Forest Service
Emerging Issues Highlight the Need to Address Persistent Management Challenges Gao ID: GAO-09-443T March 11, 2009The Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, manages over 190 million acres of forest and grassland. The agency is responsible for managing its lands for various purposes--including recreation, grazing, timber harvesting, and others--while ensuring that such activities do not impair the lands' long-term productivity. Carrying out these often competing responsibilities has been made more difficult by the increasing cost of wildland fires and the budgetary constraints necessitated by our nation's long-term fiscal outlook. This testimony highlights some of the major management challenges the Forest Service faces in carrying out its land management responsibilities. It is based on numerous reports GAO has issued on a wide variety of the agency's activities.
While the Forest Service has made improvements in many areas GAO has reported on in recent years, certain management challenges persist--with the agency struggling to manage a worsening wildland fire problem and spiraling fire costs, collect data on its activities and their costs, and demonstrate financial and performance accountability to Congress and the public. Several emerging issues facing the agency underscore the urgency of addressing these challenges. The Forest Service continues to lack strategies for using its wildland fire management funds effectively. In numerous reports over the past decade, GAO has highlighted the challenges the Forest Service faces in protecting the nation against the threat of wildland fires. While the agency has taken important steps to improve its wildland fire management, other key steps remain. Specifically, the agency needs to (1) develop a cohesive strategy laying out various potential long-term approaches for addressing wildland fire, the estimated costs associated with each approach, and the trade-offs involved; (2) establish clear goals and a strategy to help contain increasing wildland fire costs; (3) continue improving its processes for allocating funds and selecting projects to reduce potentially hazardous vegetation; and (4) take steps to improve its use of a new interagency budgeting and planning tool. Program management suffers from lack of data on activities and costs. GAO's work over the years points to a persistent shortcoming in the Forest Service's management of its activities: the lack of adequate data on program activities and costs. This shortcoming spans multiple land management programs, including programs for selling timber and rehabilitating and reforesting lands that have been burned, as well as administrative functions such as the competitive sourcing program, which aims to increase competition between federal entities and private sector organizations. Inadequate data have hindered field managers in carrying out their duties and prevented the agency from understanding how much its activities are costing. Financial and performance accountability have been inadequate. The Forest Service has struggled to implement adequate internal controls over its funds, generate accurate financial information, and provide clear measures of what it accomplishes with the appropriations it receives every year. GAO's concerns about these issues date back to the 1990s but have yet to be fully addressed. Several emerging issues underscore the need for the Forest Service to improve its management. The evolving effects of climate change, increasing development in and near wildlands, the aging of the federal workforce, and our nation's long-term fiscal condition likely will have profound implications for the agency and magnify the urgency of addressing these challenges.
GAO-09-443T, Forest Service: Emerging Issues Highlight the Need to Address Persistent Management Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-443T
entitled 'Forest Service: Emerging Issues Highlight the Need to Address
Persistent Management Challenges' which was released on March 11, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, March 11, 2009:
Forest Service:
Emerging Issues Highlight the Need to Address Persistent Management
Challenges:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-09-443T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-443T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, manages over
190 million acres of forest and grassland. The agency is responsible
for managing its lands for various purposes”including recreation,
grazing, timber harvesting, and others”while ensuring that such
activities do not impair the lands‘ long-term productivity. Carrying
out these often competing responsibilities has been made more difficult
by the increasing cost of wildland fires and the budgetary constraints
necessitated by our nation‘s long-term fiscal outlook.
This testimony highlights some of the major management challenges the
Forest Service faces in carrying out its land management
responsibilities. It is based on numerous reports GAO has issued on a
wide variety of the agency‘s activities.
What GAO Found:
While the Forest Service has made improvements in many areas GAO has
reported on in recent years, certain management challenges persist”with
the agency struggling to manage a worsening wildland fire problem and
spiraling fire costs, collect data on its activities and their costs,
and demonstrate financial and performance accountability to Congress
and the public. Several emerging issues facing the agency underscore
the urgency of addressing these challenges.
The Forest Service continues to lack strategies for using its wildland
fire management funds effectively. In numerous reports over the past
decade, GAO has highlighted the challenges the Forest Service faces in
protecting the nation against the threat of wildland fires. While the
agency has taken important steps to improve its wildland fire
management, other key steps remain. Specifically, the agency needs to
(1) develop a cohesive strategy laying out various potential long-term
approaches for addressing wildland fire, the estimated costs associated
with each approach, and the trade-offs involved; (2) establish clear
goals and a strategy to help contain increasing wildland fire costs;
(3) continue improving its processes for allocating funds and selecting
projects to reduce potentially hazardous vegetation; and (4) take steps
to improve its use of a new interagency budgeting and planning tool.
Program management suffers from lack of data on activities and costs.
