GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

February 9, 2006 

The Honorable Fran P. Mainella 

Director, National Park Service 

Subject: National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and Strengthen 

Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees and Cost-Recovery 

Dear Ms. Mainella: 

In our September 2005 report, Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and 

Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged,

1

 we 

reported that the National Park Service (Park Service) allowed livestock grazing on 

nearly 1.6 million acres at 31 park units.2

 To manage grazing on their lands, the park 

units spent at least $410,000 in fiscal year 2004, which included activities such as 

fence maintenance, personnel, and monitoring resource conditions; they also 

collected about $196,000 in receipts from ranchers for the privilege of grazing 

livestock on Park Service lands. In fiscal year 2004, the park units retained about 

$192,000, or 98 percent, of the receipts collected. During the course of our work, we 

found that the park units were not consistently implementing the Park Service’s 

special uses permit guidance for fee-setting and cost-recovery. This letter presents 

the results of our further evaluation of the park units’ efforts to manage grazing 

permits on their lands and makes recommendations to strengthen the Park Service’s 

guidance for setting fees, recovering costs, and retaining funds. 

The Park Service allows limited livestock grazing on its lands as (1) specifically 

authorized by federal law; (2) required under a reservation of rights arising from the 

acquisition of land; or (3) designated when conducted as a necessary and integral 

part of a recreational activity or required to maintain a historic scene.3

 For example, 

the Park Service allows grazing along the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North 

Carolina, and at the Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, also in 

Virginia, to help maintain a historic scene. 

 

1

GAO-05-869 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2005). 

2

We use park units to refer to all units in the National Park System, including national historic sites, 

memorials, monuments, parks, recreation areas, and other designations. 

3

See 36 C.F.R. § 2.60. We have previously reported on management concerns with National Park 

Service special use permits. GAO, National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging 

Allowed Fees for Some Special Uses Permits, GAO-05-410, (Washington D.C.: May 6, 2005). In 

particular, we found that insufficient funds were being charged for some special park uses—special 

events, commercial filming, and still photography. 
Generally, different fees—cost-recovery fees, market fees, or other fees—are 

structured to achieve different purposes and have different advantages and 

disadvantages. For example, a cost-recovery fee might recover most or all of an 

agency’s costs related to a program, but it might also be higher than a fee charged for 

a different purpose. In contrast, a market fee depends on the ability of an agency to 

analyze market rates and may not recover all of an agency’s costs. 

Park Service guidance provides direction to individual park units on setting fees for 

special uses, including grazing. The Park Service has three levels of guidance 

documents: 

• Management Policies 2001, which serves as the agencywide policy document 

and is the highest of three levels of guidance documents. Adherence to this 

guidance is mandatory unless specifically waived or modified by the Secretary, 

Assistant Secretary, or Director. 

• Director’s Orders, which are interim updates or amendments to Management 

Policies and which serve as a vehicle to clarify or supplement Management 

Policies to meet the needs of Park Service managers. 

 

• Additional guidance, such as reference manuals, which provide the most 

detailed and comprehensive guidance on implementing agency policy. 

Management Policies states that fees to recover costs will be imposed for special 

uses permits and that, when appropriate, the Park Service will also include a fair 

charge for the use of its lands or facilities. Director’s Order 53 and Reference Manual 

53 provide more specific guidance to the park units about setting these fees. 

Specifically, Director’s Order 53 briefly describes the fee that park units are to charge 

for special uses, including grazing, and states that charges should reflect the fair 

market value of the use requested. The order states that the fee should consist of two 

amounts: (1) the value of the land or facility, plus (2) the Park Service’s costs for 

managing or supporting the use. Reference Manual 53 states that the fee charged for 

the use of facilities, resources, or property should be based on comparable prices in 

the area—the market price.4

 Furthermore, Reference Manual 53 provides examples 

of costs that can be recovered and states that each park unit will establish and 

maintain a written record documenting how costs and charges are established for 

each permit issued. As stated in the manual, cost-recovery will be based on actual 

 4

The manual defines this market price as the “price for a good, resource, or service that is based on

competition in open markets and creates neither a shortage nor a surplus of the good, resource, or

service.” It also states that market price can be generated by competitive bidding or by reference to

prevailing prices in competitive markets, if competition exists, and, if not, can be determined by taking 

into account the prevailing prices and then making adjustments so that there will be neither a shortage

nor a surplus.

