[Audit on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Assistance
Grants Awarded to the State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department From September 1, 2002, Through August 31, 2004]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. R-GR-FWS-0014-2005

Title: Audit on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Assistance
        		Grants Awarded to the State of Texas Parks and Wildlife
       Department, 		From September 1, 2002, Through August 31,
       2004



Date:  January 30, 2007


**********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 Operations Support, at (703) 487-5443.
*******************************************************************************

U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General


AUDIT REPORT


Memorandum

To:		Director 
		U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

From:		Christina M. Bruner//signed//
		Director of External Audits

Subject:	Audit on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Assistance 
		Grants Awarded to the State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
		From September 1, 2002, Through August 31, 2004 (No. R-GR-FWS-0014-2005)
      

This audit report presents the results of our audit of costs incurred by the State of Texas (State) Parks and Wildlife Department (Department).  The Department incurred the costs under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Federal Assistance grants.  The audit included total reported outlays of approximately $96 million on FWS grants open during State fiscal years (SFYs) ended August 31 of 2003 and 2004 (see Appendix 1).  The audit also evaluated Department compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to the collection and use of fishing and hunting license revenue and the reporting of program income. 
      
We found the Department complied, in general, with applicable grant accounting and regulatory requirements.  We questioned $4.3 million ($2.5 million federal share) claimed for unauthorized activities, unallowable costs, and costs incurred outside the grant period.  We also identified issues with the use of license revenues, program income reporting, property and asset management, and certification of license holders. 

We provided a draft report to FWS and the Department for response.  This report includes a summary of Department and FWS Region 2 responses after each recommendation, as well as our comments on the responses.  We list the status of the recommendations in Appendix 4.
      
Please respond in writing to the findings and recommendations included in this report by April 30, 2007.  Your response should include information on actions taken or planned, targeted completion dates, and titles of officials responsible for implementation.  
      
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the audit team leader, Mr. Tim Horsma, at 916-978-5668 or me at 703-487-5345.
      

cc:  Regional Director, Region 2, 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 FWS to provide Federal Assistance grants to states to enhance their sport fish and wildlife programs.  The Acts allow 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

The objectives of our audit were to determine if the Department:

* claimed the costs incurred under the Federal Assistance grants in accordance with the Acts and related regulations, FWS guidelines, and the grant agreements; 

* used state hunting and fishing license revenues solely for fish and wildlife program activities; and

* reported and used program income in accordance with federal regulations.  


Scope

The audit work included total reported outlays of approximately $96 million on 129 FWS grants that were open during SFYs 2003 and 2004 (see Appendix 1).  We performed our audit at the Department headquarters in Austin, Texas, and visited 7 wildlife and 12 fishery related locations (see Appendix 2).  This audit was performed to supplement, not replace, the audits required by the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133.  


Methodology

We performed our audit in accordance with the ï¿½Government Auditing Standardsï¿½ issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.  We tested records and auditing procedures as necessary under the circumstances.   Our tests and procedures included:

* examining the evidence supporting selected expenditures charged to the grants by the Department; 

* reviewing transactions and supporting documentation related to purchases, other direct costs, drawdowns of reimbursements, in-kind contributions, and program income; 

* interviewing Department employees to ensure that personnel costs charged to the grants were supportable; 

* conducting site visits to review equipment and other property; and 

* determining whether the Department used fishing license revenues solely for sport fish and wildlife program purposes.  

To the extent possible, we relied on the work of the Texas State Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Texas State Auditorï¿½s Office to avoid duplication of audit effort.  

We also identified the internal controls over transactions recorded in the labor and license fee accounting systems and tested their operation and reliability.  Based on the results of initial assessments, we assigned a level of risk to these systems and selected a judgmental sample of transactions for testing.  We did not project the results of the tests to the total population of recorded transactions nor did we evaluate the economy, efficiency, or effectiveness of the Departmentï¿½s operations.  


Prior Audit Coverage

On March 3, 2003, we issued an advisory report, ï¿½U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Aid Grants to the State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Under Federal Aid Grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from September 1, 1995 through August 31, 1997,ï¿½ which summarized the results of the audit work performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.  We followed up on all findings in the report and determined that they are all considered resolved and implemented by the Department of Interior, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget. 

We also reviewed the Texas Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Single Audit Reports for SFYs 2003 and 2004.  The Single Audit Report for SFY2004 identified a finding that the Department reported audit period revenues instead of expenditures.  The audit report noted that the net adjustment was not material. 


Results of Audit

Audit Summary

We found the Department complied, in general, with applicable grant provisions and requirements of the Acts, regulations, and FWS guidance.  However, we identified the findings listed below, including $4.3 million in questioned costs.  We discuss these findings in further detail in the Findings and Recommendations section. 

Questioned costs.  The Department claimed costs that were unauthorized, unsupported, and unallowable, or incurred outside the grant period.  As a result, we questioned $4.3 million in costs ($2.5 million federal share).

Inadequate accounting for license revenue use.  The Departmentï¿½s procedures for reporting expenditures were not adequate to demonstrate whether the Department used license revenues solely for allowable purposes. 

Unsupported program income.  The Department did not maintain the support necessary to identify the sources of program income.

Noncompliance with real property and equipment controls.  The Departmentï¿½s asset inventory did not identify the asset-funding source.

Duplicate licenses not removed.  The Departmentï¿½s certification of license holders did not exclude duplicate holders.


Findings and Recommendations

A.  Questioned Costs

1.  Costs Claimed for Funded Grant Activity -ï¿½ $1.5 million

In 1987, the Department established a public hunting program whereby hunters could obtain access, through the purchase of an annual permit, to public and privately-owned land throughout the State.  The Department claimed $2.9 million in costs related to the program under Public Hunting Opportunity Grants W-131-S-8 and W-131-S-9.  They received a reimbursement of $1.5 million from grant funds.  However, the Department generated $3.1 million in permit revenues for the public hunting program, which exceeded the total $2.9 million in costs claimed under the grant.

Title 50 C.F.R. ï¿½ 80.14 (c) prohibits Federal Assistance funds from being used to produce income.  In addition, Title 50 C.F.R. ï¿½ 80.16 states that payments shall be made for the federal share of allowable costs incurred by the state in accomplishing approved projects.  Title 2 C.F.R. 225, appendix A, section 3, lists factors for determining whether costs are allowable.  To be allowable under federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable, allocable, authorized, and adequately documented.

Department officials stated that public hunting permit fees are not a dedicated revenue source and that it is not mandatory that those funds be used to pay for costs related to public hunting.  However, funds were used to pay for costs related to public hunting in the grant years; payments to participating landowners ($1,641,311) were determined based on the amount of permit revenue remaining after deducting program administrative costs, which included expenses from permit sales ($245,872), expenses from conducting public hunts ($187,263), and other administrative costs ($829,385).  Additionally, the State literature on the program states the Departmentï¿½s intention to use permit revenue for the program.  The 1987 Public Hunting Map Booklet stated a need for a predominantly user-funded program.  The following yearï¿½s booklet states, ï¿½The program proved extraordinarily cost effective for the Department because it is funded by you ï¿½ the permit purchaser ï¿½ and not tax dollars or license fees.ï¿½ 

We have concluded that the permit revenue of $3.1 million was more than sufficient to fund permit-related expenditures of $2.9 million, and as such, these costs are unallowable.


Recommendations	

We recommend FWS:

1.  resolve the $1.5  million questioned costs for grants W-131-S-8 and W-131-S-9 for SFYs 2003 and 2004 and

2.  evaluate whether the public hunting program is appropriate for grant funding.


Department Response

The Department concurred with the audit finding and agreed that the manner in which the Department operated its public hunting program was inconsistent with requirements for grant funding.  The Department stated that it will work with FWS to resolve the $1.5 million questioned costs.  


FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve and implement the recommendations. 


OIG Comments

While the Department has taken steps to evaluate whether its public hunting program was appropriate for grant funding, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the results of the Departmentï¿½s review and resolved the $1.5 million in questioned costs.  The corrective action plan should also include targeted completion dates and titles of officials responsible for the actions proposed.


2.  Unauthorized or Unspecified Locations ï¿½ $678,033  

Grants W-124-M-13, W-124-M-14, and W-124-M-15 provided funds for the operation, maintenance, and management of specific locations.  The Department included in its claim $904,044 for expenditures ($678,033 federal share) at unspecified locations or locations not specifically approved in the grant agreements (see Appendix 3).  The Code of Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. ï¿½ 80.16) states that payments shall be made for the federal share of allowable costs incurred by the state in accomplishing approved projects.  Section 80.15 defines allowable costs as those necessary to accomplish project purposes.  Work performed at locations other than those specified in the grant does not accomplish project purposes.   


Recommendations

We recommend FWS:

1.  resolve the $678,033 questioned costs and

2.  require the Department to develop and implement procedures which ensure only expenditures at authorized locations are charged to the grants.


Department Response

The Department stated that it identified substitutable costs of $904,044 out of the matching expenditures for these grants and submitted revised financial status reports (SF-269s) to FWS.   The Department stated that it revised its procedures on the preparation and review of federal claims. 


FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve and implement the recommendations. 


OIG Comments
	
While the Department indicated that it has taken steps to develop procedures to ensure only expenditures at authorized locations are charged to the grants, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the results of the Departmentï¿½s resolution of questioned costs.  The corrective action plan should also include targeted completion dates and titles of officials responsible for the actions proposed. 


3.  In-kind Costs ï¿½ $283,366

The Department claimed in-kind matching costs that included volunteer hours outside the grant period and unsupported volunteer hours.  In addition, the Department does not require volunteers to certify their hours, although it does require its employees to submit signed timesheets.  

Title 43 C.F.R. ï¿½12.43 defines third party in-kind contributions as property or services contributed by a non-federal third party which benefit a federally assisted project or program.  Matching requirements satisfied by the value of such in-kind contributions must be made during the grant period (43 C.F.R. ï¿½12.64(a)(2)).  Volunteer services, to the extent feasible, should be supported by the same methods that the organization uses to support the allocation of regular personnel costs (43 C.F.R. ï¿½ 12.64 (b)(6)).  

The Department determined total class hours based on the date the course was entered into the database rather than on the course completion date; claimed unsupported self-study hours in the total volunteer hours under the W-104-S grants; and claimed class participants as in-kind under grant F-82-E since they volunteered to take the course and would be presenting the course materials.  As detailed in the following schedule, we are questioning matching costs based on 31,066 in-kind hours claimed that were incurred outside the grant period or were not adequately supported.  

	    Out of			        Claimed	   Questioned	Questioned
	    Period	Unsupported	Total	In-Kind	   In-Kind	Federal
Grant	    Hours	Hours	        Hours	Costs	    Costs	 Share
F-82-E-12     73        4,094	        4,167	$108,33    $50,004	$31,445
F-82-E-13    581        4,483	        5,064	122,880	    60,768	29,202
W-104-S-31 6,028	5,256	       11,284	245,949	   135,408	101,556
W-104-S-32 4,923	5,628	       10,551	142,562    126,612	121,163
	   11,605	19,461	       31,066  $619,725   $372,792	$283,366


Recommendations

We recommend FWS: 

1.  resolve the  $283,366 total questioned costs and

2.  require the Department to establish and implement procedures for determining allowable volunteer hours and require all volunteers to certify their hours worked.


Department Response

The Department concurred with the audit finding, with the exception of class participants claimed as in-kind match on Aquatic Education grants.  The Department stated that it now claims in-kind volunteer hours completed in the grant period, supported by signed volunteer certifications, and excludes self-study hours.  The Department did not concur with the portion of the audit finding related to the Aquatic Education grants and stated that it claimed class participants as in-kind since these participants were future instructors of the course and were taking the course to learn how to teach the class.  
  

FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve and implement the recommendations. 
	

OIG Comments

While the Department has taken steps to establish procedures for determining allowable volunteer hours, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the actions proposed to implement the audit recommendations.   


4.  Costs Claimed That Were Not Allowed ï¿½ $75,000

The Department claimed a contribution of $100,000 to Ducks Unlimited under grant W-128-R-11 that was not allowed under the grant agreement.  Title 2 C.F.R. 225, appendix B, section 12(a) classifies contributions or donations (including cash, property, and services) by the governmental unit as an unallowable cost, regardless of the recipient.  The claim occurred because the Department did not have procedures to identify those costs that were not allowed under the grant agreement.  


Recommendations

We recommend FWS:

1. resolve the $75,000  in questioned costs; and

2. require the Department to establish procedures to review grant charges, ensuring expenditures were allowed by the grant agreement.


Department Response

The Department stated that it has revised its procedures on the review and preparation of federal claims to identify any expenditure types that are not allowable under grant terms.  The Department also stated that the grant in question has substitutable costs that it listed on a revised SF-269 submitted to FWS. 


FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve and implement the recommendations. 


OIG Comments

While the Department has taken steps to establish procedures to review grant charges, ensuring expenditures are allowable by the grant agreement, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the results of the Departmentï¿½s review and proposed actions.   


5.  Out-of-Period Costs  ï¿½ $866

The Department claimed costs under grant W-131-S-9 incurred in a prior period.  Title 43 C.F.R. ï¿½ 12.63(a) requires that when a funding period is specified, a grantee may charge to the award only costs resulting from obligations during the funding period.  Title 43 C.F.R. ï¿½ 12.43 defines obligations as the orders placed, contracts and subgrants awarded, goods and services received, and similar transactions during a given period that will require payment by the grantee during the same or a future period.  

The Departmentï¿½s billing procedures included identifying the claimed expenditure by the invoice date.  However, for the $1,155 costs ($866 federal share) that we are questioning, the credit card billing date was in the grant period but the expenditures were applicable to a prior period. 


Recommendations

We recommend FWS:

1.  resolve the $866 in questioned costs and

2.  require the Department review all grant charges during the initial months of a grant to determine if the costs were incurred within the grant period.


Department Response

The Department stated that it has revised its procedures on the review and preparation of federal claims to determine if any of the charges are outside the agreement period.  The Department also stated that the grant in question has substitutable costs that it listed on a revised SF-269 submitted to FWS.


FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve and implement the recommendations. 


OIG Comments

While the Department has taken steps to identify and eliminate grant charges that are outside the agreement period, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the results of the Departmentï¿½s review and resolution of this issue.  


B.  Inadequate Accounting for License Revenue Use

In SFYs 2003 and 2004, the Department reported to FWS that it did not divert license revenues because expenditures on allowable uses of that revenue exceeded the total revenue.  However, the Departmentï¿½s procedures for reporting expenditures were not adequate to demonstrate whether the Department used license revenues solely for allowable purposes.

Title 50 C.F.R. ï¿½ 80.4 prohibits revenues from hunting and fishing license fees from being diverted to purposes other than the administration of the state fish and wildlife agency.  Part 80.4(b) specifies that the administration of a state fish and wildlife agency include only those functions required to manage the fish and wildlife-oriented resources of the state.  In addition, Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Title II, Chapter 11.033(b) requires the Department to use the money from hunting and fishing license fees to manage the stateï¿½s fish and wildlife resources.  

The Department deposits license revenues, along with revenue from other sources, in its Game, Fish, and Water Safety Fund (Fund 9).  The Department commingles license revenue with other revenue in these funds.  To demonstrate it spends the license revenue portion of Fund 9 solely to manage fish and wildlife resources, the Department reports total expenditures from license revenues to FWS.  The Department developed this procedure in response to an August 21, 2002 FWS memorandum, which addressed a prior audit recommendation.  However, the Departmentï¿½s expenditure report includes expenditures funded from sources other than the license revenues in Fund 9, which contains the majority of the license revenue.  We could therefore not determine whether license revenue was spent appropriately.  


Recommendations

We recommend FWS require the Department to:

1. account for uses of all license revenues for SFYs 2003 and 2004 and

2. establish written policies and procedures to demonstrate it spends license revenue solely to manage fish and wildlife resources. 


Department Response

The Department stated that it revised the methodology used to document that it appropriately used license revenue for the audit period and for future years.  The Department also stated that a formal submission of the SFY2006 use of license revenue certification will be filed with the FWS in the near future. 


FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve implement the recommendations. 


OIG Comments

While the Department has taken steps to establish policies and procedures to demonstrate it spends license revenue solely to manage fish and wildlife resources, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the results of the Departmentï¿½s review and proposed resolution of this issue, including the proposed timeline.  The corrective action plan should also include targeted completion dates and titles of officials responsible for the actions proposed.


C.  Unsupported Program Income

The Department did not maintain the support necessary to identify the sources of program income, totaling approximately $946,000, reported on the financial status reports for nine Federal Assistance grants.

Title 43 C.F.R. ï¿½ 12.60(a) (2) requires the stateï¿½s financial management system to permit the tracing of funds at a level adequate to establish compliance with grant provisions.  Program income is gross income received by a grantee directly generated by a grant-supported activity; it includes income from services performed and the sale of commodities (43 C.F.R. ï¿½ 12.65).  Partï¿½12.65(g) requires program income to be deducted from total grant costs to determine the net costs on which the federal share is based.  With FWS approval, program income may be added to the project funds to further implement eligible program projects or be used to meet the cost sharing or matching requirement.

According to Departmental officials, 

* the individual who prepared the grant Financial Status Reports, which included program income, has retired; 

* current Department staff did not know the source of the program income information included in the grant Financial Status Reports; and 

* the Department has not established policies and procedures for recording and reporting program income.

We asked the Department to reconstruct reported program income for selected grants.  The Department could not reconcile the reported program income amounts.  As a result, we could not determine if the program income reported was accurate and complete.  However, we reviewed the Departmentï¿½s reconstruction and identified about $328,000 of potentially unreported program income from grazing, gas production, and land easements on Wildlife Management Areas.


Recommendations

We recommend FWS require the Department to:

1. establish policies and procedures to maintain records to support the program income amounts reported;

2. resolve the $946,000 in unsupported program income; and

3. conduct a comprehensive review of its income-generating activities for the audit period to determine if the income generated, including the $328,000 identified in our audit, should be reported as program income.


Department Response

The Department stated that it has developed procedures to maintain records to support the program income amounts reported.  The Department also stated that it has reviewed the reported program income and determined that program income of about $27,000 was under-reported on two grants. 

	
FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve implement the recommendations. 


OIG Comments
	
While the Department has taken steps to establish policy and procedures to maintain records to support the program, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the results of the Departmentï¿½s review and resolution of program income reporting, including the under-reported program income.  The corrective action plan should also include targeted completion dates and titles of officials responsible for the actions proposed.


D.  Noncompliance With Real Property and Equipment Controls

The Department does not require the asset inventory to identify the funding source for property listed on the inventory.  As a result, we could not determine whether Federal Assistance property is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired.  In conducting activities funded under the Acts, the state is accountable for and must control all assets to assure that they serve their intended purpose throughout their useful life (50 CFR ï¿½ 80.18(c)).


Recommendation

We recommend FWS require the Department to account for and control property purchased with Federal Assistance grant funds in a manner that assures the property is used for its intended purpose.


Department Response

The Department stated that, in the past, it failed to track information on the assets purchased with Federal Assistance grants.  However, the Department has initiated a process, expected to be completed in November 2008, to research and identify which assets with a remaining useful life were purchased with Federal Assistance grants.  


FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve implement the recommendations. 


OIG Comments

While the Department has taken steps to account and control property purchased with Federal Assistance funding, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the results of the Departmentï¿½s proposed resolution and timeframes.  The corrective action plan should also include titles of officials responsible for the actions proposed. 


E.  Duplicate Licenses Not Eliminated 

The Department did not eliminate duplicate license holders from its annual license certification for license years 2003 and 2004, as required by Title 50 C.F.R. ï¿½ 80.10 (c)(5).  This regulation states that an individual shall not be counted more than once as a hunting or fishing license holder.  To ensure states meet this requirement, FWS requires states to report the number of hunting and fishing license holders and certify the accuracy of their counts.  The state is responsible for certifying that it eliminated duplications.

The Department relied exclusively on a system query of the License Sales System database to generate sales and revenue data for the annual certification.  However, the query generated only gross sales and revenue data for all license types sold during the license year.  There was no further process or procedure to eliminate any duplicate license holders.  

The FWS apportionment of grant funds is based, in part, on the number of license holders.  Therefore, accurate license certifications are necessary to assure each state receives its fair share of funds.  It should be noted that the inclusion of the duplicate license holders would not impact the apportionment to Texas.


Recommendation

We recommend that FWS require the Department to develop and implement an effective methodology to identify or estimate and eliminate duplicate license holders in its annual license certifications.


Department Response

The Department stated that its license system provider is now required to provide a feature that assists Department staff in identifying duplicate license holders.  The Department anticipates that the ability to eliminate duplicate license holders will be available for its 2006 license year certification. 


FWS Response

FWS concurred with the audit findings and recommendations and stated that it supports the concepts proposed by the Department to resolve and implement the recommendation. 


OIG Comments

While the Department has taken steps to develop a methodology to identify and eliminate duplicate license holders in its  annual certifications, additional information is needed in the corrective action plan verifying FWS reviewed and accepted the Departmentï¿½s resolution of this issue and targeted timeframes.  The corrective action plan should also include titles of officials responsible for the actions proposed.


Appendix 1
Page 1 of 4
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF REVIEW COVERAGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2004
(TAble, see PDF version)

Appendix 1
Page 2 of 4
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF REVIEW COVERAGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2004
(Table, see PDF version)

Appendix 1
Page 3 of 4
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF REVIEW COVERAGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2004
(Table, see PDF version)

Appendix 1
Page 4 of 4
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF REVIEW COVERAGE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2004
(Table, see PDF version)


Appendix 2
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
SITES VISITED

Headquarters-
Austin, Texas


Wildlife-
Region 4 Office, Rockport 
Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area (WMA)
Mad Island WMA
Peach Point WMA

Region 2 Office, Waco
Richland Creek WMA
Gus Engeling WMA


Fisheries-
Coastal Fisheries Lower Coast Regional Office, Rockport
Coastal Fisheries Field Office, Rockport
CCA/CPL Marine Development Center, Corpus Christi
TAMUCC Natural Resources Center, Corpus Christi
Coastal Fisheries Field Office, Port Oï¿½Connor
Perry R. Bass Research Station, Palacios
Coastal Fisheries Field Office, Palacios
Sea Center Texas, Lake Jackson
Dickinson Marine Lab, Dickinson

Inland Fisheries Region 2 Office, Waco
Inland Fisheries District Office, Waco
Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center, Athens


Appendix 3
Page 1 of 2
COST CLAIMED FOR UNAUTHORIZED/UNIDENTIFIED LOCATIONS 
GRANT W-124-M SEGMENTS 13, 14, AND 15
(Table, see PDF version)

Appendix 3
Page 2 of 2
COST CLAIMED FOR UNAUTHORIZED/UNIDENTIFIED LOCATIONS 
GRANT W-124-M SEGMENTS 13, 14, AND 15
(Table, see PDF version)


Appendix 4
TEXAS PARKS AND  WILIDLIFE DEPARTMENT   
STATUS OF AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Recommendations:  A.1.1, A.1.2, A.2.1, A.2.2, A.3.1, A.3.2, A.4.1, A.4.2, A.5.1, A.5.2, B.1, B.2, C.1, C.2, C.3, D.1, and E.1. 

Status:  FWS management concurs, but additional information is needed as outlined in the ï¿½Action Requiredï¿½ column

Action Required:  Provide a corrective action plan that identifies the actions taken or planned to resolve and implement the recommendations.  The plan should also include the targeted completion date(s) and the title(s) of the official responsible for implementation of each recommendation, as well as verification that FWS reviewed and approved of actions taken or planned by the state.  Any recommendations that are not implemented at the end of 90 days (after April 30, 2007) will be referred to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget for resolution and/or tracking of implementation.



Back Cover Page:  Report Fraud, Waste, Abuse and Mismanagement

Fraud, waste, and abuse in government concerns everyone; Office of Inspector General staff, Departmental employees, and the 
general public.  We actively solicit allegations of any inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud, and abuse related to Departmental
or Insular area progrmas and operations.  You can report allegations to use in several ways.

By Mail:  
U.s. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
Mail Stop 5341 MIB
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC  20240

By Phone:
24-hour Toll Free:  800-424-5081
Washington Metro Area: 703-487-5435

By Fax:
703-487-5402

By Internet:
www.doioig.gov