Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help Agencies	 
Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs (29-MAR-02,	 
GAO-02-158).							 
                                                                 
Each year, fires on federal lands burn millions of acres and	 
federal land management agencies spend hundreds of millions of	 
dollars to fight them. Wildland fires also threaten communities  
adjacent to federal lands. The Departments of Agriculture (USDA) 
and the Interior, the lead federal agencies in fighting 	 
wildfires, jointly developed a long-term fire-fighting strategy  
in September 2000. Five federal land management agencies--the	 
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of	 
Indian Affairs, the National Park Service, and the Fish and	 
Wildlife Service--are working together to accomplish the plan's  
objectives. GAO found that the Forest Service and Interior have  
not effectively determined the amount of personnel and equipment 
needed to respond to and suppress wildland fires. Although the	 
agencies have acquired considerably more personnel and equipment 
than were available in 2000, they have not acquired all of the	 
resources needed to implement the new strategy. Despite having	 
received substantial additional funding, the two agencies have	 
not yet developed performance measures. The Forest Service simply
measures the amount of fire-fighting resources it will be able to
devote to fire fighting at each location, regardless of risk.	 
Without results-oriented performance measures, it is difficult to
hold the Forest Service accountable for the results it achieves. 
The Forest Service and the Interior agencies use different	 
methods to report fire-fighting personnel costs--an approach that
is not in keeping with policies requiring coordination and	 
consistency across all aspects of fire management, including	 
accounting for fire-related costs.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-158 					        
    ACCNO:   A02944						        
  TITLE:     Wildland Fire Management: Improved Planning Will Help    
Agencies Better Identify Fire-Fighting Preparedness Needs	 
     DATE:   03/29/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Emergency preparedness				 
	     Fire fighters					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Land management					 
	     Planning						 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Equipment management				 
	     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-02-158
     
Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

March 2002 WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Improved Planning Will Help Agencies Better Identify Fire- Fighting
Preparedness Needs

GAO- 02- 158

Page i GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 5 Agencies Have Not Effectively Determined
Fire- Fighting

Preparedness Needs 7 Agencies Have Not Yet Obtained All of the Additional
Fire- Fighting

Personnel and Equipment to Meet Needs They Identified 11 Agencies Have Not
Identified the Results They Expect to Achieve

with the Additional Funding Provided under the National Fire Plan 14 Forest
Service and Interior Use Different Methods for Reporting

Fire- Fighting Personnel Costs 15 Conclusions 16 Recommendations for
Executive Action 18 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 18

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 23

Appendix II Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the Interior
26

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 32 GAO Contacts 32 Staff
Acknowledgments 32 GAO?s Mission 33 Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and
Testimony 33 To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs 33 Public
Affairs 33

Tables

Table 1: Status of Agency Fire Management Plans, as of September 30, 2001 8
Table 2: Status of Agency Efforts to Acquire the Number of

Fire- Fighting Personnel Identified as Needed, as of September 30, 2001 12
Table 3: Sites Visited by GAO 23 Contents

Page 1 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

March 29, 2002 Congressional Requesters Each year, wildland fires on federal
lands burn millions of acres of forests, grasslands, and desert, and federal
land management agencies expend hundreds of millions of dollars to fight
these fires. Wildland fires also threaten communities that are adjacent to
federal lands- areas referred to as the wildland- urban interface. During
the 2000 fire season, one of the worst in 50 years, approximately 123,000
fires burned more than 8. 4 million acres, or more than twice the 10- year
national average, and cost the federal government over $2 billion. At
certain times, nearly 30,000 personnel worked on the fire lines, including
the military and civilian firefighters from other countries. Calendar year
2001 was not as catastrophic as the previous year, but the more than 84,000
fires that occurred nonetheless burned about 3.6 million acres.

The departments of agriculture and of the interior are the primary wildland
fire- fighting agencies in the federal government. To better prepare for
fighting catastrophic fires, these agencies jointly developed a long- term
fire- fighting strategy. This strategy, established in September 2000, has
become known as the National Fire Plan (the plan). A major portion of the
plan calls for increased fire- fighting capacity personnel and equipment so
that federal agencies will be better prepared for future fires.

Five federal land management agencies- the Forest Service in the Department
of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of
the Interior- are responsible for working together to accomplish the plan?s
objectives. In implementing the plan, the agencies are to, among other
things, (1) reduce the high risk for fire around communities at the
wildland- urban interface and (2) coordinate firefighting activities across
the landscape; that is without regard to the administrative boundaries
established for each agency?s activities.

The plan is built upon the principles of the interagency National Fire
Policy, which was established in 1995. This policy was jointly developed and
endorsed by each of the federal land management agencies. The policy was
updated in 2001 to address, among other things, concerns about the lack of
progress in implementing many of the key policy requirements. As it relates
to fire fighting, the policy requires that each burnable acre of federal
land be covered by a fire management plan that,

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

among other things, identifies how fires will be managed in a particular
federal forest, park, or other land unit. These local fire management plans
are to specify whether fires in particular areas should be suppressed
immediately, controlled to some degree, or permitted to burn naturally. Each
of these options has safety, cost, and natural resource implications. If a
fire management plan does not address these and other policy requirements,
local units are required to fully suppress all wildland fires. The
information from each plan is a key factor that is incorporated into
computer planning models to determine the amount and composition of fire-
fighting resources needed at each local unit.

To help meet the National Fire Plan?s objectives, the Congress almost
doubled funding for the five federal agencies- from about $1.6 billion in
fiscal year 2000 to about $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2001- and expressed
its continuing support by appropriating $2.2 billion for fiscal year 2002.
Of the total funds provided, about $830 million in fiscal year 2001 and $903
million in fiscal year 2002 are to be used to increase fire- fighting
preparedness.

