Enacted early in the genesis and growth of the American conservation movement (Pittman-Robertson in 1937; Dingell-Johnson in 1950) these two acts reflect the continuing support of the hunters, anglers, boaters and shooters of this country to willingly pay the excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment, and outboard motor fuel taxes, in order to ensure the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, and safe boating use of our Nation's waters. These programs are also long-standing examples of good state-federal cooperation in the management of fish and wildlife resources, which, as you are aware, are principally under the jurisdiction of the States, or under shared and concurrent jurisdiction with the USFWS for migratory birds, listed threatened and endangered species and anadromous fish.
The Association is concerned about recent problems with administration of these programs by the USFWS and agrees that Congressional action and legislative clarification is needed. The Association strongly supports action to ensure the integrity, viability and continued effectiveness of these highly successful and popular programs.
As you would expect, Mr. Chairman, the Association has had a long history of involvement with these programs at every stage of their legislative and administrative growth dating back to the early decades of the last century. With respect to the use of the up to 6% (Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) and 8% (Pittman-Robertson) that the statutes make available to the Secretary for "administration and execution" of the programs, we have raised concerns at various times since 1988 with some USFWS expenditures that we considered would not fall within either statutory language or a generally accepted understanding of what constitutes administration of the program by the FWS in their role of delivering the apportioned funds to the States. We did this while also recognizing that the statutory language with respect to this function of the Secretary lacks explicitness and specifity in detail. At a minimum, we believed that, absent explicit statutory guidance, the use of the administrative funds should be for activities for which both the USFWS and the State fish and wildlife agencies concurred. We took our belief in this from the statutes which identify the USFWS and the State fish and wildlife agencies as the statutory partners responsible for implementing these Acts. And, secondly, although it is not explicitly provided for in the statutes, the State fish and wildlife agencies and the USFWS have historically agreed to use some of these 6% and 8% administrative funds to conduct a National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation (since 1955) which has been of immense value to the USFWS and the State fish and wildlife agencies in each state. Further, for the last 20+ years, the States and the USFWS have agreed to use some of these funds to administer a program of grants (the National Administrative Grants program) to complete high priority projects for national fish and wildlife conservation which have benefited all the States collectively. In addition to their on-the-ground benefits for fish and wildlife resources and our citizens who appropriately use and enjoy them, the cost of developing and implementing these projects of national benefit to the States is significantly less when done "nationally" than if each state undertook the project on its own. I attach some examples of these projects to this testimony for the Committee's information.
The law provides that the funds (up to 6% and 8%) that are not expended by the Secretary for administration of the programs are apportioned to the States. Since about 1992, the USFWS has used the full 6% and 8%, including since about 1994, funds for the so-called Director's Conservation Fund (which Director Clark eliminated in 1999). No provision for State concurrence with grants made under this fund was ever employed. Further, in February 1995 the Service proposed to use $2 million of Sportfish administrative funds to support fish hatchery transfers to the States because operational funds for this purpose had not been requested in the Administration's FY1996 budget. The Association opposed that use of funds, but the Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife concluded that the Director enjoys great discretion to fund activities using administrative funds and there was no legal impediment to using these administrative funds for hatchery transfers to the States.
Two years ago, the Director asked the States to undertake an effort to improve the efficiency of the administration of the National Administrative Grants program, explaining that the cost to the USFWS Office of Federal Aid was excessive and constrained their ability to effectively administer these funds. After a year of work by our Association, including due public notice and review, on a revised procedure under which the States would assume a greater administrative burden, the Director in July 1999 announced the cancellation of the National Administrative Grants. In April of 1999, the Director had advised the Association of the discovery of a projected deficit in FY99 administrative funds, which was attributed to: 1) costs of state audits by Defense Contract Audit Agency; 2) cost of automating the grants delivery system (FAIMS); and 3) costs of administering the small grants programs under Wallop-Breaux. The result was cancellation of the NAG program. Enclosed for the Committee's information is a chronology of these events as contained in a resolution adopted by the Association at our Annual Meeting in September 1999 in Killington, VT.
The Association believes also that the use of the GAS overhead formula with respect to overhead costs, as opposed to an assignment of actual costs, resulted in significantly higher assessment to the trust fund programs than to other USFWS programs to which was applied actual cost assessment. This practice, since about 1993, also contributed greatly to escalating costs in the administration of the Federal Aid programs.
About a year ago, at the Association's request, the Director of the USFWS agreed to appoint a joint state-federal review team, co-chaired by (now retired) Deputy Director John Rogers and Jerry Conley, Director of the Missouri Department of Conservation and Chair of the Association's Grants-in-Aid Committee. The agreed to purpose of the team was to make recommendations for improvements to the administration of the Federal Aid program by the USFWS that would make it more efficient, effective, and responsive. While the work of the review team proceeded, the Association adopted action at the business meeting during its 1999 Annual meeting directing that the Association staff work towards the following legislative changes to the administration of the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Acts:
1). Clearly define within the Acts the phrase "for administration of this Act" to indicate only funds necessary for the USFWS to perform its function including delivery of apportioned funds to the state fish and wildlife agencies by the Secretary;
2). Specifically authorize in the Acts a program for funding projects of national benefit to the States collectively and authorize a process for states to approve such projects with a provision to apportion funds (to the States) if all are not used; and
3). Recommend appropriate levels of funding for each of these (1 & 2) "subaccounts", and legislatively protect these subaccounts from co-mingling.
