GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 6, 2006 

Congressional Requesters: 

Subject: Endangered Species: Time and Costs Required to Recover Species Are Largely 

Unknown

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 protects species facing extinction (endangered 

species) or likely to face extinction (threatened species) and the ecosystems upon which 

they depend. The act has long been a lightning rod for political debate about the extent to 

which the nation’s natural resources should be protected and how best to protect them. 

Implementation of the act has also been the subject of numerous lawsuits that have 

consumed significant program resources.1

 Since the act’s inception, about 1,300 domestic 

species have been placed on the list of threatened and endangered species. Supporters of 

the act claim it is an indication of the act’s success that only 9 of these species have gone 

extinct; particularly, since by the time they are listed species, they are often in critical 

condition. Critics, on the other hand, counter that it is an indication of the act’s failure that 

only 17 of these species have “recovered,” or improved to the point that they no longer need 

the act’s protection. However, we believe that these numbers, by themselves, are not a 

good gauge of the act’s success or failure; additional information on when, if at all, a 

species can be expected to fully recover and be removed from the list would provide 

needed context for a fair evaluation of the act’s performance. Similarly, estimates of the 

total costs to recover the species would be necessary to evaluate whether sufficient 

resources have been devoted to recovery efforts. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

collectively referred to as “the services,” are the federal agencies responsible for ensuring 

implementation of the Endangered Species Act.2

 The act generally requires the services to 

develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and 

 

1

In 2002 and 2003, we reported that litigation relating to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s critical habitat program 

consumes significant program resources. Courts remanded a number of these cases to FWS for 

reconsideration of critical habitat designations; consequently, FWS redesignated critical habitat for numerous 

species. At the time, we recommended that FWS expedite its efforts to develop guidance on designating 

critical habitat to reduce its exposure to future litigation. See GAO, Endangered Species: Fish and Wildlife 

Service Uses Best Available Science to Make Listing Decisions, but Additional Guidance Needed for 

Critical Habitat Designations, GAO-03-803 (Washington, D.C: Aug. 29, 2003); and Endangered Species 

Program: Information on How Funds Are Allocated and What Activities Are Emphasized, GAO-02-

581 (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002). 

2

The act requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to implement these responsibilities; the 

Secretaries have delegated implementation authority to FWS and NMFS. FWS has primary responsibility for 

fresh water and land species, while NMFS has primary responsibility for anadromous fish and most marine 

species. 
threatened species.3

 As of January 2006, the services had finalized and approved 558 

recovery plans covering 1,049 species, or about 82 percent of the 1,272 endangered or 

threatened species protected in the United States. 

A 1988 amendment to the Endangered Species Act requires the services to incorporate, to 

the maximum extent practicable, three key elements in each recovery plan: 

 

(1) Site-specific management actions – descriptions of such site-specific management 

actions as may be necessary to achieve the plan’s goal for the conservation and survival of 

the species. 

(2) Time and cost estimates - estimates of the time required and cost to carry out those 

measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that 

goal. 

(3) Recovery criteria – objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a 

determination, in accordance with provisions of the act, that the species be removed from 

the list of threatened and endangered species (i.e., delisted). Courts have found that the 

Endangered Species Act requires the services to address each of five delisting factors to the 

maximum extent practicable when designing recovery criteria.4

 These five delisting factors 

are the same factors that are considered when listing a species: (1) the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species’ habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; 

or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting a species’ continued existence. 

Both of the services have guidance for developing recovery plans. FWS’s guidance was 

issued in 1990 and states that, among other things, recovery plans must include estimates of 

the time required for accomplishing recovery, assuming that sufficient funds are provided, 

and cost estimates to complete recovery of the species; if the estimate is uncertain, the 

nature of the uncertainty must be discussed in the plan.5

 FWS’s guidance also directs that 

recovery plans set forth precise, measurable criteria to determine when recovery has been 

achieved (if it is achievable); however, the five delisting factors are not specifically 

addressed in the guidance. NMFS’s recovery planning guidance, which was issued in 2004, 

 3

A recovery plan is not required if the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce finds that such a 

plan will not promote the conservation of the species. 