To assess the agencies? progress in enhancing their capacity to prepare for
and respond to wildland fires, you asked us to review the Forest Service and
Interior?s efforts under the National Fire Plan. As agreed with your
offices, we analyzed the (1) effectiveness of the agencies? efforts to
determine the amount of personnel and equipment needed, (2) status of the
agencies? efforts to acquire additional fire- fighting resources as of
September 30, 2001, and (3) results the agencies expect to achieve with
these additional resources. As also agreed with your offices, we determined
whether the Forest Service and Interior are consistent in their reporting of
fire- fighting personnel costs.

The Forest Service and the Interior agencies have not effectively determined
the amount of fire- fighting personnel and equipment needed for responding
to and suppressing wildland fires and, therefore, may not be as prepared as
they could be to manage fires. The agencies? efforts are incomplete in two
respects. First, over half of all the federal land management units still do
not have fire management plans that meet the requirements of the 1995
national fire management policy; therefore, these units cannot fully
determine the level of personnel and equipment they need. Of the 1,384 units
managed by the five federal land management agencies, 695 units- covering
over 119 million acres- either had plans that were out of date or had no
plans at all, as of September 30, 2001. For example, many of the out- of-
date plans did not identify areas at high risk, Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

namely, those at the wildland- urban interface, as required by the policy.
Agency fire managers told us that higher priorities precluded them from
providing the necessary resources to prepare and update the plans. Second,
agencies base their decisions about the amount and kind of personnel and
equipment needed to reach a given level of fire- fighting preparedness on
the results of computer models that use information from fire management
plans. These models only take into account the personnel and equipment
needed to fight wildland fires within each agency?s administrative boundary,
a customary practice according to agency officials. The models do not
consider the fire- fighting resources that are available in adjacent
jurisdictions that are needed for fighting fires that spread across these
boundaries, as current policy requires. Therefore, the results of the
current models do not accurately reflect the personnel and equipment needed
to fight wildland fires as envisioned under the National Fire Plan. The
agencies are aware of the problems with their fire management plans and the
computer planning models and have established initiatives to address them,
which they expect to complete in 2 to 6 years. The agencies? efforts to
address these issues are a promising first step. However, in light of the
past delays and low priority that these issues have received since the 1995
policy was established, it is critical that these initiatives be followed
through and completed as expeditiously as possible. Until then, the agencies
will continue to have difficulty in effectively determining their fire-
fighting preparedness needs.

While the agencies do not have a clear sense of the total resources they
need to effectively conduct their fire- fighting activities, they
nonetheless have acquired considerably more personnel and equipment than
were available in 2000. However, as of September 30, 2001, the Forest
Service and Interior had not acquired all of the personnel and equipment
they had identified as needed to implement the National Fire Plan. Most of
the Interior agencies expect to reach 100 percent of their desired level of
preparedness in fiscal year 2002. The Forest Service also expects to obtain
all of the personnel it believes it needs in fiscal year 2002, but it and
the Fish and Wildlife Service do not expect to obtain all the equipment they
have identified as necessary until fiscal year 2003, at the earliest,
because they had underestimated their funding needs under the National Fire
Plan. Consequently, the two agencies are currently not fully prepared to
fight wildland fires according to their own identified needs.

Although the Forest Service and the Interior agencies have received
substantial additional funding, they have not yet developed performance
measures to determine the extent to which these additional resources have
resulted in more effective fire fighting as envisioned under the

Page 4 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

National Fire Plan. The Forest Service simply measures the amount of
firefighting resources it will be able to devote to fire fighting at each
location, regardless of risk. Without results- oriented performance
measures, it is difficult to hold the Forest Service accountable for the
results it achieves from the additional resources being provided. Interior?s
measures such as, putting out 95 percent of all fires during their first 48
hours are the same as those used prior to the development of the National
Fire Plan. Although Interior?s performance measures focus on results, it has
not revised the measures to specifically reflect the results expected with
the increased resources received under the plan. In addition, since both
agencies are pursuing the same objectives under the plan, it is reasonable
to expect that their performance measures be the same or similar. The
agencies have acknowledged this shortcoming and while they have not yet
identified what specifically will be done in this area, they plan to develop
more consistent results- oriented performance measures. Agency officials
estimate that these measures will not be in place until fiscal year 2004.

The Forest Service and the Interior agencies use different methods for
reporting fire- fighting personnel costs- an approach that is not in keeping
with the current fire policy?s requirement for coordination and consistency
across all aspects of fire management, including accounting for fire-
related costs. In fiscal year 2001, the Forest Service changed its method
for collecting fire personnel cost data to better reflect the cost of
wildland fire suppression. As a result, beginning with 2001, the first year
of the National Fire Plan, the agencies began collecting cost data
differently. Accordingly, it will be difficult for agency officials, the
Congress, or other interested parties to develop comparable data for
analyzing fire- fighting personnel costs over time or making meaningful
comparisons of spending trends among the Forest Service and Interior
agencies. These difficulties will complicate effective oversight and
monitoring of fire- fighting costs.

We are making several recommendations to the secretaries of agriculture and
of the interior to help ensure that agencies develop (1) fire management
plans that comply with the requirements in the national fire policy,
especially in identifying resource needs in high- risk communities at the
wildland- urban interface, (2) a consistent planning and budget system,
incorporating a single computer- planning model to assess preparedness
needs, that is consistent with the national fire policy, and (3) consistent,
results- oriented performance measures to assess progress in increasing
preparedness to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildland fires. In addition,
we are recommending that the secretary of interior require the Interior
agencies to change their method for allocating and reporting fire- fighting

Page 5 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

personnel costs- similar to that now being used by the Forest Service to
better reflect the cost of wildland fire suppression.