The state-federal review team submitted its final report to all of the State Fish and Wildlife Directors and the Director, USFWS, on November 17, 1999 with extensive recommendations to improve the administration of the Federal Aid programs to make them more efficient, more effective and more responsive. In December 1999, the Association's Executive Committee met to consider comments from the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the review team report, and amplified the review team report with the following recommendations relative to suggested legislative reform of administration of the Federal Aid program:
1). The Executive Committee reaffirmed the action taken by the Association at its September 1999 business meeting.
2). The Executive Committee reaffirmed that a clearer definition of "administration" needs to be legislatively defined to correct the ambiguity that currently exists.
3). The Executive Committee reaffirmed that the Acts should be legislatively amended to specifically authorize a program for funding projects of national benefit to the states collectively and to authorize a process for states to approve such projects.
4). The Executive Committee recommended that 3% (Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) and 4% (Pittman-Robertson) be made available under the Act to the Secretary to administer the programs, with a phase-in to permit orderly change.
5). The Executive Committee recommended that 2% from each Act be made available for projects of national benefit in order to fully realize the benefits of projects like the National Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation Survey and for projects of multi-state benefit. A copy of the Executive Committee recommendations and the state-federal review team report is appended to this testimony for the Committee's use.
Although I realize that this is not a bill hearing Mr. Chairman, let me quickly share with you the Association's perspectives on HR3671 and S2609. As you know, HR3671 passed the House on April 5, 2000 by a vote of 423-2. S2609 is similar to HR3671.
The Association strongly supports legislative reform to the administration of the Federal Aid programs in the context of the recommendations in the actions taken by the Association which I just chronicled for the Committee. The Association supports HR3671 because, in concept, it embraces the Association's position. However, we would urge the Committee when it turns to marking-up legislation, to give serious consideration to the following improvements to HR3671 which would make it consistent with the details of the Association's recommendations and we believe better meet the objective of improving the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness of the program.
The recommendations include the following:
1. HR 3671 would provide $5 (or $7 million under S2609) annually for projects of national benefit. At least four existing programs funded at about $4 million from each Act per year (the National Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Survey, the Management Assistance Team, the Administrative Grants Program, and the Library Reference Service), at the recommendation of and concurrence with the States, have been funded for several years by administrative funds. The $5 million provided by HR3671 is not sufficient to fund these four programs and to include other projects of multi-state or national benefit that the States might want to fund collectively at much less expense than if each state conducted them individually. Examples include coordination in developing an automated fishing and hunting licensing project; Hooked on Fishing Not on Drugs; an international framework to benefit migratory songbirds across Mexico, the U.S. and Canada called Partners in Flight; and other examples as appended to this testimony. For the last several years, about $2 million for each of the two funds have been used for projects of national benefit. IAFWA's position is that 2% of each fund (approximately $4.5 million each) should be available annually for projects of national benefit.
2. As you know, under existing law, the USFWS can currently utilize up to 6% of Wallop-Breaux and 8% of Pittman-Robertson funds to administer the two programs. HR3671 (and S2609) would reduce this to a straight dollar amount of $14,180,000 the first year, and to a further gradual reduction over the next two years. IAFWA's position is that 3% of Wallop-Breaux and 4% of Pittman-Robertson ($16 million total) funds should be available annually to the USFWS for delivery of apportioned funds to the States. The funding level of $14,178,000 is not believed to adequately and effectively deliver apportioned funds to the States. Failure to adequately fund this program does not benefit the states because it impacts timely review of projects necessary for prompt reimbursement to States of apportioned funds.
3. Over the years, several grant programs have been added to the Sport Fish Restoration Program. These include the Clean Vessel Act Pumpout Program ($10 million/year), the Boating Infrastructure Grant Program ($8 million/year), and the National Outreach and Communication Program ($5-10 million/year). Although these program funds are withdrawn before the calculation of administrative funds is made, no specific provision is made for funds to the FWS to administer these small grant programs. The FWS is now considering using sport fish restoration administrative funds to administer these programs. IAFWA recommends that the attached language be included in HR3671, specifying that administrative costs for each small grant program should be made available from the fund specified for each program and not from Sport Fish Restoration administrative funds. This would save approximately $1.5 million SFRA administrative funds.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me share some observations with you about the provision in HR3671 and S2609 which would earmark an additional amount of Pittman-Robertson dollars to the States for hunter education and bow safety programs. I understand that this reflects the concern from some in the hunting and shooting sports community that the States aren't spending all of the funds available to them under Pittman-Robertson for these activities. Our concern is that using only the expenditure of Pittman-Robertson funds as a measure of the States responsiveness in providing these programs is inappropriate and not an accurate reflection of State programs. Further, we believe strongly that the State fish and wildlife directors are in the best position to determine in their states, through working with their hunting constituency what the priority needs for Pittman-Robertson funds are, and that these decisions should not be directed from Washington.
We would thus appeal for contained allowance of the discretion of expenditure of these funds by each Director.
