Fish and Wildlife Service: Agency Needs to Inform Congress of Future
Costs Associated With Land Acquisitions (Letter Report, 02/15/2000,
GAO/RCED-00-52).

Since the first national wildlife refuge was established in 1903, the
nation's wildlife refuge system has grown to include 521 refuges on more
than 90 million acres. Members of Congress have raised concerns about
whether the Fish and Wildlife Service established refuges with migratory
bird funds after Congress denied appropriations from land and water
funds for that purpose. GAO found that of the 23 refuges that the
Service established between 1994 and 1998, only eight used federal
funds--$4 million from the land and water fund. No migratory bird funds
were used. The remaining 15 refuges were established with land that was
donated, transferred, or exchanged. The Service is not currently
required to inform Congress of refuges established through donations or
other means outside the appropriations process at the time they are
established. As a result, congressional appropriations committees may be
unaware of these refuges until the Service later asks for land and water
funds to expand them. The Service also need not inform Congress of
estimated future operations and maintenance costs when it establishes
refuges. When the Service does establish a refuge, however, it estimates
the costs of future land acquisitions and of operations and maintenance
for that specific refuge. GAO believes that it would be useful for the
Service to provide this information to Congress. Although the Service's
automated priority-setting system for land and water projects creates a
national priority list, the priorities are (1) based on criteria that
are too subjective and (2) do not represent a true relative ranking of
projects. GAO summarized this report in testimony before Congress; see

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-52
     TITLE:  Fish and Wildlife Service: Agency Needs to Inform Congress
	     of Future Costs Associated With Land Acquisitions
      DATE:  02/15/2000
   SUBJECT:  Internal controls
	     Funds management
	     Wildlife conservation
	     Real property acquisition
	     Appropriated funds
	     Management information systems
	     Migratory birds
	     Reporting requirements
	     Prioritizing
IDENTIFIER:  Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
	     Land and Water Conservation Fund
	     National Wildlife Refuge System
	     FWS Land Acquisition Priority System
	     Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
	     FWS Lands Legacy Initiative

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **

** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

GAO/RCED-00-52

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives

February 2000

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Agency Needs to Inform Congress of Future Costs Associated With Land
Acquisitions
*****************

*****************

GAO/RCED-00-52

Letter                                                                     3

Appendixes

Appendix I:  Land-Acquisition Grants Using the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund

                                                                         26

Appendix II:  Refuges Established, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998

                                                                         31

Appendix III:  Projects Submitted for Land and Water Conservation
Funds, Fiscal Year 1998

                                                                         32

Appendix IV:  Projects Receiving Land and Water Conservation 
Funds, Fiscal Year 1998

                                                                         33

Appendix V:  Projects Receiving Migratory Bird Conservation Funds, 
Fiscal Year 1998

                                                                         35

Appendix VI:  Scope and Methodology

                                                                         37

Appendix VII:  Comments From the Department of the Interior

                                                                         39

Appendix VIII:  GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements

                                                                         41

Table 1:  Sources of Support for Three Refuges Established After
Land and Water Funds Were Denied, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 199813

Table 2:  Summary of Priority of Projects Submitted for Land and
Water Funding, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998   21

Table 3:  Number of Land and Water Projects Funded, Fiscal Years
1994 Through 1998                               23

Table 4:  Regional Scores and Priorities for Conservation Fund Land
Acquisition30

Figure 1:  Land and Water Funding Levels for the Service, Fiscal
Years 1994 Through 1999                          9

Figure 2:  Locations of Refuges Established, Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1998                                    12

LAPS    Land Acquisition Priority System

                                                  Resources, Community, and
                                              Economic Development Division

B-284269

February 15, 2000

The Honorable Ralph Regula
Chairman
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Interior 
  and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Since 1903, when the first national wildlife refuge was established, the
nation's wildlife refuge system has grown to include 521 refuges and more
than 90 million acres./Footnote1/ The Department of the Interior's Fish
and Wildlife Service (the Service), which manages this system, has
primarily used two funds to purchase land for establishing or expanding
refuges. One of these funds is the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which
was established in 1934 to provide revenue for acquiring habitat for
migratory birds. This fund is supported with revenues from a variety of
sources, such as refuge entrance fees, and does not require an annual
appropriation. Monies from this fund are distributed by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission, which is made up of four congressional members
and the heads of three federal agencies./Footnote2/ Three times a year,
the Secretary of the Interior proposes and the Commission approves
acquisitions using migratory bird funds. The other primary fund--the Land
and Water Conservation Fund--is an appropriated fund established in the
1960s to acquire recreation land. It too is supported by several revenue
sources, such as user fees for outdoor recreation activities. For this
land and water fund, the Service annually proposes acquisitions for
federal funding, and the Congress appropriates funds and specifies which
refuges can be established or expanded with land and water funds. The
Service can also acquire land for refuges through other means--donations
from nonfederal entities, transfers of land from other federal agencies,
or exchanges of federal land parcels for nonfederal land parcels--and is
generally not required to inform the Congress of these acquisitions. In
fiscal year 1999, the Service received about $65 million from the
migratory bird fund and about $48 million from the land and water fund to
acquire refuge land.

Refuges are typically set up in two stages. In the first stage, the
Service is provided the authority to create the refuge. Such authority can
be provided by the Congress, either through specific legislation or
earmarks in the Service's land and water fund appropriation; by the
President, through an executive order; or by the Service Director.
However, at the time a refuge is created, land may or may not be
associated with it, and its boundaries may or may not have been fixed. In
the second stage, land is acquired and the refuge is considered to be
"established." Subsequently, a refuge can be expanded when additional land
is acquired. Such an expansion can occur with land acquired within the
original refuge boundaries or, following a decision to extend the
boundaries, with land acquired outside the original boundaries. In this
report, we refer to all subsequent acquisitions of land as "expanding"
refuges.

Concerned about whether the Service established any refuge with migratory
bird funds after the Congress denied appropriations from land and water
funds for that proposed refuge, you asked us to examine the Service's
handling of established and expanded refuges from fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 1998. As agreed with your offices, we determined (1) which
funds--land and water funds or migratory bird funds--the Service used to
establish and expand refuges during this period, (2) how the Service sets
priorities for acquiring land with these funds, and (3) whether the
Service followed these priorities in requesting funding for this period.
You also asked us about the Service's use of the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund, which provides grants for nonfederal entities
to acquire land associated with habitat conservation plans. We provide
information on these grants in appendix I.

Results in Brief

Of the 23 refuges the Service established in fiscal years 1994 through
1998, only 8 used federal funds--$4 million from the land and water fund;
no migratory bird funds were used. The remaining 15 refuges were
established with land that was donated, transferred, or exchanged; the
Service had earlier requested but had not received land and water funds
for 3 of these refuges. The Service subsequently expanded 20 of the 23
refuges, using land and water funds totaling $29 million for 14 refuges,
and donations, transfers, and/or exchanges for the remainder. The Service
anticipates seeking another $630 million in land and water funds to
continue the expansion of 10 refuges established without federal funds.
Because the Service is not required to inform the Congress when refuges
are established without appropriated funds, the Congress may not know of
these refuges and does not have the information necessary to factor the
costs for their subsequent expansion into its decisionmaking about land
and water fund appropriations. The Service also expects to incur future
operations and maintenance costs for the newly established refuges (as for
many other refuges), which will be covered by appropriated funds, but it
is not required to provide the Congress with estimates of these future
costs at the time it establishes a new refuge. The Service is modifying
its systems that track estimates of operations and maintenance costs to
assign funding priorities to specific refuges; it anticipates that these
modifications will be completed in 3 to 4 years. 

The Service uses different priority-setting processes for acquiring land
with the two funds. For land and water funds, it uses an automated system
that creates several lists of acquisitions proposed under different
statutory purposes (such as endangered species or fisheries resources)--
using different criteria for each--and merges these lists into a single
national priority list. While the Service uses these priorities to develop
its land and water fund budget request, it believes the system needs to be
improved. Service officials, who are members of a team charged by the
Service with revising the priority system, said that the criteria for the
current system are subjective, result in little differentiation between
the projects, and do not reflect the true relative ranking of the listed
projects. Nonetheless, this is the only system the Service has to set
priorities. Therefore, the Service is developing a revised system for
setting priorities for land acquisition to resolve these problems. It has
not completed work on the revised system, but it plans to seek the
Director's approval to implement this revised system as a pilot for
developing the fiscal year 2002 budget. For migratory bird funds, each of
the Service's regional offices sets its own priorities, according to the
Service's criteria for managing waterfowl habitat and the office's
opportunities for purchasing the land within a year of receiving funding.

In requesting land and water funds for fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the
Service followed its national priority list for about three-quarters of
the 106 projects it submitted for funding. That is, it selected projects
in sequential order, beginning with the number one priority project.
However, individual projects were not selected if, for example, there were
no willing sellers. In these cases, the Service dropped down in the
priority list to include lower-priority projects in the request. In
addition, other projects of lower priority were included in the budget
request for other reasons, such as congressional interest or
administration initiatives. For the migratory bird fund, the Service
requested funding for projects it was likely to acquire within that year;
for these requests, it submitted only projects with preliminary purchase
contracts.

This report makes recommendations to provide additional information on
land acquisitions and associated costs to facilitate congressional
oversight and enhance budget deliberations, and to implement a revised
priority system for land acquisitions that is more objective and usable. 

Background

The National Wildlife Refuge System is dedicated primarily to the
conservation of animals and plants. Other uses, such as recreation and
livestock grazing, are permitted only to the extent to which they are
compatible with the purposes for which the specific refuge was created.
Individual refuges may consist of contiguous tracts of land--ranging from
less than 1 acre to more than 19 million acres--or separate tracts of land
scattered over one or more states. The boundaries of a refuge may
encompass land that is (1) completely federally owned; (2) primarily
federally owned, with isolated tracts of nonfederal land (referred to as
"inholdings"); or (3) in a few refuges, primarily nonfederal with isolated
tracts of federal land.

National wildlife refuges have been created by both executive and
legislative actions. In the 1930s, the Congress enacted several laws
requiring the consideration of the impact of federal projects on wildlife,
providing for revenue-sharing with local governments, and financing the
acquisition of waterfowl habitat. Subsequent statutes provided additional
financing and incentives for the Service to acquire refuge lands and
general authority to expand the refuge system. In response to these
statutes, the Service has increased the rate at which it creates new
refuges and acquires land. In the last 30 years, the Service has
established about 40 percent of all the refuges and acquired about 70
percent of all the acres in the national 

refuge system./Footnote3/ The Service has established the goal of annually
acquiring land for refuges as it identifies acquisition opportunities or
new areas of high biological value. For example, the Service's Annual
Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 contains the long-term goal of
acquiring about 538,000 acres for fiscal years 1999 through 2003./Footnote4/

The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929--the first federal statute
authorizing habitat acquisition--authorized the acquisition of land and
water to protect migratory birds. The migratory bird fund was established
in 1934 by the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act. The fund's three sources
of revenue--the sale of duck stamps purchased by hunters and certain
refuge visitors, import duties on arms and ammunition, and 70 percent of
certain refuge entrance fees--produce roughly $40 million annually for
land acquisitions./Footnote5/ The use of about half of these funds to
acquire land for refuges must be approved by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission./Footnote6/ This Commission includes the Secretary
of the Interior (chair), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Secretary of Agriculture, two members of the Senate selected
by the President of the Senate, and two members of the House selected by
the Speaker of the House. It meets three times per year (or as needed) to
consider and approve proposed acquisitions of land or water recommended by
the Secretary of the Interior. Land acquisitions acquired through this
fund must also be approved by the governor or appropriate state agency in
the affected state. The Service tries to spend the migratory 

bird funds within 1 year of receiving them./Footnote7/ Through the end of
fiscal year 1998, the Service used $400 million from this fund to acquire
more than 2.3 million acres for refuges.

The land and water fund, created in 1964, has been the principal source of
funds for acquiring new recreation lands by the four land management
agencies (the Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National
Park Service in the Department of the Interior; and the Forest Service in
the U.S. Department of Agriculture). The fund is supported by several
sources-revenues from offshore oil and gas leasing, federal user fees for
outdoor recreation activities, the federal fuel tax on motorboats, and the
sale of federal surplus property. For the Service, the Congress must
authorize appropriations for land acquisitions--both the establishment and
expansion of refuges-from this fund; if funds are not appropriated, they
remain in the U.S. Treasury and can be spent for other federal activities.
Although refuges established by either of the funds may also support the
purposes of the other, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act-until it
was amended in 1986--had prohibited the Service from using land and water
funds on refuges created with migratory bird funds./Footnote8/

Appropriations from the land and water fund have fluctuated widely since
the fund began, generally ranging between $200 million and $300 million
annually for all four federal agencies. In total, the Service has received
about $1.4 billion of the $10.3 billion appropriated to the four agencies
since the fund began. Figure 1 shows fluctuations in the Service's land
and water funds over the past 6 years.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****1:    Land and Water Funding Levels for the
                                 Service, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1999

*****************

*****************

Note: Funding for 1998 includes about $95 million appropriated under title
V of that year's appropriation bill for high-priority land acquisitions.

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Once appropriated by the Congress, land and water funds generally remain
available to the agency until they are expended; with agreement from
congressional appropriations committees, agencies receiving funds can
reprogram them for selected purposes. For example, the Service generally
receives land and water funds to acquire land in a specific refuge; if it
is subsequently unable to acquire land after funding is granted, the
Service may seek agreement from the appropriations committees to use those
funds to acquire land in another refuge instead. The Service does not need
to seek agreement to acquire different lands within the same refuge.

In addition to acquiring land through purchases, the Service can acquire
land without using funds./Footnote9/ Specifically, the Service can accept
donated land from nonfederal entities, transferred land that other federal
agencies have 

acquired, or land withdrawn from the public domain./Footnote10/ The
Service can also exchange tracts of land with other entities, although the
tracts of land must generally be similarly valued. The Service is not
required to inform the Congress of acquisitions by donation or transfer.
It is, however, required to obtain agreement from congressional
appropriations committees for acquisitions by land exchange when the
exchange will involve the divestiture of federal property valued at more
than $100,000./Footnote11/

The Service's decision to acquire land--either to establish a new refuge
or to expand an existing one--usually originates at the field level, when
Service officials identify a need to acquire full or partial control of
specific tracts of land in order to meet the Service's resource
objectives. Generally, a team of Service biologists, researchers,
planners, and realty specialists proposes refuge boundaries that are based
on the biology and ecology of an area. In developing such proposals, the
team considers factors such as data on the population density of a certain
species, its habitat, and its nesting patterns; existing land uses and
values; the area's economy; and the needs of nearby residents and others.

Whether refuge land will be donated or acquired with migratory bird or
land and water funds, the Director of the Service approves proposals to
establish a refuge or expand its boundaries--if the land to be acquired is
at least 40 acres or represents more than 10 percent of the acreage that
is currently approved for the refuge. This responsibility is delegated to
regional directors when the proposed land parcel is less than 40 acres or
10 percent of the refuge. In deciding to approve a proposed acquisition,
the Director considers the purpose of and rationale for the proposed
acquisition, the presence of and benefits to threatened or endangered
species, information on land ownership, and potential sources of funds.

Sources of Funds Used to Establish and Expand Refuges

During 1994 through 1998, 15 of the 23 new refuges the Service established
were acquired without federal funds; no migratory bird funds were used.
The Congress had earlier chosen not to provide land and water monies to
fund 3 of the 15 refuges acquired without federal funds. The Service
subsequently expanded 20 of the 23 new refuges--using $29 million in land
and water funds for 14 (including one for which the Service had earlier
requested but not received land and water funds), and donations,
transfers, and/or exchanges for 6. It plans to request additional land and
water funds (an estimated $630 million) to continue expanding 10 of the
refuges created without federal funds. While the Service does not incur
initial acquisition costs in accepting donations of land, it will incur
future operations and maintenance costs associated with the refuges
established with those donations--costs that will be paid with
appropriated funds.

Most New Refuges Established Without
Federal Funds
-------------

Fifteen of the 23 refuges the Service established during 1994 through 1998-
-totaling about 54,000 acres--were established without federal funds, 12
with donations, 2 with private land exchanges--one for federal land and
the other for timber located on federal land, and one with a land
transfer. Eight of the 23 refuges were established with appropriated land
and water funds totaling $4 million (for about 6,000 acres). None of these
refuges were established with migratory bird funds. Appendix II provides
more information about the 23 new refuges. Figure 2 shows the location of
the 23 new refuges.

Figure****Helvetica:x11****2:    Locations of Refuges Established, Fiscal
                                 Years 1994 Through 1998

*****************

*****************

Note: The map displays 22 of the 23 refuges-the Guam National Wildlife
Refuge is not shown.

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.

For 3 of the 15 refuges established without federal funds, the Service had
earlier requested, but had not received, land and water funds. Table 1
provides information on these three refuges.

Table****Helvetica:x11****1:    Sources of Support for Three Refuges
                                Established After Land and Water Funds
                                Were Denied, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Refuge        : State   :      Fiscal :    Fiscal :  : Sources of      |
|               :         :       years :      year :  : support         |
|               :         :     funding : establish :  :                 |
|               :         :      denied :        ed :  :                 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Key Cave      : Alabama :       1995, :      1997 :  : Timber for      |
|               :         :  1996, 1997 :           :  : land exchangea  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Patoka River  : Indiana :        1994 :      1994 :  : Donation        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rappahannock  : Virginia:  1994, 1995 :      1996 :  : Donation        |
| River         :         :             :           :  :                 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

aA nonprofit organization acquired the Key Cave property to hold until the
Service received funding. When the Service did not receive the anticipated
funds, it instead exchanged timber located on the Wheeler refuge in
Alabama (which the donator cut and sold) for the Key Cave property.

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.

According to officials in the Service's Division of Realty, the Congress'
decision not to fund specific projects reflected budget constraints for
the land and water fund, rather than congressional guidance that the
Service should not continue to pursue proposed acquisitions. The Assistant
Director for Refuges and Wildlife told us that if the Congress chooses not
to fund a Service request for a specific acquisition, the Service may
still move forward with that acquisition using means other than land and
water funds. The Service would do so, according to him, only if the
acquisition was important enough to the Service's mission. Furthermore,
the Assistant Director told us that when the Congress has not wanted the
Service to pursue specific acquisitions, the Congress has explicitly
directed the Service not to proceed.

These officials told us that they believe donations offer several benefits
to the Service and landowners. First, donations expand the Service's
ability to acquire land at no initial cost to the agency or the taxpayer.
Second, donations are another tool to acquire land that the Service uses
to accomplish its mission. Third, donations provide the Service with
greater flexibility in acquiring land because the process for accepting
donated land can be easier and less time-consuming than the process for
obtaining appropriated funds. Finally, donations can give the parties who
donate the land public relations and/or tax benefits.

For 5 of the 12 refuges established by donation, the Congress had
appropriated land and water funds for that same purpose by the time the
Service accepted the donation. However, the Service accepted the donations
first and has used, or plans to use, the appropriated funds to acquire
other land at that same refuge. When appropriated funds are used in this
way, the Service is not required to inform the Congress of the change. For
example, the Service established Stone Lakes Refuge in California in
October 1994 when it acquired land with $1.2 million it received from
California for that purpose. The Service had also earlier requested and
received $1 million in land and water funds for this acquisition. The
Service used this appropriation to purchase other land in the same refuge. 

Land and Water Funds Were Used to Expand Most New Refuges
---------------------------------------------------------

The Service expanded 20 of the 23 refuges by acquiring another 89,000
acres. Land and water funds totaling $29 million were used to expand 14 of
the new refuges--6 with only land and water funds and 8 (including the
Patoka River refuge, for which the Service had earlier requested but not
received land and water funds) with land and water funds and other means.
The remaining six refuges were expanded with donated land, transferred
land, and/or exchanged land.

The Service anticipates seeking an additional $786 million to acquire
about 400,000 acres for 17 of the 23 refuges. This amount includes about
$630 million in land and water funds the Service anticipates seeking to
purchase about 260,000 more acres for 10 refuges that were established
without federal funds and $2.7 million from the migratory bird fund to
purchase about 2,500 more acres for 1 of the 10 refuges./Footnote12/ For
example, the Mashpee National Wildlife Refuge, in Massachusetts, was
established in September 1995 with a 54-acre donation from the town of
Mashpee. Subsequently, the Service used about $2.8 million in land and
water funds to expand the refuge by purchasing another 278 acres. The
Service plans to acquire more than 5,600 acres for this refuge, using
future land and water funds estimated at $42.5 million.

The Service did not have estimates of the number of acres remaining to
complete the National Wildlife Refuge System, but it did have estimates
for 144 refuges as of fiscal year 1998. For these, Service plans showed
that about 2.8 million acres were still to be acquired with about $3.8
billion in land and water funds.

Future Appropriations Will be Needed to Operate and Maintain Refuges
--------------------------------------------------------------------

While the Service does not initially incur acquisition costs in accepting
donations to establish or expand refuges, it will subsequently incur costs
to operate and maintain these refuges--costs for which it must request
annual appropriations. The Service estimates future operations and
maintenance costs in assessing potential donations but may accept
donations based on biological values regardless of those estimated costs.
For example, in October 1994, the Service accepted a donation of 3,660
acres to establish the Big Branch Marsh Refuge in Louisiana. The Service
estimated, at about that same time, that the refuge would initially
require $100,000 in annual operations and maintenance expenses, which
would increase to $229,000 annually when the refuge was completed.
(Furthermore, the Service estimated it would incur more than $3 million in
other costs associated with planning, purchasing equipment, and acquiring
additional land.)

Overall, these costs are substantial: In fiscal year 1998, the Service
obligated about $2.6 million for operations and maintenance expenses for 9
of the 23 refuges./Footnote13/ For example, this obligation included
almost $200,000 in operations and maintenance costs for the Patoka Refuge
in Indiana, which was established with 9 donated acres in September 1994
(and had expanded to 2,683 acres by 1998).

According to the Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife, operations
and maintenance costs--which are incurred for many refuges, regardless of
the means by which they are established--are currently a high-profile
issue in the Service. Furthermore, the Service has a large operations and
maintenance backlog for refuges, and the Congress has expressed concerns
about the Service's continuing to acquire land in light of this backlog.
Finally, he said that, historically, the Service has focused on acquiring
lands--to meet its land protection mission--without adequately considering
whether funds will be available for future operations and maintenance
expenses.

While the Service does not now report estimated future operations and
maintenance costs to the Congress when it establishes refuges, the
Assistant Director told us that the Service wants to do better in this
regard. For this reason, the Service is modifying its existing systems
that track operations and maintenance cost estimates so that it will have
the systems assign funding priorities to specific refuges. The Service
anticipates that these improvements will be completed in 3 to 4 years.
After these improvements are made, the Service anticipates that it will
begin reporting to the Congress estimated future operations and
maintenance costs associated with specific refuges when those refuges are
established.

The Service's Priority-Setting Processes for Two Funds Differ Dramatically

The Service follows different processes for setting acquisition priorities
for the land and water fund and for the migratory bird fund. Priorities
for acquisitions to be purchased with land and water funds are set by an
automated priority system that generates a single national priority list,
while priorities for acquisitions using the migratory bird fund are set
separately by the Service's regional offices (resulting in six regional
priority lists). According to Service officials who are members of a team
charged with revising the automated system, the criteria for the system
for land and water funds are subjective, result in little differentiation
among the proposed projects, and do not reflect the true relative ranking
of all the projects. The Service is now revising its system for setting
priorities to resolve these problems and, pending approval by the
Director, anticipates using the revised system in 2000 as a pilot for
developing the budget for fiscal year 2002.

Service's National Priority List for Land and Water Funds May Not
Accurately Reflect Refuges' Relative Ranking
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To obtain the Director's approval for proposed refuges, regional staff
enter certain data for each proposed project into the Service's
computerized Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS)./Footnote14/ The LAPS
rankings are used by the Service in deciding which refuges to propose for
land and water funding. The system requires that each proposed refuge be
assigned to one of six categories, which reflect the Service's statutory
purposes for acquiring land: (1) endangered species, (2) fisheries
resources, (3) nationally significant wetlands, (4) nationally significant
wildlife habitat, (5) significant biodiversity, and (6) migratory birds.
Proposed refuges that address any of the first five are generally eligible
for land and water funds, and those that address the last are generally
eligible for migratory bird funds. 

For each category, the system has different criteria, requires different
information, and uses different types of measures to assess the fish and
wildlife resources on the proposed refuge. For example, to describe
diversity on the refuge in the category of nationally significant wildlife
habitat, field staff enter data on, among other things, the number of
wildlife and/or plant species. Staff are then to exercise their judgment
to assign a number of one, two, or three (that is, high, medium, or low)
to measure the biological diversity of this proposed refuge. For the
refuges listed in this category, the system then computes scores that
reflect species diversity and conditions of the species' habitat. A lower
score means that the refuge has higher needs compared with others in that
category. In comparison, for the category of nationally significant
wetlands, staff enter data to determine such things as trends in the loss
of wetlands resulting from development in the refuge area. In entering
these data, the staff exercise judgment in assigning the percentage of
each type of wetland located in the refuge, and whether this type is
stable, increasing, or decreasing. The system computes scores for this
category that are based on this information and two additional types of
information, all equally weighted; a lower total score means that the
refuge has higher needs. In some categories, such as significant
biodiversity, a higher score means that the refuge has higher needs. Field
office staff are encouraged to place multipurpose refuges into the
category that will result in the best score--that is, the score that shows
the highest need.

The system then merges these five different lists of scored refuges using
the categories' scores and seven other factors./Footnote15/ This process
generates a second score for each refuge in each of the five lists. The
system merges the five different lists on the basis of the scores in each
category and the scores resulting from the use of these seven other
factors; according to officials, the categories' scores have more weight
than the scores of the seven other factors. The resulting national
priority list generally includes about 130 refuges, with the highest-
priority refuge ranked as number one.

While Service officials view the national priority list as a useful
planning tool, they also believe that the automated system should be
improved. A team of headquarters and field staff, charged with evaluating
and revising the system's criteria, identified three shortcomings in the
current system. First, for the initial five lists, the system requires
that each refuge be assigned to only one category; however, most refuges
address more than one statutory purpose. As a result, the automated system
does not fully account for the resources of these multipurpose refuges.
Second, the criteria and wildlife resources evaluated in each category are
so different that they are not comparable and cannot be used to set
national priorities without further adjustments. Furthermore, many refuges
within each list receive similar scores because the system does not
require regional staff who enter information to provide enough specificity
to differentiate refuges within each list. For example, the list for
nationally significant wildlife habitat (for the year 2000) scored 33
refuges, ranging from 1.1960 (considered the highest score) to 2.6992
(considered the lowest score); 20 of the 33 refuges scored from 1.1960 to
1.1991. Third, the national priority list, represents, at best, groupings
of refuges that are of similar value--not a true relative ranking. In
addition to these concerns, Service managers and staff do not understand
and cannot explain the methodology behind the national priority list. 

Service Is Revising Priority-Setting Process for the Land and Water Fund 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Service is revising the priority-setting system for land and water
funds in an effort to simplify the process, lessen its subjectivity, and
provide measurable dispersion in the results. The team charged with
revising the system has recommended a completely new priority system that
would eliminate the five category lists and would use instead a system
based on biological data that are more comprehensive, quantitative, and
better researched. The proposed system would also favor the acquisition of
rare and threatened habitats, such as certain river communities. In this
new single list, each refuge is to be assigned up to 200 points in each of
four components--fisheries and aquatic resources, threatened and
endangered species, ecosystem conservation, and migratory bird--and the
national priority list will simply reflect projects' total scores: The
highest-priority project would be the one with the highest numerical
score. In this system, because all projects will be evaluated on the same
criteria, they will be comparable with one another.

The team has also developed more specific and objective criteria for
regional staff to follow in assigning these points--for example, the
current endangered species category has two data elements that field staff
provide for each endangered species on a refuge: (1) the project's
potential to prevent the extinction of a species (which staff assess as
high, medium, or low) and (2) the species' recovery priority number (a
number between 1 and 16 that has been assigned by the Service to each
endangered species). The recommended component addressing threatened and
endangered species will have 14 data elements that are more specific--for
example, staff will have to provide the percent of each species'
population that is protected and the percent increase in the species'
population that is expected on the refuge.

The Service tested the proposed revised system by scoring 38 current
projects. The test scores ranged from 689 (highest priority) to 161
(lowest priority); no two refuges received identical scores, indicating
the revised system would yield greater dispersion than occurs within the
lists in the present system. The test also indicated that multipurpose
projects would receive higher priority than occurs in the present system.
For example, the highest-ranked project in this test was the Grand
Kankakee Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, which addressed and scored high
in all four components in the revised system; in contrast, this was one of
the lowest-ranked projects on the national priority list for fiscal year
2000, scoring 131 on a list of 140 projects. Service officials believe
that the results of the revised system will more accurately assess
proposed refuges' national importance.

The team has solicited comments from Service employees on the proposed
revisions. According to members of the team, some regional offices are
concerned that their proposed projects--which may have been of relatively
high priority under the current system because of their scores under one
of the five purpose categories--may receive relatively lower scores in the
proposed revised system, which is expected to reflect a national
perspective. In other words, they are concerned that their projects cannot
successfully compete. To address some of these concerns, the team has
modified various aspects of the components, including giving a range of
additional points to refuges for which acquisition is nearly complete. 

A member of the team said that, in his opinion, the two previous efforts
to revise the priority-setting system (in 1994 and 1996) did not succeed
because of a general lack of support or consensus within the agency for
relying on a national priority list for budgeting or funding decisions.
The current effort is more likely to succeed, he believes, because of
congressional interest in the Service's decisions about land acquisitions.
This interest has heightened the Service's awareness of the need to rely
on the national priority list in making its acquisition decisions.
According to the Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife, with the
Director's approval, the Service anticipates using the revised system in
2000 as a pilot in developing its budget for fiscal year 2002. The Service
intends to obtain public comments on the revised system and, according to
the Assistant Director, may be able to fully implement it to develop the
Service's budget for fiscal year 2003. 

Service's Priority-Setting Process for Migratory Bird Fund Reflects
Regional Priorities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Service's regional offices set their own priorities for migratory bird
funds. Each region has a migratory bird acquisition plan developed on the
basis of Service criteria for managing waterfowl habit. Each year, the
plan is used to set acquisition priorities. Service officials said that
the most important consideration in setting priorities for migratory bird
funds is the opportunity to acquire specific tracts of land. In fact, only
those potential acquisitions that have preliminary purchase contracts can
be submitted to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission for funding.
Service officials said that the Commission has not requested that the
Service have a system (similar to LAPS) for setting priorities for the
projects it submits.

At the beginning of each year, the Service's regional offices submit to
headquarters their priority lists of migratory bird projects and the funds
needed for these projects. Headquarters reviews the priority lists,
primarily to ensure that the projects meet the criteria for migratory bird
funds, thus increasing the likelihood that the Commission will approve the
requests. For example, Service officials noted, the Commission has
traditionally approved projects that provide habitat for ducks and geese
rather than for nongame migratory birds. Headquarters then recommends
budget amounts for each project.

The Service Generally Followed Its Priorities for Land Acquisition

The Service requested land and water funds for 106 projects for fiscal
years 1994 through 1998 and followed its rankings on the national priority
list for about three-quarters of those projects. In developing its budget
request for land and water funds, the Service generally selected projects
in sequential order, beginning with the number one priority project--the
project at the top of the national priority list. Individual projects were
not selected if, for example, there were no willing sellers. In these
cases, the Service dropped down to include lower priority projects in the
request. In addition, other projects of lower priority were included in
the budget request for other reasons, such as congressional interest or
administration initiatives. The Congress did not always fund the Service's
requests and instead funded other projects--some of which were of low
priority on the national list. The Service only requested migratory bird
funds for those projects for which it already had preliminary purchase
contracts--these reflected its highest priorities because they were the
projects in the regions' migratory bird plans for which there were
immediate acquisition opportunities.

Requests for Land and Water Funds Were Usually High Priority
------------------------------------------------------------

Of the 106 projects for which the Service requested land and water funds
during 1994 through 1998, 80 were positioned near the top of the national
priority list. The remaining projects were lower on the priority list and
would have been excluded from the budget request if the Service had
strictly followed the list. For example, in 1998, 6 of the 25 projects
submitted for land and water funding had lower priority rankings and would
not have had funding requested if the Service had requested funds only for
its 25 highest-priority projects. Table 2 shows the number of projects for
which land and water funds were requested, the number that had a
relatively lower priority--positioned lower down the national priority
list, and the numerical ranking of the lowest-priority project submitted
for funds (the higher the numerical ranking, the lower the project falls
in the annual list, which typically includes about 130 projects).

Table****Helvetica:x11****2:    Summary of Priority of Projects Submitted
                                for Land and Water Funding, Fiscal Years
                                1994 Through 1998 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Fiscal    :        Total :    Number of projects :       Priority of  |
| year      :     projects :       with relatively :    lowest-ranking  |
|           :    submitted :        lower priority :           project  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1994      :           26 :                     3 :               114  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1995      :           20 :                    4a :                64  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1996      :           21 :                     8 :                63  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1997      :           14 :                     5 :                59  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1998      :           25 :                     6 :                86  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total     :          106 :                    26 :                    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

aThe Service requested funding for two projects that were not ranked.

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Appendix III lists the 25 land acquisition projects that the Service
submitted for land and water funding in 1998, each project's priority
ranking, and the funds requested.

The Service "dips down" in the national priority list when it requests
land and water funds because it wants to address other factors the
Director believes are important. For example, the Service reserves a
portion of its proposed budget (such as 10 percent for fiscal year 2000)
for acquisitions that it considers critical for meeting regional needs but
that are not highly ranked on the national priority list. The Service has
also requested funds to support administration initiatives (such as the
Lands Legacy Initiative),/Footnote16/ important partnerships with
nonfederal entities (such as Pelican Island in Florida),/Footnote17/ and
projects that have strong congressional support; these requests have been
made without regard to the projects' ranking on the national priority
list. In addition, the Service's final funding request may be changed as
it is reviewed through the Department of the Interior and the Office of
Management and Budget, and these changes are not likely to consider the
rankings on the national list. Service officials also noted that they
begin developing budget requests more than 1 year in advance of receiving
land and water funds and that acquisition opportunities can change during
that period.

The Congress has not always funded the Service's requests and has often
appropriated funds for projects that were not requested. During the 5-year
period we reviewed, about 40 percent (65) of the 158 projects that
received land and water funds were submitted by the Service and about 60
percent (93) were added by the Congress. For the period of our review,
table 3 shows the number of projects submitted by the Service that
received funding and the number added by the Congress each year.

Table****Helvetica:x11****3:    Number of Land and Water Projects Funded,
                                Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998

                                                                   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Fiscal    :    Submitted by the :     Added by the :  Total projects  |
| year      :         Service and :         Congress :          funded  |
|           :    received funding :                  :                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1994      :                  15 :               28 :              43  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1995      :                  12 :               21 :              33  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1996      :                   7 :               14 :              21  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1997      :                   9 :               16 :              25  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1998      :                  22 :               14 :              36  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total     :                  65 :               93 :             158  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.

In this 5-year period, 15 of the 93 projects added by the Congress were
not on the national priority list the year they were funded. For example,
in 1998, the Congress added 14 of the 36 projects funded. Appendix IV
shows the 36 projects funded in 1998, each project's priority ranking, and
the funds received. Of the 14 projects the Congress added in 1998, 12 had
national priority rankings ranging from 7 to 126, and 2 were not ranked.

Requests for Migratory Bird Funds Were Highest-Priority Projects
----------------------------------------------------------------

The Service requests migratory bird funds only for those projects for
which it already has preliminary purchase contracts--these projects
reflect the regions' highest priorities because they are the projects on
their regional migratory bird plans for which they have the best
acquisition opportunities. Prior to each meeting of the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission, the Service provides the Commission with detailed
information on the specific tracts of land that it wants to acquire.
Because the Commission meets three times a year, regional offices can
submit projects that were not in their original plans as new acquisition
opportunities arise or move more quickly than anticipated. The Service
does not show the Commission the regions' priority rankings for these
projects when it submits them for funding. According to Service officials,
the Commission generally approves the purchase prices and areas to be
acquired for all requested projects, subject to budget limitations. For
example, during 1998, the Commission approved all 18 land acquisition
projects the Service had requested to expand existing refuges. None of
these acquisitions established new refuges. (See app. V for more detailed
information.)

Conclusions

The Service has relied on means other than appropriated funds to establish
refuges--primarily donations--and it has subsequently sought and obtained
land and water funds to expand these refuges. The Service is currently not
required to inform the Congress of refuges established through donations
and other means outside the appropriations process, at the time they are
established. Consequently, congressional appropriations committees may not
know of these refuges until the Service subsequently requests land and
water funds to expand them. Furthermore, these refuges--like many refuges
established with appropriated funds--will require subsequent federal
expenditures to operate and maintain. The Service is also currently not
required to inform the Congress of estimated future operations and
maintenance costs when it establishes refuges. However, when the Service
establishes a refuge--whether or not it uses appropriated funds--the
Service estimates the costs of future land acquisitions and of operations
and maintenance for that specific refuge. We believe it would be useful
for the Service to provide this information to the Congress so that the
Congress has the necessary information to factor the full budgetary impact
of both costs into its decisionmaking.

Although the Service's automated priority-setting system for land and
water projects creates a national priority list, the priorities are (1)
based on criteria that are too subjective and (2) do not represent a true
relative ranking of projects. The Service is working on improving the
system to make it more objective and usable, so that the resulting list
will better reflect priorities that are truly nationwide. These changes
are needed and should be implemented in an expeditious fashion.

Recommendations

To facilitate congressional oversight and enhance budget deliberations, we
recommend that the Secretary of the Interior have the Director of the Fish
and Wildlife Service: 

Annually provide legislative and appropriations committees with a list of
all approved and proposed refuges and refuge boundary expansions--
including those for which the Congress declined to provide land and water
funding. The list should identify, for each refuge, (1) estimated future
requests for land and water funds and (2) estimated future operations and
maintenance costs.

Expeditiously implement the revised automated priority-setting system for
land and water funds, ensuring that the revisions correct the problems
identified in the current system and that they meet the needs of the
Service and congressional appropriators. 

Agency Comments

We provided Interior with a draft of this report for review and comment.
Interior concurred with the recommendations contained in the report,
indicated it would implement the recommendations, and set a time frame for
doing so. In addition, Interior provided technical clarifications on the
text of the report that we incorporated as appropriate. Finally, Interior
provided information on a new policy for redistributing unexpended grant
funds for land acquisition, which we discuss in appendix I. The agency's
comments are included as appendix VII.

We conducted our review from May 1999 through January 2000 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Details of our
scope and methodology are discussed in appendix VI. 

We will send copies of this report to the Honorable Slade Gorton,
Chairman, and the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on
Appropriations; the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior;
the Honorable Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available
upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me
at 202-512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VIII.

*****************

*****************

Jim Wells
Director, Energy, Resources,
  and Science Issues

--------------------------------------
/Footnote1/-^ As of Sept. 30, 1999.
/Footnote2/-^ The Commission includes the Secretary of the Interior
  (chair); the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; the
  Secretary of Agriculture; two members of the Senate selected by the
  President of the Senate (currently, John Breaux and Thad Cochran); and
  two members of the House of Representatives (currently, John D. Dingell
  and Curt Weldon) selected by the Speaker of the House.
/Footnote3/-^ The largest increase in acreage occurred when 53 million
  acres of refuge land were added under the Alaska National Interest Lands
  Conservation Act of 1980. Currently, about 77 million acres of refuge
  lands are in Alaska.
/Footnote4/-^ The Government Performance and Results Act requires agencies
  to produce strategic plans and annual performance plans with annual
  goals and targets showing how they plan to achieve the goals. The
  Congress passed the act in 1993 to encourage efficiency, effectiveness,
  and accountability in federal programs. In Dec. 1999, the Service
  advised us that it is revising its acquisition performance plans
  downward in response to its fiscal year 2000 congressional appropriations.
/Footnote5/-^ In 1999, the Service received an increase of $23 million.
  The increase was an adjustment because the Service had not received its
  share of import duty receipts for 1993 through 1997.
/Footnote6/-^ The Service spends the remaining funds to acquire land for
  waterfowl production areas--areas that are not refuges and are not a
  topic of this report.
/Footnote7/-^ Each year, the Service must obligate the funds that are
  attributable to duck stamp sales by Feb. 1 of the following year, or the
  price of duck stamps is reduced from $15 to $5, as required by 16 U.S.C.
  718b.
/Footnote8/-^ The restriction was lifted by the Emergency Wetlands
  Resources Act of 1986, ( P.L. 99-645, Nov. 10, 1986).
/Footnote9/-^ The Service is authorized to acquire land by 20 different
  acts. These acquisition authorities include categories for purchase,
  acceptance of donations, exchanges, and transfers of lands.
/Footnote10/-^ Public domain means that the title to the land has always
  remained with the federal government. Almost 90 percent of the lands in
  the refuge system came from the public domain.
/Footnote11/-^ The Service established this policy in response to language
  in the House Report accompanying the Department of the Interior and
  Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1991.
/Footnote12/-^ These estimates exclude the additional acres the Service
  anticipates acquiring for the Big Branch Marsh refuge, as well as the
  associated land and water funds, because the Service combined this
  refuge with other refuges in order to plan its use of land and water
  funds.
/Footnote13/-^ These data are as of June 30, 1999. Because the Service
  does not separately track the operations and maintenance costs of every
  refuge, we could not determine costs for all 23 refuges.
/Footnote14/-^ In response to requests from the Congress and others, the
  Service began developing this system in 1983 and first used it in 1986.
/Footnote15/-^ These seven factors are the (1) degree of threat to fish
  and wildlife resources, (2) opportunity to acquire land, (3) enhancement
  of refuge management, (4) extent to which acquisitions in a refuge are
  complete, (5) development needed to meet objectives, (6) operations and
  maintenance costs, and (7) increases or decreases in required staff.
/Footnote16/-^ The Lands Legacy Initiative, which was part of the fiscal
  year 2000 budget, was proposed to expand federal efforts to protect
  natural resources. In support of this initiative, the Service requested
  funding for the Northern Forest--acquisitions to represent a
  comprehensive protection and management strategy for timber, wetlands,
  and wildlife resources involving refuges in five northeastern states.
/Footnote17/-^ A partnership to acquire land for the Pelican Island refuge
  was formed between two nonprofit organizations, the Service (which was
  to contribute about $2 million), and an anonymous private donor (who was
  to contribute $7.6 million). A Service official told us that the donor
  subsequently pulled out of the partnership because the Service had not
  obtained funding.

LAND-ACQUISITION GRANTS USING THE COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES
CONSERVATION FUND
===========================================================================

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 authorized the establishment of grants
to the states to protect endangered species and to monitor the status of
threatened and recovered species. In 1988, under this act, the Congress
established the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
(conservation fund) to provide funds for the grants. In addition, since
1997, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (the
Service) has been allowed to use a portion of this fund's appropriations
to provide grants for nonfederal entities to acquire land associated with
habitat conservation plans. /Footnote1/ The conservation fund is supported
by annual deposits, from the General Fund, in amounts indexed to the
values of the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund and the Sport
Fishing Restoration Account. The Congress must authorize the use of these
funds by appropriations. In fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Service
distributed $6 million annually in these grants from the conservation
fund. For fiscal year 2000, about $15 million, a $9 million increase over
previous years, is available for distribution. Grant recipients must
generally spend their grants within 2 years of receiving them or return
them to the Secretary of the Interior for expenditure under the act.

Uses of Conservation Fund Grants for Land Acquisition

During 1997 and 1998, the Service established and refined eligibility
requirements and procedures for administering the conservation fund's
grants for land acquisition. Specifically, the Service required that lands
acquired with these grants must provide habitat within or adjacent to
established habitat conservation planning areas to promote the recovery of
threatened and endangered species. Grant recipients must acquire land that
complements but does not replace a permit holder's mitigation
responsibilities, which are spelled out in an approved, or soon to be
approved, habitat conservation plan. Furthermore, at least 25 percent of
the cost of the acquired land must be shared by a nonfederal
entity./Footnote2/

From 1997 through 1999, the Service awarded 15 grants, totaling $18
million, to support 10 habitat conservation plans./Footnote3/ Seven of the
plans are in California, and about half of the funds ($7.75 million) were
awarded to support these plans. Two plans received grants in each of the 3
years of the program: Balcones Canyonlands Preserve in Texas ($4.5
million) and Washington County in Utah ($2.75 million). Most of the grants
were used for land acquisition associated with regional habitat
conservation plans, and most grant recipients were local governments.

In 1997, the Service could use up to $1 million for purposes other than
acquisition. Two grants were awarded for other purposes. Volusia County,
Florida, received $500,000 both to purchase land and to build a parking
lot to require off-beach parking. The county currently allows cars to
drive and park on the beach, which threatens sea turtles' nests. Because
the county has been unable to reach agreement with adjacent landowners for
this project, however, it has not begun construction and will not be able
to spend the grant funds within the 2-year period ending December 31,
1999. The county has now identified a different parcel of land to acquire
for the parking lot, and the Service extended the 2-year time frame.
However, because land values have increased, the County now plans to use
the entire grant to buy the land and to use nonfederal funds ($700,000) to
construct the parking lot. Orange County, California, received $500,000 to
partially fund an endowment that provides funds to manage the Orange
County Nature Preserve. Contributing to the endowment was part of the
federal commitment under the habitat conservation plan.

Several plans that received grants are located near refuges that are
protecting the same species. In these cases the Service may coordinate its
grant awards with the activities of those refuges. For example, the San
Diego County Multi-Species Conservation Program Plan and the San Diego
refuge are both involved in a regional effort to conserve habitat for 85
species; the refuge lies within the area covered by the plan, and the
Service is a partner in the plan. Similarly, the Balcones Canyonlands
refuge is conserving land for the same purpose as the Balcones Canyonlands
Preserve Habitat Conservation Plan, and the refuge was established to
support the plan. Finally, the Coachella Valley refuge and the Coachella
Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan both provide
protection for some of the species, which depend on sand dune habitats
that are threatened by wind conditions and development. 

The San Diego Multi-species Conservation Program is a large and complex
plan with 12 local jurisdictions and the conservation of 172,000 acres of
habitat. The plan received two grants in 1997 and 1998 totaling $4.75
million. However, all these funds were not needed to complete land
acquisitions, and, through an informal agreement, the regional office and
headquarters distributed a portion of the funds to three other habitat
conservation plans. Two of the plans, which received a total of $307,000,
cover areas in the city of San Diego that are within the boundary of the
San Diego Multi-species Conservation Program. However, $90,000 was
provided to the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation
Plan, which is not related to the San Diego plan. Although the Coachella
Valley plan is a high priority and received a $1 million grant in 1999,
the Service did not have a formal procedure for deciding whether, or how,
to redistribute unexpended grant funds. In December 1999, the Service
established a formal policy for redistributing such funds. Under the
policy, when a grant recipient is not able to use all funds within its
plan, regional office staff are to notify headquarters staff of the
unexpended funds. Headquarters staff are then to review a list of all
qualified projects (in effect at the time the funds become available) and
reallocate funds to the next highest priority proposal.

Priorities Are Set by Regional Offices

Each year, field staff identify and solicit eligible proposals for grants.
Since the field offices coordinate with and assist permit holders in
developing their habitat conservation plans, the field staff use their
knowledge of these plans to identify those that qualify for a grant from
the conservation fund to acquire land. In 1998 and 1999, field staff
evaluated and scored each proposal using biological and ranking criteria
provided by the Service's headquarters staff. In 1997, field staff did not
score the proposals because a formal evaluation and priority setting
process had not been fully developed. Instead, the regions submitted their
proposals to headquarters, where funding decisions were made on the basis
of the regions' descriptive information and suggested priorities. 

The regional offices then assign priorities to the proposals on the basis
of the scores; ranking criteria, which are also provided by headquarters;
and other factors unique to specific plans. The biological criteria used
in evaluating proposals include such considerations as the number of
listed, proposed, and candidate species that will benefit from the
proposed acquisition; the magnitude of benefits to those species; and the
extent of pristine habitat that remains. In addition, the ranking criteria
give preference to, among other things, proposed acquisitions that link
together existing protected areas, and regional habitat conservation plans
that have multiple partners and protect multiple species. In 1997, before
the evaluation and ranking criteria were fully implemented, the Service
awarded a $500,000 grant to the Metropolitan Bakersfield plan, which was
not included in the region's proposals. The award decision was apparently
based on the region's proposal for the pending Kern Valley Floor plan. A
headquarters official said that the two plans are located in the same area
and protect similar species, but the Kern Valley Floor plan has not been
approved and therefore is not eligible for a grant. 

The regional offices included other factors unique to the plans in
assigning priorities. For example, in 1999, the cognizant regional office
gave the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan its
highest priority. It did so because the acquisition of refuge land was
deemed necessary to prevent further deterioration in the Service's
relationship with the county and to prevent further deterioration of the
sand dune systems needed by the lizard. This situation arose when new
information demonstrated the need to acquire different parcels of land
from those identified in the original 1986 plan and permit./Footnote4/ In
another case, a regional office justified a grant to the Long-term
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan because the office wanted
to promote cooperation for species recovery and overcome a local
perception that the federal government was not providing enough support
for such plans.

The Service Generally Followed Regional Priorities in Awarding Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, the Service awarded grants to the regions' highest priority
proposals. Service officials said that while they try to fund the regions'
highest priorities, they reserve the right to overlook numerical rankings
if an acquisition opportunity they believe has exceptional benefits scores
low in the evaluation process. For example, if a landowner is protecting
the last known population of a species, the Service may award a grant even
if the project was not ranked as a high regional priority. Nontheless, the
priority list of proposals developed at Service headquarters resulted in
selecting most of the regions' highest priority proposals, as shown in
table 4.

Table****Helvetica:x11****4:    Regional Scores and Priorities for
                                Conservation Fund Land Acquisition

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Year and      : Habitat conservation plan         : Scorea : Regiona  |
| region        :                                   :        :       l  |
|               :                                   :        : priority |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1997          :                                   :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 1      : Orange County Central/Coastal     :     ^b :  1 of 5  |
|               : Natural Community Conservation    :        :          |
|               : Plan, California                  :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 1      : San Diego Multi-Species           :     ^b :  2 of 5  |
|               : Conservation Program, California  :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 1      : Metropolitan Bakersfield,         :     ^b :  4 of 5  |
|               : California                        :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 2      : Balcones Canyonlands Preserve,    :     ^b :  1 of 1  |
|               : Texas                             :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 4      : Volusia County, Florida           :     ^b :  1 of 4  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 6      : Washington County, Utah           :     ^b :  1 of 2  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1998          :                                   :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 1      : San Diego Multi-Species           :     55 :  1 of 6  |
|               : Conservation Program, California  :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 2      : Balcones Canyonlands Preserve,    :     49 :  2 of 4  |
|               : Texas                             :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 4      : North Carolina Sandhills Safe     :     47 :  1 of 2  |
|               : Harbor                            :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 6      : Washington County, Utah           :     38 :  1 of 1  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1999          :                                   :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 1      : Coachella Valley Fringe-toed      :     49 :  1 of 8  |
|               : Lizard, California                :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 1      : Riverside County Long-term        :     52 :  2 of 8  |
|               : Stephens' Kangaroo Rat, California:        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 2      : Balcones Canyonlands Preserve,    :     49 :  1 of 1  |
|               : Texas                             :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 4      : Beach Mouse/Sea Turtle, Florida   :     47 :  1 of 4  |
|               : and Alabama                       :        :          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 6      : Washington County, Utah           :     49 :  1 of 1  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

aThe maximum score is 58 points.

bIn 1997, the regions commented on the draft ranking criteria but were not
required to score the proposals; headquarters applied the ranking criteria
that year.

Source: GAO's analysis of information by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

--------------------------------------
/Footnote1/-^ Habitat conservation plans and incidental take permits are
  mechanisms authorized by the Endangered Species Act to allow nonfederal
  landowners to proceed with activities or projects that may harm
  threatened or endangered species, provided the landowners obtain a
  permit and take measures to minimize and mitigate this harm (such as
  acquiring land that will provide habitat for the species).
/Footnote2/-^ The minimum nonfederal share is 10 percent if two or more
  states are involved.
/Footnote3/-^ Forty-three proposals were made.
/Footnote4/-^ The biological information, on which the habitat
  conservation plan was based, did not correctly identify land that was
  most critical to preserving the lizard's habitat. Subsequently, the
  correct land was identified, and the grant was intended to help purchase
  it. 

REFUGES ESTABLISHED, FISCAL YEARS 1994 THROUGH 1998
===================================================

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Refuge         : State or   : Method by  :   Acreage :      Land and  |
|                : territory  : which      :  of first :         water  |
|                :            : refuge     :      land :  conservation  |
|                :            : was        : acquisiti :    funds used  |
|                :            : established:        on :     for first  |
|                :            :            :           :  acquisition   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Big Branch     : Louisiana  : Donation   :   3,659.7 :                |
| Marsh          :            :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Big Muddy      : Missouri   : Purchase   :     907.0 :      $153,500  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Black Bayou    : Louisiana  : Donation   :   1,660.9 :                |
| Lake           :            :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Blackfoot      : Montana    : Purchase   :     220.0 :       $63,000  |
| Valley         :            :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Boyer Chute    : Nebraska   : Donation   :   1,953.9 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Canaan Valley  : West       : Purchase   :      85.8 :      $180,000  |
|                : Virginia   :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Clarks River   : Kentucky   : Purchase   :     185.0 :      $130,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cokeville      : Wyoming    : Purchase   :     203.9 :       $78,000  |
| Meadows        :            :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Emiquon        : Illinois   : Purchase   :     283.7 :      $207,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Guam           : Guam       : Transfer   :     370.6 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Key Cave       : Alabama    : Exchange   :   1,060.0 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lake Wales     : Florida    : Purchase   :       0.2 :          $500  |
| Ridge          :            :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Mandalay       : Louisiana  : Donation   :       1.0 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Mashpee        : Massachuse : Donation   :      54.3 :                |
|                : tts        :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Patoka         : Indiana    : Donation   :       9.1 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Pond Creek     : Arkansas   : Donation   :     506.1 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rappahannock   : Virginia   : Donation   :   1,111.8 :                |
| River          :            :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| San Diego      : California : Donation   :   1,840.0 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Silvio O. Conte: Massachuse : Donation   :       3.8 :                |
|                : tts        :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Stone Lakes    : California : Donation   :     304.9 :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ten Thousand   : Florida    : Exchange   :  35,000.0 :                |
| Islands        :            :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Trinity River  : Texas      : Purchase   :   4,400.2 :    $3,270,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Waccamaw       : South      : Donation   :     134.0 :                |
|                : Carolina   :            :           :                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total          :            :            :  58,821.9 :    $4,082,000  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.

PROJECTS SUBMITTED FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1998
==========================================================================

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Project               : State         :  Priority :  Funds requested  |
|                       :               :      rank :                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Archie Carr           : Florida       :         2 :       $2,500,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Attwater Prairie      : Texas         :        12 :        1,000,000  |
| Chicken               :               :           :                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Back Bay              : Virginia      :        11 :        2,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Balcones Canyonlands  : Texas         :        19 :          700,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Big Muddy             : Missouri      :        23 :        1,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cape May              : New Jersey    :         1 :        3,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Crane Meadows         : Minnesota     :        22 :        1,500,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Crocodile Lake        : Florida       :        38 :          400,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cypress Creek         : Illinois      :         9 :        1,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| E.B. Forsythe         : New Jersey    :        17 :        2,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| J.B. Hansen           : Oregon        :        15 :          300,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Kodiak                : Alaska        :        86 :          600,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lower Rio Grande      : Texas         :         6 :        2,800,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ohio River Islands    : Kentucky,     :        74 :          100,000  |
|                       : Ohio,         :           :                   |
|                       : Pennsylvania, :           :                   |
|                       :  West Virginia:           :                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Patoka River Wetlands : Indiana       :        21 :          500,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Petit Manan           : Maine         :        14 :        1,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rachel Carson         : Maine         :        20 :        1,100,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rappahannock River    : Virginia      :         4 :        2,000,000  |
| Valley                :               :           :                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rhode Island Complex  : Rhode Island  :        70 :          500,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| San Diego             : California    :        18 :        3,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| San Pablo Bay         : California    :        16 :        1,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Silvio O. Conte       : Connecticut   :        24 :        2,000,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Stillwater            : Nevada        :        65 :          300,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Stone Lakes           : California    :         3 :        1,400,000  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Western Montana       : Montana       :        27 :        1,000,000  |
| Project               :               :           :                   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total                 :               :           :      $32,700,000  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: The Service requested additional funds for land acquisition
management, for the acquisition of inholdings, and for emergencies.

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.

PROJECTS RECEIVING LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1998
======================================================================

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Project           : State     : Priority :       Funds :         Funds  |
|                   :           :  ranking :   requested :  appropriated  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Projects          :           :          :             :                |
| submitted for     :           :          :             :                |
| funding by the    :           :          :             :                |
| Service           :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Archie Carr       : Florida   :        2 :  $2,500,000 :    $2,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Attwater Prairie  : Texas     :       12 :   1,000,000 :     1,000,000  |
| Chicken           :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Back Bay          : Virginia  :       11 :   2,000,000 :     2,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Balcones          : Texas     :       19 :     700,000 :       700,000  |
| Canyonlands       :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Big Muddy         : Missouri  :       23 :   1,000,000 :     1,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cape May          : New Jersey:        1 :   3,000,000 :     3,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Crocodile Lake    : Florida   :       38 :     400,000 :       400,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cypress Creek     : Illinois  :        9 :   1,000,000 :       750,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| E.B. Forsythe     : New Jersey:       17 :   2,000,000 :     2,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| J.B. Hansen       : Oregon    :       15 :     300,000 :       300,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Kodiak            : Alaska    :       86 :     600,000 :       600,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lower Rio Grande  : Texas     :        6 :   2,800,000 :       900,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ohio River Islands: Kentucky, :       74 :     100,000 :       500,000  |
|                   :  Ohio,    :          :             :                |
|                   : Pennsylva :          :             :                |
|                   : nia,      :          :             :                |
|                   : West      :          :             :                |
|                   : Virginia  :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Patoka River      : Indiana   :       21 :     500,000 :       500,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Petit Manan       : Maine     :       14 :   1,000,000 :     1,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rachel Carson     : Maine     :       20 :   1,100,000 :     1,100,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rappahannock      : Virginia  :        4 :   2,000,000 :     2,000,000  |
| River Valley      :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rhode Island      : Rhode     :       70 :     500,000 :       500,000  |
| Complex           : Island    :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| San Diego         : California:       18 :   3,000,000 :     3,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Silvio O. Conte   : Connectic :       24 :   2,000,000 :     1,000,000  |
|                   : ut        :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Stillwater        : Nevada    :       65 :     300,000 :     1,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Western Montana   : Montana   :       27 :   1,000,000 :     1,000,000  |
| Project           :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Subtotal (22      :           :          : $28,800,000 :   $26,250,000  |
| projects)         :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Projects added    :           :          :             :                |
| by the Congress   :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bon Secour        : Alabama   :      120 :           0 :     3,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Canaan Valley     : West      :       39 :           0 :     3,000,000  |
|                   : Virginia  :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Clarks River      : Kentucky  :      114 :           0 :     2,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Don Edwards San   : California:        7 :           0 :     2,000,000  |
| Francisco Bay     :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Great Swamp       : New Jersey:       79 :           0 :       750,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Mashpee           : Massachus :       36 :           0 :       332,000  |
|                   : etts      :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Minnesota Valley  : Minnesota :       64 :           0 :     2,300,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Nisqually/Black   : Washington:      126 :           0 :     1,500,000  |
| River             :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ottawa            : Ohio      :       25 :           0 :     1,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| S.B. McKinney     : Connectic :       96 :           0 :     1,100,000  |
|                   : ut        :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Southeast         : Louisiana :        a :           0 :     2,500,000  |
| Louisiana Refuges :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Waccamaw          : South     :       26 :           0 :     2,000,000  |
|                   : Carolina  :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Wallkill River    : New Jersey:       75 :           0 :     1,000,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Wertheim          : New York  :        b :           0 :     2,290,000  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Subtotal (14      :           :          :             :   $24,772,000  |
| projects)         :           :          :             :                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total (36         :           :          : $28,800,000 :   $51,022,000  |
| projects)         :           :          :             :                |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

aProjects within the complex were individually ranked.

bProject was not ranked in 1998 and was ranked 109 in 1997.

Source: GAO's analysis of information provided by Fish and Wildlife Service.

PROJECTS RECEIVING MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION FUNDS, FISCAL YEAR 1998
======================================================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Region/proj :    Priority :      Budget :      Budget :     Funding  |
| ectsa       :             :   requested : recommended :   allocated  |
|             :             :      by the :          by :          by  |
|             :             :    regional : headquarters: headquarter  |
|             :             :   office at :             :          sb  |
|             :             :   beginning :             :              |
|             :             :     of year :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 1    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Klamath     :           1 :  $1,400,000 :  $1,334,700 :  $1,334,700  |
| Forest,     :             :             :             :              |
| Oregon      :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Malheur,    :           3 :     655,000 :     330,000 :     542,000  |
| Oregon.     :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| North       :           4 :   6,076,000 :   2,900,000 :   4,313,000  |
| Central     :             :             :             :              |
| Valley,     :             :             :             :              |
| California  :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 2    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Laguna      :           0 :           0 :           0 :   2,750,000  |
| Atascosa,   :             :             :             :              |
| Texas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 3    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Minnesota   :           1 :   6,000,000 :   4,000,000 :   3,600,000  |
| waterfowl   :             :             :             :              |
| production  :             :             :             :              |
| areas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Iowa        :           2 :   2,000,000 :   2,000,000 :   2,200,000  |
| waterfowl   :             :             :             :              |
| production  :             :             :             :              |
| areas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Wisconsin   :           3 :   1,000,000 :     500,000 :   1,200,000  |
| waterfowl   :             :             :             :              |
| production  :             :             :             :              |
| areas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 4    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Upper       :           1 :   3,849,000 :   2,100,000 :   2,676,659  |
| Ouachita,   :             :             :             :              |
| Louisiana   :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cache       :           3 :     754,100 :     704,100 :     800,700  |
| River,      :             :             :             :              |
| Arkansas    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Savannah,   :           5 :     483,300 :     483,300 :     525,000  |
| South       :             :             :             :              |
| Carolina    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Overflow,   :          10 :      90,000 :           0 :     110,000  |
| Arkansas    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Currituck,  :           0 :           0 :           0 :   1,680,000  |
| North       :             :             :             :              |
| Carolina    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Great       :           0 :           0 :           0 :     400,000  |
| White       :             :             :             :              |
| Heron,      :             :             :             :              |
| Florida     :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 5    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cape May,   :           1 :     500,000 :     300,000 :     295,098  |
| New Jersey  :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| E.B.        :           3 :     500,000 :     375,000 :      40,600  |
| Forsythe,   :             :             :             :              |
| New Jersey  :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Montezuma,  :           5 :   1,200,000 :     750,000 :     752,460  |
| New York    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Fisherman   :           7 :   1,600,000 :           0 :   1,600,000  |
| Island,     :             :             :             :              |
| Virginia    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Wallkill    :           8 :     250,000 :     250,000 :      69,000  |
| River, New  :             :             :             :              |
| Jersey      :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Rachel      :          10 :     300,000 :       3,200 :     140,000  |
| Carson,     :             :             :             :              |
| Maine       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lake        :          11 :     100,000 :     100,000 :      30,150  |
| Umbagog,    :             :             :             :              |
| New         :             :             :             :              |
| Hampshire   :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Great       :          13 :     300,000 :     200,000 :      67,850  |
| Meadows,    :             :             :             :              |
| Massachuset :             :             :             :              |
| ts          :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Prime       :          15 :     100,000 :      43,500 :      43,500  |
| Hook,       :             :             :             :              |
| Delaware    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Great       :           0 :           0 :           0 :   1,400,000  |
| Dismal      :             :             :             :              |
| Swamp,      :             :             :             :              |
| Virginia    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Region 6    :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| South       :           1 :   7,000,000 :   4,180,000 :   4,180,000  |
| Dakota      :             :             :             :              |
| waterfowl   :             :             :             :              |
| production  :             :             :             :              |
| areas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Montana     :           2 :   4,000,000 :   2,900,000 :   2,900,000  |
| waterfowl   :             :             :             :              |
| production  :             :             :             :              |
| areas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| North       :           3 :     750,000 :     650,000 :     650,000  |
| Dakota      :             :             :             :              |
| waterfowl   :             :             :             :              |
| production  :             :             :             :              |
| areas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Nebraska    :           4 :     450,000 :     450,000 :     450,000  |
| waterfowl   :             :             :             :              |
| production  :             :             :             :              |
| areas       :             :             :             :              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Cokeville   :           6 :     950,000 :     950,000 :   1,055,000  |
| Meadows,    :             :             :             :              |
| Wyoming     :             :             :             :              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

aRegional offices set priorities and request budgets for refuges and
waterfowl production areas in the migratory bird plans they submit to
headquarters. Headquarters allocates funds to individual refuge projects
after the Commission approves the purchase price and area to be acquired.
It does not need Commission price and area approval to allocate funds for
waterfowl production areas.

bHeadquarters allocated funds to 28 projects in 1998: 21 refuges and 7
waterfowl production areas. Three of the 21 refuges were approved by the
Commission in 1997 but not funded until 1998 because of budget
limitations; 18 were approved and funded in 1998.

Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=====================

To determine the sources of funds the Service used to establish and expand
refuges, we analyzed records on the lands acquired for the 23 refuges that
were created during fiscal years 1994 through 1998. We selected this
period because it was the most recent 5-year period for which complete
information was available. The Service provided the list of 23 refuges
from its Real Property Management Information System's Land Record System;
we verified the completeness of the list by comparing it with relevant
annual reports. While we noted several properties in the annual reports
that were not on the Service's list of new refuges, we were satisfied with
the Service's reasons for excluding them./Footnote1/ For the 23 refuges,
the Service's Division of Realty provided data on the funds the Service
used to acquire land during 1994 through 1998. These data were also from
the Real Property Management Information System's Land Record System.
Because the Service has not verified the accuracy of these data, we asked
the respective regional offices to review refuge acquisition data. The
regions' responses indicated these data are generally accurate.

To determine whether the Service established any refuge after the Congress
declined to appropriate land and water funds for this purpose, we compared
the dates the 23 refuges were established with the relevant Service budget
requests and congressional funding decisions. To determine what additional
acres the Service plans to acquire with land and water and migratory bird
funds, we obtained and summarized data from the Service's Land Acquisition
Priority System. While the Service considers these plans to be estimates,
they are the only centrally available data. To estimate operations and
maintenance expenses, we obtained fiscal year 1998 obligation data, as of
June 30, 1999, from the Federal Financial System. We did not verify these
records.

To determine the Service's priorities in deciding to establish or expand
refuges and in seeking funds from the migratory bird fund or the land and
water fund, we interviewed Service headquarters and regional officials. We
reviewed the Service's manual for its Land Acquisition Priority System and
a draft manual for a proposed revised system. We also reviewed a relevant
report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Scientists./Footnote2/ We analyzed the results of the Service's priority
rankings for its land and water fund projects during 1994 through 1998 and
the priority rankings for migratory bird fund projects for fiscal year
1998, as well as the Service's decisions to seek funds.

To determine whether the Service's land acquisitions were consistent with
its priorities during the 5-year period, we analyzed the priority rankings
of those projects that were included in the Service's requests for land
and water funds and migratory bird funds. We discussed with Service
headquarters and regional officials the reasons the requests for land and
water funds included projects with lower priority rankings. We also
analyzed the priorities of projects that received land and water funds,
including projects for which the Service had not requested funding.

To determine how land-acquisition grants from the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund have been used, we determined what the Service's
priorities were in selecting proposed projects to receive grants and
whether the Service's grant selections were consistent with its
priorities. We also analyzed policies and procedures and grant award
decisions. In addition, we interviewed headquarters and regional officials
in the Service's Office of Federal Aid and Ecological Services. 

We conducted our review at Service locations in Washington D.C.;
Arlington, Virginia; and Denver, Colorado. In addition, we contacted
Service officials in Region 1 (Portland, Oregon); Region 2 (Albuquerque,
New Mexico); Region 3 (Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota); Region 4
(Atlanta, Georgia); and Region 5 (Hadley, Massachusetts).

We conducted our work between May 1999 and January 2000, according to
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

--------------------------------------
/Footnote1/-^ These properties were primarily easements (referred to as
  "FH interests" in the annual reports) that the Service acquired from the
  U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency (formerly the
  Farmers Home Administration). The Service does not include these
  properties when it counts refuge units and, for that reason, did not
  include them in the list they provided. The Service's list also did not
  include the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, located near Denver, Colorado. The
  Realty Division Operations Branch Chief told us this property was not
  included because the land has not been officially transferred to the
  Service. Although the Service shows this property as a refuge in its
  annual report (for administrative reasons), the land will not be
  transferred until a contaminants cleanup project is completed.
/Footnote2/-^ Setting Priorities for Land Conservation, National Research
  Council (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993).

COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
============================================

*****************

*****************

*****************

*****************

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
=======================================

GAO Contacts

Barry T. Hill, (202) 512-3841
Sue Ellen Naiberk, (303) 572-7357

Acknowledgements

In addition to those named above, Arleen L. Alleman, Cynthia S. Rasmussen,
and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report.

(141341)

Figure 1:  Land and Water Funding Levels for the Service, Fiscal
Years 1994 Through 1999                          9

Figure 2:  Locations of Refuges Established, Fiscal Years 1994
Through 1998                                    12

Table 1:  Sources of Support for Three Refuges Established After
Land and Water Funds Were Denied, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 199813

Table 2:  Summary of Priority of Projects Submitted for Land and
Water Funding, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1998   21

Table 3:  Number of Land and Water Projects Funded, Fiscal Years
1994 Through 1998                               23

Table 4:  Regional Scores and Priorities for Conservation Fund Land
Acquisition30

*** End of Document. ***