GAO‘s work over the years points to a persistent shortcoming in the
Forest Service‘s management of its activities: the lack of adequate
data on program activities and costs. This shortcoming spans multiple
land management programs, including programs for selling timber and
rehabilitating and reforesting lands that have been burned, as well as
administrative functions such as the competitive sourcing program,
which aims to increase competition between federal entities and private
sector organizations. Inadequate data have hindered field managers in
carrying out their duties and prevented the agency from understanding
how much its activities are costing.
Financial and performance accountability have been inadequate. The
Forest Service has struggled to implement adequate internal controls
over its funds, generate accurate financial information, and provide
clear measures of what it accomplishes with the appropriations it
receives every year. GAO‘s concerns about these issues date back to the
1990s but have yet to be fully addressed.
Several emerging issues underscore the need for the Forest Service to
improve its management. The evolving effects of climate change,
increasing development in and near wildlands, the aging of the federal
workforce, and our nation‘s long-term fiscal condition likely will have
profound implications for the agency and magnify the urgency of
addressing these challenges.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO has made a number of recommendations intended to improve the Forest
Service‘s wildland fire management, strengthen its collection of data,
and increase accountability. The Forest Service has taken steps to
implement many of these recommendations”by, for example, improving its
processes for allocating funds to reduce potentially hazardous
vegetation, and issuing guidance to strengthen financial controls”but
has been slow to take action on others.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-443T] or key
components. For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro at (202) 512-
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss management challenges facing
the Forest Service. As the steward of millions of acres of national
forest and grassland, the Forest Service, within the Department of
Agriculture, is responsible for a wide array of programs to ensure
access to and use of the natural resources within its lands while also
ensuring adequate protection for those lands. Carrying out these often
competing responsibilities has presented a daunting challenge to the
agency, exacerbated by the increasing cost of wildland fires and the
budgetary constraints necessitated by our nation's long-term fiscal
outlook. In recent years we have issued numerous reports on a wide
variety of the Forest Service's activities. My testimony today includes
findings from a number of those reports,[Footnote 1] focusing on
management challenges in three key areas: (1) wildland fire management,
(2) data on program activities and costs, and (3) financial and
performance accountability. I will also discuss a number of emerging
issues facing the Forest Service, which increase the importance of
addressing these management challenges.
Background:
The Forest Service manages about 193 million acres of land,
encompassing 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. Laws
guiding the management of the forests require that the Forest Service
manage its lands for various purposes--including recreation; rangeland;
wilderness; and the protection of watersheds, fish, and wildlife--and
to ensure that the agency's management of the lands does not impair
their long-term productivity. In managing its lands in accordance with
these principles, the agency provides a variety of goods and services.
Goods include timber, natural gas, oil, minerals, and range for
livestock to graze. Watersheds on Forest Service lands provide drinking
water to thousands of communities, and the national forests themselves
offer recreational opportunities to the public, such as camping,
hiking, and rafting.
In recent years, appropriations for the Forest Service have totaled
about $5 billion annually, with wildland fire management activities--
such as reducing potentially flammable vegetation, preparing for and
fighting fires, and rehabilitating burned lands--consuming a
substantial portion of the agency's budget. The Forest Service employs
about 30,000 people and operates hundreds of regional, forest, and
ranger district offices nationwide.
Over the past decade, we and others have identified numerous management
challenges facing the Forest Service and made many recommendations to
improve the agency and its programs. While the agency has improved some
areas, progress has been lacking in other key areas, and management
challenges remain. Addressing these challenges is becoming more
pressing in the face of certain emerging issues.
The Forest Service Continues to Lack Short-or Long-Term Strategies for
Using Wildland Fire Management Funds Effectively:
Perhaps the most daunting challenge facing the Forest Service is the
dramatic worsening of our nation's wildland fire problem over the past
decade. The average annual acreage burned by wildland fires has
increased by about 70 percent since the 1990s, while the Forest
Service's wildland fire-related appropriations have more than doubled
in that time, from about $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 to almost $2.2
billion in fiscal year 2007,[Footnote 2] representing over 40 percent
of the agency's total 2007 appropriations. As we have previously
reported, a number of factors have contributed to worsening fire
seasons and increased firefighting expenditures, including an
accumulation of fuels due to past land management practices; drought
and other stresses, in part related to climate change; and an increase
in human development in or near wildlands. The Forest Service shares
responsibility for wildland fire management with four agencies of the
Department of the Interior (Interior)--the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
Service.
