Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program
Limited Assurance Regarding the Federal Funding Requirements Gao ID: GAO-05-804 September 19, 2005The Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (Act), passed in October 1986, required the Secretary of the Interior to establish and restore a conservation area in that river basin, created a management council and a task force to assist and advise the Secretary, and authorized $21 million until September 30, 2006. The restoration program reports that it had been appropriated over $17 million by September 2005. In anticipation of the authorization's expiration, GAO was asked to provide information for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the most recent 5-year period for which complete information is available, about (1) funding for the program; (2) expenditures by the program for restoration projects, travel expenses, administrative expenses, overhead, and technical support; (3) expenditures by the management council and the task force; and (4) whether the Secretary complied with certain requirements of the Act. GAO obtained funding and expenditure information from FWS but did not audit that financial information.
The Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have taken a number of actions to formulate, establish, and implement the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program, including designating a conservation area, establishing the management council and the task force, formulating a long-term plan, and funding restoration projects in the Klamath River Basin. The restoration program reports receiving a little over $9.8 million in cash and noncash contributions during fiscal years 2000 through 2004 from federal and nonfederal sources. The federal portion totaled almost $6.3 million and consisted of about $5.1 million from FWS's lump-sum resource management appropriation account, and almost $1.2 million in cash and noncash contributions from federal entities that participated in restoration projects with FWS, according to FWS records. FWS records also show that the nonfederal portion consisted of almost $3.6 million in cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal entities that participated in restoration projects. During the same 5-year period, the restoration program spent about $7.6 million in cash and noncash contributions for restoration projects, about $200,000 for travel reimbursements, about $1.1 million for administrative expenses, and about $491,000 for overhead, according to information provided by FWS officials. Information was not available on technical support expenses incurred by the restoration program. The management council and the task force serve solely in an advisory capacity and do not directly select or manage projects. FWS officials told GAO that they paid about $800,000 to cover operating costs of the management council and the task force for the 5-year period. Regarding the financial requirements of the Act, FWS officials have correctly identified the need to fund some Restoration Program expenditures from monies that are not subject to the Act's restrictions, and FWS officials told GAO they believe they are in compliance with these provisions. However, FWS has not yet incorporated into their accounting procedures and record-keeping sufficient controls to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with those provisions of the Act. In addition, the Act requires that half of the restoration program's costs be funded by nonfederal sources. FWS officials collect some information on restoration projects regarding any nonfederal contributions, but they do not distinguish between cash and noncash contributions in project documents, document their valuation decisions regarding the noncash contributions, or take steps to verify that nonfederal contributions meet the Act's criteria. Incorporating these additional controls into the Restoration Program's operations would not be difficult or costly, and would provide reasonable assurance of compliance with those provisions of the Act.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-804, Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program: Limited Assurance Regarding the Federal Funding Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-804
entitled 'Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program:
Limited Assurance Regarding the Federal Funding Requirements' which was
released on September 19, 2005.
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
September 2005:
Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program:
Limited Assurance Regarding the Federal Funding Requirements:
GAO-05-804:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-804, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (Act), passed
in October 1986, required the Secretary of the Interior to establish
and restore a conservation area in that river basin, created a
management council and a task force to assist and advise the Secretary,
and authorized $21 million until September 30, 2006. The restoration
program reports that it had been appropriated over $17 million by
September 2005. In anticipation of the authorization‘s expiration, GAO
was asked to provide information for fiscal years 2000 through 2004,
the most recent 5-year period for which complete information is
available, about (1) funding for the program; (2) expenditures by the
program for restoration projects, travel expenses, administrative
expenses, overhead, and technical support; (3) expenditures by the
management council and the task force; and (4) whether the Secretary
complied with certain requirements of the Act. GAO obtained funding and
expenditure information from FWS but did not audit that financial
information.
What GAO Found:
The Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) have taken a number of actions to formulate, establish, and
implement the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration
Program, including designating a conservation area, establishing the
management council and the task force, formulating a long-term plan,
and funding restoration projects in the Klamath River Basin. The
restoration program reports receiving a little over $9.8 million in
cash and noncash contributions during fiscal years 2000 through 2004
from federal and nonfederal sources. The federal portion totaled almost
$6.3 million and consisted of about $5.1 million from FWS‘s lump-sum
resource management appropriation account, and almost $1.2 million in
cash and noncash contributions from federal entities that participated
in restoration projects with FWS, according to FWS records. FWS records
also show that the nonfederal portion consisted of almost $3.6 million
in cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal entities that
participated in restoration projects.
During the same 5-year period, the restoration program spent about $7.6
million in cash and noncash contributions for restoration projects,
about $200,000 for travel reimbursements, about $1.1 million for
administrative expenses, and about $491,000 for overhead, according to
information provided by FWS officials. Information was not available on
technical support expenses incurred by the restoration program.
The management council and the task force serve solely in an advisory
capacity and do not directly select or manage projects. FWS officials
told GAO that they paid about $800,000 to cover operating costs of the
management council and the task force for the 5-year period.
Regarding the financial requirements of the Act, FWS officials have
correctly identified the need to fund some Restoration Program
expenditures from monies that are not subject to the Act‘s
restrictions, and FWS officials told GAO they believe they are in
compliance with these provisions. However, FWS has not yet incorporated
into their accounting procedures and record-keeping sufficient controls
to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with those provisions of
the Act.
In addition, the Act requires that half of the restoration program‘s
costs be funded by nonfederal sources. FWS officials collect some
information on restoration projects regarding any nonfederal
contributions, but they do not distinguish between cash and noncash
contributions in project documents, document their valuation decisions
regarding the noncash contributions, or take steps to verify that
nonfederal contributions meet the Act‘s criteria. Incorporating these
additional controls into the Restoration Program‘s operations would not
be difficult or costly, and would provide reasonable assurance of
compliance with those provisions of the Act.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes five recommendations to enhance compliance with the Act.
Interior generally agreed with the recommendations but stated that
there would be added administrative costs.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-804.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact McCoy Williams at (202)
512-6906 or williamsm1@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Funds Received by the Restoration Program:
Purposes for which the Restoration Program Spent Funds:
Purposes for which the Task Force and the Management Council Spent
Funds:
No Reasonable Assurance of Compliance with the Act's Provisions:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Funding of Restoration Projects by Type of Participant
Entity:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Sources and Amounts of Funding Received by the Restoration
Program Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Table 2: Purposes and Amounts of Restoration Program Expenditures from
FWS Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Letter September 19, 2005:
Congressional Requesters:
In October 1986, to assist in restoring the Klamath River's fish
resources, Congress passed the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources
Restoration Act[Footnote 1] (the Act). The Act authorized $21 million
to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior and charged the
Secretary with implementing a 20-year program to designate and restore
a conservation area within the Klamath River Basin.[Footnote 2] To
assist the Secretary, the Act also established the Klamath Fishery
Management Council to monitor the fish population and recommend annual
fish harvest limits, and the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force
to advise the Secretary regarding implementation of the Restoration
Program.
Because the 1986 Act established a 20-year program and provided that
the $21 million authorization would expire on September 30, 2006, you
asked us to gather and analyze financial information about the Klamath
River Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program (Restoration
Program), the Management Council, and the Task Force for the most
recent 5-year period for which complete information is available.
Specifically, you asked us to provide information about (1) the sources
and amounts of funding received by and for the Restoration Program for
fiscal years 2000 through 2004; (2) how much of the funds received by
and for the Restoration Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 were
spent for restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative
expenses, overhead, and technical support; (3) the amounts of funding
received by the Task Force and Management Council for fiscal years 2000
through 2004 that were spent for restoration projects, travel
reimbursements, administrative expenses, overhead, and technical
support; and (4) whether the Secretary of the Interior complied with
specific requirements contained in the Act.
To answer these questions, we obtained and analyzed information from
officials of the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the Task Force, and the Management Council. We reviewed
the Klamath Act, Task Force meeting minutes, Management Council meeting
minutes, Federal Advisory Committee Act[Footnote 3] reports prepared by
FWS officials for the Task Force and the Management Council, budget and
accounting records maintained by FWS officials, and reports of studies
and other documents issued by the Task Force and the Management
Council.
Regarding the information on funding for the Restoration Program,
expenditures by the Restoration Program, and expenditures made on
behalf of the Management Council and the Task Force, we noted that the
Restoration Program's financial information for the 5-year period has
not been subject to any external audit. Furthermore, the funding and
expenditure information for the program are maintained by FWS on
several different systems designed for various management purposes. As
discussed with your staff, we did not perform a financial audit on the
financial information we collected from FWS officials for various
reasons. For example, FWS's appropriations do not contain a discrete
line item for the Restoration Program and this prevented us from doing
an independent verification of the appropriated amounts. Likewise,
limitations in FWS's record-keeping systems for restoration projects,
employee time and attendance, and cost accounting prevented us from
validating some project and expenditure information. However, we did
discuss the financial information extensively with FWS officials,
perform certain analytical tests on the information, and in some cases,
receive revised financial information from the FWS officials. Based on
these procedures, we concluded that the financial information was
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition to not auditing the financial information, we did not
evaluate the efficiency or effectiveness of the Restoration Program, of
individual restoration projects, or of actions taken by the Task Force
and the Management Council. For the most part, we limited the scope of
our work to fiscal years 2000 through 2004; however, some compliance
information and some historical financial information we gathered
included earlier years, going back to the passage of the Act in 1986.
