecosystems, and
federal budgetary resources.
Because there is an increasingly urgent need for a cohesive federal
strategy that identifies long-term options and related funding needs
for reducing fuels, we have recommended that the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior provide the Congress, in time for its
consideration of the agencies' fiscal year 2006 wildland fire
management budgets, with a joint tactical plan outlining the critical
steps the agencies will take, together with related time frames, to
complete such a cohesive strategy.
In an April 2005 letter, Agriculture and Interior said that they will
produce by August 2005, for the Wildland Fire Leadership Council's
review and approval, a .joint tactical plan that will identify the
steps and time frames for developing a cohesive strategy.
WILDLAND FIRE: Protecting Structures and Improving Communications:
Next, I would like to summarize the findings of our second report,
being released today, that discusses ways to help protect homes and
improve communications during wildland fires. Although wildland fire is
a natural process that plays an important role in the health of many
fire-adapted ecosystems, it has the potential to damage or destroy
homes located in or near these wildlands, in the area commonly called
the wildland-urban interface. Since 1984, wildland fires have burned an
average of 850 homes each year in the United States, according to the
National Fire Protection Association. However, losses since 2000 have
risen to an average of 1,100 homes annually. In 2003, more than 3,600
homes were destroyed by wildland fires in Southern California and
resulted in more than $2 billion in insured losses.
Many homes are located in the wildland-urban interface nationwide, and
the number is growing, although the risk to these homes from wildland
fire varies widely. In California, for example, an estimated 4.9
million of the state's 12 million housing units are located in or near
the wildlands, and 3.2 million of these are at significant risk from
wildland fire.[Footnote 4] As people continue to move to areas in or
near fire-prone wildlands, the number of homes at risk from wildland
fire is likely to grow. When a large high-intensity wildland fire
occurs near inhabited areas, it can threaten hundreds of homes at the
same time and overwhelm available firefighting resources. Homeowners
can play an important role in protecting their homes from a wildland
fire, however, by taking preventive steps to reduce their home's
ignition potential. These preventive measures can significantly improve
a home's chance of surviving a wildland fire, even without intervention
by firefighting agencies.
Once a wildland fire starts, many different agencies may assist in the
efforts to manage or suppress it, including the Forest Service (within
the Department of Agriculture); land management agencies in the
Department of the Interior; state forestry agencies; local fire
departments; private contract firefighting crews; and, in some cases,
the military. Effective communications among responders--commonly
called communications interoperability--is essential to fighting
wildland fires successfully and ensuring both firefighter and public
safety. Communications interoperability can be hampered because the
various agencies responding to a fire may communicate over different
radio frequency bands or with incompatible communications equipment.
My testimony today summarizes key findings from our report released
today[Footnote 5] and addresses: (1) measures that can help protect
structures from wildland fires, (2) factors affecting the use of these
protective measures, and (3) the role that technology plays in
improving firefighting agencies' ability to communicate during wildland
fires.[Footnote 6]
Summary:
In summary, we found the following:
* 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. Other technologies, such as fire-resistant windows and building
materials, sprinkler systems, and chemical agents (gels and foams) that
coat structures with a temporary protective layer can also help protect
structures, but they play a secondary role. In addition, technologies,
such as geographic information systems (GIS) are available or under
development to assist in fire protection at the community level.
* Although protective measures are effective and available, many
homeowners do not use them for four main reasons: time or expense
involved, competing values or concerns, misperceptions about wildland
fires, and lack of awareness of homeowners' shared responsibility for
home protection. Federal, state, and local government agencies and
nongovernmental organizations are taking steps to increase the use of
protective measures through education, financial or direct assistance,
and adoption and enforcement of laws requiring defensible space around
structures and the use of fire-resistant building materials.
* A variety of technologies exist, and others are being developed, to
aid communications interoperability between emergency responders,
including firefighters, but technology alone cannot solve this problem.
