Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Assistance Program Is Making Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Concerns Gao ID: GAO-06-731R July 5, 2006The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), within the Department of the Interior, uses tax receipts from the sale of certain hunting, fishing, and boating equipment to fund the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs, which provide grants to state fish and wildlife management agencies to restore, conserve, manage, and enhance wildlife and sport fish resources. The Wildlife Restoration Program was established in 1938 following the passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, now referred to as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. The Sport Fish Restoration Program was established in 1950 by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. Since their inception, according to the Service, these programs have provided more than $9.5 billion in grants to states and U.S. territories through fiscal year 2005. In 1999 and 2000, GAO identified several instances of mismanagement in these grant programs. Following GAO's work, Congress and the Service acted to improve the programs. In 1999 and 2000, GAO testified on the Service's management and oversight of funds used to administer the Wildlife and the Sport Fish Restoration programs. These testimonies identified several instances of mismanagement of administrative funds. For example, in administering these programs, the Service did not have criteria for selecting some grant recipients, failed to provide adequate oversight of grantees, and did not maintain adequate grant files. In addition, GAO found that grant transactions could not be reconciled between regional and headquarter financial systems, resulting in millions of dollars in discrepancies. In response to our work and the work of others, Congress enacted the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act (Improvement Act) in November 2000. The Improvement Act amended the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act by specifying, among other things, how administrative funds should be used and setting levels for how much the Service can spend on administration of the programs. Before the Improvement Act, the maximum amount of administrative funds that could be used for implementing the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs was calculated as a percentage of the total tax receipts for each program. On the basis of these calculations, in 2000, over $16 million was made available for administration of the Wildlife Restoration Program and about $15 million was made available for administration of the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Since the Improvement Act, funds for administrative costs were fixed in 2001 through 2003 and, thereafter, have been determined by a formula that limits the annual funds available for administrative activities. In fiscal year 2005, the Service spent about $8.6 million per program on administration--about one-half of what was previously spent. On April 27, 2006, we briefed members of Congress on the extent to which the Service has taken corrective action to address the problems that GAO previously identified.
As a result of GAO's prior work and the Improvement Act in 2000, the Service has made changes that have had lasting impacts on the management of these programs. The Service has invested significant effort to make program and policy changes to address the concerns that we raised in our previous testimonies and to implement the Improvement Act. For example, in response to GAO's finding that the Service mismanaged grant programs, the Service terminated some programs and, for subsequent grant activity, has implemented new procedures for managing and auditing grants and maintaining grant files. To resolve problems involving reconciling grant transactions between regions and headquarters, the Service implemented improved financial systems and processes that include procedures for reconciling accounts across three national financial systems on a monthly basis. The regions no longer utilize separate tracking systems for their grants. While we found that the Service has implemented several new management policies and procedures aimed at addressing our previous concerns, a more definitive statement on the Service's progress would require additional review. Such reviews are routinely required by the Improvement Act, which directs the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to contract for biennial audits of the funds used to administer these programs. An audit of fiscal years 2001 and 2002 was completed and a report issued in 2005; the report did not identify any major weaknesses or concerns. Audits of subsequent years have not yet been done. Since we delivered our briefing to Congress, OIG officials stated that the OIG expects to solicit contract proposals for the audits of fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and fiscal years 2005 and 2006 in the summer of 2006.
GAO-06-731R, Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal Assistance Program Is Making Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Concerns
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-731R
entitled 'Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal Assistance Program is
Making Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Concerns' which was
released on July 10, 2006.
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.
July 5, 2006:
The Honorable Dave Camp:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures: Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal Assistance Program Is
Making Progress in Addressing Previously Identified Concerns:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), within the Department of
the Interior, uses tax receipts from the sale of certain hunting,
fishing, and boating equipment to fund the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration programs, which provide grants to state fish and wildlife
management agencies to restore, conserve, manage, and enhance wildlife
and sport fish resources. The Wildlife Restoration Program was
established in 1938 following the passage of the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act, now referred to as the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act. The Sport Fish Restoration Program was
established in 1950 by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.