Page 2 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
amounts as determined by the cost-recovery records for each permit; the manual also 

contains a sample form that park units may use to itemize and record estimated 

costs.5

 

As the statutory basis for the fees to be charged, Park Service guidance refers to both 

16 U.S.C. § 3a and the Independent Offices Appropriations Act. Under 16 U.S.C. § 3a, 

the Park Service is authorized to recover and retain all costs of providing necessary 

services associated with special uses permits, which would include grazing permits. 

The Independent Offices Appropriations Act, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 9701, authorizes 

federal agencies to charge user fees in certain situations. 

This letter discusses (1) the fees that park units charge for grazing permits and (2) 

reporting and retaining of cost-recovery amounts from grazing permits. This letter 

does not address questions relating to the underlying legal authority for fees that park 

units charge under the above statutes. That issue is being explored separately with 

the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s Office and will be reflected in a separate 

GAO decision.6

 As stated earlier, we identified inconsistencies in the cost-recovery 

amounts reported and retained by park units while conducting work for our 

September 2005 study on grazing on lands managed by 10 different federal agencies, 

including the Park Service. To conduct that work, we interviewed agency officials 

about the management of their grazing programs and reviewed relevant agency 

documents, laws, and policies. In addition, we collected data on the extent of grazing 

on lands managed by the 10 agencies, expenditures on the agencies’ grazing 

programs, receipts generated by the agencies’ grazing programs, and grazing fees 

charged by the agencies. At the Park Service, specifically, we worked with agency 

officials to design, pretest, distribute, review, and summarize a data collection 

instrument that reported data on livestock grazing activities for fiscal year 2004. We 

gathered data on the extent of grazing, expenditures, receipts, fees, and cost-recovery 

amounts from 31 national park units that have grazing on the lands they manage. 

Cost-recovery amounts refer to the costs of providing necessary services associated 

with grazing permits that may be recovered and retained under 16 U.S.C. § 3a. To 

analyze the data, we compared fees, receipts, expenditures, and cost-recovery 

amounts. We discussed several inconsistencies with both park unit and headquarters 

staff. In accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, we 

conducted our review for the September 2005 grazing report between August 2004 

and July 2005, and conducted follow-up work with the Park Service between October 

and December 2005 for this report. 

In summary: 

• The park units use different approaches when setting grazing fees. Although 

the Park Service’s special uses permit guidance directs park units to charge 

 5

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts 

and Standards for the Federal Government, provides guidance for determining reliable information 

on the full cost of federal programs, activities, and outputs for purposes that include making

managerial decisions such as setting fees and prices. 

6

The Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Office of the Solicitor provides legal services to the Park 

Service, as well as other Interior agencies. These services include drafting and legal review of

legislation, regulations, permits, and other documents, as well as furnishing legal advice. 

Page 3 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
grazing fees based on two amounts—a land and facility fee plus an amount to 

recover costs—we found that none of the 31 park units appeared to have 

followed the Park Service’s guidance. Some of the park units have not 

implemented the guidance on setting grazing fees, in part because they believe 

that the guidance calls for a fee that is higher than market value and that such 

a fee would discourage grazing. The Park Service is reviewing its guidance 

and the fee that it should charge. In reviewing Park Service guidance, we 

identified questions about the Park Service’s fee structure, which we have 

raised with the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior. For this 

reason, we are recommending that the Park Service revise its guidance to 

reflect the resolution we reached with the Solicitor’s Office regarding the 

authority for the Park Service’s fee structure. 

• Many of the park units are retaining receipts in excess of what they reported 

as cost-recovery amounts for managing the grazing program. For example, 

officials at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National 

Historic Site in Pennsylvania indicated that each location deposited $1,350 in 

grazing fees for use by the park unit; however, both park units reported no 

cost-recovery amounts and no expenditures for grazing permits. If park units 

do not calculate and document cost-recovery amounts, the Park Service 

cannot ensure that they are only retaining the funds they are authorized to 

retain. As a result, we are recommending that the Park Service develop 

strategies to better ensure that the park units calculate and document costrecovery amounts. 

Park Units Use Different Approaches When Setting Grazing Fees 

In our review of Park Service grazing permits for fiscal year 2004, we found that park 

units used different approaches when setting grazing fees. Park Service guidance 

directs park units to charge fees based on two amounts—a “lands and facilities” fee 

plus an amount to recover costs. None of the 31 park units with grazing programs 

had charged fees based on this fee structure. In reviewing Park Service grazing fee 

guidance, we identified questions about this fee structure, which we have raised with 

the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior. 