Since 1999, we have issued numerous reports calling for various
improvements in the Forest Service's approach to wildland fire
management. Most recently, we have focused on four primary steps we
believe the agency, in conjunction with Interior, needs to take to
better understand the extent of, and address, the nation's wildland
fire problems and to help contain rising federal expenditures for
responding to wildland fires.[Footnote 3] Specifically, we have called
on the Forest Service to:
* Develop a cohesive strategy that identifies options and associated
funding to reduce potentially hazardous vegetation and address wildland
fire problems. Despite our repeated calls for a cohesive wildland fire
strategy, the Forest Service has yet to develop one. In 1999, to
address the problem of excess fuels and their potential to increase the
severity of wildland fires and cost of suppression efforts, we
recommended that a cohesive strategy be developed to identify the
available long-term options for reducing fuels and the associated
funding requirements.[Footnote 4] By laying out various potential
approaches for addressing wildland fire, the estimated costs associated
with each approach, and the trade-offs involved, such a strategy would
help Congress and the agencies make informed decisions about effective
and affordable long-term approaches to addressing the nation's wildland
fire problems. Six years later, in 2005, we reiterated the need for a
cohesive strategy and broadened our recommendation's focus to better
address the interrelated nature of fuel reduction efforts and wildland
fire response.[Footnote 5] The Forest Service, along with the other
wildland fire agencies, has generally agreed that such a strategy is
necessary but has yet to develop one. In January 2009, agency officials
told us they were working to create such a cohesive strategy, although
they had no estimate of when the strategy would be completed.
* Establish clear goals and a strategy to help contain wildland fire
costs. In 2007 and 2008, we reported that the Forest Service was taking
a number of steps intended to help contain wildland fire costs,
including improving its decision-support tools for helping officials
select strategies for fighting wildland fires, but that the agency had
not clearly defined its cost-containment goals or developed a strategy
for achieving those goals--steps that are fundamental to sound program
management.[Footnote 6] Forest Service officials identified several
documents they argue provide clearly defined goals and objectives that
make up the agency's strategy to contain costs. In our view, however,
these documents lack the clarity and specificity needed by officials in
the field to help manage and contain wildland fire costs, and we
therefore continue to believe that our recommendations in this area, if
effectively implemented, would help the Forest Service better manage
its cost-containment efforts and improve its ability to contain
wildland fire costs.
* Continue to improve its processes for allocating fuel reduction funds
and selecting fuel reduction projects. Also in 2007 and 2008, we
reported on several shortcomings in the Forest Service's processes for
allocating fuel reduction funds to field units and selecting fuel
reduction projects, shortcomings that limited the agency's ability to
ensure that funds are directed where they will reduce risk most
effectively.[Footnote 7] The Forest Service has taken steps to improve
its processes for allocating fuel reduction funds, including the use of
a newly developed computer model to assist in making allocation
decisions, rather than relying primarily on historical funding patterns
and professional judgment. The agency is also taking steps to improve
the information it uses in allocating funds and selecting projects--
including information on wildland fire risk and fuel treatment
effectiveness--and to clarify the relative importance of the various
factors it considers when making allocation decisions. We believe the
Forest Service must continue these efforts so that it can more
effectively use its limited fuel reduction dollars.
* Take steps to improve its use of a new interagency budgeting and
planning tool. In 2008, we reported on the Forest Service's and
Interior's development of a new planning tool known as fire program
analysis, or FPA.[Footnote 8] FPA was intended, among other things, to
allow the agencies to analyze potential combinations of firefighting
assets, and potential strategies for reducing fuels and fighting fires,
to determine the most cost-effective mix of assets and strategies.
[Footnote 9] While recognizing that FPA represents a significant step
forward and shows promise in achieving certain of its objectives, we
believe the agencies' approach to FPA's development hampers the tool in
meeting other key objectives. First, FPA has but limited ability to
project the effects of different levels of fuel reduction treatments
and firefighting strategies over time, depriving agency officials of
information that could help them analyze the long-term impact of
changes in their approach to wildland fire management. Second, FPA, as
the agencies have developed it, cannot identify the most cost-effective
mix and location of firefighting assets for a given budget. Rather, it
analyzes a limited number of combinations of assets and strategies to
identify the most cost-effective among them. The Forest Service is now
beginning to use FPA to help develop its fiscal year 2011 budget
request. We made a number of recommendations designed to enhance FPA
and the agencies' ability to use it, and the Forest Service--in
conjunction with Interior--has identified several steps it is
considering taking to do so. It is not yet clear how successful these
steps will be, however--and, further, the steps the agencies have
outlined do not address all the shortcomings we identified. We continue
to believe that agency improvements are essential if the full potential
of FPA is to be realized.
In addition to these issues, we have also reported on the Forest
Service's difficulties funding fire suppression activities within its
appropriated wildland fire budget; in many years, the agency has
transferred money from other Forest Service programs to pay suppression
costs. We reported in 2004 that such transfers between programs had
caused projects to be delayed or canceled, strained relationships among
land managers at different agencies, and created management disruptions
within the Forest Service, and we recommended several measures to
minimize the impacts of funding transfers and to improve the estimates
on which the agencies base their wildland fire budgeting
requests.[Footnote 10] Nevertheless, fire-related funding transfers
continue, occurring in fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008--with the
Forest Service transferring $400 million from other programs in fiscal
year 2008 alone.