Since their inception, according to the Service, these programs have
provided more than $9.5 billion in grants to states and U.S.
territories through fiscal year 2005. In 1999 and 2000, GAO identified
several instances of mismanagement in these grant programs. Following
GAO's work, Congress and the Service acted to improve the programs.
Enclosure I provides our April 2006 briefing to your Subcommittee
containing relevant details about problems and corrective actions that
the Service has taken since GAO's last review in 2000. Enclosure II
shows funding history for these two programs.
In 1999 and 2000, GAO testified on the Service's management and
oversight of funds used to administer the Wildlife and the Sport Fish
Restoration programs. These testimonies identified several instances of
mismanagement of administrative funds. For example, in administering
these programs, the Service did not have criteria for selecting some
grant recipients, failed to provide adequate oversight of grantees, and
did not maintain adequate grant files. In addition, GAO found that
grant transactions could not be reconciled between regional and
headquarter financial systems, resulting in millions of dollars in
discrepancies.
In response to our work and the work of others, Congress enacted the
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act
(Improvement Act) in November2000. The Improvement Act amended the
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson
Sport Fish Restoration Act by specifying, among other things, how
administrative funds should be used and setting levels for how much the
Service can spend on administration of the programs. Before the
Improvement Act, the maximum amount of administrative funds that could
be used for implementing the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
programs was calculated as a percentage of the total tax receipts for
each program. On the basis of these calculations, in 2000, over $16
million was made available for administration of the Wildlife
Restoration Program and about $15 million was made available for
administration of the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Since the
Improvement Act, funds for administrative costs were fixed in 2001
through 2003 and, thereafter, have been determined by a formula that
limits the annual funds available for administrative activities. In
fiscal year 2005, the Service spent about $8.6 million per program on
administration--about one-half of what was previously spent.
On April 27, 2006, we briefed members of your Subcommittee on the
extent to which the Service has taken corrective action to address the
problems that GAO previously identified. In general, as a result of
GAO's prior work and the Improvement Act in 2000, the Service has made
changes that have had lasting impacts on the management of these
programs. The Service has invested significant effort to make program
and policy changes to address the concerns that we raised in our
previous testimonies and to implement the Improvement Act. For example,
in response to GAO's finding that the Service mismanaged grant
programs, the Service terminated some programs and, for subsequent
grant activity, has implemented new procedures for managing and
auditing grants and maintaining grant files. To resolve problems
involving reconciling grant transactions between regions and
headquarters, the Service implemented improved financial systems and
processes that include procedures for reconciling accounts across three
national financial systems on a monthly basis. The regions no longer
utilize separate tracking systems for their grants.
While we found that the Service has implemented several new management
policies and procedures aimed at addressing our previous concerns, a
more definitive statement on the Service's progress would require
additional review. Such reviews are routinely required by the
Improvement Act, which directs the Department of the Interior's Office
of Inspector General (OIG) to contract for biennial audits of the funds
used to administer these programs. An audit of fiscal years 2001 and
2002 was completed and a report issued in 2005; the report did not
identify any major weaknesses or concerns. Audits of subsequent years
have not yet been done. Since we delivered our briefing to the
Subcommittee, OIG officials stated that the OIG expects to solicit
contract proposals for the audits of fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and
fiscal years 2005 and 2006 in the summer of 2006.
The enclosed briefing document provides relevant details about problems
and corrective actions that the Service has taken since GAO's last
review in 2000 (see enc. I). We conducted our follow-up review in March
and April, 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. However, we conducted only limited file reviews and
field-testing to determine the implications of and compliance with the
Service's new policies. Additionally, due to the timing and nature of
our review, we did not conduct a full reliability assessment of the
data we used as background information. Consequently, the background
data we present are of undetermined reliability.
We provided Interior with a draft of this report for review and
comment. Interior generally agreed with our findings and conclusions
and provided editorial and technical comments, which have been
incorporated into this report as appropriate. Interior's letter is
contained in enclosure III.