We performed our work primarily at the headquarters offices of the
Department of the Interior, and the FWS in Washington, D.C. We also
traveled to FWS's Yreka, California, field office, which administers
the Restoration Program, to gather information. Additional details of
our scope and methodology are presented in appendix I to this report.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of
the Interior or her designee. Written comments from the Acting
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks are included as
appendix III to this report. We also received a number of technical
comments which we considered and incorporated into the report as
appropriate but did not include as part of appendix III. We conducted
our work from June 2004 through June 2005 in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The Secretary of the Interior delegated responsibility for formulating
and implementing the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration
Program to the Director of FWS. In fiscal year 1987, the Director
established a new Fish and Wildlife office in Yreka, California, to
manage the operations of the Restoration Program and any FWS
appropriated funds used for those operations. For fiscal years 1988
through 2005 the Restoration Program reports having received more than
$17 million from FWS's Resource Management appropriations.
For fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the most recent 5-year period for
which complete expenditure information is available, the Restoration
Program reports receiving a total of about $9.8 million in cash and
noncash contributions[Footnote 4] from federal and nonfederal sources.
Information provided by FWS officials shows that the federal portion,
which totaled $6.3 million, included about $5.1 million from FWS's
Resource Management appropriations that FWS has allocated for
anadromous fish management activities.[Footnote 5] Most of this funding
came from about $5 million in appropriations FWS allocated for the
Restoration Program established by the Klamath River Basin Fishery
Resources Restoration Act and the rest, a little over $135,000, came
from other appropriations FWS allocated to anadromous fish management
activities for purposes related to the goals of the Restoration
Program. In addition, according to FWS records, the Restoration Program
also received almost $1.2 million in cash and noncash contributions
during this period from other federal entities that participated in
restoration projects. The nonfederal portion consisted of almost $3.6
million[Footnote 6] in cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal
entities that participated in restoration projects, according to the
FWS records.
Of the about $5.1 million received by the Restoration Program from
FWS's fiscal years 2000 through 2004 Resource Management
appropriations, FWS records show that about $2.9 million, or 57
percent, went to restoration projects; about $615,000, or 12 percent,
was used by FWS to manage restoration projects, including planning,
contracting, tracking agreements, complying with environmental
requirements, and providing technical assistance to projects; about
$1.1 million, or 23 percent, was spent on program administration,
including administrative and technical support provided by FWS to the
two federal advisory committees created by the Act; and the remaining
about $443,000, or 9 percent,[Footnote 7] was used for overhead
expenses incurred at the FWS headquarters and regional office levels.
Our analysis of the various cost categories maintained by Yreka FWO
officials and the office expenses that are allocated to the Restoration
Program by FWS officials showed that about $48,000 could be classified
as overhead expense incurred at the field office level. Using that
analysis, and other financial information provided by FWS officials
shows the total overhead expense incurred at the headquarters, regional
office, and field office levels for the Restoration Program was about
$491,000 for the 5-year period, or about 10 percent of the $5.1 million
received by the Restoration Program during that time period from FWS's
Resource Management appropriations.
The $4.7 million in cash and noncash contributions contributed to the
Restoration Program by other federal and nonfederal entities that
participated with FWS in restoration projects, according to FWS
officials, remained in the control of the participating entities for
use on those restoration projects in which they participated. Combining
that $4.7 million in cash and noncash contributions brought to
restoration projects by participating entities with the $2.9 million
that FWS officials reported FWS provided to projects from its Resource
Management appropriations brings the total amount provided to
restoration projects during the 5-year period to a little over $7.6
million. FWS's $2.9 million in project funding provided almost $700,000
to three federal entities to help fund 26 restoration projects, and
nearly $2.2 million to 18 nonfederal entities to help fund 100
restoration projects, according to FWS officials.
The Klamath Fishery Management Council and the Klamath River Basin
Fisheries Task Force were chartered by the Secretary of the Interior as
federal advisory committees, and most of their operating costs[Footnote
8] are covered by the Resource Management appropriations FWS has
specifically allocated to implement the Restoration Program, with some
additional funding coming from the same Resource Management
appropriations that FWS has allocated for other related anadromous fish
management activities but not pursuant to the Act. The FWS field office
in Yreka, California, which administers the Restoration Program,
receives and expends funds to pay for the committees' operating costs.
According to FWS officials, about $800,000 of the almost $5.1 million
received by the Restoration Program from FWS appropriations for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 was used to pay for operating costs of the
committees, for a yearly average of about $160,000.
The Secretary of the Interior and FWS have taken a number of actions to
formulate, establish, and implement the Restoration Program, including
designating a conservation area, establishing the Management Council
and the Task Force, formulating a long-term plan, and funding over 350
restoration projects in the Klamath River Basin. However, Interior
cannot provide reasonable assurance that it has complied with all the
financial requirements of the Act. The Act required the Secretary to
establish by regulation the experience, training, and other
qualifications volunteers must have for their services to count as
noncash contributions, and the standards for determining the value of
all types of noncash contributions. According to an Interior official,
the Secretary interpreted these provisions of the Act to require
Interior to follow its existing grants management regulations, which
address some aspects of those areas. Because of this interpretation,
new regulations specific to the Restoration Program were not issued,
and FWS officials maintain that it is not necessary to issue any.
However, inadequate internal controls impair FWS's ability to provide
reasonable assurance of compliance with the existing Interior
regulations.
The Act also places certain limitations on the use of appropriated
funds. For example, the Act precludes use of appropriations authorized
by the Act to reimburse federal employees who incur travel expenses as
members of the Task Force or the Management Council or to reimburse the
federal employees' agencies for salaries earned by the federal
employees while performing duties as members of the Task Force or the
Management Council. FWS officials have correctly identified the need to
fund some Restoration Program expenditures, such as certain travel and
salary expenses for FWS officials who are members of the Management
Council or the Task Force, from monies that are not subject to the
Act's restrictions. Furthermore, they told us they believe they are in
compliance with these provisions "because 1) the salary and travel of
the FWS official who serves as chair of the Task Force are charged to
another account, and 2) funds provided to the Restoration Program from
other FWS sources exceed the salary and travel costs related to the
duties of the FWS official who serves on the [Management] Council."
However, compliance with these provisions of the Act can be reasonably
assured only by implementing adequate control mechanisms, and they have
not yet incorporated into their accounting procedures and record-
keeping practices sufficient controls to provide reasonable assurance
of compliance with those provisions of the Act. For example, their
accounting records do not distinguish between expenditures made from
funds allocated by FWS for the Restoration Program and expenditures
made from funds allocated by FWS for related purposes and thus not
subject to the Act's restrictions. As a result, compliance cannot be
demonstrated.
Also, the Act requires that 50 percent of the cost of the development
and implementation of the Restoration Program be provided by nonfederal
sources. FWS officials routinely collect information on nonfederal
contributions to restoration projects; however, they do not evaluate
whether 50 percent of the cost of the development and implementation of
the Restoration Program has been provided by nonfederal sources. In
addition, neither direct nor indirect contributions of federal funds by
a state or local government can be counted as contributions by a
nonfederal source in determining compliance with the 50 percent
provision contained in the Act. However, FWS officials have not
formulated a methodology for determining whether state or local
government funds used for a restoration project originated as federal
money. Therefore, FWS officials cannot make a determination on whether
the Restoration Program is in compliance with these provisions.
We are making five recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior to
address compliance with the financial-related requirements and
limitations in the Act. Interior generally agreed with our
recommendations but noted that there were costs associated with the
added controls contemplated by our recommendations. These efforts
should not, if effectively implemented, be overly burdensome. In our
view, implementing these controls would be beneficial to Interior and
Congress as part of any deliberations on extending the Restoration
Program because these controls were an integral part of the Program's
statutory funding structure.
Background:
Congress passed the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration
Act (the Act)[Footnote 9] in October 1986 to assist in restoring the
Klamath River's fish resources. The Act authorized $21 million to be
appropriated to the Department of the Interior, and it charged the
Secretary of the Interior with implementing a 20-year program to
designate[Footnote 10] and restore a conservation area within the
Klamath River Basin. The Secretary, in turn, delegated responsibility
for implementing the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Restoration
Program (Restoration Program) to the Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), a bureau-level unit within the Department of
the Interior. To facilitate implementation and management of the
Restoration Program, FWS established under its Portland, Oregon,
Regional Office a new field office in Yreka, California.
The Act also established the Klamath Fishery Management Council
(Management Council) to monitor the fish population and recommend
annual fish harvest limits, and the Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task
Force (Task Force) to advise and assist the Secretary regarding
implementation of the Restoration Program. To implement these
provisions in the Act, the Secretary chartered the Management Council
and the Task Force as federal advisory committees. Neither the
Management Council nor the Task Force receives or spends
funds.[Footnote 11] Since their inception, the Fish and Wildlife Office
(FWO) at Yreka, California, has provided the financial resources to
cover the Management Council's and the Task Force's operational
expenses. In addition, staff from the Yreka FWO, along with staff from
the State of California's Department of Fish and Game, have provided
technical and administrative support to the Management Council and the
Task Force as required by the Act.[Footnote 12]
Management Council:
In accordance with its charter, the Klamath Fishery Management Council
functions only in an advisory capacity and reports to the Secretary of
the Interior. The Management Council is responsible for making
recommendations to various federal, state, local, and Indian tribal
authorities regarding fish-harvesting regulations. In addition, the
Management Council was assigned responsibility to establish a
comprehensive long-term plan and policy for the management of the in-
river and ocean harvesting that affects or may affect Klamath and
Trinity River Basin anadromous fish populations.[Footnote 13] The
Management Council's long-term plan, published in 1992,[Footnote 14]
lays out goals and objectives for fish populations in the Conservation
Area and strategic plans for meeting the goals and objectives.
As prescribed by the Act, the Management Council is composed of 11
members, including representatives appointed by the Governors of
California and Oregon, Hoopa Valley Business Council, non-Hoopa
Indians, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Commerce.
The term of a member is 4 years. The Management Council usually meets
three or four times a year (usually in February, March, April, and
October) at various locations in California and Oregon. The Management
Council publishes notices of meetings in the Federal Register, posts
its meeting agenda on the Yreka FWO Internet Web page 2 to 3 weeks
before each meeting, and invites the public to attend its meetings.
From fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 2004, the Management Council
held 73 meetings. Each meeting lasts from 3 to 5 days. The members
discuss ongoing fish population monitoring activities. They also
discuss and make recommendations on the regulation of ocean harvesting,
recreational harvesting, and harvesting in the Conservation Area by the
Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe and by non-Hoopa Indians. The Management
Council's recommendations must be consistent with its long-term plan
and policy and must pass the Management Council by unanimous vote. The
public is invited to attend all Management Council meetings, and public
comment periods are scheduled on the agenda throughout the meetings.
Sometimes speakers are invited to the meetings to make presentations on
fish population studies.
The Management Council is provided with biological and statistical
expertise by the Technical Advisory Team, a subgroup created by the
Management Council, whose membership consists of individuals from
entities represented on the Management Council. The Technical Advisory
Team advises the Management Council on the status of anadromous fish
stocks and the impacts of fishery management options. This includes the
development of annual projections of fish stock size and development of
fishery models for use in the management of fish populations.
Task Force:
The Act provides for a 16-member Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task
Force to advise and assist the Secretary of the Interior in the
development and implementation of the Restoration Program. The Task
Force consists of members who represent a broad range of stakeholder
interests from throughout the Klamath River area. Members are appointed
by, and represent, the Governors of California and Oregon; the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary
of Agriculture; the California counties of Del Norte, Humboldt,
Siskiyou, and Trinity; Klamath County, Oregon; the Hoopa Valley, Karuk,
Yurok, and Klamath Tribes; in-river sport anglers; and commercial
salmon fishermen.
According to its charter, the Task Force also functions only in an
advisory capacity and reports to the Secretary of the Interior. The
charter states that the Task Force has four objectives: (1) to assist
the Secretary of the Interior in the formulation, coordination, and
implementation of the Restoration Program; (2) to assist and coordinate
its activities with federal, state, local government, and private
anadromous fish restoration projects; (3) to conduct any other activity
necessary to accomplish the objectives of the Restoration Program; and
(4) to act as advisor to the Management Council. The Task Force works
by consensus to coordinate restoration planning, recommend restoration
project proposals for funding, and express opinions on issues affecting
the Klamath River Basin. In 1991, in conjunction with an independent
contractor, the Task Force developed the Long Range Plan for the
Restoration Program.[Footnote 15]
The Task Force usually meets three times per year (in February, June,
and October) at various locations in California and Oregon. Like the
Management Council, the Task Force publishes notices of meetings in the
Federal Register, posts its meeting agenda at the Yreka FWO Internet
Web page 2 to 3 weeks before each meeting, and invites the public to
attend its meetings. Each meeting session lasts from 2 to 3 days. The
members discuss needs for managing Klamath River fish, ongoing and
proposed Klamath River Basin restoration projects, and the technical
information needs of the Management Council. They also discuss and make
recommendations regarding the funding of restoration projects.
Each spring the Task Force, in conjunction with FWS, issues a Request
for Proposals for restoration projects to be funded in the following
fiscal year with Restoration Program funds. When the project proposals
are received, they are evaluated for technical merit and scored by the
Task Force's Technical Work Group,[Footnote 16] using criteria
published in the Request for Proposals.[Footnote 17] Then, using the
amount of expected funding for the following year as a guide for
determining how many new restoration projects can be funded, the
Technical Work Group presents its analysis to the entire Task Force. At
its June meeting, the Task Force considers the Technical Work Group's
analysis, and by unanimous vote, selects the project proposals it will
recommend to the Secretary of the Interior[Footnote 18] for funding in
the next fiscal year. Approximately 25 projects were funded annually
for fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
Yreka FWO:
The Yreka FWO was established in fiscal year 1987 to facilitate
implementation and management of the Restoration Program. The Yreka FWO
is involved in administering several other FWS programs and activities,
but the Restoration Program comprises about one-half of the office's
annual funding. The Yreka FWO has 1 full-time contract employee who
performs administrative functions and 15 employees: a field supervisor,
an assistant field supervisor, 2 supervisory biologists, 6 staff
biologists, 1 administrative supervisor, 2 administrative staff, and 2
part-time staff biologists.
Eight of these individuals provide technical and administrative
services to the Management Council and the Task Force, perform
restoration project management functions, or have Restoration Program
administration duties. Two of the employees (a supervisory biologist
and one part-time staff biologist) spend almost all of their time on
Restoration Program activities. The Field Supervisor, three
administrative employees, one staff biologist, and the contract
employee spend part of their time on Restoration Program activities.
The assistant field supervisor, a supervisory biologist, five staff
biologists, and one part-time staff biologist do not spend any of their
time on Restoration Program activities. Until fiscal year 2004, Yreka
FWO was supervised by FWS's Portland Regional Office, but it is now
supervised by FWS's California-Nevada Operations Office.
Funds Received by the Restoration Program:
There are a number of uncertainties in determining the amount of funds
received by the Restoration Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
First, FWS's appropriations do not contain a discrete line item for the
Restoration Program. This prevented us from doing any independent
verification of the appropriated amounts. Second, FWS's restoration
project database does not distinguish between cash and noncash
contributions provided to the restoration project by project
participants. The restoration project database shows a single amount,
called the cost-share amount, which is the sum of all contributions
made by the project participant to the project. For some projects, we
could determine the amount of cost share that consisted of cash and the
amount that consisted of noncash by looking in the contract file at the
project agreement, or at supporting documents, or even at the final
report if the project had been completed. However, for some restoration
projects, even those documents did not contain adequate information for
us to make a distinction between cash and noncash contributions. As a
result, we were unable to determine how much of contributions made by
project participants was cash and how much was noncash. Third,
Restoration Program officials did not routinely perform independent
analysis to determine the value that should be assigned to noncash
contributions as called for by good financial management practices.
Rather, according to FWS officials, they typically accepted the values
assigned by the project participant as long as the values appeared
reasonable. They did this for various reasons, including their lack of
formal criteria for making such evaluations, and their uncertainty
about their authority to question the values. Therefore, the
composition and value of cost-share amounts maintained in FWS records
are subject to question.
For the 5 years from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 through the end
of fiscal year 2004, according to FWS officials, the Klamath River
Basin Conservation Area Restoration Program received about $9.8 million
in cash and noncash contributions: almost $6.3 million from federal
sources and almost $3.6 million from nonfederal sources.[Footnote 19]
The federal funds included about $5.1 million in appropriations derived
from FWS's Resource Management appropriation account,[Footnote 20]
which includes a lump-sum appropriation that FWS allocates to various
program activities, including the Fisheries Program.[Footnote 21] FWS
operates several subprograms within the Fisheries Program, including
the Fish and Wildlife Management Program, which administers several
subactivity program elements, including Anadromous Fish Management.
During the 5 years under review, FWS allocated about $5
million[Footnote 22] in appropriations to the Klamath River Basin
Conservation Area Restoration Program established under the Klamath
River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act. In addition, according
to FWS officials, FWS provided about $135,000 more to the Restoration
Program during the 5-year period from appropriations FWS has allocated
to support the Anadromous Fish Management subactivity of the Fisheries
Program's Fish and Wildlife Management Program. Also, according to FWS
records, the Restoration Program benefited during that same time period
from the almost $1.2 million in cash and noncash contributions[Footnote
23] from federal entities that participated in restoration projects.
The almost $3.6 million from nonfederal sources came to the Restoration
Program as cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal entities that
participated in restoration projects, according to FWS records. See
table 1 for a year-by-year breakdown of the Restoration Program
funding, based on unaudited financial information provided by FWS
officials.
Table 1: Sources and Amounts of Funding Received by the Restoration
Program Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Source of funding: Fisheries Program allocation designated for the
Restoration Program - net appropriations[A];
Fiscal year 2000: $996,200;
Fiscal year 2001: $994,008;
Fiscal year 2002: $996,200;
Fiscal year 2003: $987,547;
Fiscal year 2004: $981,761;
Total funding: $4,955,716.
Source of funding: Fisheries Program allocation not designated for the
Restoration Program (appropriations);
Fiscal year 2000: $16,196;
Fiscal year 2001: $22,243;
Fiscal year 2002: $34,950;
Fiscal year 2003: $26,374;
Fiscal year 2004: $35,478;
Total funding: $135,241.
Source of funding: Cost share provided to restoration projects; by
federal entities;
Fiscal year 2000: $135,937;
Fiscal year 2001: $248,469;
Fiscal year 2002: $226,160;
Fiscal year 2003: $235,678;
Fiscal year 2004: $318,714;
Total funding: $1,164,958.
Source of funding: Cost share provided to restoration projects by
nonfederal entities;
Fiscal year 2000: $581,471;
Fiscal year 2001: $783,226;
Fiscal year 2002: $647,856;
Fiscal year 2003: $656,581;
Fiscal year 2004: $906,351;
Total funding: $3,575,485.
Source of funding: Total Restoration Program funding from all sources;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,729,804;
Fiscal year 2001: $2,047,946;
Fiscal year 2002: $1,905,166;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,906,180;
Fiscal year 2004: $2,242,304;
Total funding: $9,831,400.
Source: GAO computations based on unaudited FWS data.
[A] The term net appropriations refers to the amount received after
accounting for any rescissions.