The park units each charged a fee that, in some cases, was based on market value, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fee, or a fixed amount (see encl. I). For example: 

• Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, in Washington State, charged a twopart fee consisting of (1) the BLM grazing fee, plus (2) a $35 fee to recover 

administrative costs. However, according to a park unit official, this $35 fee 

does not recover the park unit’s full costs for grazing, which would be cost 

prohibitive and would perhaps prevent grazing. 

• Point Reyes National Seashore, in northern California, charged a fee for 

grazing based on market rates for grazing fees. The park unit recovered its 

costs from the grazing receipts generated and did not charge an additional fee 

to recover those costs. 

Page 4 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
• Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado and Utah and the City of Rocks 

National Reserve in Idaho set fees based on the BLM rate, which was set at 

$1.35 per animal unit month (AUM—the amount of forage a cow and her calf 

can eat in a month) in fiscal year 2003. 

• Eisenhower National Historic Site and Gettysburg National Military Park in

Pennsylvania charged a fixed amount of $25 per acre. 

• Capitol Reef National Park in Utah charged $1.35 per AUM in fiscal year 

2004—the same price charged by BLM for grazing in fiscal year 2003. 

Some park units did not implement the fee structure in the Park Service guidance 

because they did not want to charge higher fees for grazing. According to the 

program manager of the special uses permit program, the fee structure described in 

Reference Manual 53 was established to charge a premium for grazing on Park 

Service lands by recovering costs in addition to a market fee charged for the lands 

and facilities used for grazing. Park unit staff told us that they did not want to charge 

a fee as described in the guidance because it would mean charging higher fees—

perhaps fees that are higher than market value. For example, Point Reyes National 

Park already charges a market-based rate for grazing. If it were to add a costrecovery amount to this current market-based fee, the total fee would exceed the 

market value of grazing fees in the area. Park unit staff stated that charging more 

than market value would likely reduce grazing, which they do not want to do because 

they are directed to work with local ranchers to maintain grazing. Other park unit 

officials indicated that they want to maintain grazing because the park unit derives 

benefits, such as controlling vegetation. 

Currently, the Park Service is updating its special uses permit guidance. The Park 

Service is rethinking the fee structure and is considering alternatives. As of January 

2006, the Park Service’s fee structure in the draft guidance was the same as in the 

previous guidance.7

 

 7

The draft guidance states: “The Park Service should recover costs and charge a lands and facilities fee 

for special use permits... [and]... the Park Service should recover from the permittee all costs the 

agency incurs administering and monitoring the permit. The lands and facilities fee should reflect the

market price of the use requested—that is, the value of the lands or facilities used.” 

Page 5 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
Park Units Retained Grazing Receipts in Excess of Reported Cost-Recovery 

Amounts 

Many park units retained grazing permit receipts that exceeded the cost-recovery 

amounts they reported. Specifically, 17 of the 25 park units that charged a grazing fee 

retained all or some portion of grazing receipts for park unit use but did not 

document full cost-recovery amounts.8 Of these 17 park units, 8 reported that they 

did not know the cost-recovery amounts, 7 reported no cost-recovery amounts, and 2 

reported some cost-recovery amounts that were less than the grazing receipts they 

retained.9

 For example: 

• Grand Teton National Park retained over $4,000 in grazing receipts for park 

use, but did not know its cost-recovery amounts. 

• Blue Ridge National Parkway in North Carolina and Virginia reported $21,068 

in grazing receipts and retained the total amount for its use. Despite showing 

$30,000 in expenditures, the park unit did not report any cost-recovery 

amounts. Similarly, both Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower 

National Historic Site in Pennsylvania indicated that each location deposited 

$1,350 in grazing fees for use by the park. Both park units reported no costrecovery amounts and no expenditures for grazing permits. 

• Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland and West 

Virginia retained all $3,999.50 in grazing receipts, but only reported a costrecovery amount of $700.00. Although the cost-recovery amount was 

significantly less than receipts and the park unit reported that it did not know 

its expenditures on grazing, the park unit retained all receipts for its use. 

Enclosure I contains detailed information on the 31 park units that allow grazing on 

the lands they manage. 