______________________________________________________________________
___ As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until
7 days from the report date. At that time, we will make copies of this
report available to interested parties upon request. This report will
also be available on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have any questions,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or Nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
were Wyatt R. Hundrup, Richard Johnson, Trish McClure, Alison O'Neill,
and Becky Spithill.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosures - 3 :
Enclosure 1:
Briefing for the House Committee on Ways and Means:
Briefing for House Ways and Means Committee April 2006:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Briefing:
Federal Assistance Program is Making Progress Addressing Previously
Identified Concerns:
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1999 and 2000, GAO identified - a lack of management controls, poor
contract management, and poor management of overhead charges in the
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs' use of administrative
funds. The House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on' Select
Revenue Measures requested an update on GAO's prior findings.
Background:
The Wildlife Restoration Program was established in 1938 following the
passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, now referred to
as the Pittman-Robertson Act. The program provides funds for a variety
of projects intended to restore, conserve, manage, and enhance the
nation's wildlife resources and to provide for public use and benefits
from these resources. The Sport Fish Restoration Program was
established in 1950 by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.
It provides funds to restore and manage the nation's sport fishery
resources and to provide public use and benefits from these resources.
Funds for these programs are generated through taxes on the sale of
hunting, fishing, and boating equipment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (the Service) administers these programs through its Division
of Federal Assistance (DFA) in headquarters and regional offices.
Funds from these programs are primarily provided in the form of grants
to state wildlife and fishery agencies to support implementation of a
variety of projects nationwide. In fiscal year 2005, about $219 million
and $273 million were available for grants in the Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Programs, respectively. Projects funded through the
Wildlife Restoration Grant Program include educational programs,
scientific research, habitat improvements, and operation and
maintenance of recreational facilities. For example, grants provided
during the past few years supported wildlife habitat development and
facility access on numerous public land sites in Illinois, cataloging
of amphibians and reptiles in New York, and research to help better
manage black bears in Alaska. Likewise, the Sport Fish Restoration
Grant Program funds projects for maintaining fisheries and providing
boating and other aquatic recreation opportunities. For example, grants
provided during the past few years supported an array of fisheries
research and management programs on Lake Ontario, the development of a
Bass Conservation Center in Florida, and research to help ensure long-
term conservation of fish stocks in Maryland and other Atlantic Coast
states.
A portion of the funds can be used by DFA for the programs'
administration and execution. In the past, administrative funds from
the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs supported the
Director's Conservation Fund and the Administrative Grant Program. For
example, in fiscal year 1998, about $31 million was used for
administration and implementation--$13.5 million for wildlife and $17.4
million for sport fish.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which the Service has implemented corrective
actions to address the problems GAO identified in 1999 and 2000, GAO
reviewed agency documents and relevant laws, analyzed budget
information, and interviewed officials. GAO also conducted limited
testing of grant files and implementation of corrective actions.
Congressional Action:
In response to our work in 1999 and 2000, and the work of others,
Congress enacted the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs
Improvement Act (Improvement Act) in November 2000. This law sets
limits that significantly restrict the Service's use of administrative
funds. For example, the Improvement Act stipulates the types of
activities that the Service can conduct using administrative funds and
includes a formula that places a limit on the funds available for such
activities each year (the amount was set at $8.2 million for each
program in fiscal year 2003 but increases annually according to an
inflationary-type percentage). In addition, the act requires the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) to contract for biennial audits of the
funds used to administer the grant programs.
Prior Findings:
Prior GAO Products:
GAO, Fish and Wildlife Service: Management-and: Oversight of the
Federal Aid Program Needs Attention. GAO/T-RCED-99-259. Washington,
D.C.: July 20, 1999.
GAO, Fish and Wildlife Service: Options to Improve the Use of Federal
Aid Programs' Administrative Funds. GAO/T-RCED-99-285. Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 29, 1999.
GAO, Fish and Wildlife Service: Use of Federal Aid Programs'
Administrative Funds. GAO/T-RCED-00-262. Washington, D.C.: July 19,
2000.
Previously Identified Problems:
Our past reviews of the Service's management of the Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Programs identified several examples of mismanagement
of administrative funds that we reported as symptomatic of a culture of
permissive spending within DFA.
Lack of management controls:
1) The Director's Conservation Fund did not have criteria for selecting
grantees and the grant files lacked key documentation and were out of
date.