[End of table]
In addition to gathering financial information on the Restoration
Program's sources of funds for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, we
gathered the same information going back to the passage of the Act in
1986. Specifically, from the beginning of fiscal year 1988 through June
2005,[Footnote 24] FWS records show that the Klamath River Basin
Conservation Area Restoration Program received over $17.0 million in
funding from the Resource Management appropriations that FWS has
allocated for the Restoration Program established by the Klamath River
Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act and another $188,000 from FWS's
Resource Management appropriations that FWS allocated for other
activities funded by the Fisheries Program. In addition, according to
FWS officials, the Restoration Program benefited during that same time
period from about $1.7 million in cash and noncash contributions from
federal entities that participated in restoration projects and from
$5.8 million in cash and noncash contributions from nonfederal entities
that participated in restoration projects. Although the Act was passed
on October 27, 1986, the Restoration Program did not receive designated
appropriations for fiscal year 1987. However, some expenditures for the
Restoration Program, amounting to about $57,000, were funded during
fiscal year 1987 from appropriations available to FWS for Fisheries
Program expenditures.
Purposes for which the Restoration Program Spent Funds:
According to FWS records, the Restoration Program funded 126
restoration projects during fiscal years 2000 through 2004, in addition
to supporting the operations of the Management Council and the Task
Force, providing for FWS project management services, paying for
program administration expenses, and contributing to the operational
costs of FWS's Yreka field office, Portland regional office, and
Washington, D.C. headquarters office.
Of the about $5.1 million received by the Restoration Program from
FWS's fiscal years 2000 through 2004 Resource Management
appropriations, FWS's records show about $2.9 million, or 57 percent,
went to restoration projects; about $615,000, or 12 percent, was used
by FWS to manage restoration projects, including planning, contracting,
tracking agreements, complying with environmental requirements, and
providing technical assistance to projects; about $1.1 million, or 23
percent, was spent on program administration, including administrative
and technical support provided by FWS to the two federal advisory
committees created by the Act; and the remaining about $442,000, or 9
percent,[Footnote 25] was used for overhead expenses incurred at the
FWS headquarters and regional office levels.
In addition, the $4.7 million contributed to the Restoration Program by
federal and nonfederal project participants that participated in
restoration projects remained in the control of the project
participants. The project participants used the $4.7 million of cash
and noncash contributions on those restoration projects in which they
participated. We were not able to obtain adequate information on the
project participants' contributions to describe the purposes for which
those amounts were spent. See table 2 for a year-by-year breakdown of
the purposes and amounts of Restoration Program expenditures paid from
FWS appropriations.
Table 2: Purposes and Amounts of Restoration Program Expenditures from
FWS Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2004:
Purpose of expenditure: Restoration projects (obligated)[A];
Fiscal year 2000: $571,838;
Fiscal year 2001: $578,700;
Fiscal year 2002: $578,700;
Fiscal year 2003: $578,709;
Fiscal year 2004: $578,130;
Total expenditures: $2,886,077.
Purpose of expenditure: Project management;
Fiscal year 2000: $116,273;
Fiscal year 2001: $118,935;
Fiscal year 2002: $130,209;
Fiscal year 2003: $124,361;
Fiscal year 2004: $125,010;
Total expenditures: $614,788.
Purpose of expenditure: Support of federal advisory committees;
Fiscal year 2000: $165,085;
Fiscal year 2001: $159,835;
Fiscal year 2002: $160,837;
Fiscal year 2003: $153,395;
Fiscal year 2004: $156,244;
Total expenditures: $795,396.
Purpose of expenditure: Program administration;
Fiscal year 2000: $70,339;
Fiscal year 2001: $69,693;
Fiscal year 2002: $72,762;
Fiscal year 2003: $69,439;
Fiscal year 2004: $70,313;
Total expenditures: $352,546.
Purpose of expenditure: FWS Washington office overhead;
Fiscal year 2000: $9,962;
Fiscal year 2001: $10,439;
Fiscal year 2002: $33,926;
Fiscal year 2003: $73,759;
Fiscal year 2004: $87,542;
Total expenditures: $215,628.
Purpose of expenditure: Regional office[B]; overhead;
Fiscal year 2000: $78,899;
Fiscal year 2001: $78,649;
Fiscal year 2002: $54,716;
Fiscal year 2003: $14,258;
Fiscal year 2004: $0;
Total expenditures: $$226,522.
Purpose of expenditure: Total annual expenditures;
Fiscal year 2000: $1,012,396;
Fiscal year 2001: $1,016,251;
Fiscal year 2002: $1,031,150;
Fiscal year 2003: $1,013,921;
Fiscal year 2004: $1,017,239;
Total expenditures: $5,090,957.
Source: GAO computations based on unaudited FWS data.
[A] We used obligated amounts for restoration projects costs because
the amount is obligated for a restoration project from a single year's
funds but may be expended over a multiyear period. Therefore, the
obligated amount for a particular year better represents the amount
from that year's funds that is spent on projects than would the
expended amount for that year, which might consist of expenditures on
several different years' projects.
[B] FWS's Portland Regional Office oversaw the operations of the Yreka
FWO for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. This responsibility was
transferred to the California-Nevada Operations Office in fiscal year
2004. However, neither the Portland Regional Office nor the California-
Nevada Operations Office received an assessment from the Restoration
Program appropriations for fiscal year 2004.
[End of table]
We used the expenditure categories in table 2 to report how FWS's
Resource Management appropriations were spent because they represent
the major functions for which the Restoration Program spends funds and,
with the exception of overhead, are the major categories FWS officials
use to track the Restoration Program budget. However, to fulfill our
engagement objectives, we also sought to provide information about what
amounts of the FWS's Resource Management appropriations received by and
for the Restoration Program from the beginning of fiscal year 2000
through the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the purposes of
restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses,
overhead, and technical support.
Restoration projects. Table 2 shows that almost $2.9 million was
committed to restoration projects from FWS's Resource Management
appropriations for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. Combining that
amount with the $4.7 million in cash and noncash contributions provided
to restoration projects by project participants brings the total
invested by the Restoration Program directly to restoration projects
during the 5-year period to a little over $7.6 million.
Of the $2.9 million in project funding from FWS's Resource Management
appropriations, the Restoration Program provided almost $700,000 to
three federal entities to help fund 26 restoration projects carried out
by those federal entities, and provided almost $2.2 million to 18
nonfederal entities to help fund 100 restoration projects carried out
by those nonfederal entities.[Footnote 26] The three federal entities
that carried out the 26 restoration projects are the same ones that
brought cash and noncash contributions totaling almost $1.2 million to
the Restoration Program, and the 18 nonfederal entities that carried
out the 100 restoration projects are the same ones that brought cash
and noncash contributions totaling almost $3.6 million to the
Restoration Program. Thus, according to FWS records, total investment
from federal and nonfederal sources in restoration projects amounted to
a little over $7.6 millionthat funded 126 restoration projects from the
beginning of fiscal year 2000 through the end of fiscal year 2004. It
should be recognized, however, that in addition to Restoration Program
projects, other restoration projects are undertaken in the Klamath
River Basin with funding from FWS through its other programs; and other
restoration projects still are undertaken in the Klamath River Basin
with funding from other federal entities, the states of California and
Oregon, and other nonfederal entities.
Travel reimbursement expenses. Travel reimbursement expenses are
contained in each of three expenditure categories (project management,
program administration, and support of federal advisory committees)
shown in table 2, but they can be segregated. Specifically, total
Restoration Program travel reimbursement expenses amounted to about
$200,000 for the 5-year period, for an average of about $40,000 per
year. This includes travel by members of the two federal advisory
committees,[Footnote 27] federal staff who support the committees, and
FWS officials who perform project management and program administration
activities.
Program administration expenses. Table 2 shows program administration
expenses for the 5-year period of about $350,000. Table 2 also shows
expenditures of about $800,000 in support of the two federal advisory
committees. Based on our discussions with FWS officials, we consider
the expenditures made in support of the federal advisory committees to
also be administrative expenses for the Restoration Program. Summing
the amounts for those two categories produces a total of about $1.1
million for Restoration Program administrative expenses during fiscal
years 2000 through 2004.
Overhead expenses. To provide information about what amounts of the
funds received by and for the Restoration Program from the beginning of
fiscal year 2000 through the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the
purposes of overhead expenses, we examined the use of Restoration
Program funds at the FWS Washington, D.C., office level, the FWS
regional office level, and the Yreka FWO level. Each year during the 5-
year period, the FWS headquarters in Washington, D.C., received varying
amounts of the Restoration Program appropriations for "Cost Allocation
Methodology," a process through which rent and other FWS administrative
costs are shared by the programs. As can be seen in table 2, we
considered the amount received by FWS headquarters, about $216,000, to
be Restoration Program overhead.
The Portland Regional Office oversaw the operations of the Yreka FWO
for most of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 and during the first 4 of
those years it received a total of about $227,000 of Restoration
Program appropriated funds. According to an FWS official, an 8 percent
assessment is applied by the regional office to all Fisheries Program
funds and used to pay for office management, staff expertise, and
support costs, including data management; program oversight of the
field office; budget and finance services; human resources, external
affairs, and employee assistance services; as well as development and
implementation of fisheries policies, operating plans, evaluation
methods, and administrative procedures for field offices. Again, as
seen in table 2, we considered the amount received by the FWS regional
office, about $227,000, to be Restoration Program overhead.
To identify any Restoration Program overhead expenses incurred at the
Yreka FWO level, we analyzed the various cost categories maintained by
Yreka FWO officials and the office expenses that are allocated to the
Restoration Program. After discussing our analysis with the Yreka FWO
officials, we decided that Restoration Program overhead incurred at the
Yreka FWO level could best be represented by four categories of
expenses.[Footnote 28] During fiscal years 2000 through 2004, the
amounts of these expenses allocated to the Restoration Program by FWS
totaled about $48,000. This amount is not shown separately in table 2
because, like the travel expenses category, components of this amount
are contained in each of three expenditure categories (project
management, program administration, and support of federal advisory
committees). Adding together the Restoration Program overhead incurred
at each of the three FWS organizational levels (almost $216,000 at the
FWS Washington, D.C., office level; almost $227,000 at the FWS regional
office level; and about $48,000 at the Yreka FWO level), we found that
Restoration Program overhead was about $491,000 during fiscal years
2000 through 2004.