Under 16 U.S.C. § 3a, the Park Service is authorized to recover and retain all costs of 

providing necessary services associated with the special uses permits, including

grazing permits. Absent additional authority to retain grazing receipts, any amounts 

retained in excess of cost-recovery amounts at these 17 park units should not have 

been retained by the Park Service. However, according to the Park Service program 

manager, at least some of these park units actually did have other costs of providing 

services associated with grazing permits but did not report the costs to us. 

 8

Of the 31 park units that managed grazing in fiscal year 2004, 6 did not charge a fee at all. For

example, in 2003, the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park added 116,000 acres that had been part of a 

working cattle operation. To prevent significant harm from invasive species and to reduce potential

fire from overgrowth, the park allowed the former owners to temporarily continue cattle operations. 

The park is developing a recovery plan that will allow it to gradually reclaim the grazing areas and to 

phase out the cattle operation. Since the cattle operation has been continued for the benefit of the 

park, the park waived a fee. 

9

Of the eight remaining park units, four reported the same cost-recovery amount as they retained, one 

reported that it did not know the cost-recovery amount but retained funds for a local government

under a cooperative agreement, and three reported that they used other authorities to retain the funds. 

Page 6 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
Calculation and documentation of cost-recovery amounts is an important internal 

control measure because the lack of such calculation and documentation may lead to 

the improper retention of grazing receipts. The inconsistent responses from park unit 

officials indicate a lack of understanding of cost-recovery—how to calculate costrecovery amounts or how to properly document the amounts to be retained for park 

unit use. For example, officials at two park units—Buffalo National River in 

Arkansas and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in Arizona and Utah—stated 

that they did not understand what was meant by “cost-recovery.” If the park units do 

not calculate and document cost-recovery amounts, the Park Service cannot ensure 

that they are retaining funds that they are authorized to retain. 

From our work, we do not fully know whether park units have maintained 

documentation of how they established their cost-recovery amounts. According to 

the program manager of the special uses permit program, training has increased in 

the last few years and about half the park units have received some training. 

However, the manager noted that because employee turnover is high, additional 

training is needed. 

Conclusions 

 

The Park Service has not fully implemented its special uses permit guidance as it 

applies to setting grazing fees and cost-recovery. However, our review of the 

guidance raises questions about whether the guidance should be reemphasized until 

it is revised. With regard to cost-recovery, not all of the park units with grazing 

reported cost-recovery amounts for the funds they retained, indicating a potential 

lack of internal controls over these funds. In revising its guidance, the Park Service 

has an opportunity to (1) ensure that the guidance complies with statutory authority 

and (2) identify reasons for the park units’ lack of information on cost-recovery and 

take steps to ensure park units properly calculate and document cost-recovery 

amounts. 

Recommendations 

As the Park Service revises its guidance on fees for special uses permits, it should 

ensure that the guidance reflects the resolution we reached with the Solicitor’s Office 

regarding the authority for the Park Service’s fee structure. 

Furthermore, the Park Service needs to develop strategies to better ensure that the 

park units calculate and document cost-recovery amounts. 

- - - - - 

We discussed our analysis, conclusions, and recommendations with the 

programmanager for the special uses permit program. Although the manager 

believes that some park units may have underreported cost-recovery amounts, she 

agreed with our overall findings and recommendations and plans to consider them as 

she revises the draft guidance. 

Page 7 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
We distributed copies of this letter to appropriate congressional committees and 

other interested parties. The letter will also be available at no charge on our Web site 

at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Public Affairs and 

Congressional Relations may be found on the last page of this letter. GAO staff who 

made major contributions to this letter include Andrea Wamstad Brown, Susan Iott, 

Tony Padilla, Lesley Rinner, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and Amy Webbink. 

Sincerely yours, 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Page 8 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
Enclosure I 

National Parks Reporting of Their Grazing Permit Expenditures, Fees, Receipts, and Disbursements, Fiscal Year 2004 

National 

Park 

Service unit 

Grazing 

expenditures 

Costs 

recovered 

Grazing 

fee 

Average 

grazing fee 

per animal 

unit month 

(AUM) 

Grazing 

receipts 

Receipts 

deposited

into U.S.