2) Questionable payments were authorized by DFA for grantees under the
Administrative Grants Program and the grant files lacked key
documentation and were out of date.
3) DFA could not reconcile financial transactions for grants made under
the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs between headquarters
and regional financial systems. This resulted in millions of dollars in
discrepancies between the systems.
4) Regional DFA offices were not consistently assessing administrative
expenses for implementation of the programs. For example, some regions
used program funds to pay significant portions of salaries for staff
who were not dedicated to the programs.
5) DFA was not following basic procedures for managing its travel.
6) DFA did not ensure that routine audits of the use of administrative
funds were conducted.
7) Regional DFA offices were proposing to use a questionable process
for resolving audit findings in cases where a state owed the Service
for expenditures that were not justified under a grant.
Poor contract management:
8) Some contracts contained ambiguous processes for disbursing contract-
generated fees; in one case these fees amounted to over $100,000.
9) DFA transferred funds to pay for a contract with the Census Bureau
in advance of when it was needed; the Census Bureau subsequently
returned $1.9 million in unused contract funds, resulting in $400,000
in lost interest.
Poor management of Service-wide overhead charges:
10) The Service did not have an equitable process for assessing
overhead charges to programs and offices. As a result, some programs-
including the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs-may have
paid more than they actually used in overhead expenses.
Corrective Actions:
Management Controls:
1) Problem: Director's Conservation Fund lacked criteria for grant
selection and grant files were inadequate.
* Corrective Action: The Director's Conservation Fund was discontinued
in May 1999.
2) Problem: DFA headquarters oversight of grantees under the
Administrative Grant Program was inadequate and grant files were
inadequate.
* Corrective Action: The Administrative Grant Program was terminated in
July 1999. As directed by the Improvement Act, administrative funds are
no longer used for grant programs.
3) Problem: DFA could not reconcile transactions for Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration Program grant funds between regional and headquarters
financial systems, resulting in millions of dollars in discrepancies.
* Corrective Action: The Service implemented improved financial systems
and processes, and continued efforts to reconcile past discrepancies.
We found that past discrepancies were reconciled and agency officials
report that the new systems and processes help them reconcile regional
and headquarters financial systems on a monthly basis.
4) Problem: Regional DFA offices were inconsistently charging
administrative expenses, for example, some offices charged staff time
that was not spent on implementation of the Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Programs.
* Corrective Action: The Improvement Act sets forth allowable staff
charges. To ensure an understanding of these parameters, grant chiefs
in headquarters and regions have weekly conference calls and triannual
meetings to discuss and resolve questions and problems on this and
other issues. We conducted limited field testing that showed that staff
are aware of procedures, but we did not conduct file reviews to
determine if they are being implemented properly.
5) Problem: Appropriate travel processes were not followed.
* Corrective Action: DFA clarified Service policy to staff and elevated
approvals to appropriate levels. We found the process to be
appropriate. Our limited testing showed that the procedures were being
implemented in headquarters and that staff in two regional offices were
aware of and understood the policies.
6) Problem: DFA did not ensure that audits of the use of funds to
administer the programs were conducted.
* Corrective Action: The Improvement Act requires the OIG to contract
for biennial audits. The OIG issued the audit report for fiscal years
2001- 2002 in 2005; the report did not identify any major weaknesses or
concerns. The OIG plans to issue a request for contract proposals for
the biennial audits for fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 in May
2006.
7) Problem: Regional DFA offices lacked a process or guidance for
resolving audit findings on state's use of funds.
* Corrective Action: DFA developed procedures. Based on a limited
review of the procedures and audit resolution files, the procedures
appear appropriate.
Contract Management:
8) Problem: One contract funded by DFA using administrative funds
generated over $100,000 in fees but it was unclear how those fees
should be disbursed. In general, DFA lacked procedures for handling
contract or grant generated fees.
* Corrective Action: DFA modified its contract to clarify how the fees
should be disbursed; however, this contract was subsequently
terminated. We have not reviewed other contracts or grants that
generate fees to determine how fees are currently being handled.
9) Problem: DFA-transferred funds to the Census Bureau in advance of
when the funds were needed to pay contract costs and subsequently lost
the opportunity to earn interest.
* Corrective Action: DFA modified the contract so that funds are
transferred quarterly to minimize lost interest.
Service-wide Overhead Charges:
10) Problem: DFA may have paid for more of the Service's overhead
expenses from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration funds than what
the program actually used.
* Corrective Action: The Improvement Act established maximum levels for
administrative expenses for the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
programs; in response, the Service implemented a method for assessing
overhead charges that is based more directly on actual usage (referred
to as "CAM" or cost allocation methodology). CAM implementation has
been ongoing for the past several years and continues to change in
response to issues and concerns raised within the Service. The Service
is implementing new procedures for calculating costs for the largest
CAM-related charge space costs-in fiscal year 2006.
Contributors:
If you have any questions concerning this briefing please call Robin
Nazzaro, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, at (202) 512-3841
or Trish McClure, Assistant Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, at (202) 512-6318. Other key contributors to this briefing
were Wyatt Hundrup, Rich Johnson, Alison O'Neill, and Becky Spithill.
Summary:
While we did only a cursory review of the actions taken to address
prior GAO findings on the use of administrative funds for the Wildlife
and Sport Fish Restoration Programs, it appears that GAO's prior work
and passage of the Improvement Act have had lasting impacts on the
management of these programs. Significant effort has been invested in
making program and policy changes, not just in DFA, but Service-wide.
In many cases, new management policies and procedures have been
developed and, based on limited testing, appear to be appropriate. A
more definitive statement on the Service's progress, however, would
require additional review. The Department's Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) contracted for an audit of the use of administrative
funds for the programs for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, as required by
law, that did not identify major weaknesses or concerns. The OIG plans
to issue a request for contract proposals for the biennial audits for
fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 in May 2006.
Enclosure 2:
Funding Distribution and History:
Figures 1 through 4 show the distribution of funding for fiscal year
2005 and the 10-year distribution of funding for the Wildlife and Sport
Fish Restoration programs. Tables 1 and 2 show the 6-year funding
history by state and territory for each program.
Figure 1: Wildlife Restoration Program Tax Receipts, Deductions, and
Apportionment to States for Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Sources: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Services data and MapArt.
Note: As required by law, deductions from excise tax receipts are for
specific programs and funding levels. Data are of undetermined
reliability.
[A] Total excise tax receipts available for fiscal year 2005 were
collected in fiscal year 2004.
[End of Figure]
Figure 2: Wildlife Restoration Program 10-Year Distribution of Funding:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: As required by law, deductions from excise tax receipts are for
specific programs and funding levels. Data are of undetermined
reliability.
[End of Figure]
Figure 3: Sport Fish Restoration Program Tax Receipts, Deductions, and
Apportionment to States for Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data and MapArt.
Note: As required by law, deductions from excise tax receipts are for
specific programs and funding levels. Data are of undetermined
reliability.
[A] Total excise tax receipts available for fiscal year 2005 were
collected in fiscal year 2004 and include interest income.
[End of Figure]
Figure 4: Sport Fish Restoration Program 10-Year Distribution of
Funding:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Fish and Wildlife Service data.
Note: As required by law, deductions from excise tax receipts are for
specific programs and funding levels. Data are of undetermined
reliability. In commenting on a draft of this report, FWS provided new
expenditure data for fiscal years 1996 through 2000. We did not
incorporate these new data because the source of the new information
was unclear. The new data indicate that an additional $174 million was
provided as other deductions during these 5 fiscal years.
[End of Figure]
Table 1: Wildlife Restoration Grant Apportionments, by State and
Territory:
State/Territory: Alabama;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: $3,439,539;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: $3,601,969;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: $3,338,621;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: $3,775,702;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: $3,663,087;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: $4,230,076.
State/Territory: Alaska;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 8,490,358;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 8,751,120;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 7,983,824;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 9,107,484;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 8,648,602;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 9,923,370.
State/Territory: Arizona;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 4,587,789;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,932,992;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 4,537,407;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 5,197,532;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,869,205;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 5,683,004.
State/Territory: Arkansas;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,378,040;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,913,825;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,508,655;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,010,228;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,918,697;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,445,118.
State/Territory: California;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 6,610,254;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 6,861,214;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 6,381,792;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 7,238,447;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 6,910,043;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 8,006,336.
State/Territory: Colorado;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 5,165,816;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 5,207,659;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 4,825,397;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 5,531,602;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,877,855;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 5,984,357.
State/Territory: Connecticut;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,377,963;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,468,648;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,385,216;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 1,546,663;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,486,607;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 1,742,114.
State/Territory: Delaware;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,111,848;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,203,184;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,124,412;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 1,262,950;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,210,263;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 1,408,838.
State/Territory: Florida;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,232,040;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,646,351;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,444,451;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,746,895;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,668,356;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,237,774.
State/Territory: Georgia;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 4,120,378;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,373,894;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 4,054,000;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,581,108;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,464,492;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 5,165,236.
State/Territory: Hawaii;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,111,848;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,203,184;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,124,412;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 1,261,676;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,207,123;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 1,405,099.
State/Territory: Idaho;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,646,285;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,846,148;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,541,687;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,040,511;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,843,730;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,472,883.
State/Territory: Illinois;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,923,826;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,176,153;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,891,429;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,400,997;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,139,926;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,857,279.
State/Territory: Indiana;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,381,836;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,605,023;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,359,147;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,757,147;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,552,883;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 3,890,090.
State/Territory: Iowa;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,359,777;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,442,710;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,156,428;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,581,704;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,330,454;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,037,099.
State/Territory: Kansas;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,476,842;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,593,167;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,313,795;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,788,859;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,492,399;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,130,946.
State/Territory: Kentucky;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,117,435;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,273,091;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,381,505;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,808,948;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,734,407;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,312,192.
State/Territory: Louisiana;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,269,918;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,568,107;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,364,827;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,707,453;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,516,769;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,108,925.
State/Territory: Maine;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 2,147,882;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 2,350,572;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 2,184,511;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 2,432,581;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 2,219,066;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 2,675,874.
State/Territory: Maryland;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,812,194;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,972,019;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,871,410;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 2,066,965;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,987,636;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 2,313,018.
State/Territory: Massachusetts;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,695,875;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,932,233;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,845,915;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 2,044,342;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,974,680;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 2,330,650.
State/Territory: Michigan;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 7,349,739;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 7,449,040;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 6,765,477;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 7,681,412;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 7,181,520;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 8,459,634.
State/Territory: Minnesota;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 5,633,453;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 6,097,120;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 5,742,969;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 6,431,784;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 6,203,606;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 7,168,249.
State/Territory: Mississippi;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 2,953,368;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,080,128;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 2,881,368;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,249,737;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,106,745;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 3,559,917.
State/Territory: Missouri;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 5,277,938;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 5,492,864;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 5,096,878;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 5,771,360;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 5,819,002;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 6,739,125.
State/Territory: Montana;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 5,549,783;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 5,655,957;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 5,168,420;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 5,958,327;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 5,372,411;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 6,266,710.
State/Territory: Nebraska;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,246,130;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,345,022;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,082,306;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,518,769;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,284,266;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 3,829,113.
State/Territory: Nevada;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,466,997;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,544,874;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,268,082;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,743,824;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,559,648;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,097,241.
State/Territory: New Hampshire;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,111,848;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,203,184;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,132,469;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 1,264,195;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,214,574;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 1,442,482.
State/Territory: New Jersey;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,695,875;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,932,233;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,845,915;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 2,044,342;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,974,680;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 2,330,650.
State/Territory: New Mexico;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 4,071,712;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,050,224;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,742,975;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,311,943;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,144,775;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,761,855.
State/Territory: New York;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 5,724,950;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 6,053,350;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 5,589,079;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 6,308,475;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 6,055,166;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 6,783,004.
State/Territory: North Carolina;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 200: 4,153,277;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,624,376;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 4,370,014;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,829,534;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,920,679;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 5,642,181.
State/Territory: North Dakota;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 2,675,781;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 2,835,946;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 2,637,355;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 2,991,063;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 2,990,057;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 3,444,052.