Technical support expense. We also attempted to provide information
about what amounts of the funds received by and for the Restoration
Program from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 through the end of
fiscal year 2004 were spent for technical support. As provided for in
the Act,[Footnote 29] staff from the Yreka FWO, along with staff from
the State of California's Department of Fish and Game, provide
technical and administrative support to the Management Council and the
Task Force. The technical support from FWS comes primarily from three
staff: the supervisory biologist and the part-time staff biologist in
the Yreka FWO, who spend almost all of their time on Restoration
Program activities, and the staff biologist in the Yreka FWO, who
spends part of his time on Restoration Program activities. FWS is
reimbursed from Restoration Program funds for the portion of FWS staff
salaries that is attributable to providing administrative and technical
support services[Footnote 30] to the two federal advisory committees.
The State of California is not reimbursed for its employees' salaries
for the time they spend providing administrative and technical support
to the committees. Neither FWS officials nor the Restoration Program's
representatives from the State of California could provide us with
estimates of the value of technical support they provide. In addition
to the support provided by FWS and the State of California, both the
Task Force, through its Technical Work Group, and the Management
Council, through its Technical Assistance Team, receive technical
assistance from many of the entities represented by the Task Force
members and the Management Council members, but information was not
available on the value of those technical services either.
Purposes for which the Task Force and the Management Council Spent
Funds:
According to FWS officials, about $800,000 has been used to pay for the
committees' operating costs from the beginning of fiscal year 2000
through the end of fiscal year 2004, a yearly average of about
$160,000. The two committees' operating costs are funded from FWS's
Resource Management appropriations. Officials in FWS's Yreka,
California, field office, who administer the Restoration Program,
receive and expend the funds that pay for the committees' operating
costs. They provided us with information that shows that the
approximately $800,000 expended for the committees' operating costs was
spent for salaries of federal staff (about $520,000); travel for
committee members and federal staff (about $120,000); and office costs,
including vehicles, supplies, copies, and meeting rooms (about
$150,000). Neither of the advisory committees makes expenditures for
restoration projects, and as mentioned earlier, we consider all
expenditures for the operations of the advisory committees to represent
Restoration Program administrative expenses.
The Task Force and the Management Council submit Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA) reports each year showing expenditures related to
their operations. We obtained FACA reports produced by FWS officials
for the Task Force and the Management Council for fiscal years 2000
through 2004 for purposes of determining the types and amounts of
expenditures made by the Task Force and the Management Council.
However, after conducting some analytical testing procedures, and
discussing the FACA report financial information with the Designated
Federal Officers for the two federal advisory committees, we concluded
that due to changes in interpretations of the reporting instructions,
the FACA data were not reported on a consistent basis during the 5-year
period. For example, some amounts contained in the FACA reports for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, but not for the other years, likely
included some Restoration Program-related expenses incurred and paid by
the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture.
No Reasonable Assurance of Compliance with the Act's Provisions:
The Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act imposes
several requirements upon the Secretary of the Interior as part of the
Secretary's responsibility for implementing the Restoration Program. It
also places certain limitations on the use of funds appropriated under
the Act's authorization. We considered whether the Secretary and the
Restoration Program administrators have complied with the Act's
financial-related requirements and limitations. We found that more
complete and timely action in complying with the Act's requirements
would better assure that the requirements are fulfilled and that
compliance with the Act's limitations can be reasonably assured only by
implementing control mechanisms and record-keeping practices which are
not yet in place.
Needed Actions Not Yet Taken on Nonfederal Match and Noncash
Contributions Requirements:
In 1987, FWS officials drafted proposed regulations to address the
nonfederal match and noncash contribution provisions contained in the
Act, but the draft regulations were never formally promulgated. The Act
requires that 50 percent of the cost of the development and
implementation of the Restoration Program be provided, on a basis
considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be timely and
appropriate, by one or more nonfederal sources. The Act specifies that
for purposes of determining whether 50 percent of the cost is being
provided by nonfederal sources, the Secretary of the Interior should
include the contributions of state and local governments as long as
such contributions do not entail the expenditure of federal monies
received by the state or local government. The Act also directs the
Secretary to consider as financial contributions by nonfederal sources
the value of noncash contributions (that is, services, including
volunteer services, and real and personal property) provided by the
nonfederal sources for the purposes of implementing the Restoration
Program.
The Act further requires the Secretary to establish by regulation (1)
the training, experience, and other qualifications that volunteers must
have in order for their services to be considered as noncash
contributions; and (2) the standards under which the Secretary will
determine the value of noncash contributions, that is, services, and
real and personal property.[Footnote 31]
We found evidence that the Task Force, which is responsible for
assisting and advising the Secretary on the development and
implementation of the Restoration Program, had extensive discussions
regarding the nonfederal match and noncash contribution provisions of
the Act, and the need for regulations, during its public meetings in
1987, 1988, and 1989. We also found that FWS officials drafted proposed
regulations to address the nonfederal match and noncash contribution
provisions during that same time period and that the Task Force
reviewed and approved of the draft regulations. However, according to
Interior officials, the draft regulations were never formally
promulgated because Interior decided it was not necessary to issue
separate regulations regarding qualifications for volunteer services
and the standards for valuing noncash contributions. The Department of
the Interior based this decision, according to the Interior officials,
on its determination that existing Interior grants management
regulations, which prescribe rules Interior must follow to meet cost-
share requirements in federal grants and other federal awards,[Footnote
32] provided sufficient guidance.
Because of Interior's interpretation, new regulations specific to the
Restoration Program were not issued, and FWS officials maintain that it
is not necessary to issue any. However, inadequate internal controls
impair FWS officials' abilities to be reasonably assured of compliance
with these existing Interior regulations. For example, FWS officials
told us that they have not rejected any restoration project proposal
due to the proposal's lack of information on the values assigned or the
methods for valuing the proposed noncash contributions, even though our
review of project files identified several approved projects whose
project documents lacked such information. In addition, FWS officials
told us that they typically accept the values assigned to noncash
contributions by those who propose projects as long as the values
appear reasonable, and that they do not have formal criteria for making
this reasonableness evaluation. This lack of reasonable assurance of
compliance prevents both congressional overseers, who may seek
information about program funding, and Restoration Program
administrators from being able to make consistent, reliable decisions
about when volunteers' services should count as noncash contributions
and how to value all types of noncash contributions to the Restoration
Program.
In addition to the potential problems associated with FWS's current
practices related to acceptance of volunteer services as noncash
contributions and valuation of noncash contributions, FWS officials
have not developed a methodology, or mechanism, for measuring whether
50 percent of the cost of the development and implementation of the
Restoration Program is being provided by nonfederal sources. In our
discussions with FWS officials, they expressed uncertainty about
whether certain nonfederal financial initiatives should be counted
toward the cost-share requirement. For example, if the State of
California provides funding for restoration projects that have the same
goals as the Restoration Program's projects, but that do not involve
any FWS participation, FWS officials are unsure of whether the funding
for those projects should be counted toward meeting the nonfederal cost-
share requirement.
Furthermore, even though expenditures of federal money by a state or
local government to carry out the Restoration Program do not qualify
for meeting the Act's criteria that 50 percent of costs be provided
from nonfederal sources, FWS officials have not developed a methodology
for determining whether state or local government contributions to the
Restoration Program actually constitute expenditure of federal money
for purposes of the Act's cost-share provision. Without having
established such methodologies, FWS officials cannot determine whether
the Restoration Program is in compliance with the nonfederal cost-share
provision of the Act.
FWS officials have requested and collected limited financial data on
each restoration project funded by the Restoration Program. For
example, FWS's Request For Proposals (RFP) for restoration projects to
be funded during fiscal year 2004 states: "The Klamath Act recognizes
in-kind contributions[Footnote 33] by volunteers as contributions to
the Klamath Restoration Program." However, our review of documents in
FWS's project files, including project proposals, proposed budgets,
project agreements, and final reports, showed that the documents often
do not contain detailed information needed to determine (1) the amount
of cash contribution, (2) the type of noncash contribution, (3) the
value of the noncash contribution, and (4) the method of valuing the
noncash contribution.
In addition, we found no indication in the project files that the data
are routinely analyzed and recorded concerning (1) the amount of a
state or local government's contribution that should be counted as
nonfederal, (2) whether the services of volunteers qualify as a noncash
contribution, and (3) whether the noncash contributions are properly
valued. FWS officials told us that they typically accept the values
assigned to nonfederal contributions by project participants. In their
project records, FWS officials record a single "cost-share" amount for
each project, which they extract from the project proposals submitted
by project participants. The cost-share amount represents total
contributions brought to the project by project participants, but it
does not distinguish between monetary contributions and noncash
contributions in the combined amount. In addition, FWS officials do not
maintain records on the value of any nonfederal contributions to the
Restoration Program that are not project related, such as the State of
California's contribution of technical services to the Management
Council and the Task Force. As a result, FWS officials are not able to
demonstrate that the Restoration Program is in compliance with the
Act's nonfederal match provision.
Improved Accounting Needed to Assure Compliance with the Act's
Restrictions:
Although FWS officials told us they believe they are in compliance with
other provisions of the Act that restrict reimbursing certain travel
expenses, such compliance cannot be assured or demonstrated because the
FWS accounting system does not distinguish between Resource Management
appropriations allocated for the Restoration Program and funds from the
same lump-sum appropriation allocated for related purposes. The Act
places some limitations on the purposes for which the money it
authorizes to be appropriated can be spent. For example, the funds
appropriated for the Restoration Program may not be used to reimburse
any agency or governmental unit whose employees are Management Council
members or Task Force members for time spent by any such employee
performing Management Council or Task Force duties. Likewise, the Act
precludes the funds' use for reimbursing travel expenses to federal
employees who travel as members of the Management Council or Task
Force.