The departments of interior and agriculture generally agreed with our
recommendations. They acknowledged that more work needs to be done in the
areas of completing fire management plans, developing consistent methodology
to determine fire- fighting preparedness needs, and establishing common
performance measures. In addition, they provided us with additional
perspective and clarification in some areas discussed in the report. We have
addressed these comments where appropriate.

In recent years it has become clear that past fire suppression policies have
not worked as effectively as was once thought. In fact, they have had major
unintended consequences, particularly on federally owned lands. For decades
the federal wildland fire community followed a policy of suppressing all
wildland fires as soon as possible. As a result, over the years, the
accumulations of brush, small trees, and other hazardous vegetation
(underbrush) in these areas increased substantially. Since about one- third
of all land in the United States is federally owned and consists largely of
forests, grasslands, or other vegetation, the widespread buildup of this
underbrush has created a national problem. Today, when a fire starts on
federal lands, accumulated underbrush could act as fuel that leads to larger
and more intense fires than would otherwise be the case. Accumulated
underbrush, in turn, causes fires to spread more rapidly. This combination
of factors greatly heightens the potential for fires to become catastrophic.
As several recent studies have pointed out, 1 without changes in the way
federal agencies prepare for and respond to wildland fires, communities that
border fire- prone lands- commonly known as the wildland- urban interface-
will increasingly be at risk for fire damage.

The 2000 fire season demonstrated the impact of past fire policies. In that
year one of the most challenging on record large numbers of intense and
catastrophic fires frequently surpassed the fire- fighting capacities of
federal, state, and local agencies. Many of these fires became the out-
ofcontrol disasters that routinely led national television news broadcasts
as they threatened or damaged the communities in their path. While most of
these fires occurred in western states, other areas of the country were also

1 Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire- Adapted Ecosystems, A
Cohesive Strategy, U. S. Forest Service, (Oct. 13, 2000); Interagency Report
to Congress, National Fire Plan Implementation Strategy, (January 2001);
Managing Wildland Fire, Enhancing Capacity to Implement the Federal
Interagency Policy, (December 2001). Background

Page 6 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

affected. These recent experiences have led the fire- fighting community
across the country and policymakers at all levels of government to call for
federal action to help mitigate this growing threat.

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are the two major federal
land management fire- fighting agencies. The Forest Service manages about
192 million acres of land in 155 national forests and grasslands, and the
Bureau of Land Management manages about 264 million acres of land. Also
involved are the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior.
Together, these agencies are caretakers of over one- third of all the land
in the United States.

The five land management agencies developed the National Fire Plan. The plan
consists of five key initiatives:

 Firefighting- Ensure adequate preparedness for future fire seasons,

 Rehabilitation and Restoration- Restore landscapes and rebuild communities
damaged by wildland fires,

 Hazardous Fuel Reduction- Invest in projects to reduce fire risk,

 Community Assistance- Work directly with communities to ensure adequate
fire protection,

 Accountability- Be accountable, and establish adequate oversight and
monitoring for results.

The plan is expected to be a long- term effort to be implemented over a
10year period.

While the agencies are to use funding provided under the National Fire Plan
to implement all five aspects of the Plan, they are to use the majority of
these funds to increase their capacity for fire- fighting preparedness and
suppression by acquiring and maintaining additional personnel and equipment.
Agencies use preparedness funding at the beginning of each fire season to
place fire- fighting resources in locations where they can most effectively
respond to fires that start on federal lands. Agencies use fire suppression
funding to control and extinguish wildland fires. This effort includes
supporting fire- fighting personnel and equipment on the fire line and at
the established fire camp.

Page 7 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

The Forest Service and Interior have not effectively determined the level of
fire- fighting personnel and equipment they need to fight wildland fires. As
a result, they may not be as prepared as they could be to manage fires
safely and cost- effectively. In managing wildland fires, the agencies rely
primarily on (1) fire management plans, which contain information on how
wildland fires should be fought, and (2) computer planning models that use
the planning information to identify the most efficient level of personnel
and equipment needed to safely and effectively fight fires. Of the five
major federal land management agencies, only the Bureau of Land Management
has fully complied with the fire policy requirement that all burnable acres
have fire management plans. Furthermore, even though the fire policy calls
for the agencies to coordinate their efforts, the Forest Service and
Interior use three different computer planning models to determine the
personnel and equipment needed to achieve their firefighting preparedness
goals. Moreover, none of the models focus on the goals of protecting
communities at the wildland- urban interface or fighting fires that go
across the administrative boundaries of the federal agencies.

Since 1995, the national fire policy has stated that fire management plans
are critical in determining fire- fighting preparedness needs that is, the
number and types of personnel and equipment needed to respond to and
suppress fires when they first break out. Among other things, fire
management plans identify the level of risk associated with each burnable
acre including areas bordering the wildland- urban interface and set forth
the objectives that a local forest, park, or other federal land unit is
trying to achieve with fire. The plans provide direction on the level of
suppression needed and whether a fire should be allowed to burn as a natural
event to either regenerate ecosystems or reduce fuel loading in areas with
large amounts of underbrush. In addition, fire management plans provide
information that is entered into computer planning models to identify the
level of personnel and equipment needed to effectively fight fires and
ultimately help to identify the funding needed to support those resources.

As of September 30, 2001, 6 years after the national fire policy was
developed, over 50 percent of all federal areas that were to have a fire
management plan consistent with the requirements of the national fire policy
were without a plan. These areas did not meet the policy?s requirements
because they either had no plans or had plans that were out of date with the
policy requirements because, among other things, they did not address
fighting fires at the wildland- urban interface. Table 1 shows, as of
September 30, 2001, the Bureau of Land Management was the only Agencies Have
Not

Effectively Determined FireFighting Preparedness Needs

Outdated or Nonexistent Fire Management Plans Call into Question Agencies?
Ability to Assess Resource Needs

Page 8 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

agency with all of its acreage covered by a fire management plan that was
compliant with the policy. In contrast, the percent of units with
noncompliant plans ranged from 38 percent at the Fish and Wildlife Service
to 82 percent at the National Park Service.

Table 1: Status of Agency Fire Management Plans, as of September 30, 2001
Agency

Units that need a plan

Units with a plan

Percent of units with

a plan Units not

compliant with 1995 fire policy a

Percent of plans not compliant Burnable

acres Acres for

units with a plan

Acres for noncompliant

plans Percent of

burnable acres with noncompliant

plans

BIA 157 78 50 79 50 54,315,537 41,071,301 14,868,951 27 BLM 60 60 100 0 0
263,584,784 263,584,784 0 0 FWS 648 419 65 252 38 73,233,806 70,403,316 4,
577,378 6 FS 242 219 90 137 57 181,175,021 165,812,295 74,845,727 41 NPS 277
147 53 227 82 82,532,896 77,939,127 24,756,455 30

Total 1,384 923 67 695 50.22 654,842,004 618,810,823 119,048,511 18.18

a Includes units that do not have a fire management plan and units with a
plan that does not comply with the national fire policy. Legend: BIA =
Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM = Bureau of Land Management FWS = Fish &
Wildlife Service FS = Forest Service NPS = National Park Service Source:
GAO?s analysis of data from the Forest Service and Department of the
Interior.

When we asked fire managers why fire management plans were out of date or
nonexistent, they most often told us that higher priorities precluded them
from providing the necessary resources to prepare and update the plans.
Without a compliant fire management plan, some of these fire managers told
us that their local unit was following a full suppression strategy in
fighting wildland fires, as the current fire policy requires. That is, they
extinguish all wildland fires as quickly as possible regardless of where
they are without considering other fire management options that may be more
efficient and less costly. Other fire managers told us that while their fire
management plans were not in compliance with the national policy, they were
still taking action to ensure their day- to- day firefighting strategy was
following the more important principles outlined in the current policy, such
as addressing the fire risks around communities in the wildland- urban
interface.

Page 9 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

A January 2000 Forest Service report clearly demonstrates the importance of
adequate fire management planning in determining the level of firefighting
personnel and equipment needed. 2 In this report, Forest Service officials
analyzed the management of two large wildland fires in California that
consumed 227,000 acres and cost about $178 million to contain. Fire managers
at these fires did not have fire management plans that complied with the
national fire policy. The report stated that a compliant fire management
plan would have made a difference in the effectiveness of the suppression
efforts. For example, without a fire management plan, the local fire
managers were not provided with a ?let burn? option. Had this option been
available, it could have reduced the need for personnel and equipment for
one of the fires and lowered total suppression costs.

The Forest Service and Interior acknowledge the need to complete and update
their fire management plans. Both agencies have initiatives underway in
response to the renewed emphasis on fire management planning under the
National Fire Plan. Specifically, the agencies are developing consistent
procedures and standards for fire management planning that will assist local
units in their efforts to have fire management plans that are in compliance
with the national fire policy. The agencies are expected to have a strategy
in place by the spring of 2002 for accomplishing this objective. However,
developing the procedures and standards and incorporating them into fire
management plans at all local units is not likely to occur until 2003, at
the earliest. Because it has been 7 years since the 1995 policy first
directed agencies to complete their fire management plans, and the agencies
have given the issue low priority, it is critical that the Forest Service
and Interior complete this initiative as expeditiously as possible.

Fire management planning decisions about the amount and types of personnel
and equipment needed to reach a given level of fire- fighting preparedness
are based on computer planning models that the Forest Service and the
Interior agencies have developed. The national fire policy directs the
agencies to conduct fire management planning on a coordinated, interagency
basis using compatible planning processes that address all fire- related
activities without regard to the administrative boundaries of each agency.
This level of interagency coordination is not

2 Policy Implications of Large Fire Management: A Strategic Assessment of
Factors Influencing Costs, January 2000. Existing Planning Models

Are Not Adequate for Determining the Number of Personnel and Equipment
Needed to Meet Fire- Fighting Policy Objectives

Page 10 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

now being achieved because of historical differences in the missions of the
five land management agencies.

The Forest Service and Interior agencies are currently using three different
computer planning models to identify the personnel and equipment needed to
respond to and suppress wildland fires. 3 As a result, each model reflects
different fire- fighting objectives and approaches in calculating the level
of resources needed to fight fires safely and cost- effectively in terms of
its own mission and responsibilities. This disparate approach is
inconsistent with the current national fire management policy, which calls
upon the agencies to use a coordinated and consistent approach to fire
management planning.

More importantly, each of the models only considers the fire- fighting
resources available on the lands for which the agency has direct fire
protection responsibilities. According to agency officials, this approach
has been the general practice for fire management planning. Fire protection
of nonfederal lands, including lands in the wildland- urban interface that
pose direct risks to communities, are not incorporated into the models. Yet,
as set out in the national fire policy, these are the areas that are
currently the focus of determining appropriate fire preparedness levels.
Moreover, since wildland fires do not respect agency or other administrative
boundaries, the policy states that fire management planning must be
conducted across federal boundaries, on a landscape scale. However, none of
the models are currently designed to achieve this objective. Because the
models focus only on federal lands and the personnel and equipment available
at the local unit, they do not consider the fire- fighting resources that
are available from state and local fire authorities. These resources could
decrease the need for federal firefighting personnel and equipment in
certain areas. As a result of these problems with the computer models, the
Forest Service and Interior are not able to adequately determine the number
of fire- fighting personnel and equipment needed to meet fire- fighting
policy objectives in the most costeffective manner. The Forest Service and
Interior have acknowledged our concerns and are reviewing how best to
replace the three different computer planning models currently being used.