State/Territory: Ohio;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 4,735,241;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,884,420;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 4,224,146;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,762,854;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,333,368;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 5,264,165.
State/Territory: Oklahoma;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,822,713;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,017,969;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,747,979;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,260,451;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,314,718;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,909,020.
State/Territory: Oregon;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 4,652,858;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,821,928;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 4,420,486;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 5,018,969;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 4,686,460;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 5,481,960.
State/Territory: Pennsylvania;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 7,602,373;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 7,872,824;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 7,047,696;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 8,020,697;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 7,837,535;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 8,980,993.
State/Territory: Rhode Island;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,111,848;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,203,184;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,121,404;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 1,261,676;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,207,123;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 1,405,099.
State/Territory: South Carolina;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 2,548,294;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 2,941,280;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 2,718,409;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,065,525;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,174,258;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 2,283,303.
State/Territory: South Dakota;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,242,050;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,450,120;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,272,354;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,737,508;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,440,127;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,015,800.
State/Territory: Tennessee;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 5,009,785;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 5,365,733;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 5,086,100;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 5,737,747;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 5,988,969;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 7,081,929.
State/Territory: Texas;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 9,074,385;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 9,480,169;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 8,678,260;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 9,877,416;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 9,384,766;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 10,811,538.
State/Territory: Utah;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,468,682;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,608,553;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,223,740;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,641,119;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,383,152;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 3,919,659.
State/Territory: Vermont;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 1,111,848;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 1,203,184;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 1,134,399;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 1,264,743;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 1,207,123;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 1,405,099.
State/Territory: Virginia;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,597,711;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,823,905;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,556,051;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,999,477;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,845,157;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,458,365.
State/Territory: Washington;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,712,928;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 4,377,113;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,730,039;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 4,199,436;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,930,101;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,588,931.
State/Territory: West Virginia;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 2,360,616;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 2,466,988;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 2,275,728;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 2,569,388;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 2,537,373;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 2,831,168.
State/Territory: Wisconsin;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 6,121,170;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 6,500,414;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 6,049,578;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 6,827,601;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 6,041,016;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 7,356,101.
State/Territory: Wyoming;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 3,519,514;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 3,618,365;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 3,355,160;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 3,860,291;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 3,577,733;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 4,193,838.
State/Territory: Puerto Rico;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 819,834;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 899,413;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 819,525;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 935,564;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 887,305;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 1,019,450.
State/Territory: American Samoa;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 321,947;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 340,307;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 313,426;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 355,336;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 338,410;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 391,236.
State/Territory: Guam;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 321,947;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 340,307;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 313,426;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 355,336;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 339,456;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 391,236.
State/Territory: N. Mariana Islands;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 321,947;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 340,307;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 313,426;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 355,336;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 338,410;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 391,236.
State/Territory: U.S. Virgin Islands;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: 321,947;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: 340,307;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: 313,426;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: 355,336;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: 338,410;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: 391,236.
Total;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2000: $193,168,232;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2001: $204,184,371;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2002: $188,656,906;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2003: $213,456,365;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2004: $203,674,379;
Apportionment, by fiscal year: 2005: $235,455,853.
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.
Note: Data are of undetermined reliability.Table 2: Sport Fish
Restoration Grant Apportionments, by State and Territory:
[End of table]
Table 2: Sport Fish RestoratioN GRant Apportionment, by State and
Territory
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.
Note: Data are of undetermined reliability.
[End of table]
Enclosure 3: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Office Of The Secretary:
Washington, DC 20240:
Jun 28 2006:
Take Pride In America:
Ms. Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
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, "Fish and Wildlife Service: Federal Assistance
Program is Making Progress Addressing Previously Identified Concerns,"
GAO-06-731R, dated May 26, 2006.
In this report, the GAO addresses the findings identified in its FY
1999 - FY 2000 review of the Federal Assistance program, and describes
how the Department has responded to those prior findings. We generally
agree with the report's findings and conclusions.
The enclosure provides editorial and technical comments from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. We hope these comments will assist you in
preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Acting Assistant Secretary for and Wildlife and Park:
Enclosure:
(360678):
[End of Section]
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:
