[Final Audit Report on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal  Assistance Grants Administered by the State of Oregon, Department of Fish and  Wildlife, from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2003]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. R-GR-FWS-0012-2004

Title: Final Audit Report on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
       Federal  Assistance Grants Administered by the State of
       Oregon, Department of Fish and  Wildlife, from July 1,
       2001, through June 30, 2003

  
Date:  September 2, 2005  

**********DISCLAIMER****************************************DISCLAIMER*********
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report.  No attempt has 
been made to display graphic images or illustrations.  Some tables may be 
included, but may not resemble those in the printed version.  A printed copy of 
this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF file or by calling the 
Office of Inspector General, Division of Acquisition and Management Operations 
at (202) 219-3841. 
*******************************************************************************

AUDIT REPORT

Memorandum

To:  Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

From:  Andrew Fedak, Director of External Audits

Subject:  Final Audit Report on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal 
Assistance Grants Administered by the State of Oregon, Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, from July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2003 (No. R-GR-FWS-0012-2004)

This report presents the results of our audit of costs incurred by the State of 
Oregon, Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) under Federal Assistance 
grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).  The audit included claims 
that totaled approximately 
$39.5 million on FWS grants that were open during the Stateï¿½s fiscal years ended 
June 30, 2002 and 2003 (see Appendix 1).  The audit also covered the 
Departmentï¿½s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, 
including those related to the collection and use of State fishing and hunting 
license revenues and the reporting of program income.  

We found that the Department complied with applicable grant accounting and 
regulatory requirements except for the following: a potential diversion of 
license revenues of $1.6 million; a drawdown of $67,000 based on an advance 
payment; personal property management deficiencies; a lack of project level 
accounting on one grant; and internal control weaknesses.    

Our draft audit report contained an additional finding regarding the use of 
Federal Assistance funds to maintain lands acquired under the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act (Act).  However, since FWS has now determined that the Act 
does not prohibit the use of Federal Assistance funds for this purpose, we have 
excluded the finding from the final report.

FWS Region 1 provided a response to the draft of this report on July 22, 2005, 
which included a copy of the Departmentï¿½s June 23, 2005 response to the FWS.  
FWS generally concurred with the recommendations.  We summarized the FWS and 
Department responses after the recommendations and added our comments regarding 
the responses.  The status of the recommendations is summarized in Appendix 3. 

In accordance with the Departmental Manual (361 DM 1), please provide us with 
your written response to the recommendations included in this report by December 
1, 2005.  Your response should include the information requested in Appendix 3.  
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Mr. Robert 
Leonard, Audit Team Leader, at (916) 978-5646, or me at (703) 487-5345. 

cc:  Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Introduction

Background

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport 
Fish Restoration Act  (Acts) 1 authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) to provide Federal Assistance grants to states to enhance their sport fish 
and wildlife programs.  The Acts provide for FWS to reimburse the states up to 
75 percent of the eligible costs incurred under the grants.  The Acts also 
specify that State hunting and fishing license revenues cannot be used for any 
purpose other than the administration of the Stateï¿½s fish and game department.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our audit were to evaluate: 

> The adequacy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Game (Department)  
accounting system and related internal controls; 
> The accuracy and eligibility of the direct and indirect costs claimed under 
the Federal Assistance grant agreements with FWS;
> The adequacy and reliability of the Departmentï¿½s hunting and fishing license 
fees collection, certification, and disbursement processes; 
> The adequacy of the Departmentï¿½s asset management system and related internal 
controls with regard to purchasing, control, and disposal; 
> The adequacy of the Stateï¿½s compliance with the Actsï¿½ assent legislation 
requirements; and 
> Other issues considered sensitive and/or significant by FWS. 

We performed our audit at the Departmentï¿½s headquarters in Salem, Oregon.  The 
audit work at the Department included claims that totaled approximately $39.5 
million on 144 of the 1482 FWS grants that were open during the Stateï¿½s fiscal 
years (SFYs) ended June 30, 2002 and 2003 (see Appendix 1).  We also visited two 
regional offices, three wildlife areas and four fish hatcheries (see Appendix 
2).  

We performed our audit in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards 
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.  Accordingly, we 
included such tests of records and other auditing procedures that we considered 
necessary under the circumstances.  Our tests included an examination of 
evidence supporting selected expenditures charged by the Department to the 
grants, interviews with employees to ensure that personnel costs charged to the 
grants were supportable, and a review of the Departmentï¿½s use of hunting and 
fishing license revenues to determine whether the revenues had been used for the 
administration of the Department.  In addition, we reviewed the accounting 
system and related internal controls over the granteeï¿½s financial management 
system and transactions related to purchases, other direct costs, drawdowns of 
reimbursements, in-kind contributions, program income, and equipment. We did not 
evaluate the economy, efficiency, or effectiveness of the Departmentï¿½s 
operations.   
We also relied on the work of the auditors (State Auditors) that conducted the 
State of Oregon Single Audits for SFYs 2002 and 2003, to the extent possible, in 
order to avoid a duplication of effort.  Based on our review of the audit work 
of the State Auditors, we were able to reduce the amount of our internal control 
testing and reduce the amount of audit work in the areas of hunting and fishing 
license fee revenues and payroll and fringe benefit expenditures.    

Prior Audit Coverage

On August 4, 1999, we issued audit report No. 99-E-727 ï¿½U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Federal Aid Grants to the State of Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife for Fiscal Years Ended 
June 30, 1995, and 1996.ï¿½  The report questioned grant expenditures of $215,751 
and discussed various regulatory and grant compliance issues, the potential 
diversion of license revenue to the animal damage control program, and other 
matters. 

In February 2003 and February 2004, the State Auditors issued Single Audit 
reports on the State of Oregon for SFYï¿½s 2002 and 2003, respectively.  The 
audits included selected Department financial accounts and transactions.3  The 
audits did not question any costs relative to the FWS Federal Assistance grant 
programs.  However, the audits did identify two financial statement findings 
regarding license sales, as follows: (1) the Department did not have a process 
in place to review point of sale (POS) cancellations and (2) the Department 
headquarters licensing office did not perform reconciliations between the POS 
licensing system and the cash register system for fax and mail order license 
sales.  The State Auditors also issued 13 other management letters and audit 
reports to the Department within the past 5 years. 

We reviewed these reports and followed up on all significant findings related to 
the FWS Federal Assistance grant funds and programs to determine whether they 
had been resolved.  We determined that the Department has not implemented the 
State Auditorsï¿½ recommendation to reconcile the POS licensing system and the 
cash register system for fax and mail order license sales.  This finding is 
addressed in the Results of Audit section of this report.   

Results of Audit

We found that the Department was generally in compliance with applicable 
regulatory and grant accounting requirements with respect to the following: 

> The Departmentï¿½s accounting system and related internal controls adequately 
and accurately accounted for grant and license fee receipts and disbursements. 
> The Departmentï¿½s direct and indirect costs claimed under the Federal 
Assistance grant agreements with FWS were adequately recorded and supported. 
> The Departmentï¿½s hunting and fishing license fees collection, certification, 
and disbursement processes were adequate and reliable. 
> The State had adequate assent legislation in place that prohibited the use of 
license fees for any purposes other than the administration of the Department.  

However, we identified the following issues: 

A.  The Oregon Legislature enacted legislation that could result in the 
diversion of  			license revenues of about $1.6 million. 

B.  The Department did not account for grant costs at the project level as 
required by the grant agreement for one of the grants we reviewed.

C.  The Department made a drawdown of $67,000 based on an advance payment to 
another State agency before ensuring that the work required under the grant was 
actually completed. 
 
D.  The Departmentï¿½s asset management system for personal property (equipment) 
needs to be improved.
 
E.  The Department had internal control weaknesses in the areas of (1) the 
reconciliation of the POS and cash register systems for fax and mail order 
license sales and (2) access to the general support computer system.  


A.   Potential Diversion of License Revenues 

The Oregon Legislature mandated that the net proceeds from the sale of the 
Departmentï¿½s Portland headquarters building be deposited in the General Fund.  
Since the acquisition of the building was financed with hunting and fishing 
license and tag revenues, the legislation would result in the diversion of such 
revenues. Federal regulations (50 CFR ï¿½ 80.4) provide that revenues from license 
fees paid by hunters and fishermen shall not be diverted to purposes other than 
the administration of the State fish and wildlife agency. In addition, the 
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 496.300) provides that all moneys in the State 
Wildlife Fund, which receives hunting and fishing license revenues, be 
appropriated continuously to the State Fish and Wildlife Commission to carry out 
the Stateï¿½s wildlife laws. According to the regulations (50 CFR 80.4), license 
revenues include income from the sale of real property acquired with license 
revenues. A diversion of license revenues occurs when any portion of these 
revenues are used for any purpose other than the administration of the State 
fish and wildlife agency.  If a diversion occurs, the State becomes ineligible 
to participate under the Acts from the date the FWS Director declares the 
diversion until the diverted license revenues are restored or an equal amount is 
returned and made available for the administration of the State fish and 
wildlife agency. 

In 2001, the Oregon Legislature enacted Senate Bill 50, which required the 
Department to sell its Portland headquarters building and to relocate the office 
staff to Salem.  The legislation also required that the net proceeds from the 
sale be used to pay for the relocation costs and that any remaining proceeds be 
deposited to the General Fund.  The Department sold the office building in July 
2003 for $6.5 million and the relocation costs, as of February 20054, were $4.9 
million, leaving net proceeds of $1.6 million.  

A diversion of $1.6 million in license revenues will occur if the net proceeds 
from the sale of the Portland headquarters building are deposited in the General 
Fund.  This would result in the State becoming ineligible to participate in the 
programs under the Acts.  Department officials have prepared a bill for 
submittal to the Legislature that proposes revising the language in the 
legislation to credit the net proceeds to the State Wildlife Fund, which is used 
for hunting and fishing license revenues.

Recommendation

We recommend that FWS monitor the Departmentï¿½s efforts to have the legislation 
modified so that the net proceeds remaining from the sale of the Portland 
headquarters building are retained in the State Wildlife Fund.  FWS will need to 
determine whether the Department is ineligible to participate in the Actsï¿½ 
programs if the proposed legislation is not enacted and net proceeds are 
deposited into the General Fund. 

Department Response  

The Department stated that it concurred with the finding and recommendation and 
was optimistic that the bill would be passed. The Department further stated that 
the net proceeds would remain within the State Wildlife Fund.  

FWS Response 

FWS stated that it concurred with the recommendation and with the Departmentï¿½s 
effort in submitting the bill to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of the 
Portland headquarters office remain in the State Wildlife Fund.  

OIG Comments

While FWS concurred with the recommendation and the Departmentï¿½s response, 
additional information is needed concerning the specific actions taken or 
planned to resolve the finding and to implement the recommendation.  This 
information should be included in the corrective action plan.  

B.  Project Level Accounting

The Department did not account for grant costs at the project level on one of 
the eight grants where project level accounting was required by the grant 
agreements.  The Southwest Oregon Research grant (No. W-90-R-9), in the amount 
of $361,794, was comprised of three separate project components (biology of 
black bears, ecology of mountain lions, and biology of black tailed-deer), each 
having a separate budget.  Instead of reporting costs for each project so that 
actual costs could be compared to budgeted costs, the Department accounted for 
and reported costs in total at the grant level.  Title 43 CFR ï¿½ 12.70(c) 
requires a grantee to ï¿½Obtain approval of the awarding agency whenever any of 
the following changes is anticipatedï¿½ (ii) Unless waived by the awarding agency, 
cumulative transfers among direct cost categories, or, if applicable, among 
separately budgeted programs, projects, functions, or activities which exceed or 
are expected to exceed ten percent of the current total approved budget, 
whenever the awarding agencyï¿½s share exceeds $100,000.ï¿½

Although the Department has an internal recordkeeping system to accumulate and 
track costs at the project level, the Departmentï¿½s program staff did not request 
the accounting staff to establish separate project cost accounting codes for the 
grant.   As a result, the Department was unable to provide FWS with an accurate 
record of the total costs of each project component for the Southwest Oregon 
Research grant, and we could not determine whether the Department was in 
compliance with the requirements of 43 CFR ï¿½12.70(c). 

Recommendation

We recommend that FWS require the Department to account for and report grant 
costs at the project level for the Southwest Oregon Research grant.     

Department Response

The Department stated that it ï¿½somewhat concurredï¿½ with the finding and 
recommendation, adding that FWS did not notify the Department of the project 
level accounting requirement until after the Department had signed the 
agreement.  The Department also stated that, effective July 1, 2005, it would 
identify cost accounting at the sub-study or project level for the remaining 
balance of identified work covered under this 5-year grant.  

FWS Response

FWS stated that it concurred with the recommendation, it has required project 
level accounting for the grant and the Department has complied with the 
requirement.  FWS also acknowledged that it had not notified the Department of 
the project level accounting requirement until about 8 months after the 
Department signed the agreement.     

OIG Comments

FWS and the Department concurred with the recommendation and took actions to 
implement project level accounting for this grant.  Therefore, we consider the 
finding resolved and the recommendation implemented. 


C.  Drawdown Made on Basis of a Payment Advance to Another State Agency

The Department made a drawdown of Federal Assistance grant funds before ensuring 
that the work required under the grant had been performed.  Grant No. F-182-C-1 
involved a $118,667 cooperative agreement project in which the Oregon State 
Marine Board (OSMB) would provide a facilities engineer to plan, design, and 
coordinate motor boat access projects.  The FWS was to contribute $89,000 and 
the OSMB was to contribute $29,667 as the State match.  At OSMBï¿½s request, the 
Department provided the $89,000 in February 2002.  The Department then made a 
drawdown of $66,750 in April 2002.  However, the Department made the drawdown 
without any OSMB financial reports or other data showing that OSMB had incurred 
costs on the project and that the State match was being met.5 

The regulations (50 CFR ï¿½ 80.15 (a) and 80.16) state that all costs must be 
supported by source documents or other records as necessary to substantiate the 
application of funds and that payments shall be made for the federal share of 
allowable costs incurred by the State in accomplishing approved projects. In 
addition, 43 CFR 12.61(c) allows grantees to be paid in advance provided they 
maintain or demonstrate the willingness to minimize the time elapsed between the 
transfer of funds and their disbursement by the grantee.

This condition occurred because a FWS official had advised the Departmentï¿½s 
accounts receivable accountant that the Department could (1) receive 
reimbursement for $66,750 (75 percent of the federal share) since it had paid 
out funds to OSMB and (2) collect the remaining 25 percent of the federal share 
upon receipt of the documentation of the in-kind match.  The FWS official later 
told us that he gave this advice to the Department under the assumption that 
OSMB had already provided expenditure data to support the Departmentï¿½s $89,000 
payment. 

Recommendation

We recommend that FWS instruct the Department that drawdowns should be made only 
when supported by documentation of the costs incurred and should not be made for 
advances to other State agencies for services to be provided.

Department Response

The Department stated that it concurred with the finding and recommendation and 
that it had implemented corrective action in regards to advance payments or 
drawdowns before services are performed to accomplish the grant objectives. 

FWS Response

FWS stated that it concurred with the recommendation and that the Departmentï¿½s 
proposals to implement the recommendation would be considered in the corrective 
action plan.	

OIG Comments

While FWS and the Department concurred with the recommendation, FWS stated that 
the Departmentï¿½s proposal to implement the recommendation ï¿½will be consideredï¿½ 
in the corrective action plan.  Therefore, additional information is needed on 
the specific actions taken or planned to resolve the finding and implement the 
recommendation.  This information should be included in the corrective action 
plan.

D.  Personal Property Management 

We selected a sample of 70 personal property (equipment) items that were 
acquired with Federal Assistance funds and license revenues for review during 
our site visits. Of the 70 items, 54 items cost over $5,000 and 16 items cost 
under $5,000.  

We could not find 11 items, valued at $93,200 at the locations identified on the 
Departmentï¿½s inventory listing.  The missing equipment included nine items 
costing $64,600 at the Northwest Region office as follows: seven hand-held tag 
detectors ($42,900), a 30-foot trailer ($14,000), and a plotter ($7,700). In 
addition, a 28-foot boat costing $21,000 that should have been at the High 
Desert Region office was located at the Round Butte Fish Hatchery, and a tractor 
costing $7,600 that was supposed to be at the Jewell Meadows Wildlife Area was 
located at the Klaskanine Hatchery.  There was no documentation showing that 
these 11 items had been loaned or transferred to other locations.

The regulations (50 CFR ï¿½ 80.18) and the Service Manual (522 FW 1.16) require 
that the State be responsible for the accountability and control of all assets 
to assure that they are used for the purpose for which they were acquired 
throughout their useful life.  Also, 50 CFR ï¿½ 80.19 requires the State to 
maintain current and complete property records. In addition, the Divisionï¿½s 
Administrative Services Policies and Procedures ASD-102 states that Regional 
Managers and Division Administrators are responsible for ensuring that State 
property is appropriately issued, monitored, and returned and another Division 
document entitled ï¿½Property Controlï¿½ states that Division officials must use 
Division property disposition or transfer request forms to transfer both State 
property and federally funded property.

We believe these conditions occurred because the Northwest Region, High Desert 
Region, and Jewell Meadows officials did not maintain any formal property 
records, such as sign in/out registers, to document the location of the missing 
equipment that had been loaned or transferred to other sites.6  As a result, the 
Department could not ensure that equipment items purchased with Federal 
Assistance grant funds and license funds were adequately safeguarded and were 
being utilized for the intended purpose of the grants or other fish and wildlife 
purposes. 

Recommendation

We recommend that FWS require the Department to resolve the issues regarding (1) 
the property on the Departmentï¿½s inventory listing that could not be located at 
the Northwest Region and (2) the need to maintain formal property records when 
equipment assigned to a specific location is loaned or transferred to other 
locations.

Department Response 

The Department stated that it concurred with the finding and recommendation and 
it is reviewing its current process and system needs for inventory and asset 
tracking. It further stated that its review will focus on the current system 
being used, current policies and procedures, and updated systems available for 
asset management and tracking.
 
FWS Response

FWS stated that it concurred with the recommendation and that the Departmentï¿½s 
proposals to implement the recommendation would be considered in the corrective 
action plan. 

OIG Comments

While FWS and the Department concurred with the recommendation, FWS said that 
the Departmentï¿½s proposal to implement the recommendation ï¿½will be consideredï¿½ 
in the corrective action plan.  Therefore, additional information is needed 
concerning the specific actions taken or planned to resolve the finding and to 
implement the recommendation.  This information should be included in the 
corrective action plan.    

E.  Internal Control Weaknesses

The State Auditorï¿½s fiscal years 2002 and 2003 Single Audits both included a 
finding that the Departmentï¿½s licensing office does not perform a reconciliation 
between the POS licensing system and the cash register system for fax and mail 
order license sales.  In addition, we found that the access controls to the 
Departmentï¿½s general support computer system (network) were not working as 
intended.  These two internal control weaknesses are discussed in the following 
paragraphs.  

Fax and Mail Order License Sales Reconciliations

The Department uses the POS licensing system to issue hunting and fishing 
licenses and generate the license or tag, and then uses a cash register system 
to record the receipt of payment.  The cash registers record the revenue 
received from the sales and this information produces the daily revenue entry 
into the Departmentï¿½s financial system.  However, the two systems are not 
reconciled to ensure that the licenses generated in the POS system match the 
revenue received and recorded in the cash registers.  

Sound accounting controls generally include reconciliations of related data.  We 
found that the Department did not perform a reconciliation between the POS 
licensing system where the documents are issued and the cash register system 
where the revenues are recorded.  Department officials said that they have not 
developed a system to enable the reconciliation of the two systems due to the 
difficulty in matching licenses issued to revenues received during heavy 
processing days.  Although the revenues are deposited the day they are received, 
a license may not be processed and issued through the POS system until the 
following day. 

The State Auditorï¿½s reports concluded that the Department is not able to 
reconcile revenues received to actual licenses issued.  The reports further 
stated that the absence of this control increases the risk of employee fraud 
because a license can be issued through the POS licensing system without the 
sale being recorded in the cash register system.  The report recommended that 
the Department strengthen its controls over cash receipts by reconciling cash 
register sales to the licensing system to ensure that all cash receipts have 
been properly accounted for.  Department officials are aware of this weakness 
and are in the process of preparing a plan to replace the current licensing 
system.

Computer Access Controls

We performed a limited review on the logical access controls for the automated 
systems7 used in accounting for and tracking FWS Federal Assistance grant 
expenditures and hunting and fishing license sales.  The review focused on 
controls in place to ensure the deactivation of user access privileges to the 
automated systems when employees left the Department or no longer needed the 
privileges to perform their jobs.  
 
Industry standards and Department policy dictate that an employeeï¿½s access 
privileges be removed in a timely manner when these privileges are no longer 
required to perform day-to-day job functions.  We found that the Department 
could make improvements in its controls over access to the Departmentï¿½s network.  
Of the 681 user accounts identified with access privileges to the Departmentï¿½s 
network, we identified 90 active network user accounts that should have been 
deactivated because the employees had left the organization.

We believe this condition occurred primarily because the Departmentï¿½s 
Information Systems Division staff were not notified promptly of employee 
departures/terminations and were not authorized to cancel system access without 
such notification.  As a result, the Departmentï¿½s procedures did not provide 
reasonable assurance that computer resources such as data files and applications 
were protected against unauthorized modification, disclosure, and loss.  
 
Recommendations:

We recommend that FWS: 	

1.  Ensure that the Department acquires a new POS licensing system that will 
strengthen existing controls over cash receipts by providing features that allow 
for reconciling cash register sales to the licensing system to ensure that all 
cash receipts have been accounted for properly.  If a new system is not 
acquired, FWS should ensure that the Department performs reconciliations of cash 
register receipts to the current licensing system.

2.  Revise procedures to ensure prompt notification and removal of system access 
when an employee resigns or when an employeeï¿½s duties no longer require access 
to the Departmentï¿½s system.

Department Response

The Department did not specifically state whether it agreed or disagreed with 
the findings and recommendations.  Regarding recommendation 1, the Department 
stated that it had issued a request for proposal to replace the existing point 
of sale licensing system because reprogramming the current cash register system 
and/or the POS system to provide increased reconciliation functions would not be 
cost effective.  Regarding recommendation 2, the Department stated that the 
Information Systems Division would be provided with a list of monthly 
terminations from the State personnel system to verify the termination 
information that is also provided manually.  The Department further stated that 
the Information Systems Divisionï¿½s security policies were updated on April 1, 
2005.  

FWS Response

FWS stated that it concurred with the recommendations and that the Departmentï¿½s 
proposals to implement the recommendations would be considered in the corrective 
action plan.  

OIG Comments

FWS concurred with the recommendations, and stated that the Departmentï¿½s 
proposals to implement the recommendations ï¿½will be consideredï¿½ in the 
corrective action plan.  Therefore, additional information is needed concerning 
the actions taken or planned to resolve the finding and to implement the 
recommendations.  This information should be included in the corrective action 
plan.    

Appendix 1
Page 1 of 3


OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF REVIEW COVERAGE
JULY 1, 2001 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2003

Grant No.
Grant
Amount
Claimed 
Costs[1]

Grant No.
Grant
Amount
Claimed 
Costs[1]
F-97-R-28
$74,071 
$58,738 

F-111-D-198
155,375 
148,060 
F-97-R-29
122,097 
99,625 

F-111-D-199
567,200 
485,893 
F-97-R-30
123,337 
105,407 

F-111-D-200
26,835 
28,366 
F-104-R-22
183,293 
172,275 

F-111-D-201
200,000 
186,108 
F-104-R-23
191,746 
187,033 

F-111-D-202
38,660 
30,208 
F-104-R-24
193,694 
161,737 

F-111-D-203
191,000 
184,230 
F-108-R-22
254,228 
207,234 

F-111-D-204
46,000 
45,206 
F-108-R-23
271,448 
135,182 

F-111-D-205
52,800 
0 
F-108-R-24
158,420 
136,226 

F-111-D-206
30,000 
29,456 
F-111-D-168
149,900 
139,370 

F-111-D-207
100,000 
112,381 
F-111-D-169
265,600 
253,319 

F-111-D-208
66,000 
0 
F-111-D-170
69,000 
72,545 

F-111-D-209
78,000 
64,084 
F-111-D-171
141,425 
141,425 

F-111-D-210
95,000 
72,211 
F-111-D-175
144,380 
171,470 

F-111-D-211
115,000 
111,652 
F-111-D-182
164,800 
177,149 

F-111-D-212
65,000 
52,753 
F-111-D-185
160,000 
0 

F-111-D-213
28,700 
23,992 
F-111-D-186
114,500 
119,417 

F-115-R-20
271,280 
271,280 
F-111-D-188
13,000 
20,100 

F-115-R-21
289,513 
289,513 
F-111-D-190
631,250 
840,043 

F-115-R-22
292,102 
291,561 
F-111-D-192
200,291 
216,437 

F-119-R-17
272,820 
272,820 
F-111-D-193
136,000 
142,772 

F-119-R-18
332,035 
329,249 
F-111-D-194
35,000 
30,445 

F-119-R-19
333,121 
317,356 
F-111-D-195
97,200 
100,589 

F-121-D-16
1,043,805 
995,841 
F-111-D-196
37,500 
32,950 

F-121-D-17
1,116,355 
1,027,823 
F-111-D-197
165,000 
163,955 

F-121-D-18
1,113,991 
933,495 


Appendix 1
Page 2 of 3

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF REVIEW COVERAGE
JULY 1, 2001 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2003

Grant No.
Grant
Amount
Claimed 
Costs[1]

Grant No.
Grant
Amount
Claimed 
Costs[1]
F-128-R-15
426,342 
412,604 

F-163-R-8
406,385 
366,978 
F-128-R-16
455,219 
452,194 

F-165-D-2
50,000 
0 
F-128-R-17
459,848 
459,848 

F-165-D-3
145,044 
35,743 
F-136-R-14
140,394 
127,458 

F-166-D-4
1,892,472 
1,780,790 
F-136-R-15
149,904 
143,397 

F-166-D-5
2,079,983 
1,965,528 
F-136-R-16
211,422 
180,358 

F-166-D-6
2,103,891 
2,020,752 
F-138-AE-14
317,701 
392,032 

F-167-R-2
243,770 
238,165 
F-138-AE-15
339,221 
429,509 

F-167-R-3
247,196 
241,710 
F-138-AE-16
359,110 
342,828 

F-168-R-4
51,127 
50,819 
F-144-R-12
139,466 
136,336 

F-168-R-5
55,360 
52,887 
F-144-R-13
148,973 
145,672 

F-168-R-6
55,913 
55,314 
F-144-R-14
152,351 
149,173 

F-171-R-3
696,008 
698,743 
F-154-R-7
232,762 
187,087 

F-171-R-4
743,152 
742,504 
F-154-R-8
204,416 
153,574 

F-171-R-5
849,348 
823,370 
F-154-R-9
218,262 
218,262 

F-177-D-2
108,600 
99,205 
F-157-R-10
115,119 
106,109 

F-177-D-3
28,091 
28,091 
F-157-R-8
118,272 
94,883 

F-177-D-4
12,001 
4,835 
F-157-R-9
114,151 
101,363 

F-178-R-2
71,491 
52,377 
F-160-R-6
83,028 
83,028 

F-178-R-3
76,332 
72,921 
F-160-R-7
88,791 
32,945 

F-178-R-4
77,087 
76,006 
F-160-R-8
89,688 
73,758 

F-181-D-1
124,362 
120,495 
F-162-R-6
95,385 
48,897 

F-181-D-2
132,711 
128,628 
F-162-R-7
115,483 
106,069 

F-181-D-3
123,894 
105,522 
F-162-R-8
116,759 
78,318 

F-182-C-1
118,667 
148,285 
F-163-R-6
378,500 
351,678 

F-183-D-1
39,840 
24,527 
F-163-R-7
404,138 
393,637 

F-183-D-2
40,245 
24,065 



Appendix 1
Page 3 of 3

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF REVIEW COVERAGE
JULY 1, 2001 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2003

Grant No.
Grant
Amount
Claimed 
Costs[1]

Grant No.
Grant
Amount
Claimed 
Costs[1]
F-184-T-1
109,108 
101,324 

W-71-HS-30
477,490 
389,971 
FW-18-D-25
181,500 
175,256 

W-71-HS-31
592,196 
657,941 
FW-18-D-26
140,684 
134,882 

W-71-HS-32
600,047 
672,126 
FW-20-T-17
275,297 
248,473 

W-72-D-25
442,003 
438,044 
FW-20-T-18
284,561 
257,246 

W-72-D-26
396,644 
396,644 
FW-20-T-19
290,456 
230,569 

W-73-D-23
231,900 
228,815 
FW-21-D-16
38,534 
30,039 

W-73-D-24
228,335 
225,669 
FW-21-D-17
35,483 
34,800 

W-87-R-18
384,502 
234,592 
W-9-D-60
306,500 
289,742 

W-87-R-19
154,949 
154,936 
W-9-D-61
261,809 
252,565 

W-88-HS-9
87,500 
87,500 
W-22-D-56
630,000 
473,722 

W-88-HS-10
88,859 
88,859 
W-22-D-57
566,099 
373,413 

W-88-HS-11
87,500 
32,810 
W-32-D-21
285,999 
284,341 

W-90-R-8
572,809 
534,222 
W-32-D-22
233,655 
229,846 

W-90-R-9
361,794 
359,210 
W-38-D-49
1,269,354 
1,177,741 

W-96-C-2
384,715 
240,285 
W-38-D-50
1,435,101 
1,045,354 

W-96-C-3
190,623 
72,083 
W-45-D-50
470,000 
456,880 

W-97-R-2
91,848 
90,100 
W-45-D-51
428,770 
414,845 

W-97-R-3
81,496 
75,992 
W-46-D-47
116,384 
109,804 

W-98-R-1
649,935 
616,218 
W-46-D-48
105,616 
104,092 

W-98-R-2
786,230
786,230 
W-47-D-48
211,000 
191,470 


$42,792,491
$39,484,628
W-47-D-49
186,798 
186,504 



W-48-D-48
216,556 
212,876 



W-48-D-49
174,723 
174,723 



W-55-D-42
195,375 
191,814 



W-55-D-43
186,307 
171,802 




 [1] The amounts shown include the Departmentï¿½s incurred costs and the in-kind 
contributions during the audit period.

Appendix 2

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SITES VISITED

Headquarters
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR 

Regions
High Desert Region, Bend, OR
Northwest Region, Clackamass, OR

Wildlife Areas
Jewell Meadows
Sauvie Island
White River

Fish Hatcheries
Klaskanine 
Oak Springs 
Round Butte 
Wizard Falls

Appendix 3

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE STATUS OF AUDIT FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Recommendations
:  A, C, D, E.1, and E.2

Status:  Management Concurs; Additional Information Needed


Action Required:  Provide a corrective action plan that identifies the actions 
taken or planned to resolve the findings and implement the recommendations.  The 
plan should also include the target date and the official responsible for 
implementation of each recommendation.  The unimplemented recommendations 
remaining at the end of 90 days (after December 1, 2005) will be referred to the 
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for resolution and/or 
tracking of implementation. 


Recommendation:  B

Status:  Finding Resolved and Recommendation Implemented


Action Required:  None