Lack of Complete and Accurate Data on Activities and Costs Continues to
Hamper Program Management:
Long-standing data problems have plagued the Forest Service, hampering
its ability to manage its programs and account for its costs and
reflecting deep-rooted and persistent shortcomings in the agency's
management of its activities. Without complete and accurate data, the
agency has difficulty carrying out tasks that are intrinsic to its land
management responsibilities--including recognizing and setting
priorities for needed work, tracking activities, and understanding the
true costs of its operations. Further, without an effective managerial
cost-accounting system, the agency will have difficulty monitoring
revenue and spending levels and making informed decisions about future
funding needs. We have made numerous recommendations aimed at the
Forest Service's data shortcomings regarding both activities and costs.
Forest Service Lacks Adequate Data on Land Management Activities:
In recent years we have identified several land management programs for
which the Forest Service lacks sufficient data, keeping the agency from
effectively overseeing its activities and understanding whether it is
using its appropriated dollars most efficiently. For example, in 2005,
we reported on data problems in the Forest Service's program for
reforestation--the planting and natural regeneration of trees--and
treatments to improve timber stands, such as thinning trees and
removing competing vegetation.[Footnote 11] Reforestation and
subsequent timber stand improvement are critical to restoring and
improving the health of our national forests after timber harvests--yet
the agency lacked sufficiently reliable data to accurately quantify its
specific needs, establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a
budget. A year later we reported on a similar shortfall in the agency's
program for rehabilitating and restoring lands unlikely to recover on
their own after wildland fires, noting that the agency lacked
nationwide data on the amount of needed rehabilitation and restoration
work it had completed for recent wildland fires.[Footnote 12] And in
2008, we reported that the Forest Service did not maintain complete
nationwide data on its use of stewardship contracting authority, under
which the agency can trade goods (such as timber) for services (such as
thinning forests or rangelands) that it would otherwise pay for with
appropriated dollars, and can enter into stewardship contracts lasting
up to 10 years.[Footnote 13] Although the Forest Service had recently
updated its timber sale accounting system to include certain data on
stewardship contracts, other data--such as the value of products sold
and services procured through agreements rather than contracts[Footnote
14]--were not systematically collected or were incomplete.
Data on the Costs of Forest Service Activities Are Likewise Incomplete:
In addition to data on its activities, the Forest Service also lacks
complete data on their costs. In 2006, we reported that the agency did
not have a managerial cost-accounting system in place with which it
could routinely analyze cost information.[Footnote 15] Managerial cost
accounting, rather than measuring only the cost of "inputs" such as
labor and materials, integrates financial and nonfinancial data, such
as the number of hours worked or number of acres treated, to measure
the cost of outputs and the activities that produce them. Such an
approach allows managers to routinely analyze cost information and use
it in making decisions about agency operations and permits a focus on
managing costs rather than simply managing budgets. Such information is
crucial for the Forest Service, as for all federal agencies, to make
difficult funding decisions in this era of limited budgets and
competing program priorities. In 2012, the Department of Agriculture is
scheduled to replace its current Foundation Financial Information
System with a new Financial Management Modernization Initiative system.
The new system is expected to incorporate managerial cost-accounting
capabilities, but the department has delegated responsibility for
implementation of managerial cost accounting to its component agencies.
The Forest Service's Chief Financial Officer stated at the time of our
2006 review that implementation of a managerial cost-accounting system
would not be a priority until outstanding financial reporting issues
had been resolved and that reliable and timely financial information
was necessary before pushing to develop managerial cost-accounting
information. Without a managerial cost-accounting system, however, the
Forest Service will continue to have difficulty developing realistic
and useful budgets and related cost-benefit analyses of its activities-
-essential tools for present and future land management activities.
In addition to its shortcomings in accounting for its overall costs,
the Forest Service's shortcomings in tracking of the costs associated
with its timber sales program--such as obligations and expenditures for
personnel and equipment--have been the subject of several of our
previous reports. In 2001 we reported that serious accounting and
financial reporting deficiencies precluded an accurate determination of
the total costs associated with the timber sales program and, in fact,
rendered the agency's cost information unreliable.[Footnote 16] In
2003, we reported that it was unclear how accurately the agency would
be able to report on the actual costs of individual work activities.
[Footnote 17] And more recently, in 2007, we reported that the Forest
Service tracks the funds it spends on timber sales in a way that does
not provide the detail that many field managers, such as district
rangers and national forest supervisors, said they need in order to
make management decisions--for example, deciding how to allocate or
redirect resources among sales.[Footnote 18] The agency does not track
timber sales-related obligation or expenditure data by individual sale
but rather aggregates these data by the programs that fund the
sales.[Footnote 19] Neither does it track obligations and expenditures
at the ranger district level, where timber sales are generally carried
out, but tracks them instead at the national forest level--making it
more difficult and resource intensive for field managers to oversee
activities occurring in their units.