3 The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs use the Interagency Initial Attack Analysis model under the National
Fire Management Analysis System. The National Park Service uses the FIREPRO
model, and the Fish and Wildlife Service uses the FireBase model.

Page 11 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

A revised system for determining the resources needed would also help the
agencies be responsive to congressional concerns. Past appropriations
committee reports have directed the Forest Service and Interior to provide
more detailed budget submissions on fire management planning and to base
these submissions on common methods and procedures. These reports also
directed the agencies to have a coordinated approach for calculating
readiness, including consideration of the resources available from state and
local fire authorities. The agencies are in the early stages of replacing
the models with an interagency, landscape- scale fire planning and budget
system that is expected to provide a single, uniform, and performance- based
system for preparedness and fire management planning. We are encouraged by
this initiative but remain concerned over its implementation because the
agencies have acknowledged that, even with aggressive scheduling, full
implementation may take 4 to 6 years. Until then, fire management planning
will not comply with current fire policy, continue to be conducted based on
each agency?s missions, and remain focused within the boundaries of each
local federal unit.

While the agencies don?t have a clear sense of the total resources they need
to effectively conduct their fire- fighting activities, the Forest Service
and Interior have nonetheless made progress in acquiring more firefighting
personnel and equipment with the additional funding received under the
National Fire Plan. However, as of September 30, 2001, they had not reached
the full level of preparedness they had identified as necessary to carry out
the objectives of the plan. Most of the Interior agencies are likely to
reach their full level of preparedness in fiscal year 2002, while the Forest
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service will not reach this level until
2003 or later.

Prior to the initiation of the National Fire Plan, the Forest Service and
Interior estimated they were at about 74 percent and about 83 percent,
respectively, of their desired preparedness levels. To increase these
levels, the agencies needed to hire, develop, and support additional fire
managers and fire fighters; and procure more fire- fighting equipment. The
funding received in fiscal year 2001 is designed to help the agencies
achieve these goals.

The agencies are making good progress in hiring additional personnel. As of
September 30, 2001, the Forest Service had filled about 98 percent of its
needed positions and the Interior agencies, in aggregate, had filled over 83
percent of their positions. Because the availability of experienced
firefighting personnel was limited and the agencies were competing for the
Agencies Have Not

Yet Obtained All of the Additional FireFighting Personnel and Equipment to
Meet Needs They Identified

Page 12 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

same personnel in many cases, the agencies were not able to hire all of the
fire- fighting personnel identified as needed in fiscal year 2001. The
agencies have initiated new recruiting and outreach programs and expect to
hire the remaining personnel they need by the 2002 fire season. Table 2
shows the status of the agencies? efforts in acquiring personnel.

Table 2: Status of Agency Efforts to Acquire the Number of Fire- Fighting
Personnel Identified as Needed, as of September 30, 2001

Temporary positions Permanent positions a All positions b Agency

2001 total positions

needed 2001

actual positions

Percent of needed

positions acquired

2001 total positions

needed 2001

actual positions

Percent of needed

positions acquired

2001 total positions

needed 2001

actual positions

Percent of needed

positions acquired

Bureau of Land Management 1,731 1,402 81.0 1, 895 1,296 68.4 3, 626 2,698
74.4 Bureau of Indian Affairs 864 714 82.6 1, 013 1,104 109.0 1, 877 1,818
96.9 Fish and Wildlife Service 110 126 114.5 328 291 88.7 438 417 95.2
National Park Service 244 239 98.0 411 325 79.1 655 564 86.1

Total for the Interior agencies 2,949 2,481 84.1 3, 647 3,016 82.7 6, 596
5,497 83.3 Forest Service 5, 591 5,483 98.1 5, 416 5,267 97.2 11,007 10,750
97.7

a Permanent positions include both permanent and career seasonal positions.
b These numbers would fluctuate depending on the time of year due to the
seasonal workforce and fire season. Source: Bureau of Land Management;
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service;
and the Forest Service.

Regarding equipment, by the end of fiscal year 2002, most of the Interior
agencies are likely to have all the fire- fighting equipment they identified
as needed for implementing the National Fire Plan. 4 During fiscal year
2001, the Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs ordered the
equipment it needed, but about 31 percent of the equipment will not be
delivered until fiscal year 2002. This specialized equipment, such as fire

4 The National Park Service did not need any additional equipment to meet
its full level of preparedness.

Page 13 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

engines and water tenders, had to be built after contracting for its
purchase, which delayed its delivery.

The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have made much less
progress in purchasing the equipment they said they needed to achieve their
fire- fighting preparedness goals. The Forest Service did not include in its
budget request all of the necessary funds to procure equipment and pay for
associated costs. 5 Forest Service officials told us that this incomplete
request was an oversight on their part. This underestimate of equipment and
associated costs resulted in a total budget shortfall of about $101 million
in fiscal year 2001, according to Forest Service estimates. Consequently,
the agency has not been able to procure hundreds of pieces of fire- fighting
equipment fire engines, bulldozers, water tenders, and trucks and associated
supplies for the equipment or cover expenses for some other operating costs
that are required if the agency is to reach its full level of fire- fighting
preparedness. Until this equipment is acquired, a few fire managers are
taking measures to compensate for these shortcomings, such as contracting
for needed equipment with state and private suppliers. According to the
Forest Service, the agency may not attain the level of fire- fighting
capacity it originally envisioned in the National Fire Plan until fiscal
year 2003 at the earliest.