Both the Management Council and the Task Force have members who are
federal employees, and each has at least one member who is a FWS
employee. Our work did not find any instance of noncompliance with the
above restrictions. However, FWS offices that receive Restoration
Program funds also receive some funds FWS has allocated to the
Anadromous Fish Management activity of the Fisheries Program which are
designated by the same account code (1331) as the Restoration Program
funds. Although, as mentioned above, the Restoration Program funds may
not be used for certain purposes, the Anadromous Fish Management funds
can be and are used for those purposes. Since neither the Restoration
Program funds nor the Anadromous Fish Management funds are designated
by an additional subactivity or project code that would distinguish
between the two types of funds, the source of funds that have been used
for specific expenditures cannot be determined or verified from the
accounting records. As a result, FWS's accounting records do not
provide the detailed information needed to assure that the restrictions
on the use of Restoration Program appropriated funds are being complied
with.
Conclusions:
Since passage of the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration
Act in 1986, the Restoration Program established to carry out the Act
has received about $24.7 million in cash and noncash contributions. Of
the $24.7 million, the Restoration Program received about $9.8 million
during fiscal years 2000 through 2004. The Secretary of the Interior
and the Director of FWS have taken a number of actions to formulate,
establish, and implement the Restoration Program, including designating
a conservation area, establishing the Management Council and the Task
Force, formulating a long-term plan, and funding over 350 restoration
projects in the Klamath River Basin. Regarding the financial
requirements of the Act, FWS officials have correctly identified the
need to fund some Restoration Program expenditures, such as certain
travel and salary expenses for FWS officials who are members of the
Management Council or the Task Force, from monies that are not subject
to the Act's restrictions. However, they have not yet incorporated into
their accounting procedures and record-keeping practices sufficient
controls to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with those
provisions of the Act. In addition, concerning the Act's requirement
that 50 percent of the Restoration Program's costs be provided by
nonfederal sources, FWS officials do collect some information regarding
nonfederal contributions to restoration projects, but they do not
distinguish between cash and noncash contributions in project
documents, document their valuation decisions regarding the noncash
contributions, or take steps to verify that nonfederal contributions
meet the Act's criteria. Incorporating these additional controls into
the Restoration Program's operations would not be difficult or costly,
and would provide reasonable assurance of compliance with those
provisions of the Act.
Recommendations:
In order to enhance compliance with the Act, we recommend that the
Secretary of the Interior direct the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service to:
* modify the standard project agreement language to distinguish between
cash and noncash contributions from the project participant;
* include a requirement in the standard project agreement that if any
contributor to the project is a state or local government, that
contributor must attest to how much, if any, of the contribution is
from federal monies received by that state or local government;
* develop standard operating procedures for reviewing and validating
contributor-supplied information regarding the determination and
valuation of noncash contributions and determination of nonfederal
sources of funds;
* track Restoration Program funds requested and received through the
appropriations process by specifically identifying Klamath Restoration
Program funds; and:
* track Restoration Program funds expenditures through FWS's Federal
Financial System by assigning a project code to the Klamath Restoration
Program funds.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Interior generally agreed with the report's findings and
recommendations and stated that implementation of some recommendations
has already begun. Interior pointed out, however, that incorporating
some of the Act's requirements into the Restoration Program will likely
require increased staff involvement in negotiation and verification of
noncash values, which would cause increased diversion of restoration
project funds to administrative work. We agree that some increased
staff involvement will likely be necessary to determine the values of
noncash contributions in order to fully comply with the Act's key
funding requirement that 50 percent of the cost of the development and
implementation of the program be provided by nonfederal sources. We
encourage Interior to closely monitor the costs associated with
implementing the Act's requirements so that it will be in a position to
provide this information to Congress when Congress considers
reauthorization of appropriations for, or an extension of, the 20-year
Restoration Program.
Interior's comments are included as appendix III to this report.
Interior officials also provided some technical suggestions to our
draft report, which we did not reprint. We incorporated those technical
suggestions as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of the Interior,
the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other interested
parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report is available to others at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6906 or [Hyperlink,
williamsm1@gao.gov]. Contact points for our offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Major contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix
IV.
Signed by:
McCoy Williams:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance:
List of Congressional Requesters:
The Honorable Richard W. Pombo:
Chairman:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Darrell Issa:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Charles H. Taylor:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John T. Doolittle:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Wally Herger:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Greg Walden:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology:
The objectives of this engagement were to provide information about (1)
sources and amounts of funding received by and for the Restoration
Program for fiscal years 2000 through 2004; (2) amounts of funds
received by and for the Restoration Program for fiscal years 2000
through 2004 spent for restoration projects, travel reimbursements,
administrative expenses, overhead, and technical support; (3) amounts
of funding received by the Task Force and Management Council for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004 spent for the purposes of restoration projects,
travel reimbursements, administrative expenses, overhead, and technical
support; and (4) whether the Secretary of the Interior has complied
with specific requirements contained in certain provisions of the
Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act.
For the most part, we limited the scope of our work to fiscal years
2000 through 2004; however, some compliance information and some
historical financial information we gathered included earlier years,
going back to the passage of the Act in 1986. We performed our work
primarily at the headquarters offices of the Department of the
Interior, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Washington,
D.C. We also traveled to FWS's Yreka, California, field office, which
administers the Restoration Program, to inspect files and gather
information. We gathered additional information from other locations
through telephone contacts with FWS officials in FWS's Portland
Regional Office and its California-Nevada Operations Office. We also
interviewed by telephone Task Force and Management Council members who
represent various entities in California and Oregon.
To provide information about what total amount of funding was received
by and for the Restoration Program from the beginning of fiscal year
2000 through the end of fiscal year 2004, and what were the sources of
that funding, we first defined the boundaries of the Restoration
Program because there were numerous restoration-type activities
undertaken by federal and nonfederal entities in the Klamath River
Basin during the 5-year period we reviewed. After reviewing the
provisions of the Act, having preliminary discussions with FWS
officials, and visiting the Klamath River area, we defined the
Restoration Program, for purposes of our work, as consisting of all
activities and projects that are at least partially funded by
appropriations FWS allocated for the Restoration Program pursuant to
the Act. Under the definition we adopted, the Restoration Program
funding also includes any cash or noncash contributions provided by
federal or nonfederal sources to those same activities and projects.
Having defined the Restoration Program, we interviewed FWS
headquarters, regional office, and field office officials to determine
the types of Restoration Program funding and expenditure information
routinely collected and the location and accessibility of that
information. To obtain information on the amount of Resource Management
appropriations that FWS allocated to the Restoration Program
established pursuant to the Act, we reviewed budget request documents
and appropriations act documents for FWS and the Department of the
Interior, but did not find information on funding specifically for the
Restoration Program in those documents. We discussed this with FWS
headquarters, regional office, and field office budget officials and
were told by them that the appropriations for FWS do not contain a
discrete line item for the Restoration Program. Instead, funding for
the Restoration Program is combined with other funding within the
"General Program Activities" sub-element of the "Anadromous Fish
Management" program element, which can be found under the "Fish and
Wildlife Management Program" activity of FWS's Fisheries Program
account, which is funded through an allocation from FWS's Resource
Management appropriation. A Portland Regional Office budget official,
who oversaw funding for the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office (FWO), told
us that FWS considers there to be an appropriation for the Restoration
Program for each of the 5 years of $1 million, less a rescission each
year that varied between 0.38 percent and 1.82 percent. We obtained
Office Fund Target documents from the Yreka FWO that supported those
amounts.
To provide information about the amounts and sources of other funding
contributed by federal and nonfederal sources to activities and
projects that are at least partially funded by those appropriations
allocated by FWS to the Restoration Program, we obtained from FWS
officials an electronic copy of their Restoration Projects Database,
maintained in FWS's Yreka, California, office. That database contains
information on only those restoration projects that are at least
partially funded by appropriations FWS allocated for the Restoration
Program pursuant to the Act. It also contains, among other things,
information on the cost-share contributions provided to those
restoration projects by federal and nonfederal entities. We also
obtained and reviewed for some funded restoration projects the project
proposals and project completion reports that had been prepared by the
cooperators to determine if the amounts of cost share reported in those
documents are consistent with the information in FWS's Restoration
Projects Database.
To provide information about whether other amounts of monetary funding
or noncash contributions are provided to any of the Restoration
Program's nonproject activities, we obtained FWS budget and expenditure
information to identify the other activities and interviewed Yreka FWO
officials, Task Force members, and Management Council members to learn
of any other funding. We were told that no other cash contributions are
received by the Restoration Program's nonproject activities but noncash
contributions, in the form of technical services, are provided by some
federal and nonfederal sources to the Task Force and the Management
Council. However, FWS officials do not maintain records on the value of
those technical services.
To provide information about what amounts of the funds received by and
for the Restoration Program from the beginning of fiscal year 2000
through the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the purposes of
restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses,
overhead, and technical support, we obtained budget and expenditure
documents from the Yreka FWO. We had several discussions with Yreka FWO
officials to gain an understanding of how the various financial amounts
are derived and the availability of source documents that support the
amounts. Through analysis of the financial information, we identified
which items on the financial documents represent the Restoration
Program's restoration projects, and which items represent travel
reimbursements, administrative expenses, and overhead. Through
discussions with Yreka FWO officials, we confirmed our interpretations
of these amounts and confirmed Yreka FWO officials do not maintain
records on the value of technical services.
To provide information about what amounts of funding received by the
Task Force and Management Council from the beginning of fiscal year
2000 through the end of fiscal year 2004 were spent for the purposes of
restoration projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses,
overhead, and technical support, we obtained through the Internet, from
a Web site maintained by the General Services Administration, Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) reports produced by the Task Force and
the Management Council showing expenditures related to those two
federal advisory committees for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. We
considered using the FACA report financial information for determining
the amounts of Restoration Program funds that were spent by the
Management Council and the Task Force for the purposes of restoration
projects, travel reimbursements, administrative expenses, overhead, and
technical support. However, after conducting some analytical testing
procedures and discussing the FACA report financial information with
the Designated Federal Officers for the two federal advisory
committees, we concluded that the FACA report data would present a
misleading picture of Restoration Program expenditures.
Our discussions with the Designated Federal Officers for the two
federal advisory committees, Management Council members, Task Force
members, and Yreka FWO officials, coupled with our review of Management
Council and Task Force meeting minutes, charters, and operating
procedures, showed that the Management Council and the Task Force do
not actually receive or expend any federal or nonfederal funding. The
funding that covers the Management Council's and the Task Force's
operational expenses comes from FWS appropriations, and FWS officials
in the Yreka FWO retain control of that funding and pay those expenses.
To determine whether the Secretary of the Interior, the Management
Council, and the Task Force complied with specific duties and
limitations contained in the Act, we reviewed the Klamath River Basin
Fishery Resources Restoration Act and all of its amendments and
identified the provisions that require or prohibit specific actions or
activities. We then analyzed those provisions that contain mandates and
restrictions to identify the financial-related requirements and
limitations contained in the Act.
For each provision that contains a financial-related requirement, such
as the issuance of regulations to establish qualifications which
volunteers must have in order for their services to be considered as
noncash contributions, we asked FWS officials whether the required
action had been taken, and if so, for evidence of the action. For each
provision that contains a financial-related restriction, such as the
limitations on the purposes for which money appropriated pursuant to
the Act's authorization can be spent (for example, restricted money may
not be used to reimburse any agency or governmental unit whose
employees are Management Council members or Task Force members for time
spent by any such employee performing Management Council or Task Force
duties), we asked FWS officials and the Chairmen of the Task Force and
Management Council whether they are aware of the legal restrictions and
whether they believe the restrictions have been complied with.
To find corroborating or contradicting evidence regarding compliance
with the Act's financial-related provisions, we reviewed Federal
Register notices and existing Interior grants management regulations
related to cost-share requirements to determine if the necessary
regulations had been issued. We also inspected the Management Council's
and Task Force's charters, operating procedures, and minutes of
meetings to identify any discussions of the Act's provisions and any
indications of an activity that indicates compliance or noncompliance
with the provisions. Where we identified any indications of
noncompliance, we discussed these indications with FWS, Management
Council, and Task Force officials for their explanations. We also asked
the Management Council's and Task Force's members if they are aware of
any instances of noncompliance with the Act or of improper use of
Restoration Program funds.
We did not perform a financial audit on the financial information
collected from FWS officials. In addition, we did not evaluate the
efficiency or effectiveness of the Restoration Program, of individual
restoration projects, or of actions taken by the Task Force or the
Management Council. Finally, we did not test compliance with all laws
and regulations applicable to this engagement but limited our tests of
compliance to financial-related provisions contained in the Klamath
River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act. We conducted our work
from June 2004 through June 2005 in accordance with U.S. generally
accepted government auditing standards.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of
the Interior, or her designee. Interior generally agreed with the
report's findings and recommendations and stated that implementation of
some recommendations has already begun. Agency comments are included as
appendix III to this report. Interior officials also provided some
technical suggestions to our draft report, which we did not reprint in
appendix III. We incorporated those technical suggestions as
appropriate.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Funding of Restoration Projects by Type of Participant
Entity:
Fiscal year: 2000:
Type of Participant: Federal agencies;
Number of projects: 3;
Funded by appropriations: $80,127;
Participants' cost share: $135,937.
Type of Participant: State governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $15,106;
Participants' cost share: $5,000.
Type of Participant: Local governments;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Type of Participant: Indian tribes;
Number of projects: 6;
Funded by appropriations: $204,575;
Participants' cost share: $299,458.
Type of Participant: Not-for-profit organizations;
Number of projects: 6;
Funded by appropriations: $138,771;
Participants' cost share: $231,087.
Type of Participant: Higher education entities;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Type of Participant: Business organizations;
Number of projects: 5;
Funded by appropriations: $127,737;
Participants' cost share: $44,626.
Type of Participant: Individuals;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $5,522;
Participants' cost share: $1,300.
Subtotal fiscal year 2000;
Number of projects: 22;
Funded by appropriations: $571,838;
Participants' cost share: $717,408.
Fiscal year: 2001:
Type of Participant: Federal agencies;
Number of projects: 5;
Funded by appropriations: $159,270;
Participants' cost share: $248,469.
Type of Participant: State governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $17,809;
Participants' cost share: $11,556.
Type of Participant: Local governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $31,448;
Participants' cost share: $150,591.
Type of Participant: Indian tribes;
Number of projects: 6;
Funded by appropriations: $133,812;
Participants' cost share: $61,091.
Type of Participant: Not-for-profit organizations;
Number of projects: 6;
Funded by appropriations: $108,042;
Participants' cost share: $353,559.
Type of Participant: Higher education entities;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Type of Participant: Business organizations;
Number of projects: 4;
Funded by appropriations: $128,319;
Participants' cost share: $206,429.
Type of Participant: Individuals;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Subtotal fiscal year 2001;
Number of projects: 23;
Funded by appropriations: $578,700;
Participants' cost share: $1,031,695.
Fiscal year: 2002:
Type of Participant: Federal agencies;
Number of projects: 5;
Funded by appropriations: $140,169;
Participants' cost share: $226,160.
Type of Participant: State governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $17,809;
Participants' cost share: $11,556.
Type of Participant: Local governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $32,109;
Participants' cost share: $133,622.
Type of Participant: Indian tribes;
Number of projects: 7;
Funded by appropriations: $121,675;
Participants' cost share: $65,010.
Type of Participant: Not-for-profit organizations;
Number of projects: 7;
Funded by appropriations: $167,803;
Participants' cost share: $265,559.
Type of Participant: Higher education entities;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $25,593;
Participants' cost share: $34,800.
Type of Participant: Business organizations;
Number of projects: 4;
Funded by appropriations: $73,542;
Participants' cost share: $137,308.
Type of Participant: Individuals;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Subtotal fiscal year 2002;
Number of projects: 26;
Funded by appropriations: $578,700;
Participants' cost share: $874,015.
Fiscal year: 2003:
Type of Participant: Federal agencies;
Number of projects: 5;
Funded by appropriations: $107,749;
Participants' cost share: $235,678.
Type of Participant: State governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $16,617;
Participants' cost share: $3,800.
Type of Participant: Local governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $22,180;
Participants' cost share: $190,344.
Type of Participant: Indian tribes;
Number of projects: 10;
Funded by appropriations: $230,421;
Participants' cost share: $177,049.
Type of Participant: Not-for-profit organizations;
Number of projects: 7;
Funded by appropriations: $156,954;
Participants' cost share: $130,909.
Type of Participant: Higher education entities;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Type of Participant: Business organizations;
Number of projects: 3;
Funded by appropriations: $44,788;
Participants' cost share: $154,479.
Type of Participant: Individuals;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Subtotal fiscal year 2003;
Number of projects: 27;
Funded by appropriations: $578,709;
Participants' cost share: $892,259.
Fiscal year: 2004:
Type of Participant: Federal agencies;
Number of projects: 8;
Funded by appropriations: $160,553;
Participants' cost share: $318,714.
Type of Participant: State governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $29,866;
Participants' cost share: $7,216.
Type of Participant: Local governments;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $34,250;
Participants' cost share: $116,685.
Type of Participant: Indian tribes;
Number of projects: 7;
Funded by appropriations: $188,545;
Participants' cost share: $403,770.
Type of Participant: Not-for-profit organizations;
Number of projects: 11;
Funded by appropriations: $164,916;
Participants' cost share: $378,680.
Type of Participant: Higher education entities;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Type of Participant: Business organizations;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Type of Participant: Individuals;
Number of projects: 0;
Funded by appropriations: $0;
Participants' cost share: $0.
Subtotal fiscal year 2004;
Number of projects: 28;
Funded by appropriations: $578,130;
Participants' cost share: $1,225,065.
Fiscal year: 2000-2004:
Type of Participant: Federal agencies;
Number of projects: 26;
Funded by appropriations: $647,868;
Participants' cost share: $1,164,958.
Type of Participant: State governments;
Number of projects: 5;
Funded by appropriations: $97,207;
Participants' cost share: $39,128.
Type of Participant: Local governments;
Number of projects: 4;
Funded by appropriations: $119,987;
Participants' cost share: $591,242.
Type of Participant: Indian tribes;
Number of projects: 36;
Funded by appropriations: $879,028;
Participants' cost share: $1,006,378.
Type of Participant: Not-for-profit organizations;
Number of projects: 37;
Funded by appropriations: $736,485;
Participants' cost share: $1,359,795.
Type of Participant: Higher education entities;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $25,593;
Participants' cost share: $34,800.
Type of Participant: Business organizations;
Number of projects: 16;
Funded by appropriations: $374,386;
Participants' cost share: $542,842.
Type of Participant: Individuals;
Number of projects: 1;
Funded by appropriations: $5,522;
Participants' cost share: $1,300.
Totals fiscal years 2000-2004;
Number of projects: 126;
Funded by appropriations: $2,886,077;
Participants' cost share: $4,740,443.
Source: GAO computations based on unaudited FWS data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY:
Washington, DC 20240:
AUG 11 2005:
Mr. McCoy Williams:
Director:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability
Office report entitled, "Klamath River Basin Conservation Area
Restoration Program: Limited Assurance Regarding the Federal Funding
Requirements," GAO-05-804, dated July 12, 2005. In general, we agree
with the findings and the recommendations in the report, and believe
them to be fair and accurate.
The primary findings and recommendations of the report regard the lack
of mechanisms for demonstrating compliance with 460ss-5(b) of the
Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (Act). This
section (entitled Cost Sharing) states that 50 percent of the cost and
implementation of the Act's Conservation Program must be provided by
non-Federal sources. We concur with the recommendations for enhancing
compliance with this requirement. As described in more detail below, we
are already implementing some of these measures.
We are not in complete agreement with the report's determination that
incorporating the recommended compliance provisions would not be
difficult or costly. This is especially true for the validation of
contributor supplied information regarding the valuation of non-cash
contributions, which include such items as labor, heavy equipment use,
and foregone grazing opportunity. Information is available to support
creation of general valuation standards, but we anticipate that the
great variation in restoration sites and projects will require
increased staff involvement in negotiation and verification of non-cash
values. This will cause increased diversion of restoration project
funds to administrative work.
We are in full agreement with the general intent of the statute in
stimulating use of non-Federal contributions to the development and
implementation of the program. In fact, the availability of matching
funds is one criterion we use in ranking project proposals. However,
particularly in the early years of the program, few funds were
available from other sources, but the Task Force decided to fund
projects nevertheless. We believe that the policy furthered the broader
purposes of the Act, and encouraged the development of a restoration
community in the Conservation Area. The success of this approach is
indicated in the report's evaluation of the most recent 5 years, in
which the non-Federal contribution to restoration projects exceeded the
Federal contribution.
The enclosure provides comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. We hope these comments will assist you in preparing the final
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Julie MacDonald:
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
McCoy Williams (202) 512-6906:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact listed above, Polly Cheung, Cherry Clipper,
Lisa Crye, Francis Dymond, Lauren Fassler, Michael Koury, Tarunkant
Mithani, and Debra Rucker made important contributions to this report.
(195040):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Pub. L. No. 99-552, 100 stat. 3080 (Oct. 27, 1986) (codified, as
amended, at 16 U.S.C. §§ 460ss - 460ss-6).
[2] The Klamath River is located partly in northern California and
partly in southern Oregon.
[3] The Federal Advisory Committee Act, codified, as amended, at 5
U.S.C. Appx., and implementing governmentwide regulations, codified at
41 C.F.R. pt. 102-3 (2004), set out certain reporting requirements for
all federal advisory committees.
[4] The Act specifically permits noncash contributions to count as
financial contributions, including the value of real and personal
property and of services, including the services of volunteers. See 16
U.S.C. § 460ss-5(b)(2).
[5] Anadromous fish are born in the river, migrate to the ocean or
inshore waters, and then return to the river to spawn. Species of
anadromous fish in the Klamath River include Fall-run and Spring-run
Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, lamprey, and shad.
[6] Due to the rounding of amounts, the sum of federal contributions
and nonfederal contributions seems to exceed total contributions.
[7] Due to the rounding of percentage amounts, the sum of the
percentages for expenditure types exceeds 100 percent.
[8] Operating costs for the Management Council and the Task Force
primarily consist of the salaries of federal staff who provide them
with administrative and technical services, travel costs for committee
members and federal staff, and meeting costs.
[9] Pub. L. No. 99-552, 100 Stat. 3080 (Oct. 26, 1986) (codified, as
amended, at 16 U.S.C. §§ 460ss - 460ss-6).
[10] The Act requires the Secretary to designate "the anadromous fish
habitats and resources of the Klamath River basin as the Klamath River
Basin Conservation Area." 16 U.S.C. § 460ss-1(a). The Secretary
complied with this requirement in December 1987 through a final rule
published in the Federal Register promulgating the designation. See 52
Fed. Reg. 45,694 (Dec. 1, 1987).
[11] The Task Force, through its Budget Committee and its Technical
Work Group, assists FWS officials in budgeting and allocating
Restoration Program funds for program administration and restoration
projects.
[12] The Act requires the Secretary and the Department Director to
provide sufficient technical and administrative support to the
Management Council and Task Force to enable them to function
effectively.
[13] Non-anadromous fish, such as resident trout, are not covered in
the Management Council's plan or recommendations.
[14] Klamath Fishery Management Council, Long-Term Plan for Management
of Harvest of Anadromous Fish Populations of the Klamath River Basin
(Final Plan, 1992).
[15] Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force, Long Range Plan for the
Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration Program
(January 1991).
[16] The Technical Work Group, a subgroup created by the Task Force,
consists of the same number of members as the Task Force. Each member
of the Task Force either serves on the Technical Work Group or selects
an individual, often from the entity that the member represents on the
Task Force, to serve, without pay, on the Technical Work Group.
[17] The RFP soliciting project proposals for fiscal year 2004 funding
lists six criteria for scoring the proposals along with the maximum
score that can be awarded for each of the criteria. The six criteria
with maximum scores in parentheses are (1) Employment of target groups
(10 points); (2) Benefits to priority fish species and stocks (10
points); (3) Ability of the proposer to successfully implement the
proposed project (10 points); (4) Scientific validity and technical
quality (25 points); (5) Conforms to sub-basin objectives (25 points);
and (6) Cost effectiveness; including: pricing, resource
benefits/costs, development of matching funds, and willingness of the
proposer to contribute funds or in-kind goods/services (20 points). The
RFP also states: "Proposals that do not meet the goals and objectives
of the Restoration Program— will not be evaluated or ranked. These
criteria are mandatory for all project proposals."
[18] The Secretary of the Interior does not actually receive the Task
Force's list of recommended project proposals. Instead, an FWS
official, who has been delegated authority, approves the projects for
funding.
[19] Due to the rounding of amounts, the sum of federal contributions
and nonfederal contributions seems to exceed total contributions.
[20] In fiscal year 2004, for example, FWS's Resource Management
appropriation stated: "For necessary expenses of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, as authorized by law, and for scientific and
economic studies,—general administration, and for the performance of
other authorized functions related to such resources by direct
expenditure, contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and
reimbursable agreements with public and private entities, $963,352,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2005,—" Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-
108, 117 Stat. 1241, 1245 (Nov. 10, 2003).
[21] In the Budget of the United States Government--Appendix, Fiscal
Year 2006, the Department of the Interior describes the Fisheries
Program as follows: "The Fisheries Program consists of 69 national
hatcheries, 9 Fish Health Centers, 7 Fish Technology Centers, 64
Fishery Resources Offices, and a Historic National Fish Hatchery.
Working with partners, the Fisheries Program recovers, restores and
maintains fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels;
provides technical assistance to States, Tribes and others; and
supports Federal migration programs for the benefit of the American
public." Id. at 613.
[22] According to FWS officials, the amount of the Resource Management
appropriation FWS allocated for the Restoration Program for each of the
5 years was $1 million, less a rescission that varied between 0.38
percent and 1.82 percent. The actual total amount received for the 5
years, according to the FWS officials, was $4,955,716. We could not
verify this amount because the appropriations for FWS do not contain a
discrete line item for the Restoration Program. Instead, funding for
the Restoration Program is combined with other funding within the
"General Program Activities" sub-element of the "Anadromous Fish
Management" program element, which can be found under the "Fish and
Wildlife Management" activity of FWS's "Fisheries Program" account.
[23] FWS records show a "cost-share" amount for restoration projects.
We could not determine from the records the amount of cost share that
consisted of cash contributions and the amount that consisted of
noncash contributions.
[24] For fiscal year 2005, the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area
Restoration Program received $970,928 in appropriations through June
30, 2005 ($1 million less a rescission of $29,072) for a total
appropriation of over $17 million for fiscal years 1988 through 2005.
[25] Due to the rounding of percentage amounts, the sum of the
percentages for expenditure types exceeds 100 percent.
[26] For more information on the types of entities that received
project funding from the appropriations that FWS allocated to the
Restoration Program, see appendix II.
[27] The Act permits Management Council members and Task Force members,
while away from their homes or regular places of business in the
performance of services for the Management Council or the Task Force,
to receive an allowance for travel expenses, including a per diem
allowance in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons
employed intermittently in the government service are allowed travel
expenses under section 5703 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. However, the
Act excludes from such eligibility for travel expenses any Management
Council member or Task Force member who is an employee of an agency or
governmental unit and is eligible for reimbursement of travel expenses
from that agency or unit for performing services for the Management
Council or the Task Force. This latter group's travel expenses are
reimbursed by their federal agencies. The costs of travel for FWS
officials who are members, which is reimbursed from FWS's
appropriations allocated for purposes related to the Restoration
Program's goals, are included in this report as Restoration Program
expenses.
[28] The four categories of Yreka FWO expenses that we added together
to represent Restoration Program overhead incurred at the Yreka FWO
level were allocated amounts of (1) utilities expenses, (2) computer
maintenance and repairs expenses, (3) training and tuition expenses,
and (4) capitalized property expenses.
[29] The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of
the California Department of Fish and Game to provide the Management
Council and the Task Force with relevant information concerning the
Conservation Area and with such administrative and technical support
services as are necessary for their effective functioning. See 16
U.S.C. §§ 460ss-3(g), 460ss-2(h).
[30] We could not calculate the amount of technical support costs for
the 5-year period because FWS's records do not distinguish between
administrative support and technical support provided to the
committees.
[31] 16 U.S.C. § 460ss-5(b)(4). ("The Secretary shall by regulation
establish--(A) the training, experience, and other qualifications which
such volunteers must have in order for their services to be considered
as in kind contributions; and (B) the standards under which the
Secretary will determine the value of in kind contributions and real
and personal property for purposes of paragraph (2).")
[32] See 43 C.F.R. §§ 12.64, 12.923 (2005).
[33] In-kind contributions are noncash contributions.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
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: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