4

See Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2001); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. 

Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995). In Defenders of Wildlife, the court remanded the recovery plan to FWS to incorporate

delisting criteria or to provide an adequate explanation regarding why delisting criteria could not practicably

be incorporated. In Fund for Animals, the court remanded the plan back to FWS for revision of the recovery

criteria. 

 

5

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Policy and Guidelines for Planning and 

Coordinating Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species (May 25, 1990). 

Page 2 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
 

also discusses time and cost estimates and recovery criteria.6

 NMFS’s guidance states that 

plans should include a cost estimate for complete recovery and indicate the anticipated 

year all recovery criteria could be met, if all actions were fully funded at the indicated 

levels. Regarding recovery criteria, the guidance recognizes that legal challenges to 

recovery plans have affirmed the need to frame recovery criteria in terms of the five 

delisting factors. However, the guidance does not direct staff to address all five delisting 

factors or explain why it is not practicable to do so. 

Another key provision of the 1988 amendment to the act requires the services to report 

biennially on efforts to develop and implement recovery plans for all listed species, and on 

the status of all species for which plans have been developed.7

 The reports include, on a 

species-by-species basis, information on the progress made to implement recovery actions

and on whether a species is declining, increasing, or stable or if its status is uncertain. The 

reports are publicly available on the agencies’ Web pages. Because these reports provide, 

in a concise and easily accessible format, summary information on all of the nearly 1,300 

listed species, they are valuable tools that can be used for understanding the progress made

on recovering species. 

 

Proposed amendments to the Endangered Species Act are under consideration, and you 

have asked us to provide information on the recovery plans themselves and the progress 

made on their implementation to help facilitate this effort. To address these issues, for a 

randomly selected sample of 107 recovery plans, we identified the extent to which plans 

included (1) overall time and cost estimates to recover species and (2) the three key 

elements set forth in the 1988 amendment. We determined the plans’ time and cost 

estimates and the extent to which they contain the key elements based on information 

contained in the plans. We also conducted work on a group of 30 selected species to 

determine the factors affecting the length of recovery and the role that recovery plans have 

played in the species’ progress toward recovery. On February 8, 2006, we briefed your 

staffs on our findings relating to our work addressing the 107 recovery plans. At your 

request, we are transmitting with this report the briefing slides that summarized our 

observations (see encl. I). This report presents the final results of our work analyzing these 

plans, including recommendations to the services that we discussed with your staffs. We 

will issue a later report to present our results on the work related to the 30 selected species. 

Because the Endangered Species Act only requires the services to include the key elements 

to the maximum extent practicable, the absence of key elements from a recovery plan does 

not necessarily mean that the services have failed to meet statutory requirements. Courts 

have noted that the phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” imposes a clear duty on 

the services to include the key elements in the recovery plan to the extent that it is feasible 

or possible. In a number of cases where the services have not included key elements in 

recovery plans, courts have required them to either include the missing element or to 

provide an explanation regarding why its incorporation was not practicable. For purposes 

6

National Marine Fisheries Service, Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Planning 

Guidance, (October 2004). 

7

In practice, the reports provide status information on all listed species, regardless of whether they have a

recovery plan or not. 

Page 3 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
of this report, we only evaluated whether the key elements were present in the recovery 

plans and did not make any determinations regarding whether a recovery plan met or failed 

to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. 

We found the following: 

Of the 107 plans we reviewed, 73 plans do not provide estimates of when the species are 

expected to be recovered and 87 plans do not provide estimates of the total cost to recover 

the species. When such estimates are included, they vary widely. Of the 34 plans that 

provide a time estimate, 7 plans indicate that the species were expected to have been 

recovered by 2005;8

 the remaining plans indicate that the species are expected to be 

recovered within the next 50 years. Twenty of the 107 plans include cost estimates. These 

plans have an average cost estimate for recovery of $15.9 million and a median cost 

estimate of $1.4 million. The highest estimate is $125 million to recover the Whooping 

crane and the lowest is $58,000 to recover the Decurrent false aster—a flowering plant in 

Illinois and Missouri. While both FWS and NMFS guidance documents discuss including 

overall time and cost estimates for achieving recovery in recovery plans, we found that 

most plans only included time and costs estimates for implementing recovery actions for 

just a 5- to 7-year period. FWS and NMFS recovery program officials told us that many 

plans do not include overall time and cost estimates because of the difficulty in developing 

precise estimates due to many uncertainties, such as the availability and willingness of 

partners to aid in recovery efforts and the uncertainty of biological responses to recovery 

actions. Officials also said, however, that it would be possible to develop broad estimates 

for most species. NMFS officials said that they anticipate that recovery plans will include 

overall cost estimates for recovery, in accordance with their recently issued guidance. 

Almost all of the 107 recovery plans we reviewed have two of the three key elements 

identified in the act, but few include the third element. First, we found that all of the plans 

we reviewed include site-specific management actions, although the level of specificity 

varies greatly. Some plans contain many detailed actions; while others contain fewer, 

higher level actions. In instances where little is known about the species, the focus of sitespecific management actions is often on research and data gathering. Second, almost all of 

the 107 plans we reviewed include time and cost estimates for implementing site-specific 

management actions; 4 plans did not contain this information, but stated that doing so was 

not practicable.9

 In contrast, only 5 of the 107 plans we reviewed included the third 

element—recovery criteria that address all five delisting factors. Twenty-three plans either 

state why providing recovery criteria was not practicable or indicate that the species is 

thought to be extinct or not recoverable. An additional 57 plans include some recovery 

criteria but do not evidence consideration of all five delisting factors. The remaining 22 

plans do not include any recovery criteria for delisting and do not state why providing such 

criteria was not practicable. 

 8

The FWS reports that estimates contained in recovery plans are premised on the assumption that the partners 

and resources needed to fully implement the plans are available. 

 

9

In a number of instances, we found that task duration was described as “continuous.” In Defenders of 

Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2001), the court made note of a number of tasks in the 

recovery plan for the Sonoran pronghorn that were described as ongoing but that did not appear to be of

indefinite duration. The court remanded the recovery plan to FWS to provide time estimates where 

practicable. 

Page 4 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Conclusions 

The success of the Endangered Species Act is difficult to measure because some of the 

recovery plans we reviewed indicated that species were not likely to be recovered for up to 

50 years. Therefore, simply counting the number of extinct and recovered species 

periodically or over time, without considering the recovery prospects of listed species, 

provides limited insight into the overall success of the services’ recovery programs. An 

alternative measure of the act’s success would also consider estimates of if and when a 

species is likely to be recovered and the resources needed to prevent its extinction and 

promote its recovery. This information, however, has not been routinely included in 

species’ recovery plans. FWS’s 1990 guidance states that plans must include total time and 

cost estimates for recovery and NMFS recently issued guidance stating that recovery plans 

should include total time and cost estimates for recovery. Although developing precise 

estimates may be difficult given the uncertainties involved, agency officials agreed that 

broad estimates would be possible for most species. Including such estimates in individual 

recovery plans and making them easily accessible in a single report or other format, would

not only facilitate measuring program success but would also provide policy makers with 

valuable information for identifying resource needs. 

Furthermore, while both NMFS and FWS recognize the importance of establishing recovery 

criteria, neither direct Service personnel to address all five delisting factors in designing 

those recovery criteria. As we have reported in the past, there is a long history of extensive 

litigation on implementation of the Endangered Species Act that has consumed significant 

program resources. Omissions of recovery criteria evidencing consideration of all five 

delisting factors in plans may be another opening for similar litigation. A proactive 

response to this issue could save the services significant resources in avoided future 

litigation. 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

To facilitate measuring the success of the Endangered Species Act and provide policy 

makers with valuable information for identifying resource needs, we recommend that the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce direct the services to report estimates of the time 

and cost needed to recover species in a single location that is easily accessible by Congress

and the public, (e.g., in the biennial recovery reports to Congress). To accomplish this task, 

the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce should ensure that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively, implement their current 

recovery planning guidance when drafting or revising recovery plans so that plans routinely 

estimate the overall time and cost to recover species. 