Treasury

Receipts 

deposited

into park 

account 

Receipts 

 disbursed to 

states 

Dinosaur $47,068.48 a

$1.35/AU

M to 

$1.43/AU

M $1.43 $2,551.37 $0.00 $2,551.37 $0.00

Grand Teton 34,804.47 a1.43/AUM 1.43 4,159.87 0.00 4,159.87 0.00

Great Basin a a1.43/AUM 1.43 4,643.56 0.00 4,643.56 0.00 

Great 

Smoky 

Mountains 3,300.00 a

20/acre 4.58 3,300.00 0.00 3,300.00 0.00 

Minute Man a a25/acre b97.50 0.00 97.50 0.00

Mojave a a1.43/AUM 1.43 3,025.00 0.00 3,025.00 0.00

Monocacy 4,000.00 a20/acre 1.11 4,840.00 0.00 4,840.00 0.00

Lake 

Roosevelt a a

1.35/AUM 

(plus $35 

fee per 

permit) 1.35 555.69 275.69 280.00 0.00

City of 

Rocksc a a

1.35/AUM 

to 

5.13/AUM 1.77 786.54 0.00 0.00 786.54

Black 

Canyon of 

the 

Gunnison 350.00 0.00 1.35/AUM 1.35 125.55 0.00 125.55 0.00

Blue Ridge 

Parkway 30,000.00 0.00 10/acre 3.47 21,068.00 0.00 21,068.00 0.00

Buffalo 

National 

River 2,225.00 0.00

1.50/acre 

to 15/acre 25.69 2,196.00 0.00 2,196.00 0.00

Eisenhower 0.00 0.00 25/acre 2.08 1,350.00 0.00 1,350.00 0.00

Gettysburg 0.00 0.00 25/acre 2.25 1,350.00 0.00 1,350.00 0.00 

Glen 

Canyon 27,315.00 0.00 1.43/AUM 1.43 4,077.97 0.00 4,077.97 0.00

Saratoga 0.00 0.00 5.00/acre b50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00

Grand 

CanyonParashantd

0.00 0.00 1.43/AUM 1.43 1,200.70 1,200.70 0.00 0.00

C & O Canal a 700.00

10/acre to 

15/acre 8.02 3,999.50 0.00 3,999.50 0.00

Coronado 364.50 50.00 1.35/AUM 1.35 414.50 0.00 414.50 0.00

Death Valley 1,000.00 1,491.75 1.35/AUM 1.35 1,491.75 0.00 1,491.75 0.00

Natchez 

Trace 

Parkway 2,339.45 2,339.45

2.50/acre 

to 

5.00/acre b

2,339.45 0.00 2,339.45 0.00

Point Reyes 127,650.00 124,821.25

6.00/AUM 

to 

7.00/AUM 6.84 124,821.25 0.00 124,821.25 0.00

Antietam 0.00 e10/acre 1.11 1,730.00 0.00 1,730.00 0.00

Appomattox 

Court House 3,500.00 e

20/acre b3,860.00 0.00 3,860.00 0.00

Page 9 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
National 

Park 

Service unit 

Grazing 

expenditures 

Costs 

recovered 

Grazing 

fee 

Average 

grazing fee 

per animal 

unit month 

(AUM) 

Grazing 

receipts 

Receipts 

deposited

into U.S.

Treasury

Receipts 

deposited

into park 

account 

Receipts 

 disbursed to 

states 

Capitol Reeff121,173.90 e1.35/AUM 1.35 1,579.50 1,027.35 552.15 0.00

Great Sand 

Dunes a a0.00 b0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hawaii 

Volcanoes a a 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lake Mead 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 b0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nez Pierce 0.00 0.00 0.00 b0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pinnacles a a0.00 b0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wrangell-St. 

Elias a a

0.00 b0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total-31 

locations $410,090.80 $129,402.45 $195,613.70 $2,503.74 $192,323.42 $786.54

a

Not known or reported. 

b

Not applicable. 

c

City of Rocks National Reserve in Idaho signed a cooperative agreement with the Idaho Department of Parks 

and Recreation to manage grazing on its lands. Fee revenues were provided to the state for its management 

services.

d

Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument is managed by both the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). Grazing in the monument is managed under a memorandum of understanding 

between the Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and BLM. They charged the BLM fee for grazing on 

these lands and deposited the funds in the U.S. Treasury. 

 

e

The parks reported that they used authorities other than 16 U.S.C. § 3a , such as the National Historic 

Preservation Act, to retain receipts. 

f

Capitol Reef had two permits, one which it managed and one which the BLM managed. The fees charged for 

the BLM permit were deposited in the U.S. Treasury, while the fees charged for the park permit were deposited 

in the park’s accounts. 

(360639) 

Page 10 GAO-06-355R Livestock Grazing at the National Park Service
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 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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER