National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and
Strengthen Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees
and Cost-Recovery (09-FEB-06, GAO-06-355R).
In our September 2005 report, Livestock Grazing: Federal
Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the
Purpose of the Fee Charged, we reported that the National Park
Service (Park Service) allowed livestock grazing on nearly 1.6
million acres at 31 park units. 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. 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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-355R
ACCNO: A46637
TITLE: National Park Service: Opportunities Exist to Clarify and
Strengthen Special Uses Permit Guidance on Setting Grazing Fees
and Cost-Recovery
DATE: 02/09/2006
SUBJECT: Federal property management
Grazing rights
Land management
Licenses
National parks
Policy evaluation
User fees
Livestock
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-355R
* PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* Order by Mail or Phone
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.
1GAO-05-869 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2005).
2We 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.
3See 36 C.F.R. S: 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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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
4The 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.
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. S: 3a and the Independent Offices Appropriations
Act. Under 16 U.S.C. S: 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. S: 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. S: 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:
o The park units use different approaches when setting grazing
fees. Although the Park Service's special uses permit guidance
directs park units to charge 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.
o 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 cost-recovery
amounts.
5Statement 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.
6The 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.
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:
o Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, in Washington State,
charged a two-part 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Eisenhower National Historic Site and Gettysburg National
Military Park in Pennsylvania charged a fixed amount of $25 per
acre.
o 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 cost-recovery 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
7The 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."
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:
o Grand Teton National Park retained over $4,000 in grazing
receipts for park use, but did not know its cost-recovery amounts.
o 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
cost-recovery amounts and no expenditures for grazing permits.
o Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park in Maryland
and West Virginia retained all $3,999.50 in grazing receipts, but
only reported a cost-recovery 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. S: 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.
8Of 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.
9Of 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.
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 cost-recovery 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.
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 [email protected] . 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
Enclosure I
National Parks Reporting of Their Grazing Permit Expenditures, Fees,
Receipts, and Disbursements, Fiscal Year 2004
Average
grazing
fee per
animal Receipts Receipts Receipts
unit deposited deposited
National Park Grazing Costs Grazing month Grazing into U.S. into park disbursed
Service unit expenditures recovered fee (AUM) receipts Treasury account to states
$1.35/AUM
to
Dinosaur $47,068.48 a $1.43/AUM $1.43 $2,551.37 $0.00 $2,551.37 $0.00
Grand Teton 34,804.47 a 1.43/AUM 1.43 4,159.87 0.00 4,159.87 0.00
Great Basin a a 1.43/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 a 25/acre b 97.50 0.00 97.50 0.00
Mojave a a 1.43/AUM 1.43 3,025.00 0.00 3,025.00 0.00
Monocacy 4,000.00 a 20/acre 1.11 4,840.00 0.00 4,840.00 0.00
1.35/AUM
(plus $35
fee per
Lake Roosevelt a a permit) 1.35 555.69 275.69 280.00 0.00
1.35/AUM
to
City of Rocksc a a 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
1.50/acre
Buffalo National to
River 2,225.00 0.00 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 b 50.00 0.00 50.00 0.00
Grand
Canyon-Parashantd 0.00 0.00 1.43/AUM 1.43 1,200.70 1,200.70 0.00 0.00
10/acre
to
C & O Canal a 700.00 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
2.50/acre
Natchez Trace to
Parkway 2,339.45 2,339.45 5.00/acre b 2,339.45 0.00 2,339.45 0.00
6.00/AUM
to
Point Reyes 127,650.00 124,821.25 7.00/AUM 6.84 124,821.25 0.00 124,821.25 0.00
Antietam 0.00 e 10/acre 1.11 1,730.00 0.00 1,730.00 0.00
Appomattox Court
House 3,500.00 e 20/acre b 3,860.00 0.00 3,860.00 0.00
Capitol Reeff 121,173.90 e 1.35/AUM 1.35 1,579.50 1,027.35 552.15 0.00
Great Sand Dunes a a 0.00 b 0.00 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 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nez Pierce 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pinnacles a a 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wrangell-St.
Elias a a 0.00 b 0.00 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
aNot known or reported.
bNot applicable.
cCity 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.
dGrand 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.
eThe parks reported that they used authorities other than 16 U.S.C. S: 3a
, such as the National Historic Preservation Act, to retain receipts.
fCapitol 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)
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.
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 ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***