To meet the Endangered Species Act's requirement that recovery plans, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include recovery criteria and, to not expose the services to a higherthan-necessary risk of litigation and their attendant costs, we recommend that the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce direct the services to include in recovery 

planning guidance, direction that all new and revised recovery plans have either recovery 

criteria evidencing consideration of all five delisting factors or a statement regarding why it 

is not practicable to do so. 

Page 5 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Agency Comments 

The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce provided written 

comments on a draft of this report (see enclosures II and III, respectively). A summary of 

their comments and our responses to them are included below. The departments also 

provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into the report where 

appropriate. 

The Department of the Interior generally agreed with our findings and recommendations 

and provided information about how it intends to implement the recommendations, 

including the title of the responsible official and the target date for implementation. 

The Department of Commerce also generally agreed with our findings and 

recommendations but took issue with our statement that the courts have found that the 

Endangered Species Act requires the services to address each of the five delisting factors to 

the maximum extent practicable when designing recovery criteria. Although the 

Department agreed to adopt our recommendation that all new and revised recovery plans 

have either recovery criteria evidencing consideration of all five delisting factors or a 

statement as to why it is not practicable to do so, the Department states that its current 

practice of addressing only those delisting factors that are relevant to the species is 

consistent with recent court rulings. However, court rulings, including one referenced in 

NMFS’s recovery planning guidance, contradict this statement. NMFS’s guidance includes 

a quote from a 1995 court case, which reads in part “the Court necessarily concludes that 

the FWS, in designing objective, measurable criteria, must address each of the five statutory 

delisting factors.”10

 

Additionally, the Department of Commerce agreed with our recommendation that the 

National Marine Fisheries Service include estimates of the time and cost to recover species 

in a single, easily accessible location. To accomplish this, we recommended that NMFS 

include in its recovery planning guidance direction that time estimates for species recovery 

be included in new and revised recovery plans. NMFS, however, has identified a provision 

in its guidance that already requires this, although they note that their guidance could be 

more explicit with regard to time estimates. We made appropriate changes to our report. 

Our scope and methodology are discussed in enclosure IV. We performed our work from 

March 2005 through February 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.

- - - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 

Commerce, and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available to

others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov. 

 10Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.D.C. 1995). See also Defenders of Wildlife v. Babbitt, 130 F. 

Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2001).

Page 6 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
If you have any questions about this report or need additional information, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were 

Charles T. Egan, Trish McClure, Maria Vargas, Amy Webbink, and Mary Welch. 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Enclosures – 4 

Page 7 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
List of congressional requesters:

The Honorable James M. Inhofe 

Chairman 

The Honorable James M. Jeffords 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Lincoln Chafee 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard W. Pombo 

Chairman 

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Michael D. Crapo 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Craig Thomas 

United States Senate 

Page 8 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Enclosure I 

1

Preliminary Findings on Analysis of Endangered 

Species Recovery Plans

Briefing to Congressional Requesters

February 8, 2006

Page 9 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
2

Overview

• Background

• Objectives

• Scope and Methodology

• Key Elements in Recovery Plans

• Time and Cost Estimates to Recover Species

• Appendix I: Delisting Factors

Page 10 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
3

Background

• 558 recovery plans cover 1,049 species (82 percent of 1,272 listed species). FWS has primary responsibility for most plans/species.

• The Endangered Species Act requires each recovery plan to incorporate, to the maximum extent 

practicable:

• Site specific management actions,

• Time and cost estimates for completing site specific management actions, and

• Recovery criteria.

Page 11 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
4

Background

• Site-Specific Management Actions

• A list of tasks called an implementation schedule, sometimes 

augmented by a narrative outline, typically covers the first 5 to 7 

years of a plan.

• Time and Cost Estimates for Completing Site Specific 

Management Actions

• The duration and cost of tasks are included in the implementation

schedule. Cost are usually calculated by fiscal year. Task duration

may be described as “continuous” to indicate indefinite duration.

• Recovery Criteria

• Measurable criteria for determining when a species is eligible to be

removed from the list. Courts have interpreted the ESA as requiring

recovery criteria to address the five delisting factors (see appendix I).

Page 12 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
5

Objectives

For a randomly selected sample of 107 recovery plans, 

we identify: 

1) the extent to which plans include key elements 

identified in the Endangered Species Act, and

2) when species are expected to be recovered and the 

estimated costs to do so.

Page 13 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
6

Scope and Methodology

Randomly selected sample includes:

• 99 recovery plans (covering 192 species) for which 

either FWS has primary responsibility or for which the 

Services share responsibility, and

• 8 recovery plans (covering 9 species) for which NMFS 

has primary responsibility. 

Our analysis is based only on information drawn from 

recovery plans.

We did not attempt to determine whether or not it was 

“practicable” to include the key elements in plans.

Page 14 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
7

Key Elements in Recovery Plans: SiteSpecific Management Actions

• All 107 plans include site-specific management 

actions but specificity varies greatly.

• Some plans contain many detailed actions while 

others contain fewer high level actions.

• In instances where little is known about the species, 

the focus of site specific management actions is often 

on research and data gathering.

Page 15 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
8

Key Elements in Recovery Plans: Time and

Cost Estimates for Management Actions

Of the 107 plans, 

• 103 plans had time and cost estimates for carrying out site specific management actions.

• 4 plans stated it was not practicable to include cost 

estimates.

Page 16 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
9

Key Elements in Recovery Plans: 

Recovery Criteria

Of the 107 plans,

• 5 plans contained recovery criteria that addressed all five 

delisting factors.

• 57 plans had some recovery criteria, but did not evidence 

consideration of all five delisting factors.

• 23 plans either cover species thought to be extinct or not

recoverable or state why providing recovery criteria was 

not practicable. 

• 22 do not contain recovery criteria and do not state why 

providing recovery criteria was not practicable.

Page 17 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
10

Time Estimates to Recover Species

Of the 107 plans,

• 73 plans (covering 163 species) did not provide 

estimates of when the species are expected to be

recovered.

• 34 plans provide time estimates:

• 7 plans (covering 7 species) indicate that the species

were expected to have been recovered by 2005.

• 17 plans (covering 19 species) indicate that the 

species are expected to be recovered within the next 

10 years.

• 10 plans (covering 12 species) indicate that the 

species are expected to be recovered in 10 to 50 

years.

Page 18 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
11

Cost Estimates to Recover Species

Of the 107 plans

• 87 plans (covering 181 species) do not include cost 

estimates to recover species.

• 20 plans (covering 20 species) include cost estimates:

• $15.9 million is the average cost estimate.

• $1.4 million is the median cost estimate.

• $125 million is the highest cost estimate (to recover the

Whooping Crane).

• $58,000 is the lowest cost estimate (to recover the 

Decurrent False Aster--a flowering plant in Illinois and 

Missouri).

Page 19 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
12

Appendix I: Delisting Factors

In order to be delisted, species must no longer be 

threatened or endangered because of the following 

factors (same as listing factors):

(1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range 

(2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes

(3) disease or predation

(4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms

(5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence

Page 20 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Enclosure II 

Comments from the Department of the Interior 

Page 21 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Page 22 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Page 23 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Enclosure III 

Page 24 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Page 25 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
Page 26 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
 

Enclosure IV 

Scope and Methodology 

We identified the 107 recovery plans we reviewed by randomly selecting a probability 

sample of 99 recovery plans from the 580 plans either for which the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has primary responsibility or for which it shares responsibility with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).11 In addition, we included all eight recovery plans for 

which NMFS has primary responsibility. We then determined the plans’ time and cost 

estimates and the extent to which they contain key elements based on information 

contained in the plans. For the purposes of this report, we only evaluated whether the key 

elements were present in the recovery plans and did not make any determinations 

regarding whether a recovery plan met or failed to meet the requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

(360574) 

11We selected our sample of recovery plans in June 2005 and included in our universe the final and draft plans

available at that time. 

Page 27 GAO-06-463R Endangered Species Recovery
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