In the short-term, patchwork interoperability technologies, such as
audio switches, can be used to link communication systems using
different radio frequencies or equipment. In the long-term,
technologies are available or under development to upgrade
communications systems to provide increased interoperability. Effective
adoption of any of these technologies, however, requires planning and
coordination among federal, state, and local agencies that work
together to respond to wildland fires and other emergencies.
Background:
To understand how preventive steps can help protect homes from wildland
fire requires an understanding of what wildland fire is, how it
spreads, and how it can threaten homes. Fire requires three elements--
oxygen, heat, and fuel--to ignite and continue burning. Once a fire has
begun, a number of factors--including weather conditions and the type
of nearby vegetation or other fuels--influence how fast and how
intensely the fire spreads. Any combustible object in a fire's path,
including homes, can fuel a wildland fire. In fact, homes can sometimes
be more flammable than the trees, shrubs, or other vegetation
surrounding them. If any one of the three required elements are
removed, however, such as when firefighters remove vegetation and other
fuels from a strip of land near a fire--called a fire break--a fire
will normally become less intense and eventually die out.
Wildland fire can threaten homes or other structures in the following
ways:
1. Surface fires burn vegetation or other fuels near the surface of the
ground, such as shrubs, fallen leaves, small branches, and roots. These
fires can ignite a home by burning nearby vegetation and eventually
igniting flammable portions of the home, including exterior walls or
siding; attached structures, such as a fence or deck; or other
flammable materials, such as firewood or patio furniture.
2. Crown fires burn the tops, or crowns, of trees. Crown fires normally
begin as surface fires and move up the trees by burning "ladder fuel,"
such as nearby shrubs or low tree branches. Crown fires create intense
heat and if close enough--within approximately 100 feet--can ignite
portions of structures even without direct contact from flames.
3. Spot fires are started by embers, or "firebrands," that can be
carried a mile or more away from the main fire, depending on wind
conditions. Firebrands can ignite a structure by landing on the roof or
by entering a vent or other opening and may accumulate on or near
homes. Firebrands can start many new spot fires or ignite many homes
simultaneously, increasing the complexity of firefighting efforts.
Recognizing that during severe wildland fires, suppression efforts
alone cannot protect all homes threatened by wildland fire,
firefighting and community officials are increasing their emphasis on
preventive approaches that help reduce the chance that wildland fires
will ignite homes and other structures. Because the vast majority of
structures damaged or destroyed by wildland fires are located on
private property, the primary responsibility for taking adequate steps
to minimize or prevent damage from a wildland fire rests with the
property owner and with state and local governments that can establish
building requirements and land-use restrictions.
When a wildland fire occurs, personnel from firefighting and other
emergency agencies responding to it primarily use land mobile radio
systems for communications. These systems include mobile radios in
vehicles and handheld portable radios and operate using radio signals,
which travel through space in the form of waves. These waves vary in
length, and each wavelength is associated with a particular radio
frequency.[Footnote 7] Radio frequencies are grouped into bands. Of the
more than 450 frequency bands in the radio spectrum, 10, scattered
across the spectrum, are allocated to public safety agencies. A
firefighting or public safety agency typically uses a radio frequency
band appropriate for its locale, either rural or urban. Bands at the
lower end of the radio spectrum, such as VHF (very high frequency),
work well in rural areas where radio signals can travel long distances
without obstruction from buildings or other structures. Federal
firefighting agencies, such as the Forest Service, and many state
firefighting agencies operate radios in the VHF band. In urban areas,
firefighting and other public safety agencies may operate radios on
higher frequencies, such as those in the UHF (ultrahigh frequency) or
800 MHz bands, because these frequencies can provide better
communications capabilities for an urban setting. When federal, state,
and local emergency response agencies work together, for example to
fight a fire in the wildland-urban interface, they may not be able to
communicate with one another because they operate in different bands
along the radio frequency spectrum.
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--
often called defensible space--within 30 to 100 feet of a structure is
a key protective measure. Creating such defensible space offers
protection by breaking up continuous fuels that could otherwise allow a
surface fire to contact and ignite a structure. Defensible space also
offers protection against crown fires. Reducing the density of large
trees around structures decreases the intensity of heat from a fire,
thus preventing or reducing the chance of ignition and damage to
structures. Analysis of homes burned during wildland fires has shown
defensible space to be a key determinant of whether a home survives.
For instance, the 1981 Atlas Peak Fire in California damaged or
destroyed 91out of 111 structures that lacked adequate defensible space
but only 5 structures out of 111 that had it.
The use of fire-resistant roofs and vents is also important in
protecting structures from wildland fires. Many structures are damaged
or destroyed by firebrands that can travel a mile or more from the main
fire. Firebrands can land on a roof or enter a home through an opening,
such as an attic vent and ignite a home hours after the fire has
passed. Fire-resistant roofing materials can reduce the risk that these
firebrands will ignite a roof, and vents can be screened with mesh to
prevent firebrands from entering and igniting attics. Combining fire-
resistant roofs and vents with the creation of defensible space is
particularly effective, because together these measures reduce the risk
from surface fires, crown fires, and firebrands.
Other technologies can also help protect individual structures from
wildland fires.
1. Fire-resistant windows constructed of double-paned glass, tempered
glass, or glass block help protect a structure from wildland fire by
reducing the risk of the window breaking and allowing fire to enter the
structure.
2. Fire-resistant building materials--such as fiber-cement, brick,
stone, metal, and stucco--can be used for walls, siding, decks, and
doors to help prevent ignition and subsequent damage from wildland fire.
3. Chemical agents, such as foams and gels, are temporary protective
measures that can be applied as an exterior coating shortly before a
wildland fire reaches a structure. Although these agents have
successfully been used to protect homes, such as during the Southern
California fires in 2003, they require that someone be available to
apply them and, possibly, reapply or rewet them to ensure they remain
effective. They can also be difficult to clean up.
4. Sprinkler systems, which can be installed inside or outside a
structure, lower the risk of ignition or damage from wildland fires.
Sprinklers, however, require reliable sources of water and, in some
cases, electricity to be effective. According to firefighting
officials, adequate water and electricity may not be available during a
wildland fire.
In addition to technologies aimed at protecting individual structures,
technologies also exist or are being developed which can help reduce
the risk of wildland fire damage to an entire community.
* GIS is a computer-based information system that can be used to
efficiently store, analyze, and display multiple forms of information
on a single map.[Footnote 8] GIS technologies allow fire officials and
local and regional land managers to combine vegetation, fuel, and
topography data into separate layers of a single GIS map to identify
and prioritize areas needing vegetation management. State and county
officials we met with emphasized the value of GIS in community-planning
efforts to protect structures and communities from wildland fire damage
within their jurisdictions.
* Fire behavior modeling has been used to predict wildland fire
behavior, but these models do not accurately predict fire behavior in
the wildland-urban interface. Existing models can help identify areas
likely to experience intense wildland fires, identify suitable
locations for vegetation management, predict the effect of vegetation
treatments on fire behavior, and aid suppression by predicting the
overall behavior of a given fire. These models do not, however,
consider the effect that structures and landscaping have on wildland
fire behavior.
* Automated detection systems use infrared, ultraviolet, or temperature-
sensitive sensors[Footnote 9] placed around a community, or an
individual home, to detect the presence of a wildland fire. On
detecting a fire, a sensor could set off an audible alarm or could be
connected via radio or satellite to a device that would notify
homeowners or emergency personnel. Several such sensors could be
networked together to provide broad coverage of the area surrounding a
community. According to fire officials, sensor systems may prove
particularly helpful in protecting communities in areas of rugged
terrain or poor access where wildland fires might be difficult to
locate. These systems are still in development, however, and false
alarms are a concern.
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--for four primary reasons:
1. Time or expense. State and local fire officials estimate that the
price of creating defensible space can range from negligible, in cases
where homeowners perform the work themselves, to $2,000 or more.
Moreover, defensible space needs to be maintained, resulting in
additional effort or expense in the future. Further, while fire-
resistant roofing materials are available that are comparable in cost
to more flammable options and, for a home under construction may result
in no additional expense, replacing a roof on an existing home can cost
thousands of dollars.
2. Competing concerns. Although modifying landscaping to create
defensible space has proven to be a key element in protecting
structures from wildland fire, officials and researchers have reported
that some homeowners are more concerned about the effect landscaping
has on the appearance and privacy of their property, as well as on
habitat for wildlife.
3. Misconceptions about wildland fire behavior. Fire officials and
researchers told us that some homeowners do not recognize that a
structure and its surroundings constitute fuel that contributes to the
spread of wildland fire or understand exactly how a wildland fire
ignites structures. Further, they may not know that they can take
effective steps to reduce their risk.
4. Lack of awareness of homeowners' responsibility. Fire officials told
us that some homeowners in the wildland urban interface may expect the
same level of service they received in more urban areas and do not
understand that rural areas may have less firefighting personnel and
equipment and longer response times. Also, when a wildland fire burns
near communities, so many houses may be threatened simultaneously that
firefighters may be unable to protect all of them.
Federal, state, and local agencies and other organizations are taking
steps in three main areas to help increase the use of protective
measures.[Footnote 10] First, government agencies and other
organizations are educating people about the effectiveness of simple
steps they can take to reduce the risk to homes and communities. The
primary national education effort is the Firewise Communities
program,[Footnote 11] which both educates homeowners about available
protective measures and also promotes additional steps that state and
local officials can take to educate homeowners. Education efforts help
demonstrate that defensible space can be attractive, provide privacy,
and improve wildlife habitat.
Second, some federal, state, and local agencies are directly assisting
homeowners in creating defensible space by providing equipment or
financial assistance to reduce fuels near structures. Under the
National Fire Plan[Footnote 12], for instance, federal firefighting
agencies provide grants or otherwise assist in reducing fuels on
private land. State and local governments have provided similar
assistance.
Third, some state and local governments have adopted laws that require
maintaining defensible space around structures or the use of fire-
resistant building materials. For example, California requires the
creation and maintenance of defensible space around homes and the use
of fire-resistant roofing materials in certain at-risk areas. Officials
of one county we visited attributed the relatively few houses damaged
by the 2003 Southern California fires in the county, in part, to its
adoption and enforcement of laws requiring defensible space and the use
of fire-resistant building materials. Not all states or localities at
risk of wildland fire, however, have required such steps. Some state
and local officials told us that laws had not been adopted because
homeowners and developers resisted them. Furthermore, to be effective,
laws that have been adopted must be enforced, and this does not always
happen.
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 an emergency, such as a wildland fire,
can communicate effectively with one another. Short-term, or patchwork,
interoperability solutions use technology to interconnect two or more
disparate radio systems so that voice or data from one system can be
made available to all systems. The principal advantage of this solution
is that agencies can continue to use existing communications systems,
an important consideration when funds to buy new equipment are limited.
Patchwork solutions include the following:
1. Audio switches that provide interoperability by connecting radio and
other communications systems to a device that sends the audio signal
from one agency's radio to all other connected radio systems. Audio
switches can interconnect several different radio systems, regardless
of the frequency bands or type of equipment used.
2. Crossband repeaters that provide interoperability between systems
operating on different radio frequency bands by changing frequencies
between the two radio systems.
3. Console-to-console patches that are not "on-the-scene" devices but
instead connect consoles located at the dispatch centers where calls
for assistance are received. The device links the dispatch consoles of
two radio systems so that the radios connected to each system can
communicate with one another.
Other interoperability solutions involve developing and adopting more
sophisticated radio or communications systems that follow common
standards or can be programmed to work on any frequency and to use any
desired modulation type, such as AM or FM. These include:
1. Project 25 radios, which must meet a set of standards for digital
two-way radio systems that allow for interoperability between all
jurisdictions using these systems. These radios are beginning to be
adopted by a variety of federal, state, and local agencies.
2. Software-defined radios that will allow interoperability among
agencies using different frequency bands, proprietary systems from
different manufacturers, or different modulation types (such as AM or
FM). Software-defined radios, however, are still being developed and
are not yet available for use by public safety agencies.
3. Voice over Internet Protocol that treats both voice and data as
digital information and enables their movement over any existing
Internet Protocol data network.[Footnote 13] No standards exist for
radio communications using Voice over Internet Protocol, and, as a
result, manufacturers have produced proprietary systems that may not be
interoperable.
Whether the solution is a short-term patchwork approach or a long-term
communications upgrade, officials we spoke with explained that planning
and coordination among agencies are critical for successfully
determining which technology to adopt and for agreeing on funding
sources, timing, training, maintenance, and other key operational and
management issues. State and local governments play an important role
in developing and implementing plans for interoperable communications
because they own most of the physical infrastructure for public safety
systems, such as radios, base stations, repeaters, and other equipment.
In the past, public safety agencies have depended on their own stand-
alone communications systems, without considering interoperability with
other agencies. Yet as firefighting and other public safety agencies
increasingly work together to respond to emergencies, including
wildland fires, personnel from different agencies need to be able to
communicate with one another. Reports by GAO,[Footnote 14] the National
Task Force on Interoperability, and others have identified lack of
planning and coordination as key reasons hampering communications
interoperability among responding agencies. According to these reports,
federal, state, and local government agencies have not worked together
to identify their communications needs and develop a coordinated plan
to meet them. Without such planning and coordination, new investments
in communications equipment or infrastructure may not improve the
effectiveness of communications among agencies.
In recent years, the federal government, as well as several states and
local jurisdictions, have focused increased attention on improving
planning and coordination to achieve communications interoperability.
The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program
(SAFECOM), within the Department of Homeland Security's Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility,[Footnote 15] was established to
address public safety communications issues within the federal
government and to help state, local, and tribal public safety agencies
improve their responses through more effective and efficient
interoperable wireless communications. SAFECOM has undertaken a number
of initiatives to enhance communications interoperability. For example,
in a joint project with the commonwealth of Virginia, SAFECOM developed
a methodology that could be used by states to assist them in developing
a locally driven statewide strategic plan for enhancing communications
interoperability. Several states have established statewide groups to
address communications interoperability. For example, in Washington,
the communications committee has developed a statewide public safety
communication plan and an inventory of state government-operated public
safety communications systems. Finally, some local jurisdictions are
working together to identify and address communications
interoperability issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact me at:
(202) 512-3841 or [Hyperlink, nazzaror@gao.gov], or Keith Rhodes at
(202) 512-6412 or [Hyperlink, rhodesk@gao.gov]. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Jonathan Altshul, Naba
Barkakati, David P. Bixler, William Carrigg, Ellen Chu, Jonathan Dent,
Janet Frisch, Barry T. Hill, Richard Johnson, Chester Joy, Nicholas
Larson, Steve Secrist, and Amy Webbink.
FOOTNOTES
[1] 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).
[2] GAO, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. GAO/RCED-99-65. Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 2, 1999.
[3] Report to the Western Governors on the Implementation of the 10-
Year Comprehensive Strategy, Western Governors' Association Forest
Health Advisory Committee (Denver, Colo.: 2004).
[4] California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, The Changing
California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment (Sacramento, Calif.:
2003).
[5] GAO, Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving
Communications during Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 26, 2005).
[6] Our report also includes information on the use of military
resources for wildland firefighting.
[7] Radio frequencies are measured in Hertz (Hz); the term kilohertz
(kHz) refers to thousands of Hertz, megahertz (MHz) to millions of
Hertz, and gigahertz (GHz) to billions of Hertz.
[8] 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).
[9] Infrared 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.
[10] In addition, some insurance companies also direct homeowners in
high-risk areas to create defensible space. Historically, the insurance
industry has not placed a high priority on wildland fire issues because
of relatively low losses compared with other hazards, such as
hurricanes or earthquakes.
[11] Firewise 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.
[12] The 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.
[13] In some cases, this is the Internet; and in others, it is a
private data network.
[14] See GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable
Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 6, 2003).
[15] The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program,
otherwise known as SAFECOM, was first established as an Office of
Management and Budget e-initiative in 2001.