Let me quickly share with you the record of success of the States with respect to these programs. A recent survey of state hunter education programs revealed that 43 responding states spent $26 million on hunter education in FY1999. This was $3 million more than the $23 million of Pittman-Robertson hunter education funds available to them for that year. The additional funds come from state hunting license and other state appropriated funds. This did not include the value of over $7 million of in-kind contribution by their volunteer instructors, which number approximately 55,000. Since 1949, more than 25 million students have received hunter education training.
The state fish and wildlife agencies have developed and are implementing very successful hunter education programs. These programs provide mandatory hunter education certification to all first time hunters. As a result, hunting related accidents have been reduced dramatically. These programs are funded with a mixture of Pittman-Robertson federal aid funds, state license funds, general appropriations and the in-kind contribution of thousands of program volunteers. The states are committed to continue and expand hunter education and safety programs, a well as archery and firearm range construction and enhancement. As long as this commitment exists, the Association strongly believes that it is preferable to give the state as much flexibility as possible in how they spend their funds so they can address state specific needs and use their federal dollars for maximum benefits.
As another reflection of the States responsiveness to the bow hunting constituency in particular, over the past three decades, the success of state fish and wildlife programs have greatly increased bow-hunting opportunities. In conjunction with expanding wildlife populations, the establishment of longer bow hunting seasons, liberal bag limits, and special bow hunting seasons, the number of bow hunters has increased significantly. This has occurred at a time when the number of gun hunters has been relatively stable.
From 1991 to 1996, the number of bow hunters in our country increased by 22% from 2.7 million to 3.3 million (National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation). All indicators are that this increased participation is continuing. The opportunities are not just happenstance, but proactive and responsive measures taken by the State fish and wildlife agencies to provide more opportunities to this constituency.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Association is committed to working with you, Chairman Smith, Sen. Baucus and Sen. Boxer to bring appropriate legislative reform to the administration of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux programs this year. The problems surfaced in administering the program by the USFWS are serious and require legislative clarity in the statute in order to remedy them. The Association believes that the recommendations that we have made to the Committee will contribute to the passage of a legislative proposal, and, when enacted, will greatly improve the integrity, efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness in delivering to the States the apportioned funds of this hugely successful program. Since their enactment, these Acts have provided over $7.1 billion to the States for fish and wildlife conservation, hunter safety and education programs, and boating safety programs for the millions of our citizens who appropriately use and enjoy the bountiful natural resources of our great Nation. Let's make sure we continue this success story for future generations of Americans.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
SPORT FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT November 17, 1999
INTRODUCTION
Since their passage in 1937 and 1951, the Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration Acts, respectively, have been the centerpiece of wildlife resource conservation in the United States. These highly successful Acts have set the benchmark for fish and wildlife management worldwide. In total, these Acts, and their administration, have been very successful. As time has passed, evolution in the role of the partners requires a reexamination of the traditional administration of this program. This review addresses that need and culminates in recommendations that represent fundamental changes in the administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts. Realizing numerous desired and needed changes to the administration of these landmark programs, this review lays the foundation for a new mission and a new program. Recommended changes to program administration occur in the following areas:
· Mission
· Leadership and Management of the Federal Aid Program
· Basic Program Administration and Execution
· Projects of National Benefit
· Implementation
Background
The last joint FWS/state review of the federal aid programs was conducted in 1988. That review focused primarily on how the states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administered the apportioned funds. States and the FWS believe that a comprehensive review of how the FWS uses the 6 and 8 percent authorized by the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, respectively, for administration of the programs is needed to guide management activities for the next 5-10 years. In addition, events during 1998 and 1999, such as a significant shortfall in the amount of funds available for proposed administrative activities, a Government Accounting Office Audit of the FWS use of administrative funds, and Oversight Hearings by the House of Representatives Committee on Resources contributed to the need for a review of FWS administration of the programs.
Charge
The purpose of this review is to identify ways to make the programs more efficient, more effective and more responsive.
The review and evaluation were conducted by a team of representatives designated by the FWS and the state fish and wildlife agencies through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). The FWS and the state fish and wildlife agencies are the two statutory partners specified in the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts. Recommendations for action by the Director of the FWS are provided in this report. The team also provides recommendations applicable to the states.
This review team considered the following broad areas in preparing this report:
a. The current administration processes and costs for both programs relative to the statutory requirements; b. The commitment of financial and human resources to administer each of the programs; c. The budgetary and planning processes used in administering the programs. This included a review of the current budget processes and recommendations to ensure the future costs and commitments are given adequate management attention; and d. The operational portion of the programs involving the approval of projects, commitment of funds and reimbursement/transfer of funds to the states.
Review Process
Representatives from the FWS, state fish and wildlife agencies and IAFWA met on four different occasions for a total of nine days to review the use of administrative funds and develop this report. In addition, review team members visited each FWS Regional Office (staff from Region 7 joined the Region 1 meeting in Portland) and the Washington, DC Office to meet separately with state federal aid coordinators and their FWS counterparts. They discussed the following questions related to FWS use of administrative funds (with an emphasis on FWS administration of the funds apportioned to the states):
1) what is working well; 2) what is not working as well as it could; 3) what could be done to address deficiencies identified above; 4) if we were starting from scratch, what suggestions can be offered for designing/delivering the federal aid programs to gain efficiencies and effectiveness.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. MISSION
Finding:
The existing mission statement for the Division of Federal Aid does not adequately reflect the growth in state capabilities and expertise since Program inception and the corresponding reduced need for some facets of Program management at the Federal level. Additionally, the services needed by the states during the next 5-10 years will evolve to include more streamlined delivery of Program funds. The existing mission statement reads: "Strengthen the ability of State and Territorial fish and wildlife agencies to restore and manage fish and wildlife resources to meet effectively the consumptive and non-consumptive needs of the public for fish and wildlife resources."
Recommendation:
Adopt a new mission statement as follows: "Effectively collect, manage and deliver sport fish and wildlife restoration funds and other partnership funds to support state and territorial agencies in carrying out their fish, wildlife and boating program missions" (see addendum).
II. LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL AID PROGRAM
A. Finding
The administration of the Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs has not received adequate attention and priority by the FWS. The current program apportions $500 million annually to the states. A program of such importance does not receive sufficient representation at the Directorate level of the FWS. The general belief among FWS Federal Aid staff is that they have no support from a Directorate that places little importance on their Program.
Years of inadequate and weak leadership have lead to a general deterioration of program function and output. The Division Chief has to spend a large amount of time on important external matters. This left a critical void in internal staff management within the Washington Office. Additionally, staffing in the Program has not, at times, reflected the need for personnel with direct knowledge of the Program and with the skills and abilities to administer the Program effectively. Development of staff in terms of career potential, personal growth, recognition, and mobility has not been a focus for management.
The FWS's current organizational structure makes it extremely difficult to administer a national program that is consistent and clearly defined. As a result of the leadership and management issues cited above, the Regions do not look to Washington for leadership. The role of the Washington Office has become unclear to staff in Washington and the Regions. Due in part to this lack of clarity it is difficult to get agreement among the Regions on issues involving more than one Region or State and there is often duplication of efforts between the Regions and the Washington Office. Serious attention must be given to establishing and implementing clearly understood roles and responsibilities for the Washington Office and Regions.
Recommendations:
1. Elevate the status of Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs within the FWS by establishing an Assistant Director for Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration and other Partnership Funds.
2. Strengthen the Division Chief's responsibilities to include internal staff leadership and management of the Washington Office. One of the primary responsibilities of this position should be to ensure job responsibilities are delineated, operational procedures are defined, and the organizational structure and staffing is adequate to support the demands of the organization. It is necessary that the Division Chief position provide the necessary management for the office to include the challenging decisions on staffing and policy issues that are internal to the office.
3. Ensure that personnel brought into the Program in both the Washington and Regions have the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to administer the Program effectively. Ensure that Program staff receive appropriate career development, recognition, growth, and mobility opportunities commensurate with other FWS programs and in accordance with FWS policies.
4. Develop and implement clearly understood roles and responsibilities for the Washington Office Division of Federal Aid and its Regional counterparts. Issues such as: budget development, financial management, audit coordination, policy development, policy interpretation, national consistency, program evaluation, staffing, operational support to the Director and Regional Directors, Congressional liaison, and outreach, among others, should be addressed.
B. Finding
In recognition of the need for a unified, integrated system for tracking apportioned fund obligations and accomplishments, in 1995, the FWS undertook development of the Federal Aid Information Management System (FAIMS). This system was intended to replace existing fiscal (FAPALS) and information (FAIRS) systems that could not be made Y2K compliant and to facilitate electronic apportioned funds management. Neither of the older systems were compatible with the Department of Interior's Federal Financial System (FFS) used for Interior wide accounting.
FAIMS is scheduled to be developed in three phases: 1) FWS tracking of apportioned funds and accomplishments; 2) state tracking of apportioned funds and electronic submission of new proposals; 3) and a geographic information system.
To date in excess of $8 million has been spent on system development. There has been limited involvement by appropriate state personnel to determine the states' needs for delivery of apportioned funds and an additional $11 million is projected to be spent over the next three years for further development, implementation and maintenance. There has been no cost/benefit analysis of this system and no effort to contain development and implementation costs. The excessive cost of this system has placed a burden on administrative funds available to the FWS to administer the Acts.
Recommendations:
1. The FWS should immediately contract for a thorough, independent system analysis of the FAIMS program. This independent analysis should include: needs, system requirements and design, cost, benefits and alternate ways of delivering an appropriate system. The independent analysis should be completed within 90 days of acceptance of this report. Implementation, in consultation with the Steering Committee recommended in part V of this report, should be completed by October 1, 2000.
2. The analysis should involve appropriate state and federal aid personnel in identification of needs and system requirements.
3. Until this analysis of FAIMS is completed, all new development work should cease. Efforts should be limited to those necessary to ensure that Phase I is fully operational and maintained and that appropriate training, technical support, user manuals and operational and maintenance costs are provided.
C. Finding
In 1996, the FWS's Federal Aid program implemented a nationwide audit program providing audits of the states, territories and the District of Columbia every five years. The audit program was implemented in response to deficiencies noted in the 1994 Office of the Inspector General audit findings of the FWS's Federal Aid program. The audit program has been viewed as a mechanism to improve the financial integrity in the administration of the federal aid program. The purpose of the audit program, therefore, is to assure state monies received through the federal aid program meet the intended project purposes and benefits for which the monies were granted and that programs are conducted in compliance with applicable federal requirements.
Audits have been conducted by a single governmental organization under contract with the FWS. Audit findings are reported to the Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector General for resolution. As of September 30, 1999, 28 audits have been completed, 3 are completed in draft and 21 are in progress. To conduct the audit program to date has cost $4.4 million. It is projected to cost an additional $4.6 million to finish auditing the 66 entities in the Federal Aid program, for a total of $9.0 million.
During the first audit cycle, audits were conducted by multiple audit offices and teams of the contract agency. As a result, there was no consistent approach or application by the contract auditors in conducting their audit activities. Furthermore they had limited knowledge or expertise in the area of natural resource programs either at the state or federal levels.
An audit of a state fish and wildlife program is should review state records within the context of the existing state financial and program performance reporting systems. The audit contractors' charge is not to mandate specific accounting and reporting systems, as long as the state system meets legal reporting requirements. However, there has been evidence that the audit contractors have demanded changes to state systems to conform to the contractors view of "appropriate financial accountability".
To have an effective audit resolution system, resolutions must be acted on promptly, decisively and consistently. Significant problems exist with the timely resolution of audit findings and secondarily with the provision of audit reports, either in draft or final form, to the respective State. Delays in the resolution of audit findings have been attributed to internal communication issues in the FWS and with the contract auditors.
Approximately 25% of audit costs relate to the FWS's on-site orientation, program briefings of contract auditors on basic federal aid activities, and general communications between the regional federal aid staffs and the contract auditors. Because it has been the practice by the contract audit agency to rotate their audit teams across FWS regions, many of the efficiencies gained by those teams in learning regional/geographic specific issues is lost by the frequency of the rotation. Furthermore, this rotation process places a greater burden on the open communications that are encouraged by the FWS by necessitating a re-training of audit staffs. This extraordinary amount of time consumed in communications and retraining has inflated audit costs. No effort was made, that we are aware of, to develop a comprehensive and less disruptive training and orientation program for the auditors.
The current cost of a single audit by the contract agency is approximately $157,000 per state. In the course of this review, it came to our attention that one state completed an independent audit of its federal accounts for $11,000. It may be incorrect to assume that the two audits are comparable; however, it does suggest that there is some reason to question the gross disparity in costs of the audit programs.
Recommendation:
The Service should contract for an independent review of the audit program. This independent review should be undertaken within three months of acceptance of this report and be completed within 90 days of its initiation. The review of the audit program should address:
a. Redefine the scope and criteria of the revised audit activity.
b. A review of similar federal grant audit programs either at the state or federal level. The intention of this review would be to identify those "best practices and models" for possible adoption by the Fish and Wildlife Service in streamlining the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration grants audit program.
c. Better definition of the criteria for selection of an auditor.
d. Completion of the audit program in a way that will bring the highest quality at the least cost.
e. Development of a comprehensive orientation program for the audit agency; maintenance of a cohesive and consistent regional audit program -- keeping audit teams in place once trained.
f. Development of an audit resolution process that assures timely and consistent disposition of audit findings.
D. Finding
The FWS has established a system of periodic audits of state Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs to ensure compliance with Program procedures and regulations. There is no comparable audit program within the FWS directed at its own administrative use of federal aid funds.
Recommendation:
The FWS should establish an independent audit program for its administration of federal aid funds to ensure program integrity and compliance with established business practices.
E. Finding
The Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program is funded by manufacturers' excise taxes and import duties that are collected by several Federal Agencies. Past experience has shown that funds are often not fully collected, credited or distributed to the FWS. This frequently results in a loss of interest income to the program. Recent experience has shown that active involvement and tracking by the FWS dramatically increases receipts into the Program.
Recommendation:
The FWS should strengthen and institutionalize its capability to monitor and collect funds. This capability should be part of a fund management program that includes proper investments for maximum returns. This fund management program should be given a high priority by the FWS as a vital part of the administration of the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Programs.
III. BASIC PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND EXECUTION
Finding
The relationship between the FWS and the states relative to resource management expertise and staff training has evolved into a relationship of co-equals. The implications of this changed relationship have not been fully reflected in the day to day administration and execution of the program. Because of changes in the level of biological and management expertise in the states, it is only necessary for the FWS to review state grant applications for eligibility. As currently administered, pre-award compliance issues represent a major component of Federal Aid oversight responsibilities. Transfer of compliance to states and realignment of the functions of the Federal Aid program with a new focus on delivery of trust funds to the states for eligible activities will result in a substantial reduction in administrative cost while ensuring program integrity is maintained. Training in program administration to ensure integrity is a necessary basic component of efficient administration, as are audits, apportioning funds and financial management.
There is no definition for "administration and execution" of the Acts provided within the Acts. This causes confusion about what costs may be charged to administration and funded by the six and eight percent authorized by the Acts. Recent uncertainty, has arisen concerning the proposed funding to be used to administer specific grant programs established by the Sport Fish Restoration Act, such as the Clean Vessel Act, Coastal Wetland Grants, Fishery Outreach and Boating Infrastructure program. Administrative funds from the Sport Fish Restoration Act have been proposed by the FWS to fund the administration of these specific grant programs. This will be an additional administrative cost to the program.
Recommendations:
1. Expenditures by the FWS for administration and execution should be capped at 3 percent (Sport Fish Restoration) and 4 percent (Wildlife Restoration). This reduction should be phased in over a period not to exceed two years, subject to a schedule developed, in consultation with the Federal/State Steering Committee recommended in part V of this report.
2. Define the term "administration and execution" to mean those actual administrative expenses of the Washington and Regional offices necessary only to deliver apportioned trust funds to the states, including, but not limited to, eligibility determinations, audits of state and federal programs, financial management and necessary training of state and federal personnel.
3. The actions required to deliver apportioned funds to the states should be altered to address the new mission.
4. FWS reviews of state grant applications should focus on eligibility, while activity related to biological and substantiality reviews should be minimized.
5. To the extent practical and consistent with law, grant compliance requirements should be delegated to the states.
6. Training of both state and federal staff in program administration is needed to ensure consistency and effectiveness.
7. Unless otherwise directed by Congress, administrative costs for each small grant program should be made available from the fund specified for each program and not from Sport Fish Restoration Act administrative monies.
IV. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL BENEFIT
Finding
For over 20 years a portion of administrative funds provided by the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts have been used to fund projects of national benefit to a majority of the states. These projects have been selected through a screening and ranking process by the IAFWA representing the interest of the states and forwarded to the Director of the FWS with a recommendation for funding. This process has funded many valuable projects benefiting the hunter and angler, state agencies and industry partners.
Within the last two years the FWS announced the termination of this process, but then agreed with the states to cooperatively improve the process. The improved process was never implemented because the FWS again terminated the process due to projected costs in excess of the administrative funds available. The states, through the IAFWA and the FWS, have consistently supported the funding of such projects and continue to believe these projects can serve a valuable benefit to wildlife resources and the states charged with their stewardship. There have been situations in recent years when the FWS has funded projects rejected by the IAFWA. Also in 1994, the FWS established a "Director's Conservation Fund" of approximately $1 million annually for funding other projects independent of the states' process. In March 1999, the "Director's Conservation Fund" was terminated.
Recommendations:
1. That within the six and eight percent for administrative funds provided to the Secretary within the Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts, no more than one percent of each Act's apportionments to the states be made available to fund Projects of National Benefit. This shall be a separate fund from all other administrative funds.
2. The Joint Federal/State Steering Committee (recommended in part V of this report) prescribe a process to identify Projects of National Benefit and by which project proposals will be submitted, reviewed and selected by the states. Such projects as the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation would be eligible for funding through this process. There should be no funds expended for Projects of National Benefit by the FWS outside of this process.
3. That up to three percent of the funds provided to support Projects of National Benefit may be used for administrative expenses for either the FWS or the IAFWA, depending on which administers the project. This does not include the cost of staffing to coordinate or implement a project. Such costs are considered direct project costs.
V. IMPLEMENTATION
Finding
The FWS has been party to, and the subject of several past internal and external reviews of the Federal Aid Program. These reviews have provided numerous recommendations for improvement. Unfortunately, the FWS has not implemented all recommendations. Additionally, development of program administrative policy, operational plans and annual operating budgets has been carried out solely by the FWS with no participation by its statutory partner - the States. This in-house process has not allowed for sufficient input and oversight, and as a result confidence in the FWS's commitment to program efficiency is low.
The name "Federal Aid" does not correctly describe or portray the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Acts and the use of dollars collected under these Act and administered by the FWS and applied by the states.
Recommendation:
The Director of the FWS and the President of the IAFWA should each designate three representatives to serve on a joint Federal/State Steering Committee. Initially, this group will be responsible for providing recommendations to the Director on:
a. Development of the annual operating budget of the FWS for administration of the Federal Aid Program.
b. Progress towards meeting the phase-in schedule for adjusting to a lower budget (see III-1 above).
c. Progress made on implementation of the recommendations presented in this report.
d. The Steering Committee should discuss and recommend to the IAFWA and the FWS a name to replace "Federal Aid."
CONCLUSION
Implementation of these recommendations will lay the foundation for a new mission and new administration of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs. It addresses the needs of states and the FWS by making the program more effective, more efficient and more responsive. Overall the sportsmen and women of the nation who contribute their tax dollars to these programs, along with the natural resources they address will be the true beneficiaries. Implementation of the recommendations will result in a true partnership between the FWS and the state fish and wildlife agencies in administering and carrying out the provisions of these historic Acts that form the backbone of modern fish and wildlife management in our Nation. This review and its recommendations were the work of the following state and federal employees appointed by the President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The review team extends its thanks to all the state and federal employees who participated in this effort.
Jerry Conley Cochair, Missouri Department of Conservation John Rogers Cochair, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jack Buckley Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Walt Gasson Wyoming Game and Fish Department Mary Gessner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tom Jeffrey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rick Lemon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bob Miles International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Marvin Moriarty U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tom Melius U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tom Niebauer Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Gordon Robertson West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Kathy Tynan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Addendum
Revised Mission Statement for the
Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program
Prepared by the Federal Aid Review Team 1999
Effectively collect, manage, and deliver sport fish and wildlife restoration funds and other partnership funds to support state and territorial agencies in carrying out their fish, wildlife and boating programs.
Intent
Effectively collect Washington, DC Office of Federal Aid aggressively pursues all legally mandated program revenues and credits them to the appropriate sport fish or wildlife restoration account.
manage Financial management (including investment of program revenues), periodic audits, both performance and financial of state/territorial apportioned funds projects and federal oversight of both performance and financial programs.
and deliver Get the money to the states/territories as quickly and with as few "strings" as possible; eligibility remains a federal responsibility, substantiality is delegated to state/territorial fish and wildlife agencies, compliance requirements delegated to the maximum extent permissible by federal statute.
sport fish and wildlife restoration funds - The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration and Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Acts.
to support - to facilitate, to assist the states and territories, to be an advocate for the states and territories.
state and territorial agencies the statutory partners with the FWS for implementing the Acts.
in carrying out their fish, wildlife and boating programs project selection, design and implementation is at the discretion of the states and territories; intent of the program is to meet state/territorial priorities.
The revised mission statement clarifies the role FWS, Division of Federal Aid. The states have the biological and management ability to design and conduct substantial projects. The FWS should have the expertise to collect program funds and deliver them to the states with as simple an administration process as possible. Responsibility for meeting federal compliance requirements should be delegated to states/territories to the extent allowed by federal law. FWS should assist the states in developing processes to insure compliance with federal requirements and conducting post award compliance inspections. Training for both FWS and state/territorial agencies in basic administration of these programs and compliance requirements should be emphasized.
RESOLUTION #3* REFORM OF SPORT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESTORATION ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS USE
WHEREAS, for more than half of this century the Federal Aid in Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs (Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux) have delivered to the nation a broad array of fish and wildlife benefits. A legacy of sound administration and oversight by the Fish and Wildlife Service, care by the States in selecting and implementing projects, and the continuing support of hunters, anglers, shooters, boaters and manufacturers have made these programs successful and durable; and
WHEREAS, the Association has had occasion in recent years to protest decisions by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to use administrative funds for purposes related only tangentially to "administration and execution" of these programs. Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to expend up to 8 percent on the wildlife side (6 percent on the sport fish side) for purposes of administration and execution with the remainder, after deduction for specific purposes established by Congress, followed by mandatory apportionment to the States. By degrees, the Service arrived at the position that unused amounts within the 6 and 8 percent ceilings may be expended at the discretion of the Director for fish and wildlife purposes bearing some relation to State programs, whether or not the States themselves consented1; and
WHEREAS, related to the use of funds for purposes not clearly within the "administration and execution" authority, for the past two years the Association has listened attentively on behalf of the States, developed proposals, studied alternatives, and sent delegations of Association officers to Washington in an effort to address the Service's concern that its efforts in carrying out the administrative grant program (a $4 million program) are too time-consuming in relation to the much larger state grant program ($450 million); and
WHEREAS, these Association efforts were nullified when the Service made the sudden discovery of a projected deficit in FY 1999 administrative funds, leading the Acting Director on July 26, 1999, to announce the cancellation of sport fish and wildlife restoration administrative project funding2; and
WHEREAS, following cancellation of the administrative grant program, the Association was invited by the Service "to join in a comprehensive review of the federal aid process with the goal of making the entire program more responsive and efficient," and it promptly accepted the Service invitation because of the critical importance to state government members of fish and wildlife restoration funds; and
WHEREAS, certain uses of administrative funds by the Service, as well as the methodology by which the Department of the Interior assesses charges against sport fish and wildlife restoration administrative funds for Service overhead, are now being questioned in investigations underway by the General Accounting Office and the House Committee on Resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies hereby
1. Reaffirms its longstanding commitment to the principle that, in the final analysis, excise taxes are available under these programs because of the willingness of hunters, anglers, other recreationists and manufacturers to be taxed in order to support State programs to restore fish and wildlife resources and associated recreation;
2. Stresses that, in pursuance of that trust, unused administrative funds ought either to be apportioned to the States or expended to undertake projects, to which the States give their consent through the Association, that provide fish and wildlife conservation benefits to a majority of the States and which no single State, or even several States, could undertake on its own;
3. Expresses deep dissatisfaction that the administrative grant program, an adjunct of the sport fish and wildlife restoration programs of unique value to the States, has been cancelled, in part because funds have been diverted to questionable uses including projects for which State consent was not given;
4. Urges the Congress to remove any ambiguity in the statutes relating to program administration that has served as a hinge for attempts to enlarge the discretion of the Director or the Secretary with respect to amounts within the statutory ceilings, including a tightening of what it means to administer and execute these programs, and to establish on a firmer footing the multi-state projects that benefit a majority of States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies supports oversight by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the states as safeguards essential to the continued success of these programs, including periodic audits of the States, federal-state policy clarification, and conduct of a comprehensive review of ways to streamline the administration of the wildlife and sportfish restoration programs.
END NOTES
1 (a) In 1988 the Director proposed to use administrative funds to support joint venture projects under the North American Waterfowl Plan without observing established procedures for securing state concurrence. On further review, the Director assured Association President Doig that "No administrative funds will be used to substitute for regular appropriations."
(b) In 1993 a GAO report recommended that, in expending funds for special investigations (administrative grants), established policies and procedures be followed by the Service in considering priority needs of States.
(c) In 1994, without notice or request for comment, the Director's Conservation Fund was established, drawing up to $500,000 each year from P-R administrative funds and a like amount from D-J/W-B administrative funds. From its inception, 35 grants totaling $3.8 million have been made under the Director's discretionary fund. Established procedures for identifying State concurrence were not employed.
(d) In February 1995 the Service proposed to use $2 million of sport fish administrative funds to support fish hatchery transfers to the States because operational funds for the purpose had not been requested in the administration's FY 1996 budget.
(e) In March 1995 the Office of the Solicitor, post hac, confirmed the Director's proposed use of administrative funds to support hatchery transfers. In a draft memorandum notably short on analysis, the Assistant Solicitor-Fish and Wildlife concluded that the Director enjoys discretion to fund activities using administrative funds and, if expenditures do not exceed the 6 percent statutory ceiling, no legal impediment exists to funding hatchery transfers to the States.
(f) In March 1999, after questions were raised by GAO, the Service terminated the Director's Conservation Fund.
2 In April 1998 the Service identified focus areas in soliciting proposals for administrative grants and restated established procedures for selecting projects. 63 Fed. Reg. 17882 (April 10, 1998). In July 1999 the Service cancelled the administrative grant program. 64 Fed Reg. 40386 (July 26, 1999). In between those dates:
(a) On May 26, 1998, the Service gave notice of intent to reconsider procedures for funding national administrative grants, advising that the Service would develop a full range of options for funding future national conservation priorities. 63 Fed. Reg. 28514 (May 26, 1998).
(b) On September 16, 1998, the Service invited comment on five alternatives to the administrative grant process then in existence on grounds the program is too time consuming and is inefficient for the Service to administer given the size of the administrative fund program ($4 million) in relation to the much larger state grant program ($425 million). 63 Fed. Reg. 49606 (September 16, 19998).
(c) At the Association's September 1998 meeting in Savannah, the Grants-in-Aid Committee recommended and the Association approved Alternative 3, under which the Association would take over solicitation, ranking and approval of projects, with final approval by the Director and administration of grants by the Division of Federal Aid.
(d) On December 14, 1998, the Association was notified that the Service had selected Alternative 5, a single annual grant proposal by the Association listing specific fish and wildlife conservation action needs which, if approved by the Director, would be administered by the Association.
(e) Following the Service's selection of Alternative 5, the Association assembled a team to work with the Office of Federal Aid to modify Alternatives 3 and 5 to address the desire of the Service to reduce its time-consuming involvement in the administrative grant program.
(f) On January 25, 1999, the Executive Committee agreed that the Association would administer the national administrative grant program under a modified Alternative 5.
(g) By letter dated February 17, 1999, Association technical committee chairs and regional association presidents were advised that the Association had been working for ten months to resolve administration of the national administrative grant program. The Association solicited committee and regional association recommendations for priority conservation needs, on an expedited schedule, by March 15, 1999.
(h) At the Executive Committee meeting of March 27, 1999, the Director agreed to meet with State representatives in early April to set administrative program funding priorities.
(i) During the meeting of April 6, 1999, the Director advised that the sudden discovery of a projected deficit in FY 1999 administrative funds would require prompt action to reduce expenditures, and the Director agreed to consult with State representatives before taking final decisions. A report to State fish and wildlife directors advised them to ignore rumors about the future of the administrative grant program. The projected deficit was attributed to:
·Costs of administering small grant programs. Sometime in early 1999 the Service concluded that the costs of administering small grant programs created by amendments to the Sport Fish Restoration Act (Clean Vessel Act Pumpout Program, the Boating Infrastructure Program, and the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Program) could not be assessed against the grant amounts authorized by statute but must instead be absorbed out of Sport Fish Restoration Act administrative funds. Additional cost: $1 million per annum.
·Costs of state audits by Defense Contract Audit Agency. A substantial amount not present prior to FY 1997. Additional cost per annum not revealed in the public notice of cancellation.
·Costs of automating the grants delivery system (Federal Aid Information Management System). Costs are said to be much greater than two years ago when the Service began this process. Additional cost per annum not revealed in the public notice of cancellation.
(j) By letter dated May 12, 1999, the Director advised that the Service would be unable to offer a national administrative grant program for FY 2000.
(k) By letter dated May 25, 1999, Association President Holmes expressed appreciation to Director Clark for her agreement "to back up and take another look" at the reductions in administrative funds spelled out in the Director's letter dated May 12, 1999.
(l) By letter dated May 28, 1999, Director Clark advised President Holmes that no good options exist in the short term and further review of administrative funding decisions taken by the Service would be a futile exercise.
(m) By notice of July 26, 1999, the Service announced the cancellation of Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Administrative Project Funding. 64 Fed. Reg. 40386 (July 26, 1999).
_______________________ *Adopted by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies at its 89th Annual Convention, Killington, Vermont, September 21, 1999