Wildland Fire Management: Progress and Future Challenges,	 
Protecting Structures, and Improving Communications (26-APR-05,  
GAO-05-627T).							 
                                                                 
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).							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-627T					        
    ACCNO:   A22721						        
  TITLE:     Wildland Fire Management: Progress and Future Challenges,
Protecting Structures, and Improving Communications		 
     DATE:   04/26/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Cost control					 
	     Emergency preparedness				 
	     Forest management					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Land management					 
	     National forests					 
	     Property						 
	     Radio frequency allocation 			 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Technical assistance				 
	     Wilderness areas					 
	     Wildfires						 
	     Wildland fires					 
	     Forest Service/Dept. of the Interior		 
	     LANDFIRE System					 
                                                                 
	     National Fire Plan 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-627T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT WILDLAND FIRE

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

MANAGEMENT

      Progress and Future Challenges, Protecting Structures, and Improving
                                 Communications

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director Natural Resources and Environment

GAO-05-627T

Highlights of GAO-05-627T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.Senate

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
fireprone 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).

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.

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 [email protected].

April 26, 2005

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Progress and Future Challenges, Protecting Structures, and Improving
Communications

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.

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
longterm response to wildland fire problems.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.

1GAO, 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).

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

o  	establishing a priority to protect communities near wildlands-called
the wildland-urban interface;

o  	increasing the amount of effort and funds available for addressing
firerelated concerns, such as fuel reduction on federal lands;

o  	improving data and research on wildland fire, local fire management
plans, interagency coordination, and collaboration with nonfederal
partners; and

o  	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

o  	developing data systems needed to identify the extent, severity, and
location of wildland fire threats to the nation's communities and
ecosystems;

o  	updating local fire management plans to better specify the actions
needed to effectively address these threats; and

o  	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

Background

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.

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
costeffectiveness 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, longterm,
federal wildland fire management strategy was needed.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.

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.

Important Progress Has Been Made in Addressing Federal Wildland Fire
Management Problems over the Last 5 Years

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

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

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

Agencies Face Several Challenges to Completing a Long-Needed Cohesive
Strategy for Reducing Fuels and Responding to Wildland Fire Problems

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.

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
wildlandurban interface communities more effectively-as well as more
costeffectively-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
systemwhen 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
effortthe Quadrennial Fire and Fuels Reviewis 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.

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 2001.3 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,

3Report to the Western Governors on the Implementation of the 10-Year
Comprehensive Strategy, Western Governors' Association Forest Health
Advisory Committee (Denver, Colo.: 2004).

A Recent Western Governors' Association Report Is Consistent with GAO's
Findings and Recommendation

Conclusions

and cost-effectiveness in fuel reductions--all challenges we have
emphasized today.

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.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
highintensity 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

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

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 today5
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.6

                                    Summary

In summary, we found the following:

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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

5GAO, Technology Assessment: Protecting Structures and Improving
Communications during Wildland Fires, GAO-05-380 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
26, 2005).

6Our report also includes information on the use of military resources for
wildland firefighting.

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:

o  	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.

o  	Crown fires burn the tops, or crowns, of trees. Crown fires normally
begin as surface fires and move up the trees by burning "ladder fuel,"
such as nearby shrubs or low tree branches. Crown fires create intense
heat and if close enough-within approximately 100 feet-can ignite portions
of structures even without direct contact from flames.

o  	Spot fires are started by embers, or "firebrands," that can be carried
a mile or more away from the main fire, depending on wind conditions.
Firebrands can ignite a structure by landing on the roof or by entering a
vent or other opening 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 landuse
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.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.

7Radio 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.

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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.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.

o  	Fire behavior modeling has been used to predict wildland fire
behavior, but these models do not accurately predict fire behavior in the
wildlandurban 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.

o  	Automated detection systems use infrared, ultraviolet, or
temperaturesensitive sensors9 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

8For 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).

9Infrared 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.

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

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.

Many homeowners have not used protective measures-such as creating and
maintaining defensible space-for four primary reasons:

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.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,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 Plan12, 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
fireresistant roofing materials in certain at-risk areas. Officials of one
county we visited attributed the relatively few houses damaged by the 2003

10In 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.

11Firewise 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.

12The 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.

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

Southern California fires in the county, in part, to its adoption and
enforcement of laws requiring defensible space and the use of
fireresistant 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.

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:

o  	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.

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

o  	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:

o  	Project 25 radios, which must meet a set of standards for digital
twoway 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.

o  	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.

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

13In some cases, this is the Internet; and in others, it is a private data
network.

14See GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable
Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
6, 2003).

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,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.

15The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program,
otherwise known as SAFECOM, was first established as an Office of
Management and Budget e-initiative in 2001.

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

(360580)

For further information on this testimony, please contact me at (202)
512-3841 or [email protected], or Keith Rhodes at (202) 512-6412 or
[email protected]. 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.

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

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

To Report Fraud, Contact:

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

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

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

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***