Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration: Competitive Grant Programs Managed Consistently with Relevant Regulations, but Monitoring Could Be Improved

FWS awarded $1.5 billion in grants in fiscal year 2016, which represented about half of the agency's budget. In general, FWS awards two types of grants: (1) formula grants, which are distributed to recipients based on a required formula, and (2) competitive grants, where potential recipients submit an application for funding that is reviewed and scored against criteria. Within FWS, WSFR manages several grant programs.

GAO was asked to review WSFR's management of its competitive grant programs. This report (1) identifies and describes competitive grant programs that WSFR awards and monitors; (2) examines how WSFR awards grants under these programs and the extent to which this is consistent with relevant regulations; and (3) examines how WSFR monitors grants under these programs and the extent to which this is consistent with relevant regulations. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and FWS guidance; analyzed agency data for fiscal years 2012-2016; reviewed award documents for fiscal year 2016 and a sample of monitoring documents for grants awarded in fiscal year 2015 (selected to ensure sufficient time for required reports to be submitted) and compared these with requirements from relevant regulations; interviewed WSFR headquarters and regional officials and grant recipients.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) program, within the Department of the Interior, awards and monitors five competitive grant programs. These grant programs fund different types of projects ranging from building docks to acquiring wetlands. GAO found that the number of grants and funding awarded varied by grant program from fiscal years 2012 through 2016.

The award process WSFR uses for the five competitive grant programs generally involves publicly announcing the grant opportunity through a Notice of Funding Opportunity, which contains information applicants need to consider when applying, such as available funding and criteria that will be used to score applications. A panel comprised of WSFR staff, and in some cases other FWS staff or a third party organization, reviews and scores the applications based on the criteria in the Notice of Funding Opportunity and develops a list of recommended projects and funding amounts. The list is forwarded to the Director of FWS for review and approval. GAO found that WSFR's grant award process is consistent with federal regulations for awarding federal grants.

WSFR monitors its competitive grants by reviewing financial and performance reports submitted by grant recipients. In general, this process is consistent with relevant regulations, but some of the performance reports were missing required information. Specifically, for fiscal year 2015 grants GAO reviewed, financial and performance reports were generally submitted on time by grant recipients, but several performance reports (9 of 51) did not include a comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals of the grant, as required by regulations. WSFR does not have a template for grant recipients to follow in preparing these reports for most of the grant programs, and the template used by one region does not clearly ask for all required information. WSFR officials have said the agency plans to develop a more standardized reporting process but no timeline has been established. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government , management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks, including designing mechanisms to help monitor performance. Without a template or standardized method that facilitates the collection of performance information, WSFR grant recipients may continue to submit performance reports that are missing information needed by FWS to monitor its competitive grant programs.

GAO recommends that FWS develop a template or other standardized method to facilitate collection of all required information for grant performance reports. The Department of the Interior concurred with this recommendation.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), within the Department of the  Interior (Interior), awarded $1.5 billion in grants in fiscal year 2016, which  represented about 50 percent of the FWS budget. In general, FWS  awards two types of grants: (1) formula grants, which are distributed to  recipients based on a required formula, and (2) competitive grants, where  potential recipients submit an application for funding that is reviewed and  scored against criteria. Within FWS, the Wildlife and Sport Fish  Restoration (WSFR) Program is responsible for managing several of the  agency’s grant programs, including two formula grant programs—the  Wildlife Restoration Program and the Sport Fish Restoration Program. In  addition, WSFR awards and monitors several competitive grants to  recipients, which include state agencies and nongovernmental  organizations. In fiscal year 2016, WSFR awarded about $54 million in  these competitive grants. Competitive grant programs provide support for  various activities, such as helping to construct boat docks or acquiring  wetlands, and these grants are awarded annually.

Our prior work has highlighted the importance of both awarding  competitive grants in a fair and transparent way and monitoring federal  grants. In recent years, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  has taken actions to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of  grant-making across the federal government. Specifically, in 2011, OMB  created the Council on Financial Assistance Reform, an interagency  council charged with providing policy-level leadership for the grants  community and supporting reforms to improve the effectiveness and  efficiency of federal grants. Further, in December 2014, OMB’s Uniform  Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements  for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) became effective for new grant  awards after being adopted by federal grant-making agencies, including  Interior. The Uniform Guidance requires, among other things, that federal  agencies design and execute a merit review process for competitive grant  applications. A merit review process is characterized by the  establishment of criteria applied by the agency to evaluate the merit of  competitive grant applications and seeks to ensure that grant applications  are reviewed in a fair, competitive, and transparent manner. The Uniform  Guidance also requires certain monitoring activities for federal grants,  such as requiring grant recipients to submit financial and performance  reports.

You asked us to review WSFR’s management of its competitive grant  programs. This report (1) identifies and describes the competitive grant  programs that WSFR awards and monitors; (2) examines how WSFR  awards grants under these programs and the extent to which this is  consistent with relevant regulations; and (3) examines how WSFR  monitors grants under these programs and the extent to which this is  consistent with relevant regulations.

To identify the competitive grant programs that WSFR both awards and  monitors, we reviewed federal laws, regulations, agency guidance,  budget documents, and grant program descriptions in the Catalog of  Federal Domestic Assistance, which is a compilation of federal assistance  programs including grants. We developed a list of competitive grant  programs that WSFR awards and monitors and corroborated the list with  WSFR officials. We also analyzed data on these grant programs from  Interior’s Financial and Business Management System for fiscal years  2012 through 2016, the most recent five-year period for when the award  process had been completed. To determine the reliability of these data,  we interviewed agency officials and conducted electronic testing of the  data, and we determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.

To examine how WSFR awards competitive grants and how this  compares with relevant regulations, we reviewed agency regulations and  guidance along with the Uniform Guidance. We also reviewed award  documents for the fiscal year 2016 grant cycle for the competitive grant  programs we identified. These documents included the Notice of Funding  Opportunity (NOFO), which describes the funding opportunity to  applicants; documentation of the scoring of applications; and memos that  documented the results of the scoring process. We also reviewed eight  complete grant files for grants awarded in 2016. In addition to looking at  these fiscal year 2016 documents, we also examined memos that  documented the results of the award process for the grants awarded in  fiscal years 2012 through 2015. To assess the extent to which the award  process is consistent with relevant regulations, we compared the process  WSFR uses to award grants with OMB’s Uniform Guidance.

To examine how WSFR monitors competitive grants and how this  compares with relevant regulations, we reviewed agency regulations and  guidance along with the Uniform Guidance. We also examined financial  and performance reports for 32 selected grants awarded in fiscal year  2015. We selected fiscal year 2015 to ensure that enough time had  elapsed under these grants for financial and performance reports to have  been required and submitted. In selecting this non-probability sample of  files, we ensured that we had at least one file for each of the grant  programs in our review and at least one file from each of the eight FWS  regional offices. The results from our analysis of these documents are not  generalizable to all monitoring documents for grants awarded in fiscal  year 2015, but allowed us to examine how WSFR monitored selected  grants. To assess the extent to which the monitoring process is consistent  with relevant regulations, we compared the process WSFR uses to  monitor grants with OMB’s Uniform Guidance.

For all three objectives, we interviewed WSFR staff responsible for  overseeing WSFR grant programs, including program leaders for the  competitive grant programs at headquarters and WSFR staff in each of  the eight FWS regional offices. We asked these officials about the role  they played in awarding and monitoring competitive grants. In addition,  we interviewed other officials at FWS and nongovernmental organizations  involved in awarding or monitoring competitive grants. We also  interviewed grant applicants, including state fish and wildlife agency  officials and nongovernmental organizations, to learn about their  experiences during the award and monitoring process for WSFR grants.  We selected applicants that had various experiences with the grant  programs in fiscal year 2016, including those that applied and did not  receive funding and those that applied and received funding. The results  of these interviews with grant applicants cannot be generalized to other  applicants. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of our scope  and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2017 to February 2018  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

FWS provides grants to a variety of recipients, including state agencies,  tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations. In fiscal year  2016, FWS awarded $1.5 billion in grants, which was about 50 percent of  the agency’s total $2.9 billion budget authority. Within FWS, WSFR is  responsible for awarding most of the grant funding available from FWS,  and in fiscal year 2016, WSFR awarded $1.2 billion in grants.

As we have previously reported, most federal grant-making agencies  generally follow a grants management process that includes awarding  grant funds and monitoring grant projects. The award process generally  involves announcing the grant opportunities, reviewing applications, and  making award decisions. During the monitoring process, the agency  oversees the implementation of the grant project and periodically reviews  financial and performance reports from grant recipients. In our past  reports, we have found that it is important for federal agencies to employ  a fair and transparent process to make award selections for competitive  grant programs and to monitor federal grant funds to ensure that they are  used properly and effectively to achieve program goals.

In general, WSFR awards two types of grants: formula and competitive  grants.

Formula grants: WSFR awards these grants to recipients in amounts  based on required formulas. The two largest formula grant programs  WSFR manages are the Wildlife Restoration Program and Sport Fish  Restoration Program, which provided $699 million and $356 million,  respectively, in grants to states in fiscal year 2016. According to  WSFR documents and officials, these grants are often used by states  to help their fish and wildlife agencies restore, enhance, and manage  wildlife and sport fish resources and provide public access to those  resources. Each state’s use of certain funds and each state’s wildlife  and sport fish activities are to be audited every 5 years, and these  audits have generally been conducted by Interior’s Office of Inspector  General (OIG). According to Interior OIG officials, these audits have  been conducted since 2002, and each state has been audited three  times over the past 15 years.

Competitive grants: WSFR awards these grants to eligible  applicants for specific projects based on a competitive process in  which grant applications are scored against certain criteria.  Competitive grants comprise a much smaller portion of the grant  funding that WSFR awards; in fiscal year 2016, WSFR awarded about  $54 million in competitive grants. Competitive grants, unlike the  formula grants, are not required under their program-specific statutes  to be regularly audited. According to the Interior OIG and WSFR  officials, the OIG has conducted few audits of these programs.

Funding for most of WSFR’s grant programs comes from two sources: the  Wildlife Restoration Account and the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating  Trust Fund. These accounts are generally funded by industries paying  excise taxes and import duties on certain equipment and gear  manufactured for purchase by hunters, anglers, boaters, archers, and  recreational shooters, including pistols, bows and arrows, and fishing rods  and reels, among other items. Federal taxes on fuel for motorboats and  small engines are also a source of funding.

In administering grant programs, WSFR adheres to federal laws and  regulations, as well as agency policies and guidance.

Federal laws: The 1937 Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act  and the 1950 Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act established  the Wildlife Restoration Program and the Sport Fish Restoration  Program, respectively. The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson  Acts have been amended to, among other things, establish additional  grant programs, many of which are competitive programs. For  example, the Clean Vessel Act of 1992 amended the Dingell-Johnson  Act and created the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program. In addition, in  1998, the Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act amended the Dingell- Johnson Act and established the Boating Infrastructure Grant  Program.

Federal government-wide grant regulations: The Uniform  Guidance, issued by OMB and adopted by federal grant-making  agencies, includes requirements for several aspects of the federal  grants management process, including the award and monitoring  processes. For example, sections 327 and 328 lay out general  requirements for financial and performance reporting by grant  recipients.

Agency regulations: Some of the WSFR grant programs have  specific regulations that, among other things, define eligible activities,  application procedures, and the conditions for using grant funding. For  example, the Boating Infrastructure Grant Program, the Clean Vessel  Act Grant Program, and the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation  Grant Program have program-specific regulations that govern aspects  of the grant process, such as the eligible uses of grant funding.

Agency policies and guidance: WSFR also has agency guidance  found in the FWS Service Manual, along with other guidance on  grants. The manual describes the structure and functions of FWS’s  organization and contains policies and procedures that govern  administrative activities and program operations. For example, the  FWS Service Manual contains a chapter focused on the Multistate  Conservation Grant Program that reiterates or clarifies requirements,  including program-specific statutory requirements as well as those  found in the Uniform Guidance. In addition to the FWS Service  Manual, the FWS, and WSFR within it, is subject to grant  management guidance issued by the Department of the Interior. For  example, in December 2014, Interior’s Office of Acquisition and  Property Management issued a memorandum that required (1)  maximum competition in grant awards through a fair and impartial  competitive process, and (2) a comprehensive, impartial, and  objective grant application review process based on criteria contained  in the grant award announcement.

WSFR Program Awards and Monitors Five Competitive Grant Programs

WSFR awards and monitors five competitive grant programs, according  to agency documents and officials we interviewed. These five grant  programs are (1) the Boating Infrastructure Tier 2 Grant Program, (2) the  Clean Vessel Act Grant Program, (3) the Competitive State Wildlife Grant  Program, (4) the Multistate Conservation Grant Program, and (5) the  National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program. While these  grant programs support different types of projects, they generally are  funded from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, and most  require non-federal matching funds from the grant recipient based on  statute. The exceptions to this are the Multistate Conservation Grant  Program, which also receives funds from the Wildlife Restoration Account  and does not require matching funds, and the Competitive State Wildlife  Grant Program, which receives funding from annual appropriations. Table  1 provides summary information on these five competitive grant  programs.

Across the five competitive grant programs, the number of grants and the  funding awarded varied by program. In fiscal years 2012 through 2016,  the largest amount of federal grant funding was awarded through the  National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program—about $94  million total—while the least amount of grant funding was awarded  through the Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program—about $24 million  total, as shown in table 2.

Based on our review of competitive grant award documentation for fiscal  years 2012 through 2016, the percentage of projects selected from the  applications received ranged from 63 percent for the Competitive State  Wildlife Grant Program to 100 percent for the Clean Vessel Act Grant  Program. While all Clean Vessel Act grant applicants received funding,  they did not all receive the total amount of funding requested; rather, the  amount of funding was based on the total amount of funding available  and the score the application received. The same applies for other grant  programs, as the agency sometimes provides less funding to a recipient  than was requested depending on various factors, such as the total  amount of funding available. For more information on the number of  applications received and awards for each grant program, see  appendixes II through VI.

In fiscal year 2016, the five WSFR competitive grant programs funded a  variety of projects according to our review of the list of awarded projects.

Boating Infrastructure Tier 2 Grant Program. Grants were awarded  to states for projects focused on improving facilities for recreational  boaters. These projects included installing docks, installing boat slips,  and constructing restroom and shower facilities for boaters. For more  information on this grant program, see appendix II.

Clean Vessel Act Grant Program. Grants were awarded to states for  projects focused on constructing and maintaining facilities to accept  sewage from recreational boats, including sewage pumpout stations  and floating restrooms. In addition, some of the grants were to be  used for public education materials on the importance of properly  disposing sewage from boats. For more information on this grant  program, see appendix III.

Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program. Grants were awarded to  states and a nongovernmental organization for projects focused on  state-identified species of greatest conservation need, which may  include endangered or threatened species. These projects included  conducting research on these species along with creating and  enhancing habitat for these species. For more information on this  grant program, see appendix IV.

Multistate Conservation Grant Program. Grants were awarded to  nongovernmental organizations and federal agencies for a variety of  projects that were national or regional in scope, such as providing  training to state fish and wildlife officials. Over half of the grants  awarded (11 of 18) were awarded to the Association of Fish and  Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), but most of the funding went towards the  administration of the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife- Associated Recreation ($6.4 million of the $7.7 million). According to  AFWA and WSFR officials, the reason many grants are awarded to  AFWA is because this organization is in a unique position to carry out  projects that benefit multiple states as required by law. For more  information on this grant program, see appendix V.

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program. Grants  were awarded to states for projects focused on acquiring and  restoring wetlands. Many of these projects focused on acquiring  wetlands that benefit wildlife. For more information on this grant  program, see appendix VI.

Under these five grant programs, state agencies often partner with  subgrantees to carry out grant projects. According to WSFR officials,  subgrants are common in the Boating Infrastructure Tier 2, Clean Vessel  Act, and Competitive State Wildlife grant programs. For example, states  are the recipients of Boating Infrastructure Tier 2 grants, but they can  subgrant the money to marina operators to oversee the construction of  dock facilities.

Grant Award Process Involves Announcing Grant Opportunity, Reviewing Applications, and Making Award Decisions and Is Generally Consistent with Regulations

The award process WSFR uses for the five competitive grant programs  generally involves announcing the grant opportunity and reviewing  applications to make award decisions, and in some cases federal  agencies or third parties are involved in these activities. The award  process used for the five competitive WSFR grant programs is generally  consistent with federal grant regulations in the Uniform Guidance.

Award Process Involves Announcing Opportunities, Reviewing Applications, and Making Award Decisions, and Third Parties Play a Role in this Process for Some Grant Programs

The award process WSFR uses for the five competitive grant programs  we reviewed involves announcing the grant opportunity and reviewing  applications to make award decisions, and third parties are involved in  these activities for some grant programs. Based on our review of agency  guidance and interviews with WSFR officials, announcing a grant  opportunity begins with developing a Notice of Funding Opportunity  (NOFO). The NOFO contains information for applicants to consider when  deciding whether to apply, including the amount of funding available, the  types of applicants that are eligible, the process to apply, and the criteria  that will be used to score applications. NOFOs are available publicly at  www.grants.gov. Interested parties then submit grant applications, which  WSFR reviews for eligibility by examining the project’s goals, budget, and  environmental impact, among other things. A review panel comprised of  WSFR staff, and in some cases other FWS staff or a third party  organization, reviews and scores the applications based on criteria in the  NOFO and develops a list of recommended projects and funding amounts  for these projects. This list is forwarded to the Director of FWS for review  and approval and if approved, FWS then awards the grant.

For all of the grant programs except for the Competitive State Wildlife  Grant Program, other federal agencies or third party organizations are  involved in some aspects of the award process (as shown in table 3). In  general, these entities are more involved in reviewing grant applications  than in developing the NOFOs for the grant programs.

AFWA, a third party, has the largest involvement in the award process for  the Multistate Conservation Grant Program, and implements most  aspects of the award process. Specifically, the Wildlife and Sport Fish  Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000, which established this  grant program, requires that FWS only fund grant projects that are on a  priority list established by AFWA. To develop this list, AFWA has  developed a process to review and score applications, and the highest-scoring applications are put on a priority list. This list is presented to all  AFWA members at their annual meeting and if approved by the  membership, AFWA forwards the priority project list to the Director of the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review and approval. The Multistate  Conservation program leader at WSFR said he also reviews grant  applications to determine whether the project’s budget is reasonable and  whether the project is eligible for funding.

Other federal agencies and third party organizations are also involved in  the award process for other WSFR competitive grants programs as  follows:

Boating Infrastructure Tier 2 Grant Program: The Sport Fishing  and Boating Partnership Council reviews and scores each grant  application and provides these scores to WSFR. The scores from  the Council are averaged with WSFR’s scores to develop a final  ranked list of grant projects. Officials from the Council said that they  provide expertise to the review process since Council members are  often engineers or members of boating organizations.

Clean Vessel Act Grant Program: Program regulations state that  WSFR will convene a review panel to include representatives from  WSFR, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.  Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA). WSFR provides the grant applications and  WSFR’s proposed list of recommended projects to these agencies for  review. According to WSFR officials, they have received limited input  from these agencies, due in part to staff turnover at these agencies in  recent years. For example, in fiscal year 2016, EPA indicated in an  email to WSFR that it agreed with the proposed funding decisions for  the program, and NOAA sent a letter to WSFR indicating that it had  not reviewed all of the applications but it supported the program and  did not object to the agency’s scoring of the applications.

National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program: Staff  from FWS’ Coastal Program partner with WSFR in developing the  NOFO, reviewing applications, and scoring applications. For  example, the review panel for fiscal year 2016 included seven staff  from the Coastal Program and four staff from WSFR.

Award Process Is Generally Consistent with Federal Grant Regulations

The five competitive WSFR grant programs we reviewed follow an award  process that is generally consistent with federal grant regulations found in  the Uniform Guidance. Specifically, the Uniform Guidance requires that  grant funding opportunities be publicly announced and that the NOFO  contains certain information, including the criteria and process used to  evaluate applications. In reviewing the five NOFOs used for the fiscal  year 2016 grant cycle for the five competitive grant programs, we found  that all five NOFOs were made publicly available on the website  www.grants.gov, and the NOFOs contained the information required by  the Uniform Guidance. These NOFOs contained criteria for scoring  applications that matched the criteria in program-specific regulations for  the grant programs that have them. For example, the regulations for the  National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program contain 13  different scoring criteria, which were listed in the NOFO for that program.

The Uniform Guidance also contains provisions regarding a review  process for grant applications. Specifically, the Uniform Guidance  requires that, unless prohibited by federal statute, the agencies must  design and execute a merit review process for competitive grant  applications, and that this process must be described in the NOFO. In  accordance with the Uniform Guidance, Interior issued guidance on  implementing a merit review process in December 2014. This guidance  requires that the “competitive process be fair and impartial” and that all  applicants be evaluated based on the criteria in the funding  announcement. In reviewing the five competitive grant programs, we  found that there was a merit review process and that this process was  described in the five NOFOs for fiscal year 2016 that we reviewed. As  part of the merit review process, four of the competitive grant programs  convened review panels attended by those that scored applications for  the fiscal year 2016 grant cycle, and these panels developed a  recommended list of projects, according to our review of award  documents. The exception was the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program,  where an in-person review panel meeting was not held but rather projects  were scored separately within each region, and regional officials  submitted their scores to WSFR headquarters. These two sets of scores  were combined and the WSFR program leader developed a  recommended list of projects, according to WSFR officials.

The Uniform Guidance also requires that federal agencies must establish  conflict of interest policies for federal awards. As a result, in December  2014, Interior established a policy requiring agency officials who evaluate  grant applications as part of a review panel to sign a conflict of interest  certificate. In our review of the award documents for the fiscal year 2016  grant cycle, we generally found signed copies of these certificates for  members of the review panels, except for the Multistate Conservation  Grant Program. This program did not have certificates for the fiscal year  2016 grant cycle because AFWA, which oversees the scoring of  applications, did not require these forms until the fiscal year 2017 grant  cycle. We reviewed these forms for the fiscal year 2017 grant cycle and  found that each member of the AFWA review panel had submitted a form.  AFWA officials said that the organization had previously required a  general conflict of interest form to be signed by its members, and they  started requiring a specific form for review panel members in fiscal year  2017 to align with Interior’s policy.

WSFR Monitors Grants in a Manner Consistent with Federal Grant Regulations, but Performance Reports Were Sometimes Missing Required Information WSFR Monitors Grants through Review of Financial and Performance Reports

WSFR monitors its competitive grants primarily by reviewing annual  financial and performance reports submitted by grant recipients, which is  consistent with federal regulations. We found in our review of these  reports for a sample of grant projects awarded funds in fiscal year 2015  that grant recipients generally submitted them on time, but that some  performance reports were missing required information.

According to WSFR officials, their primary method for monitoring projects  funded by competitive grants is to review financial and performance  reports submitted by grant recipients. Grant recipients submit these  reports to WSFR staff in FWS regional offices. According to regional  WSFR officials, regional staff who specialize in financial matters review  the financial reports to ensure they are filled out correctly. Staff do this by  comparing financial information on the amount of federal funding reported  by recipients with amounts found in Interior’s Financial and Business  Management System, which is used to track grants. In addition, WSFR  grant specialists review the performance reports to ensure they contain  required information, such as an update on the progress of meeting the  specified goals of a grant project. If WSFR staff identify discrepancies in  the financial reports or deficiencies in the performance reports, WSFR  regional staff work with the grant recipients to resolve them. WSFR  regional staff occasionally perform site visits to grant projects to verify  grant activities described in the performance reports. WSFR regional staff  said they perform site visits as funding and time allow and that recently  they have had to limit site visits due to budget and staffing constraints.

Actions to Monitor Grants Are Consistent with Federal Grant Regulations, but Some Performance Reports Were Missing Required Information

The Uniform Guidance contains requirements for financial and  performance reports for monitoring federal grants. Specifically, the  Uniform Guidance requires federal agencies to collect financial  information from grant recipients at least annually. The Uniform  Guidance also requires grant recipients to submit performance reports at  least annually, and these reports are to include certain information, such  as a comparison of the actual accomplishments of a grant with its goals  and the reasons why goals were not met, if appropriate. To further guide  FWS staff in implementing these requirements, the FWS Service Manual  provides additional information on the agency’s expectations for these  reports, including the required content. For example, the Service Manual  states that recipients should submit financial information, including the  amount of federal and matching funds spent and remaining on a grant.  The Service Manual also identifies the standard federal form that should  be used for this report. For performance reports, the FWS Service  Manual states that FWS must require certain information from grant  recipients, including a comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals  of the grant projects, and if the goals were not met, the reasons why.

In our review of the agency’s monitoring process for selected grants  awarded in fiscal year 2015, we found that WSFR required both  financial and performance reports at least annually, as required by the  Uniform Guidance. In addition, the number and due dates of these reports  were specified in the letters provided to grant recipients when they were  awarded the grant. These award letters also specified the amount of  federal funding for the grant along with any required non-federal matching  funds. We reviewed 53 financial reports and 51 performance reports for a  sample of 32 grants awarded in fiscal year 2015 and found that most  reports were submitted by their due date or within 2 weeks of this date, as  table 4 shows.

In addition, the majority of the reports we reviewed met the content  requirements found in the Uniform Guidance and the FWS Service  Manual. Specifically, all 53 financial reports were submitted on the  standard form prescribed by the Service Manual. In addition, the financial  information on the amount of the grant and non-federal matching funds  aligned with the amounts specified in the award letter for nearly all the  financial reports we reviewed. In our review of performance reports, we  found that most contained information required by the Uniform Guidance  on the grant project’s goals, progress toward those goals, and an  explanation for why the goals had not been met, if applicable. However, in  our sample, nine performance reports submitted for six awarded grants  were missing some of this information. For example, one performance  report stated that “no activities had occurred” under the grant, but it did  not specify what the goals of the grant were or why no progress had been  made, as required by the Uniform Guidance. Additionally, two annual  performance reports for another grant described the goals of the grant  and said they had not been met, but did not provide information as to  why. Officials from one state fish and wildlife agency said that there was  not a template to follow when preparing performance reports. Officials  from another state agency said that while the requirements for  performance reporting were laid out clearly in most NOFOs, they could be  interpreted differently by different state officials, and these officials  needed to ask for clarification from WSFR officials.

The format and content of the performance reports is generally left for  grant recipients to choose, according to WSFR officials, because neither  the Uniform Guidance nor internal FWS guidance recommends a specific  template for the performance reports. However, the program leader for  the Multistate Conservation Grant Program provides grant recipients with  a suggested template to follow when preparing performance reports. The  template contains areas in which to describe the goals and objectives of  the grant along with progress made towards these. The seven  performance reports we reviewed for the Multistate Conservation Grant  Program followed this template and, as a result, all contained the  information required by the Uniform Guidance. We also found that Region  8 developed a suggested template for performance reports, but the  template did not explicitly ask for grant recipients to explain why the goals  of a grant had not been met. The lack of a clear performance report  template may have contributed to 2 of the 10 performance reports from  region 8 we reviewed not including clear explanations of why the goals of  the grant had not been met, as required by the Uniform Guidance.  According to WSFR officials, the agency is planning to develop a more  standardized reporting process for performance reports but the timeline  for completion of this has not been formally established and remains  uncertain.

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,  management should design control activities to achieve objectives and  respond to risks. This includes designing mechanisms to help monitor  performance to ensure the objectives of the program are being  achieved. As noted previously, the Uniform Guidance specifies that  grant performance reports contain a comparison of actual  accomplishments to the goals of the project, and the reasons why the  goals were not met, as appropriate. The absence of a clear format for  these reports may have contributed to some reports not containing all the  information needed to comply with federal grant requirements. Without a  template or some other standardized method for performance reporting  across competitive grant programs, WSFR grant recipients may continue  to submit performance reports to WSFR that do not meet all of the  content requirements of the Uniform Guidance and do not convey all the  information needed for FWS to oversee its competitive grant programs.

WSFR awards and monitors five competitive grant programs and, in  general, WSFR’s process for awarding and monitoring these grants is  consistent with regulations for federal grants established in OMB’s  Uniform Guidance. However, there were instances in which the  performance reports submitted by grant recipients did not include a  comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals of the project, as  required by the Uniform Guidance. WSFR does not have a template for  performance reporting for four of the five competitive grant programs we  reviewed, and the template used by one region does not clearly ask for all  required information. Without a template or standardized method that  facilitates the collection of performance information, WSFR grant  recipients may continue to submit performance reports to WSFR that do  not contain the information required by the Uniform Guidance and do not  convey all the needed information for FWS to oversee its competitive  grant programs.

The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should direct WSFR to  develop a template or other standardized method to facilitate collection of  all required information for grant performance reports. (Recommendation  1)

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for  review and comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix  VII, the Department of the Interior agreed with our recommendation and  described actions it plans to take.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Interior, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix VIII.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) identify and describe the competitive grant  programs that the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) program  awards and monitors; (2) examine how WSFR awards grants under these  programs and the extent to which this is consistent with relevant federal  regulations; and (3) examine how WSFR monitors grants under these  programs and the extent to which this is consistent with relevant federal  regulations.

To identify the competitive grant programs that WSFR both awards and  monitors, we reviewed federal laws and regulations related to WSFR  grant programs. In particular, we reviewed the 1937 Pittman-Robertson  Wildlife Restoration Act and the 1950 Dingell-Johnson Sportfish  Restoration Act and amendments to these laws, along with associated  regulations for these laws. We also reviewed OMB’s Uniform  Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements  for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) for federal grant awards. In  addition, we reviewed agency guidance and information on grant  programs; agency budget documents; and grant program descriptions in  the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, a compilation of federal  assistance programs that includes grants. Based on our review of these  materials, we developed an initial list of grant programs that WSFR had a  role in managing, and we spoke with WSFR officials to gather information  on which competitive grant programs met the criteria of WSFR being  responsible for both awarding and monitoring grants. We corroborated  this list of grant programs with WSFR officials. We analyzed data on the  competitive grant programs we identified from Interior’s Financial and  Business Management System for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, the  most recent five-year period for when the award process had been  completed. To determine the reliability of these data, we interviewed  agency officials and conducted electronic testing of the data, and we  determined the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To examine the process WSFR uses to award competitive grants and the  extent to which this is consistent with relevant federal regulations, we  reviewed relevant agency regulations and guidance along with relevant  sections of the Uniform Guidance. To assess the extent to which the  award process is consistent with relevant regulations, we compared the  process WSFR uses to award grants with OMB’s Uniform Guidance. In addition, we reviewed award documents for grants awarded in fiscal year  2016 for the competitive grant programs we identified. We selected fiscal  year 2016 because it was the most recently completed award cycle.  These documents included the Notice of Funding Opportunity, which  described the funding opportunity to applicants; documentation of the  scoring of applications; and memos that documented the results of the  scoring process. We also reviewed the entire grant files for eight grants  awarded in fiscal year 2016 to determine what documents were contained  in these files. In selecting this non-probability sample of files, we selected  at least one file for each of the grant programs we examined and at least  one file from each of the FWS regional offices that had a grant awarded in  fiscal year 2016. However, one of these files was misclassified under an  incorrect grant program, so we excluded it from our review. As a result,  we did not examine an entire file from the FWS Region 8 office. We  reviewed the award documents and files using a standard document  review tool to examine specific parts of these documents, such as the  descriptions of the process used to review and score applications. To  ensure that this review tool was filled out correctly, two GAO staff  members reviewed the documents: one filled out the data collection  instrument and the other verified this work. In addition to looking at award  documents for fiscal year 2016, we also examined memos that  documented the results of the grant scoring process for fiscal years 2012  through 2015 for the grant programs we identified. We reviewed the grant  scoring memos from fiscal years 2012 through 2016 grants cycles  because they comprise the most recent five-year period for when the  award process had been completed.

To examine the process WSFR uses to monitor competitive grants and  the extent to which those processes are consistent with relevant federal  regulations, we reviewed relevant agency regulations and guidance along  with relevant sections of the Uniform Guidance. To assess the extent to  which the monitoring process is consistent with relevant regulations, we  compared the process WSFR uses to monitor grants with OMB’s Uniform  Guidance. We used a standard document review tool to review financial  and performance reports for 32 of 129 grants that were awarded in fiscal  year 2015 to determine the extent to which these reports contained  information required by the Uniform Guidance. We selected fiscal year  2015 to ensure that enough time had elapsed under these grants for financial and performance reports to have been required and submitted.  In selecting this non-probability sample of files, we ensured that we had at  least one file for each of the grant programs and at least one file from  each of the eight FWS regional offices. For financial reports, we  determined whether reported financial information on the grant award and  matching funds aligned with the dollar amounts in their award letters,  whether the reports were submitted by their due dates, and whether they  were submitted on the correct form. For performance reports, we  determined whether they were submitted by their due dates and whether  they contained information on the grant project’s goals, progress toward  those goals, and an explanation why the goals had not been met, if  applicable. The Uniform Guidance requires this information to be in  performance reports. The results from our analysis of these documents  are not generalizable to all monitoring documents for grants awarded in  fiscal year 2015, but allowed us to examine how WSFR monitored  selected grants.

For all three objectives, we interviewed WSFR staff responsible for  managing WSFR grant programs. These included WSFR program  leaders at headquarters and WSFR staff in each of the eight FWS  regional offices that are responsible for the five competitive grant  programs we reviewed. We asked these officials about the role they  played in awarding and monitoring competitive grants. In addition, we  interviewed other FWS officials that were involved with managing grants  and officials from select third party organizations that played a role in  awarding grants, including the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies  and the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. We also  interviewed grant applicants, including state fish and wildlife agency  officials and nongovernmental organizations to learn about their  experiences during the award and monitoring process for WSFR grants.  We selected applicants that had various experiences with the grant  programs in fiscal year 2016, including those that applied and did not  receive funding and those that applied and received funding. The results  of the interviews with grant applicants cannot be generalized to other  applicants, but were used to obtain perspectives on the grant award and  monitoring processes.

Appendix II: Information on the Boating Infrastructure Tier 2 Grant Program

Below is summary information on the Boating Infrastructure Tier 2 Grant  Program that we compiled from reviewing relevant laws and regulations,  reviewing agency documents, and interviewing agency officials.

The program was established by the Sportfishing and Boating Safety  Act of 1998, which amended the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish  Restoration Act.

The program provides grants to be used for constructing, renovating,  or maintaining docking or mooring facilities for transient, nontrailerable  recreational vessels that are 26 feet or greater in length. These  facilities generally must allow public access, and examples of facilities  that can be built with these funds include boat slips, piers, buoys, fuel  stations, restrooms, bulkheads, dredging, or laundry facilities. Grants  can also be awarded to produce information and education materials  specific to the program or projects funded by the program.

Governor-designated agencies in a state of the United States, the  District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana  Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands are eligible for this  grant program. The designated agency is often a state natural  resource or fish and wildlife agency.

Subgrants to other entities are allowed. According to Wildlife and  Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) officials, subgrants under this program  are common.

About 2 percent of the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund  is devoted to the grant program. In fiscal year 2016, there was $8.6  million in federal funds available for the Tier 2 program.

The maximum grant award is $1.5 million per project, and recipients  generally must provide matching funds worth at least 25 percent of  the total cost of projects.

Funds not obligated within three fiscal years shall be transferred to the  Coast Guard and expended for state recreational boating safety  programs.

Highlights from the award process used in fiscal year 2016:

The Notice of Funding Opportunity for fiscal year 2016 was posted on  www.grants.gov on June 22, 2015, and applications were due by  September 18, 2015.

Thirteen states submitted a total of 22 applications for projects.

Regional staff for the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program and  members from the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council  scored the applications and recommended that 10 projects be fully  funded and one be partially funded. The Deputy Director of the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service approved the list of recommended projects  on March 11, 2016.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the selected projects  on March 17, 2016.

Information on past applications and selected projects:  Table 5 shows the number of applications received and selected projects  under the Boating Infrastructure Tier 2 Grant Program in fiscal years 2012  through 2016.

Appendix III: Information on the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program

Below is summary information on the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program  that we compiled from reviewing relevant laws and regulations, reviewing  agency documents, and interviewing agency officials.

The program was established by the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, which  amended the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.

This program funds grants to coastal states for certain activities, such  as constructing and renovating pumpout stations and waste reception  facilities and conducting a program to educate recreational boaters  about the problem of human body waste discharges from vessels and  inform them of the locations of pumpout stations and waste reception  facilities. The program also funds grants to inland states meeting  certain criteria. Under program regulations, facilities need to be open  to the public in order to be eligible for a grant.

Since the program was established, over 6,000 dump or pumpout  facilities have been built and over 3,700 of these facilities have been  operated or maintained using grant funds.

About 2 percent of the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund  is devoted to the grant program. In fiscal year 2016, there was $13.7  million in federal funds available for the program.

The maximum award amount is generally $1.5 million, and recipients  generally must provide matching funds worth at least 25 percent of  the total cost of projects.

Funds not obligated within three fiscal years shall be transferred to the  U.S. Coast Guard and expended for state recreational boating safety  programs.

The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for fiscal year 2016 was  posted on www.grants.gov on August 12, 2015, and applications were  due by December 2, 2015.

A total of 21 states and the District of Columbia submitted 33  applications. WSFR staff from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  regions scored applications in their regions; then, these scores were  averaged with scores from the WSFR program leader for the Clean  Vessel Act grant program, who scored all of the applications. WSFR  provided copies of grant applications to the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Coast Guard, and National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for them to review and score  the applications. WSFR also provided its scores on the applications to  these agencies. EPA informed WSFR in an email that it agreed with  the proposed funding decisions for the program. According to WSFR,  the Coast Guard did not provide comments on the proposed scores.  NOAA sent a letter to WSFR indicating that it had not reviewed all of  the applications but it supported the program and did not object to the  agency’s scoring of the applications. The Deputy Director of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service approved the list of recommended projects  on April 28, 2016.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the winning grant  awards on May 11, 2016.

According to the fiscal year 2016 NOFO, this program attempts to  provide support to as many eligible projects as possible. In practice,  all eligible applications have been awarded funds from fiscal year  2012 through fiscal year 2016. If funding requests exceed available  funds, WSFR applies a formula to allocate funding based on the score  the application receives.

Information on past applications and selected projects:  Table 6 shows the number of applications received and selected projects  under the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program in fiscal years 2012 through  2016.

Appendix IV: Information on the Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program

Below is summary information on the Competitive State Wildlife Grant  Program that we compiled from reviewing relevant laws and regulations,  reviewing agency documents, and interviewing agency officials.

The State Wildlife Grant Program provides grants for the development  and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their  habitats, including species that are not hunted or fished. Eligible  activities include planning and conservation implementation.

The competitive portion of the State Wildlife Grant Program was  established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.

Fish and wildlife agencies in a state of the United States, the District  of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,  Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands and at the discretion of affected  states, the regional Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies are  eligible for this grant program. According to the Notice of Funding  Opportunity (NOFO) for this program, for each of the 48 contiguous  United States and the District of Columbia, at least two states must be  active participants in proposed conservation actions.

Applicants are also encouraged to engage with other partners on  projects. Potential partners include tribes, federal agencies, other  state agencies, local governments, nongovernmental organizations,  academic institutions, private landowners, industry groups, and  international partners.

The program is governed and funded through annual appropriations  acts. In fiscal year 2016, there was about $5.6 million available for the  program.

For most applicants proposing a multi-state project, the maximum  award is $500,000 and the minimum award is $50,000. Applicants  must provide matching funds worth at least 25 percent of the total cost  of projects.

Past appropriations for these grants have been appropriated to  remain available until expended. The appropriations acts governing  the program have generally provided that any amount apportioned in  one fiscal year that remains unobligated by the end of the next fiscal  year are to be reapportioned in the following fiscal year.

Highlights from the award process used in fiscal year 2016:

The NOFO for fiscal year 2016 was posted on www.grants.gov on  November 20, 2015, and applications were due by February 19, 2016.

The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR) received 21  eligible applications. Applications were reviewed by a panel consisting  of WSFR staff from each region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  (FWS). The panel recommended fully funding 14 projects and partially  funding 1 project, for a total of $5.6 million, with $2.9 million in non- federal matching funds. The Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service approved the list of recommended projects on May  19, 2016.

FWS announced the selected projects on May 20, 2016.

Information on past applications and selected projects:  Table 7 shows the number of applications received and selected projects  under the Competitive State Wildlife Grant Program in fiscal years 2012  through 2016.

Appendix V: Information on the Multistate Conservation Grant Program

Below is summary information on the Multistate Conservation Grant  Program that we compiled from reviewing relevant laws and regulations,  reviewing agency documents, and interviewing agency officials.

The program was established by the Wildlife and Sport Fish  Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000, which amended the  Pittman-Roberts Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson  Sport Fish Restoration Act.

The program focuses on funding multistate conservation projects that  benefit a certain number of states or a regional association of state  fish and game departments.

Fish and wildlife agencies in a state of the United States, the District  of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,  Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands are eligible for this grant  program. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is also an eligible  applicant for the purpose of carrying out the National Survey of  Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, which is  conducted every five years. Nongovernmental organizations are also  eligible, provided that they submit a certification that they will not use  the grant funds to fund, in whole or in part, any activity of the  organization that promotes or encourages opposition to the regulated  hunting or trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish.

Grant projects shall not be eligible unless they will benefit at least 26  states, a majority of states in a FWS region, or a regional association  of state fish and wildlife agencies.

By statute, FWS may only make grants for projects identified on a  priority list prepared by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies  (AFWA), a nongovernmental organization that represents state fish  and wildlife agencies on conservation and land management issues,  after following certain procedures.

Up to $6 million annually is authorized to fund grants, with no more  than $3 million from the Wildlife Restoration Account and $3 million  from the Sport Fish Restoration Trust Fund. In practice, some of the  grant funds are carried over to future years to fund certain multi-year  projects, such as the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and  Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

This program does not have a matching funds requirement.

Funds not obligated within two fiscal years revert back to the Wildlife  Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration programs for apportionment to  the states.

The Notice of Funding Opportunity for fiscal year 2016 was posted on  www.grants.gov on April 13, 2015, and the deadline for submitting  letters of intent to AFWA was May 11, 2015. These letters of intent  provide a summary of the grant project, and they were scored by  AFWA’s national grants committee. The highest-scoring applicants  were invited to submit a full grant application to AFWA by August 14,  2015. The national grants committee scored these applications and  presented these scores to AFWA members at its annual meeting in  September 2015. Members voted to approve the priority list at this  meeting.

AFWA provided the priority list containing 18 projects to FWS. The  Deputy Director of Program Management and Policy of the U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service approved the list of recommended projects on  December 7, 2015.

During the award process, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration staff  also reviewed the grant applications.

FWS announced the selected projects on February 11, 2016.

Information on past applications and selected projects:  Table 8 shows the number of applications received and selected projects  under the Multistate Conservation Grant Program in fiscal years 2012  through 2016.

Appendix VI: Information on the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program

Below is summary information on the National Coastal Wetlands  Conservation Grant Program that we compiled from reviewing relevant  laws and regulations, reviewing agency documents, and interviewing  agency officials.

The program was established by the Coastal Wetlands Planning,  Protection and Restoration Act.

This program’s primary goal is the long-term conservation of coastal  wetlands’ ecosystems. It accomplishes this by helping states protect,  restore, and enhance their coastal habitats through a competitive  grants program.

Since 1992, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has awarded  over $377 million through these grants.

Governor-designated agencies of an eligible coastal state are eligible  for this grant program. The designated agency is often a state natural  resource or fish and wildlife agency.

Subgrants are allowed, are relatively common, and can be awarded to  local governments and nonprofit organizations.

About 3 percent of the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund  is devoted to the grant program. In fiscal year 2016, there was about  $20.3 million in federal funds available for the program.

The maximum award amount is $1 million, and states generally must  provide 50 percent of the total cost of the project. However, states that  have established and are using a state fund for the purpose of  acquiring coastal wetlands must provide a minimum of 25 percent of  the total cost of projects.

Projects are generally funded through annual proposals. Funds must  be obligated by December 31st of the year after funds were allocated,  meaning that, for example, fiscal year 2015 funds must be obligated  by December 31, 2016. Funds not obligated during the specified time  frame return to the FWS program account.

Highlights from the award process used in fiscal year 2016:

The Notice of Funding Opportunity for fiscal year 2016 was posted on  www.grants.gov on February 5, 2015, and applications were due by  June 24, 2015.

The FWS Wildlife Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR) received  32 applications. A panel of WSFR and FWS Coastal Program regional  officials scored and ranked the applications, and recommended 28  projects for funding. The Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service approved the list of recommended projects on January 13,  2016.

WSFR awarded $20 million in grant funding, which was supplemented  by $20.5 million in non-federal matching funds.

FWS announced the selected projects on February 2, 2016.

Information on past applications and selected projects:  Table 9 shows the number of applications received and selected projects  under the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program in  fiscal years 2012 through 2016.

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above Elizabeth Erdmann (Assistant  Director), Steven Bagley, and Scott Heacock made key contributions to  this report. Additional contributions were made by Thomas M. James,  Ying Long, Kim McGatlin, Patricia Moye, Anne Rhodes-Kline, and Sheryl  Stein.

The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Program, part of the Fish and Wildlife Service, awarded $54 million in FY 2016 in competitive grants for projects ranging from building boat docks to acquiring wetlands.

We looked at WSFR’s process for awarding and monitoring grants through five competitive grant programs it manages. Our review found that, although WSFR's process was consistent with federal regulations, some performance reports WSFR uses to monitor grants were missing required information. We recommended that WSFR develop a standardized way to collect required information to ensure effective oversight.

(This photo was updated to show an example of a dock that was eligible for one of the grant programs.)