Like the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service is not certain when
it will get the equipment it identified as needed to implement the National
Fire Plan. In October 2000, the agency did not take the opportunity it had
to request funds for equipment to carry out the plan?s objectives. As a
result, the agency did not have about $10 million it estimated needing to
purchase 90 pieces of fire- fighting equipment it identified as necessary.
According to Fish and Wildlife Service officials, they were not aware that
they could request additional one- time funds to purchase more equipment.
Fish and Wildlife Service officials also told us they have no plans to
request additional funding for their equipment.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the departments acknowledged that
the full level of preparedness as identified under the National Fire Plan
was not reached by the end of fiscal year 2001. They stated that the Forest
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service will reach this level in 2003 or
early 2004. They also said that in order to maintain the full level of

5 Associated costs included supplies, funds to pay for personnel change of
stations, and general overhead and administrative costs.

Page 14 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

preparedness in 2003 and beyond, the funding level may need to increase to
keep pace with inflation and new standards and requirements for crew safety,
initial attack effectiveness, and direct and indirect management oversight
and support such as salaries, aviation contracts, and facility maintenance.

Even though they have received over $800 million to increase their
firefighting capacity, the Forest Service and Interior have not yet
identified the results they expect to achieve with these additional
resources. It, therefore, will be difficult to determine the extent to which
these additional personnel and equipment have increased the level of
firefighting preparedness.

Both the Forest Service and Interior recognize the need to develop methods
for determining the impact of the hundreds of millions of dollars provided
to increase fire- fighting capacity. To facilitate such accountability, both
the Forest Service and Interior have developed performance measures.
However, the measures do not focus on the results to be achieved and are not
consistent among the agencies.

The Forest Service?s performance measure is designed to provide information
on the amount of personnel and equipment it has to respond to a fire. This
information will only indicate the amount of resources the Forest Service is
using to address its fire- fighting needs. 6 It will not indicate whether
the agency has improved the effectiveness of its fire fighting with the
additional personnel and equipment.

The Interior agencies, on the other hand, have a performance measure that
focuses on the goals they expect to achieve with their fire- fighting
resources. However, the performance measure they are using is not
specifically tied to the increased fire- fighting resources provided under
the National Fire Plan. Instead, the Interior agencies are using the same
goal they had prior to receiving additional resources provided to implement
the

6 The Forest Service is measuring its wildland fire preparedness performance
by whether it achieves its Fire Fighter Production Capability (FFPC) goals.
FFPC equates to staffing levels of initial attack resources identified at
the Most Efficient Level budget option using the Forest Service?s computer
planning model. FFPC reflects the ability of funded resources to produce
fire line, measured in chains of production per hour. Agencies Have Not

Identified the Results They Expect to Achieve with the Additional Funding
Provided under the National Fire Plan

Page 15 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

plan. Specifically, the Interior agencies? objective is to contain 95
percent of all fires during initial attack. 7

Even if the agencies? performance measures were more results- oriented, they
would only fulfill the requirements of the national fire policy if they were
also consistent with each other. However, the measures are not consistent.
The agencies were unable to provide us with a rationale for why the measures
are not consistent.

The Forest Service and Interior acknowledge that the development of a common
set of results- oriented performance measures is critical to implementing
the National Fire Plan?s fire- fighting preparedness objectives. They are
now working together to develop a common set of wildland fire management
performance measures that will be resultsoriented, measurable, valid, and
connected to the goals contained in the National Fire Plan. However, agency
officials estimate that the planned completion date for developing and
implementing these measures will be late in fiscal year 2004- more than 4
years after the increased funding was provided.

Until the implementation of the National Fire Plan in 2001, both the Forest
Service and the Interior agencies used a similar method to account for their
fire- fighting personnel costs. However, beginning in fiscal year 2001, the
Forest Service changed its accounting method for these costs. As a result,
the agencies do not now use a consistent approach for collecting and
reporting on fire- fighting costs, which makes budget cost comparisons and
analyses more difficult.

When the Forest Service prepares its annual budget for wildland fire
management activities, the costs for personnel normally assigned to
managerial, administrative, and other staff positions in the fire program
are budgeted for in the ?Wildland Fire Preparedness? account. Personnel in
these categories are also frequently assigned to help fight wildland fires
during the fire season. When these staff were assigned to a wildland fire

7 A successful initial attack occurs when a fire is controlled by the units
first dispatched to an incident without a significant augmentation of
reinforcements, thereby preventing further extension of the fire. Typically,
initial attack fires are controlled within the first 48 hours or are kept to
less than 100 acres. The actual percent of fires contained through initial
attack can vary depending on uncontrollable factors such as weather, fuel
condition, and fire season severity. Forest Service and

Interior Use Different Methods for Reporting FireFighting Personnel Costs

Page 16 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

prior to fiscal year 2001, the first 8 hours of their workday their base
hours were charged to the preparedness account where the funds were
originally budgeted. Any additional time spent working on wildland fires
above their base hours was charged to the ?Wildland Fire Suppression?
account. However, starting in fiscal year 2001, the first year of the
National Fire Plan, the Forest Service directed its personnel to charge all
of their time to the suppression account when assigned to a wildland fire.

According to the director of program and budget analysis, the Forest Service
made the accounting change to better reflect the cost of wildland fire
suppression. 8 We have previously supported this type of accounting for
personnel costs because it better tracks how these costs are actually
incurred rather than as budgeted. The change will reduce costs charged to
the Forest Service?s preparedness activities and increase costs charged to
its suppression activities when compared with years past and with Interior?s
accounting for its costs charged to similar activities. Because the Forest
Service and Interior now use different methods of accounting for the cost of
personnel assigned to wildland fires, it will now be much more difficult for
the Congress and other decisionmakers to compare and analyze budget and cost
information on the fire preparedness and suppression activities of the
agencies at a national level.

It is important to note that this accounting change will likely affect the
Forest Service?s fire- fighting budgets in future years. Over time, this
accounting change is likely to result in an overall increase in the cost of
fighting wildland fires in the Forest Service. As more and more managerial
and administrative personnel are assigned to fire suppression activities,
the total costs for these activities will increase. Since suppression
budgets are based on a 10- year rolling average of suppression costs, future
suppression budgets will increase. This situation will also add to the
difficulty of comparing and analyzing Forest Service and Interior fire
activities over time.

To effectively reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, the Forest Service and
Interior are engaged in a long- term effort to reduce the large buildup of
underbrush and other vegetative fuels that have accumulated to dangerous
levels over the past several decades. This will ultimately reduce the

8 U. S. General Accounting Office, Forest Service: A Framework for Improving
Accountability, GAO/ RCED/ AIMD- 00- 2, (Washington, D. C.:, Oct. 13, 1999).
Conclusions

Page 17 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

number of large catastrophic fires that occur annually. However, until the
Forest Service and Interior make progress in this area, it is even more
critical to have adequate levels of personnel and equipment available to
fight the intense, quick- spreading wildland fires that characterize current
conditions in many areas. As the national fire plan and its underlying
policy envision, these fire- fighting preparedness efforts will be much more
effective if the agencies involved coordinate their efforts.

The federal agencies have made progress in enhancing their fire- fighting
capacity, but much work remains. Most fire management plans have yet to be
updated so that they are consistent with current policy requirements. Until
then, the coordinated approach to fire fighting called for in the National
Fire Plan- having the agencies? plans reach beyond individual administrative
boundaries- will not be realized. Moreover, it may be 6 years before the
agencies develop an integrated, more consistent planning and budget system
that includes a single model that incorporates information from updated fire
management plans. Without this system in place, the results of the models
currently being used cannot be relied upon for effectively identifying fire-
fighting personnel and equipment needs.

While the agencies are developing these plans and a new planning and
budgeting system, they cannot now measure the results achieved with their
additional personnel and equipment. The agencies plan to have consistent,
results- oriented performance measures in place by fiscal year 2004. Until
then, the Congress and the public cannot readily compare results across
agencies. Accountability would be further enhanced if both the Forest
Service and the Interior agencies were using the same accounting methods for
collecting and reporting on fire preparedness and fire suppression costs.
Since they are not, Congress and the public have no consistent basis for
comparing or analyzing these costs or associated budget requests.

For the most part, the agencies acknowledge the need for improvements in
each of these areas and have plans to address them. We are concerned,
however, that these improvements may not occur expeditiously. It has been 7
years since establishment of the national fire policy where the agencies
first acknowledged the need to address many of these issues. Nonetheless,
they are only now- with the impetus provided by the National Fire Plan
developing implementation plans and strategies for addressing them. Given
this history and the added need to make certain that the substantial
increase in funding that has come with the plan is used most efficiently, it
is critical that the agencies be held accountable for following through on
their plans for improvements. To make sure this

Page 18 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

occurs will require sustained monitoring and oversight by top agency
officials and the Congress. If and when these improvements are completed,
the agencies and the Congress will have a more credible basis for
determining fire- fighting preparedness needs.

In order to better meet the objectives of the National Fire Plan and improve
the Forest Service?s and Interior?s ability to identify their firefighting
preparedness needs, we recommend that the secretaries of agriculture and of
the interior require the heads of their respective fire agencies to ensure
that ongoing initiatives to address weaknesses in their preparedness efforts
are fully implemented in a timely and consistent manner and across the
agencies. In particular, the agencies need to

 ensure that fire management plans are completed expeditiously for all
burnable acres and are consistent with the national fire policy;

 establish a single planning and budgeting system, applicable to all fire
agencies, to determine fire- fighting personnel and equipment needs in
accordance with up- to- date fire management plans; and

 develop performance measures identifying the results to be achieved with
the personnel and equipment obtained with the additional funding provided
under the National Fire Plan.

We also recommend that the secretary of interior require the Interior
agencies to change their method for allocating and reporting fire- fighting
personnel costs- similar to the method now being used by the Forest Service
to better reflect the cost of wildland fire suppression.

We provided a draft of this report to the departments of agriculture and of
the interior for review and comment. The departments provided a consolidated
response to our report. They generally agreed with our recommendations to
better identify their fire- fighting preparedness needs and provided
additional information on the initiatives being taken. However, in
commenting on our recommendation dealing with the development of performance
measures to identify the results they are achieving under the National Fire
Plan, the departments indicated they had already developed such measures. We
disagree. The departments acknowledge elsewhere in their response that more
work is needed to establish common performance measures and recent meetings
with department officials have indicated that agreement on common measures
has not yet been obtained. Recommendations for

Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 19 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

In commenting on this report, the departments expressed concerns that our
report (1) did not give the departments enough credit for the progress they
have made to increase their fire- fighting capacity under the National Fire
Plan; (2) suggests that by simply updating fire management plans, fire
managers will then be allowed to implement ?let burn? decisions; and (3)
infers that allowing more fires to burn naturally will automatically provide
greater public and fire fighter safety.

With respect to the first issue, we acknowledge the difficulty of the
departments? tasks under the National Fire Plan and, as noted in the report,
recognize that the agencies have made progress in increasing their fire-
fighting preparedness needs. We also agree it is important to look at
results under the plan to place in proper perspective the issue of
accountability in fire- fighting preparedness. However, 1 year after
receiving $830 million in additional preparedness funding under the National
Fire Plan in fiscal year 2001, the agencies are still putting out the same
percentage of fires at initial attack. To us, it is reasonable to expect
that with the substantial increase in preparedness funds and the increased
resources that these funds allowed the agencies to acquire, the results
achieved would have been greater than they were in the past year.

Second, the departments stated that the full range of fire fighting options
outlined in a local unit?s fire management plan, including a ?let burn?
option, can only be used when the overall land management plan provides for
them. In this regard, they noted that in many cases land management plans
have not been updated to reflect the full range of fire- fighting options as
outlined in fire management plans. As a result, they contend that until the
land management plans are updated, the fire management plans that are out of
date cannot be revised to include all fire- fighting options, such as a ?let
burn? option. However, according to the 2001 update to the national fire
policy, ?the existence of obsolete land management plans should not be
reason for failure to complete or update Fire Management Plans.?

Third, the departments stated that our report appears to state that allowing
more fires to burn naturally will automatically provide greater public and
fire fighter safety. We disagree. Our report states that fire management
plans provide fire managers with direction on the level of suppression
needed and whether a fire should be allowed to burn as a natural event to
regenerate ecosystems or reduce fuel loading in areas with large amounts of
underbrush and other vegetative fuels.

Page 20 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Where appropriate, we have incorporated the departments? position on the
different issues discussed in the report. The departments? comments appear
in appendix II.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the secretary of agriculture; the secretary of the interior; the chief of
the Forest Service; and the directors of the Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service; deputy commissioner,
Bureau of Indian Affairs; director, Office of Management and Budget; and
other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon
request. This report will also be available on GAO?s home page at http://
www. gao. gov/.

Page 21 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 3841.

Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Page 22 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

List of Requesters: The Honorable Larry Craig Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources United States Senate

The Honorable James Hansen Chairman, Committee on Resources House of
Representatives

The Honorable Scott McInnis Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health Committee on Resources House of Representatives

The Honorable Joe Skeen Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior Committee on
Appropriations House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte Chairman, Subcommittee on Department Operations,
Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee on Agriculture House of
Representatives

The Honorable Don Young House of Representatives

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 23 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire
Management

The overall objective of this review was to determine how the federal land
management agencies the Forest Service within the Department of Agriculture
and the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior
prepare for wildland fires while meeting key objectives of the National Fire
Plan. A primary objective of the plan is to ensure an adequate level of
fire- fighting preparedness for coming fire seasons.

Specifically, to assess the effectiveness of the agencies? efforts to
determine the amount of fire- fighting personnel and equipment needed, we
reviewed the extent to which the agencies adopted fire management plans as
required by the national fire policy and the types and scope of computer
planning models that the agencies use to determine their desired level of
fire- fighting preparedness needs. We discussed these issues with officials
at the five agencies? headquarters offices and at the National Interagency
Fire Center, in Boise, Idaho; BLM state and district offices, selected
national forests, national parks, and state offices, and the National
Academy of Public Administration. We also obtained, reviewed, and analyzed
supporting documentation, such as laws, regulations, policies, and reports
on wildland fires. Table 3 shows the sites we visited.

Table 3: Sites Visited by GAO Agency and site State Forest Service

Boise National Forest Idaho Gallatin National Forest Montana George
Washington- Jefferson National Forest Virginia Humboldt- Toiyabe National
Forest Nevada Lolo National Forest Montana National Forests of North
Carolina North Carolina Stanislaus National Forest California Tahoe National
Forest California Region 1 Montana Region 4 Idaho, Nevada, & Utah Region 5
California

National Park Service

Great Smoky Mountains National Park North Carolina & Tennessee Shenandoah
National Park Virginia Yellowstone National Park Wyoming Yosemite National
Park California

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 24 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire
Management

Agency and site State Bureau of Land Management

Boise State and district offices Idaho Reno State and district offices
Nevada

National Interagency Fire Center

Office of the Director Idaho Joint Fire Science Research Program Idaho

State

Idaho State Forester Idaho

We selected these sites to (1) meet with National Interagency Fire Center
officials and the Interior agencies? wildland fire managers who are located
in Boise, Idaho, (2) obtain geographical dispersion of sites between eastern
and western states, although more western sites were selected because more
wildland fires occurring in those areas, and/ or (3) to visit sites
identified by agency officials as having recent fire history or as being
good examples of fire- fighting preparedness. In addition, we selected more
of the Forest Service?s sites than sites from other agencies because the
Forest Service receives most of the fire- related funding.

To determine the status of the agencies? efforts to acquire additional
firefighting resources, we contacted each of the five land management
agencies to obtain information on the number of temporary and permanent
positions acquired as of September 30, 2001, and compared this information
with the number of positions needed to meet the agencies? desired level of
fire- fighting resources. We also obtained information from these agencies
on the amount of fire- fighting equipment obtained with the increase in
funding that they had identified as needed to carry out the objectives of
the National Fire Plan.

To determine the results that the agencies expected to achieve with their
additional fire- fighting resources as determined through performance
measures, we obtained documentation from the land management agencies and
discussed with agency officials their management practices, including how
they measure their progress in meeting fire- fighting preparedness
objectives under the National Fire Plan.

Finally, to determine whether the Forest Service and Interior were
consistently reporting their fire- fighting personnel costs, we obtained
information on the practices the agencies use to report their fire- fighting
personnel costs. We compared any differences between the Forest Service and
the Interior agencies on their practices in accounting for their
firefighting preparedness funds.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 25 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire
Management

We conducted our work from February 2001 through January 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior

Page 26 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix II: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior

Appendix II: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior

Page 27 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix II: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior

Page 28 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix II: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior

Page 29 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix II: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior

Page 30 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix II: Comments from the Departments of Agriculture and of the
Interior

Page 31 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 32 GAO- 02- 158 Wildland Fire Management

Barry T. Hill (202) 512- 3841 Cliff Fowler (202) 512- 8029

In addition to those named above, Paul Bollea; Frank Kovalak; Paul Lacey;
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and, in special memory, our colleague and friend,
John Murphy made key contributions to this report. Appendix III: GAO
Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments

(360036)

The General Accounting Office, the 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 is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select "Subscribe to daily e- mail alert for newly released products" under
the GAO Reports heading.

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. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

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

GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1-( 800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 (automated
answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***