Limited cost data also hampered the agency's implementation of the
competitive-sourcing program, as we reported in 2008.[Footnote 20]
Competitive sourcing is aimed at promoting competition between federal
entities and the private sector by comparing the public and private
costs of performing certain activities (typically those performed in
both government and the commercial marketplace, such as information
technology, maintenance and property management, and logistics) and
determining who should perform those activities. Although Congress had
limited the funds the Forest Service could spend on competitive-
sourcing activities, we found that for fiscal years 2004 through 2006,
the Forest Service lacked sufficiently complete and reliable cost data
to determine whether it had exceeded these congressional spending
limitations. Additionally, the Forest Service did not consider certain
costs in calculating competitive-sourcing savings and as a result could
not provide Congress with an accurate measure of the savings produced
by its competitive-sourcing program during this time. We recommended
that the agency take several actions to improve its management of the
program. The program's future, however, now appears uncertain.[Footnote
21]
The Forest Service Has Struggled with Financial and Performance
Accountability:
Over the years, the Forest Service has struggled to provide adequate
financial and performance accountability. Regarding financial
accountability, the agency has had shortcomings in its internal
controls and has had difficulty generating accurate financial
information. Regarding its performance, the agency has not always been
able to provide Congress and the public with a clear understanding of
what its 30,000 employees accomplish with the approximately $5 billion
the agency receives every year.
Financial Accountability Concerns Include Internal Control Weaknesses:
Our long-standing concerns over the Forest Service's financial
accountability resulted in our including the agency in our High-Risk
Series from 1999 through 2004,[Footnote 22] citing, among other issues,
"a continuing pattern of unfavorable conclusions about the Forest
Service's financial statements." We also had concerns about internal
control weaknesses within the agency; in a 2003 report, we noted that
internal control weaknesses in the Forest Service's purchase card
program--under which purchase cards are issued to federal employees to
make official government purchases--left the agency vulnerable to, and
in some cases resulted in, improper, wasteful, or questionable
purchases.[Footnote 23] Subsequently, in a 2008 report, we noted that
internal control weaknesses continued and that from 2000 through 2006 a
Forest Service employee had embezzled over $642,000 from the Forest
Service's national fire suppression budget.[Footnote 24] Another area
where we have raised concerns about the agency's internal controls is
in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, under which the Forest
Service and other agencies can collect fees for using agency sites,
including entrance fees for basic admission to an area and user fees
for specific activities such as camping or boat launching. We reported
in 2006 that the Forest Service not only lacked adequate controls and
accounting procedures over collected recreation fees, but also lacked
effective guidance even for establishing such controls.[Footnote 25]
The agency has since updated its policies and procedures for handling
collected recreation fees, although we have not evaluated their
implementation.
We removed the Forest Service from our high-risk list in 2005 in
response to its efforts to resolve many of the financial management
problems we identified. Nevertheless, the agency continues to struggle
with financial accountability. In 2007, the Department of Agriculture's
Inspector General reported that significant deficiencies existed in the
Forest Service's ability to produce accurate financial information;
[Footnote 26] in 2008, the Inspector General reported that certain
deficiencies had been corrected but that others remained[Footnote 27]--
including the agency's failure to comply with the Federal Financial
Management Improvement Act of 1996.[Footnote 28]
Performance Accountability Shortcomings Are Long-standing and
Persistent:
As with financial accountability, our concerns about the Forest
Service's performance accountability shortcomings date back over a
decade. In 2003 we reported that the agency had made little real
progress in resolving its long-standing performance accountability
problems--which included its inability to link planning, budgeting, and
results reporting--and was years away from implementing a credible
performance accountability system.[Footnote 29] We concluded that the
agency was essentially in the same position it had been in more than a
decade earlier--studying how it might achieve performance
accountability. We recommended that the agency appoint a senior
executive with decision-making authority and responsibility for
developing a comprehensive plan to ensure the timely implementation of
an effective performance accountability system and that the agency
report annually to Congress on its progress in implementing such a
system. While the agency responded that it would follow our
recommendations, problems persisted; in our 2007 survey of federal
managers' use of performance information in management decision making,
the Forest Service scored lowest of 29 federal agencies and components
we surveyed in six of nine key management activities.[Footnote 30]
Equally troubling are our survey findings related to leadership
commitment to results-oriented management, which we have identified as
perhaps the single most important element in successfully implementing
organizational change. In our survey, we asked federal managers about
their views on agency leadership's commitment to using performance
information to guide decision making. Only 21 percent of Forest Service
managers we surveyed agreed that their agency's leadership demonstrated
such a commitment to a great or very great extent, compared with 50
percent of their counterparts in the rest of the federal government.
More recent work by the Department of Agriculture's Inspector General
noted that the Forest Service continues to need improvements in its
management controls to effectively manage resources, measure progress
toward goals and objectives, and accurately report accomplishments. In
fact, in 2008--only 7 months ago, and more than 5 years after our 2003
report on the problem--the Inspector General echoed our earlier
findings, stating, "Some of these issues have been reported in multiple
reports for over a decade, but their solutions are still in the study
and evaluation process by [the Forest Service]."[Footnote 31]
Emerging Issues Magnify the Need to Address Management Challenges:
Several emerging issues are likely to have profound implications for
the agency, complicating its management responsibilities and
underscoring the importance of addressing the management challenges we
have highlighted so that the agency is well positioned to meet these
new issues. Among the most significant:
Climate change. In August 2007, we reported that according to experts,
federal land and water resources are vulnerable to a wide range of
effects from climate change, some of which are already occurring.
[Footnote 32] These effects include, among others, (1) physical
effects, such as droughts, floods, glacial melting, and sea level rise;
(2) biological effects, such as increases in insect and disease
infestations, shifts in species distribution, and changes in the timing
of natural events; and (3) economic and social effects, such as adverse
impacts on tourism, infrastructure, fishing, and other resource uses.
These effects are also likely to lead to increased wildland fire
activity. We noted that federal resource managers, including those at
the Forest Service, had not yet made climate change a high priority and
recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture (along with Interior and
the Department of Commerce) develop clear, written communication to
resource managers that explains how managers are expected to address
the effects of climate change, identifies how managers are to obtain
any site-specific information that may be necessary, and reflects best
practices shared among the relevant agencies. The Forest Service has
since issued guidance on incorporating climate change information in
land management planning activities.
Increased human settlement in or near wildlands. Rapid development in
the outlying fringe of metropolitan areas and in rural areas is
increasing the size of the wildland-urban interface, defined as the
area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle
with undeveloped wildland. Experts estimate that almost 60 percent of
all new housing units built in the 1990s were located in the wildland-
urban interface and that this growth trend continues. They also
estimate that more than 30 percent of housing units overall are located
in the wildland-urban interface, including about 44 million homes in
the lower 48 states, and that the interface covers about 9 percent of
the nation's land.[Footnote 33] This development has significant
implications for wildland fire management because it places more
structures at risk from wildland fire at the same time that it
increases the complexity and cost of wildland fire suppression. Other
land management challenges result as well; for example, as we reported
in 2008, private subdivisions may seek access across public lands via
roads that were not designed for public use, complicating agency
management of those lands.[Footnote 34] And researchers have also noted
that the wildland-urban interface is an area of widespread habitat
fragmentation, introduction of invasive species, and biodiversity loss,
further adding to the agency's land management challenges.
The aging of the federal workforce. Earlier this year we reported on
the looming challenge facing federal agencies as retirements of federal
workers threaten to leave critical gaps in leadership and institutional
knowledge.[Footnote 35] In fact, we reported that about one-third of
federal career employees on board at the end of fiscal year 2007 were
eligible to retire by 2012, a trend especially pronounced among the
agencies' executives and supervisors--with nearly two-thirds of career
executives projected to be eligible for retirement by 2012. Facing such
a potential exodus of its most experienced employees, the Forest
Service--like other federal agencies--will need to focus on strategic
workforce planning to help forecast who might retire, when they might
retire, and the impact of their retirement on the agency's mission and,
using this information, develop appropriate strategies to address
workforce gaps.
Our nation's long-term fiscal condition. We have reported that our
nation, facing large and growing structural deficits, is on an
unsustainable long-term fiscal path.[Footnote 36] As a result, all
federal agencies may be called upon to carry out their responsibilities
with static or even shrinking budgets over the long term--making it
especially important that the Forest Service address the challenges we
have identified and ensure that it is spending its limited budget
effectively and efficiently. Effective and efficient spending will also
be critical in the short term, as the agency identifies projects to
undertake with funds provided under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009.[Footnote 37]
Concluding Observations:
Mr. Chairman, these issues are not new. In fact, not only are we
repeating many of the same issues we have brought up over the years,
but some of our concerns date back well over a decade. The Forest
Service's mission is, without question, a difficult one: managing
millions of acres of diverse lands for often competing purposes while
ensuring that current uses do not impair long-term productivity. This
is an enormous and complex task, and we do not seek to minimize its
difficulty. Nevertheless, the repetitive and persistent nature of the
shortcomings we and others have surfaced over the years points to the
Forest Service's failure to fully resolve--perhaps even to fully grasp-
-its problems. Absent better data, better internal controls and
accountability, and a more strategic approach to wildland fire, the
agency cannot hope to improve upon its performance--and may ultimately
be unable to respond effectively to the new challenges it faces. If, on
the other hand, the Forest Service is to face these challenges head-on,
it will require a sustained commitment by agency leadership to rooting
out and resolving the agency's long-standing problems. As a new
administration takes office and begins to chart the agency's course, it
will be important for Congress and the Forest Service to remain
vigilant in focusing on these issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include
Steve Gaty, Assistant Director; David P. Bixler; Arthur W. Brouk;
Andrea Wamstad Brown; Ellen W. Chu; Laura Craig; Elizabeth Curda;
Jonathan Dent; Charles T. Egan; Barry Grinnell; Richard P. Johnson; and
Jack Warner.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Wildland Fire:
Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs Further
Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-68]. Washington, D.C.: November 24,
2008.
Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies Lack Key Long-and Short-Term
Management Strategies for Using Program Funds Effectively. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-433T]. Washington, D.C.: February
12, 2008.
Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic Process
Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction Funds and
Selecting Projects. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1168]. Washington, D.C.: September
28, 2007.
Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders
Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-655]. Washington, D.C.:
June 1, 2007.
Wildland Fire Management: Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a
Cohesive Strategy to Address Wildland Fire Threats. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-671R]. Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2006.
Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made, but
Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-147]. Washington, D.C.: January 14,
2005.
Wildland Fires: Forest Service and BLM Need Better Information and a
Systematic Approach for Assessing the Risks of Environmental Effects.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-705]. Washington, D.C.:
June 24, 2004.
Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project Cancellations and
Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management Disruptions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-612]. Washington, D.C.: June 2,
2004.
Wildland Fire Management: Additional Actions Required to Better
Identify and Prioritize Lands Needing Fuels Reduction. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-805]. Washington, D.C.: August 15,
2003.
Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address
Catastrophic Wildfire Threats. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-65]. Washington, D.C.: April 2,
1999.
Program and Cost Data:
Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship Contracting Is Increasing,
but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and Contracting Strategies.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-23]. Washington, D.C.:
November 13, 2008.
Forest Service: Better Planning, Guidance, and Data Are Needed to
Improve Management of the Competitive Sourcing Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-195]. Washington, D.C.: January 22,
2008.
Federal Timber Sales: Forest Service Could Improve Efficiency of Field-
Level Timber Sales Management by Maintaining More Detailed Data.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-764]. Washington, D.C.:
June 27, 2007.
Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1002R]. Washington, D.C.: September
21, 2006.
Wildland Fire Rehabilitation and Restoration: Forest Service and BLM
Could Benefit from Improved Information on Status of Needed Work.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-670]. Washington, D.C.:
June 30, 2006.
Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize
Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-374]. Washington, D.C.: April 15,
2005.
Financial Management: Annual Costs of Forest Service's Timber Sales
Program Are Not Determinable. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1101R]. Washington, D.C.: September
21, 2001.
Financial and Performance Accountability:
Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on
Using Performance Information to Improve Results. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T]. Washington, D.C.: July 24,
2008.
Governmentwide Purchase Cards: Actions Needed to Strengthen Internal
Controls to Reduce Fraudulent, Improper, and Abusive Purchases.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-333]. Washington, D.C.:
March 14, 2008.
Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1016]. Washington, D.C.: September
22, 2006.
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207]. Washington, D.C.: January
2005.
Department of Agriculture: Status of Efforts to Address Major Financial
Management Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-871T[. Washington, D.C.: June 10,
2003.
Forest Service Purchase Cards: Internal Control Weaknesses Resulted in
Instances of Improper, Wasteful, and Questionable Purchases.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-786]. Washington, D.C.:
August 11, 2003.
Forest Service: Little Progress on Performance Accountability Likely
Unless Management Addresses Key Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-503]. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003.
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-119]. Washington, D.C.: January
2003.
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-263]. Washington, D.C.: January
2001.
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HR-99-1]. Washington, D.C.: January
1999.
Emerging Issues:
Older Workers: Enhanced Communication among Federal Agencies Could
Improve Strategies for Hiring and Retaining Experienced Workers.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-206]. Washington, D.C.:
February 24, 2009.
Proposed Easement Amendment Agreement between the Department of
Agriculture and Plum Creek Timber Co. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/other/B-317292]. Washington, D.C.: October
10, 2008.
Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Long-Term Federal Fiscal Challenge Driven
Primarily by Health Care. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-912T]. Washington, D.C.: June 17,
2008.
Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the
Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863]. Washington, D.C.: August 7,
2007.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See the list of related GAO products at the end of this statement.
We conducted our work in accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality
Assurance Framework that were relevant to the objectives of each
engagement. The framework requires that we plan and perform each
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We
believe that the information and data obtained, and the analyses
conducted, provided a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions
in each report.
[2] These figures are in 2007 dollars. We adjusted the 1999
appropriated dollars using the chain-weighted gross domestic product
price index with fiscal year 2007 as the base year.
[3] We are currently reviewing recent Forest Service and Interior
actions to address our past findings related to wildland fire
management and expect to issue a report later this year.
[4] GAO, Western National Forests: A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to
Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-65] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2,
1999).
[5] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Important Progress Has Been Made,
but Challenges Remain to Completing a Cohesive Strategy, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-147] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14,
2005).
[6] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy
Hinders Federal Agencies' Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting
Fires, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-655] (Washington,
D.C.: June 1, 2007), and Wildland Fire Management: Federal Agencies
Lack Key Long-and Short-Term Management Strategies for Using Program
Funds Effectively, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-433T]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2008).
[7] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Better Information and a Systematic
Process Could Improve Agencies' Approach to Allocating Fuel Reduction
Funds and Selecting Projects, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1168] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28,
2007), and GAO-08-433T .
[8] GAO, Wildland Fire Management: Interagency Budget Tool Needs
Further Development to Fully Meet Key Objectives, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-68] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 24,
2008).
[9] As we have reported previously, FPA is critical to developing a
cohesive strategy. See, for example, GAO, Wildland Fire Management:
Update on Federal Agency Efforts to Develop a Cohesive Strategy to
Address Wildland Fire Threats, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-671R] (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2006).
[10] GAO, Wildfire Suppression: Funding Transfers Cause Project
Cancellations and Delays, Strained Relationships, and Management
Disruptions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-612]
(Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2004).
[11] GAO, Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and
Prioritize Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-374] (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 15, 2005).
[12] GAO, Wildland Fire Rehabilitation and Restoration: Forest Service
and BLM Could Benefit from Improved Information on Status of Needed
Work, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-670] (Washington,
D.C.: June 30, 2006).
[13] GAO, Federal Land Management: Use of Stewardship Contracting Is
Increasing, but Agencies Could Benefit from Better Data and Contracting
Strategies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-23]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2008).
[14] Contracts are used to purchase goods and services for the direct
benefit of the government or to sell government property, such as
timber, and are mutually binding legal relationships obligating the
seller to furnish supplies or services and the buyer to pay for them.
In contrast, agreements are typically used to transfer a thing of value
to a state or local government, or other recipient, to carry out a
public purpose--often for projects that are for the mutual interest and
benefit of the government and a cooperating organization such as a
nonprofit organization or a state or local government.
[15] GAO, Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1002R] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 21, 2006).
[16] GAO, Financial Management: Annual Costs of Forest Service's Timber
Sales Program Are Not Determinable, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-1101R] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21,
2001).
[17] GAO, Forest Service: Little Progress on Performance Accountability
Likely Unless Management Addresses Key Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-503] (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2003).
[18] GAO, Federal Timber Sales: Forest Service Could Improve Efficiency
of Field-Level Timber Sales Management by Maintaining More Detailed
Data, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-764] (Washington,
D.C.: June 27, 2007).
[19] Within the Forest Service's appropriations, there are several
programs, or "budget line items," related to timber sales; most sales
are funded through the Forest Products program.
[20] GAO, Forest Service: Better Planning, Guidance, and Data Are
Needed to Improve Management of the Competitive Sourcing Program,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-195] (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 22, 2008).
[21] An omnibus appropriations bill for 2009, H.R. 1105, § 414,
provides that "None of the funds made available by this or any other
Act may be used in fiscal year 2009 for competitive sourcing studies
and any related activities involving Forest Service personnel." A
similar provision appeared in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2008, Pub. L. No.110-161, § 415, 121 Stat. 2148 (2007).
[22] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HR-99-1] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1999);
High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-263] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001);
High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003);
High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2005).
[23] GAO, Forest Service Purchase Cards: Internal Control Weaknesses
Resulted in Instances of Improper, Wasteful, and Questionable
Purchases, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-786]
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 11, 2003).
[24] GAO, Governmentwide Purchase Cards: Actions Needed to Strengthen
Internal Controls to Reduce Fraudulent, Improper, and Abusive
Purchases, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-333]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2008).
[25] GAO, Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1016] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 22, 2006).
[26] Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit
Report: Forest Service's Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2007 and
2006, 08401-8-FM (Washington, D.C., Nov. 2007).
[27] Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit
Report: Forest Service's Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2008 and
2007, 08401-9-FM (Washington, D.C., Nov. 2008).
[28] The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 requires
that agencies implement and maintain financial management systems that
substantially comply with (1) federal financial management system
requirements, (2) federal accounting standards, and (3) the U.S.
Government Standard General Ledger. The act also requires GAO to report
annually on the agencies' implementation of it; see, for example, GAO,
Financial Management: Persistent Financial Management Systems Issues
Remain for Many CFO Act Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1018] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30,
2008).
[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-503].
[30] These included activities such as adopting new program approaches
or changing work processes, refining program performance measures, and
setting new or revising existing performance goals. See GAO, Government
Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using
Performance Information to Improve Results, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T] (Washington, D.C.: July 24,
2008).
[31] Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Management
Challenges (Washington, D.C., Aug. 2008).
[32] GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for
Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-863] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 7,
2007).
[33] In addition to housing, other types of infrastructure are located
in the wildland-urban interface, including power lines, oil and gas
wells, and campgrounds and other recreation facilities.
[34] GAO, Proposed Easement Amendment Agreement between the Department
of Agriculture and Plum Creek Timber Co., [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/other/B-317292] (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
10, 2008).
[35] GAO, Older Workers: Enhanced Communication among Federal Agencies
Could Improve Strategies for Hiring and Retaining Experienced Workers,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-206] (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 24, 2009).
[36] See, for example, GAO, Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Long-Term Federal
Fiscal Challenge Driven Primarily by Health Care, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-912T] (Washington, D.C.: June 17,
2008).
[37] Pub. L. No. 111-5.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
