- -

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

 

 

 

 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WILDLIFE AND SPORT FISH 

RESTORATION PROGRAM 

Grants Awarded to the State of Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife,

From July 1, 2016,Through June 30, 2018 

AUDIT 

Report No.: 2019-CR-004 March 2020 
OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

U.S.DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOR 

Memorandum 

To: Aurelia Skipwith 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

From: Amy R. Billings 

Regional Manager, Central Region 

Subject: Final Audit Report – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Sport Fish 

Restoration Program Grants Awarded to the State of Colorado, Colorado Parks 

and Wildlife, From July 1, 2016, Through June 30, 2018 

Report No. 2019-CR-004 

This final report presents the results of our audit of costs claimed by the State of 

Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Division) under grants awarded by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS provided the grants to the State under the Wildlife and Sport 

Fish Restoration Program. The audit included claims totaling approximately $87.5 million on 

147 grants that were open during the State fiscal years that ended June 30, 2017, and June 30, 

2018 (see Appendix 1). The audit also covered the Division’s compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and FWS guidelines, including those related to the collection and use of hunting and 

fishing license revenues and the reporting of program income. 

We found that the Division complied, in general, with applicable grant accounting and 

regulatory requirements. We found, however, grant funds totaling approximately $3.1 million 

that were idle since the Division does not require subrecipients to begin work on their projects 

within a reasonable time period from the grant start date. We also determined that the State 

potentially diverted license revenue in the amount of $56,759 due to the loss of control of 

vehicles purchased with license revenue that were required to be transferred to State Fleet 

Management. In addition, we found that the Division had (1) unreported barter transactions, 

(2) difficulty identifying the funding source for equipment, (3) inadequate support for in-kind

contributions, and (4) not completed the prior recommendation for its land inventory

reconciliation.

We provided a draft of the report to the FWS. In this report we summarize the Division’s 

and FWS Region 7’s responses to our recommendations, as well as our comments on their 

responses. We list the status of the recommendations in Appendix 3. 

Please provide us with a corrective action plan based on our recommendations by June 

29, 2020. The plan should provide information on actions taken or planned to address the 

recommendations, as well as target dates and titles of the officials responsible for 

Office of Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations | Lakewood, CO 
implementation. Please address your response to me and submit a signed PDF copy to 

aie_reports@doioig.gov. 

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to 

Congress semiannually on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement our 

recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Elizabeth Schubert, 

Regional Supervisor, or me at 303-236-9243 or you can email aie_reports@doioig.gov. 

cc: Regional Director, Region 7, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2 
Table of Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 

Background...............................................................................................................................1 

Objectives .................................................................................................................................1 

Scope ........................................................................................................................................1 

Methodology.............................................................................................................................1 

Prior Audit Coverage ................................................................................................................2 

Results of Audit ...............................................................................................................................4 

Audit Summary ........................................................................................................................4 

Findings and Recommendations...............................................................................................4 

Appendix 1 .....................................................................................................................................12 

Appendix 2 .....................................................................................................................................18 

Appendix 3 .....................................................................................................................................20 
Introduction 

Background 

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration 

Act (Acts)1 established the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (Program). Under the 

Program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provides grants to States to restore, 

conserve, manage, and enhance their wildlife and sport fish resources. The Acts and Federal 

regulations contain provisions and principles on eligible costs and allow the FWS to reimburse 

States up to 75 percent of the eligible costs incurred under the grants. The Acts also require that 

hunting and fishing license revenues be used only for the administration of the States’ fish and 

game agencies. Finally, Federal regulations and FWS guidance require States to account for any 

income they earn using grant funds. 

Objectives 

We conducted this audit to determine if the State of Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

(Division): 

 Claimed the costs incurred under the Program grants in accordance with the Acts and

related regulations, FWS guidelines, and grant agreements

 Used State hunting and fishing license revenues solely for fish and wildlife program

activities

 Reported and used program income in accordance with Federal regulations

Scope 

Audit work included claims totaling approximately $87.5 million on the 147 grants open during 

the State fiscal years (SFYs) that ended June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 (see Appendix 1). We 

report only on those conditions that existed during this audit period. We performed our audit at 

the Division’s headquarters office in Denver, CO, and visited 3 regional offices, 4 district 

offices, 2 fish hatcheries, 13 wildlife management areas, 3 boat access sites, 3 shooting ranges, a 

new shooting and education complex, and another State agency (see Appendix 2). 

We performed this audit to supplement—not replace—the audits required by the Single Audit 

Act Amendments of 1996 and by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. 

Methodology 

We conducted this audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing 

Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

1 16 U.S.C. §§ 669 and 777, as amended, respectively. 

1 
Our tests and procedures included: 

 Examining the evidence that supports selected expenditures charged to the grants by

the Division

 Reviewing transactions related to purchases, direct costs, drawdowns of

reimbursements, in-kind contributions, and program income

 Interviewing Division employees to ensure that personnel costs charged to the grants

were supportable

 Conducting site visits to inspect equipment and other property

 Determining whether the Division used hunting and fishing license revenues solely

for the administration of fish and wildlife program activities

 Determining whether the State passed required legislation assenting to the provisions

of the Acts

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 or evaluate the economy, efficiency, or effectiveness of the Division’s 

operations. 

We relied on computer-generated data for other direct costs and personnel costs to the extent that 

we used these data to select Program costs for testing. Based on our test results, we either 

accepted the data or performed additional testing. For other direct costs, we took samples of 

costs and verified them against source documents such as purchase orders, invoices, receiving 

reports, and payment documentation. For personnel costs, we selected Division employees who 

charged time to Program grants and verified their hours against timesheets and other supporting 

data. 

Prior Audit Coverage 

On July 21, 2015, we issued U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program Grants Awarded to the State of Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, From July 1, 

2011, to June 30, 2013 (Report No. R-GR-FWS-0014-2014). 

We followed up on all eight recommendations in the report and found that the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Management and Budget (PMB) 

considered three recommendations resolved and implemented and five recommendations 

resolved but not yet implemented. As discussed in the “Findings and Recommendations” section 

of this report, we are repeating three of the unimplemented recommendations: one that deals with 

inadequate support for in-kind contributions and two that deal with unreconciled real property 

2 
records. We also have similar recommendations to the other two unimplemented 

recommendations that cover potential diversion of license revenue for the State’s fleet. 

We reviewed single audit report for SFY 2017 and found that the Division’s Program grants 

were considered major programs and were assessed a low risk rating. The report did not contain 

any findings that would directly impact the Program grants. 

3 
Results of Audit 

Audit Summary 

We found that the Division complied, in general, with applicable grant agreement provisions and 

requirements of the Acts, regulations, and FWS guidance. We identified, however, the following 

conditions that resulted in our findings, including funds to be put to better use totaling 

$3,090,795 and a potential diversion of license revenue totaling $56,759. 

A. Funds To Be Put To Better Use – $3,090,795 

We found that funds for 32 grants awarded to subrecipients were idle since grant funds 

have not been drawn down for reimbursement. 

B. Potential Diversion of License Revenue 

The Division was unable to demonstrate that it received net proceeds totaling $56,759 

from the sale of vehicles purchased with license revenues that were required to be 

transferred to State Fleet Management. 

C. Unreported Barter Transactions 

The Division does not have a method for tracking and managing barter transactions. In 

addition, the Division did not report barter transactions on its Federal Financial Reports 

(SF-425s), as required. 

D. Inadequate Equipment System 

The Division could not readily identify all the funding sources for equipment purchases. 

E. Inadequate Support for In-Kind Contributions 

The Division recorded volunteer hours for Hunter Outreach as a lump sum as opposed to 

having a daily breakdown, as required by the State process for regular employees. 

F. Real Property Reconciliation 

The Division has not reconciled its Program-funded, real property records with those of 

the FWS. 

Findings and Recommendations 

A. Funds To Be Put To Better Use - $3,090,795 

We found that the Division did not draw down funds on 32 grants for awarded projects 

within our audit period. At the beginning of our audit, 25 of the 32 grants had not 

requested reimbursement of expended funds for 1 – 4 years. Further, at the time we tested 

these 25 grants, only 17 performance reports were available. Performance reports, which 

are typically submitted annually, are used to report progress made or problems 

encountered with grant projects. Our review of the 17 performance reports did not 

disclose any significant deviations from the project as described in the grant narratives 

4 
 

that could explain why the funds were not used. For the remaining eight grants, the 

financial and performance reports were due to the FWS after we completed our testing. 

Although we found that 32 grants did not draw down funds within our audit period, 7 of 

the grants had only been in effect for less than 1 year at the time of our testing. As a 

result, we only questioned costs for the 25 grants that were in effect for at least 1 year. 

Federal regulations state, “[t]he non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and 

effective administration of Federal awards through the application of sound management 

practices.” Furthermore, “The non-Federal entity assumes the responsibility for 

administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program 

objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award . . . and has the primary 

responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management 

techniques may be necessary to assure proper and efficient administration of Federal 

award” (2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 200, Subpart E, section 200.400 (a), 

(b), and (c)). 

The 32 instances of grant funds being idle were due to the Division not requiring 

subrecipients to begin work on their projects within a reasonable time period as a 

precondition to receiving subawards. Therefore, by not ensuring subrecipients of Federal 

awards began work on their projects within a reasonable time period, the Division 

encumbered $3,090,795 that it could have used more efficiently in other parts of the 

State. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS work with the Division to: 

1. Resolve the $3,090,795 in funds to be put to better use, related to the Division’s 

oversight of subrecipients on idle grants 

2. Ensure that the Division provides subawards to entities only after they demonstrate 

their willingness and ability to begin work within a reasonable period of time 

Division Response 

The Division partially concurred with the recommendations. The Division believed that the 

finding narrative in our draft report was unclear in its meaning and presented inconsistent figures 

and information. For example, the finding narrative in our draft report stated that 32 grants had 

idle funds, but Appendix 1 only showed 25 idle fund grants, of which only 16 were referenced in 

the finding narrative. 

The Division, however, said it will work with the FWS to address and resolve the 

recommendations for the subrecipient grants with performance reports that are listed in 

Appendix 1. 

5 
FWS Response 

The FWS discussed the finding and recommendations with the Division and concurs with our 

draft audit report. The FWS will work with the Division to prepare a draft corrective action plan. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Division’s comments, we clarified the language in the finding. We consider 

Recommendations 1 and 2 resolved but not implemented. 

B. Potential Diversion of License Revenue

The Division recognized, but was unable to demonstrate that it received net proceeds

totaling $56,759 from the sale of vehicles purchased with license revenues. In 2006, all

motor vehicles owned by State agencies were required to be transferred to the State Fleet

Management program. The Division transferred 158 vehicles, all of which were

purchased with license revenue. State Fleet Management agreed to provide the proceeds

from the sale of the vehicles back to the Division if it paid an additional management fee

per vehicle per month for vehicles the Division leased from the State Fleet Management

pool. No other State agencies were charged the additional management fee. We issued a

recommendation in our prior audit for the FWS and the Division to resolve this potential

diversion of license revenue related to the management fee. This recommendation is still

open.

Federal regulations, specifically 50 C.F.R. § 80.20 (b), state that hunting and fishing

license revenue includes personal property acquired with license revenue. In addition,

50 C.F.R. § 80.10 (c)(2) requires that revenues from hunting and fishing licenses be used

only for the administration of the State fish and wildlife agency. Further, 50 C.F.R. §

80.11 (c)(1) and (2) states that a State becomes ineligible to receive the benefits of the

Acts if it diverts hunting and fishing license revenue from the control of the State fish and

wildlife agency, or purposes other than the agency’s administration.

During our current audit, we determined that the State Fleet Management was no longer

charging the Division the additional management fee; however, neither the Division nor

State Fleet Management provided documentation showing that the Division received any

proceeds from 17 former Division vehicles sold during our audit period. Division

officials told us that rather than pay the additional management fee per vehicle per month

they chose not to receive revenue from the vehicles sold. The Division, however, should

not have to pay a management fee and it should still receive the proceeds from the sale of

the vehicles. The amount recognized by the Division is only for vehicles sold during our

2-year audit period and does not include the sale of vehicles that occurred prior to our

current audit period. In addition, the Division has not determined how it will handle any

remaining vehicles that will subsequently be sold in future years. Since the proceeds from

the vehicles purchased with license revenue and transferred to the State Fleet

Management have not been returned to the Division, this has created a potential diversion

of license revenue. If left unresolved, this potential diversion of license revenue

jeopardizes the State’s eligibility to participate in the Program.

6 
Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS work with the Division to: 

3. Resolve the potential diversion of license revenues from the sale of license revenuefunded vehicles

4. Analyze the extent to which a potential diversion of license revenues occurred based

on State Fleet Management practices for the years not covered in the scope of this

review

5. Implement policies and procedures to reduce the possibility of future potential

diversions from occurring

Division Response 

The Division concurs with the recommendations and will work with the FWS to address and 

resolve them. 

FWS Response 

The FWS has discussed the finding and recommendations with the Division and concurs with 

our draft audit report. The FWS will work with the Division to prepare a draft corrective action 

plan. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Division’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 3 – 5 resolved 

but not implemented. 

C. Unreported Barter Transactions

We found that the Division was unable to provide a list of barter transactions that

occurred during our audit period. To determine whether the Division had adequate

control and management of barter transactions, we requested a list of transactions that

occurred on Division-managed properties that received Program funds during our audit

period. The Division confirmed that barter transactions occurred during our audit period

but stated that it does not have a method for tracking and managing barter transactions. In

addition, the Division did not report barter transactions on its Federal Financial Reports

(SF-425s), as required.

Federal regulations require each State to report any barter transactions and what those

barter transactions entail on their financial reports. In addition, 50 C.F.R. § 80.98 details

how a State fish and wildlife agency must report barter transactions, to include disclosing

the transactions in the remarks sections of the financial report.

This occurred because the Division does not have a formalized process in place for

maintaining and documenting barter transactions that occur on Division-managed

7 
properties that receive Program funds. As a result, the Division was unable to ensure that 

all the applicable barter transactions were reported on its financial reports. Therefore, the 

FWS does not have the ability to review any barter transactions that occur on Divisionmanaged properties that receive Program funds, which impacts the FWS’ ability to 

effectively monitor program grants. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS work with the Division to: 

6. Develop policies and procedures for documenting and reporting barter transactions

that occur on Division-managed properties that receive Program funds

7. Develop policies and procedures for reporting barter transactions on its Federal

Financial Reports (SF-425s), in accordance with regulations

Division Response 

The Division concurs with the recommendations and will work with the FWS to address and 

resolve them. 

FWS Response 

The FWS has discussed the finding and recommendations with the Division and concurs with 

our draft audit report. The FWS will work with the Division to prepare a draft corrective action 

plan. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Division’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendations 6 and 7 

resolved but not implemented. 

D. Identification of Funding Source for Equipment

We found that the Division was unable to provide an equipment inventory that identified

all funding sources. To determine whether the Division maintained adequate control, we

requested an inventory of all equipment purchased with Program funds and license

revenue. The inventory list we received included equipment purchased with other funding

sources. The funding information was in a database that could only be searched one item

at a time, which proved to be time consuming.

Federal regulations require each State to have adequate controls in place to ensure it

maintains accountability for its equipment. Specifically, 2 C.F.R. § 200.313 (c)(1) states

that equipment must be used in the program or project for which it was acquired, and

(d)(1) states that property records must be maintained that include the source of funding

for the property, the percentage of Federal participation in the project costs, and

disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property.

8 
In SFY 2015, the Division converted its equipment information management system from 

the old legacy system, Colorado Financial Reporting System, to the new integrated 

financial management system, Colorado Operations Resource Engine (CORE). As a 

result, the Division could not import all desired information from CORE into one 

database and could only identify the funding sources for equipment by searching one 

item at a time. Therefore, without timely information on the funding source, the Division 

and the FWS may have difficulty ensuring that equipment purchased with Program funds 

or license revenue was used for its originally intended purposes and equipment purchased 

with Program funding and license revenues are at risk of being lost. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the FWS work with the Division to: 

8. Ensure the Division’s official asset records have accessible information and that the

funding source is identifiable

Division Response 

The Division concurs with the recommendation and will work with the FWS to address and 

resolve it. 

FWS Response 

The FWS has discussed the finding and recommendations with the Division and concurs with 

our draft audit report. The FWS will work with the Division to prepare a draft corrective action 

plan. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Division’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider Recommendation 8 resolved but 

not implemented. 

E. Inadequate Support for In-Kind Contributions

We found that the Division did not have adequate support for its Hunter Outreach in-kind

contributions. Specifically, the volunteer hours were recorded as a lump sum as opposed

to having a daily breakdown, as required by the State process for regular employees. The

Division tracked the value of hours worked by volunteer instructors and applied an

hourly rate to determine the value of the in-kind contributions.

We reviewed a sample volunteer time reports for the Division’s SFY 2018 Hunter

Education and Outreach, Grant No. F17AF00388 (W-148-E-31), for the months of

September 2017 and March 2018. We found that the Division’s Hunter Education

program’s volunteer records followed the State process. The Division’s Hunter Outreach

program, however, recorded the hours as lump sum instead of recording the daily

breakdown of the hours.

9 
Federal regulations (2 C.F.R. § 200.306 (b)(1)) require that in-kind contributions be 

verifiable from the grantee’s records. In addition, 2 C.F.R. § 200.434 (d) states that to the 

extent feasible, services donated will be supported by the same methods used to support 

regular personnel costs. Further, 2 C.F.R. § 200.403 (g) requires that costs be adequately 

documented to be allowable under Federal awards. 

The Division’s policies and procedures do not require volunteer instructors for the Hunter 

Outreach program to submit a daily breakdown. As a result, the Division cannot 

accurately identify its noncash (in-kind) contributions for the State’s matching share of 

costs. The Division may not have satisfied its required 25-percent match due to 

unsupported in-kind volunteer time. While the Division’s overmatch eliminated 

questioned costs, overmatch cannot be guaranteed in the future. Therefore, the Division 

could face questioned costs if it does not fully address these issues and if its overmatch 

falls short in the future. 

In our prior audit (Report No. R-GR-FWS-0014-2014), we noted that the Hunter 

Outreach program did not have adequate support for its in-kind contributions because the 

instructors were recording their hours as a lump sum and lead instructors were not 

certifying assistant instructors time. Since our last audit, the Hunter Education and Hunter 

Outreach programs have merged into one unit; however, the Hunter Outreach program is 

still not adequately supporting its in-kind contributions. We are therefore repeating the 

recommendation from our prior audit report. The FWS should submit any documentation 

to the PMB to track implementation under the prior audit. 

Repeat Recommendation 

We recommend that the FWS work with the Division to: 

 Require the Division to develop and implement procedures that require volunteer

instructors to record their hours in a similar manner as do regular State employees,

and require lead instructors to certify the hours worked by assistant instructors

Division Response 

The Division concurs with the recommendation and will work with the FWS to address and 

resolve it. 

FWS Response 

The FWS has discussed the finding and recommendation with the Division and concurs with our 

draft audit report. The FWS will work with the Division to prepare a draft corrective action plan. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Division’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider this repeat recommendation 

resolved but not implemented. 

10 
F. Real Property Reconciliation

In our prior report (Report No. R-GR-FWS-00014-2014), we noted that the Division had

not reconciled its Program-funded, real property records with those of the FWS. We

recommended that the FWS work with the Division to reconcile its respective records

pertaining to lands purchased with Program funds. This recommendation was still open at

the time of our audit. According 50 C.F.R. § 80.90 (b)(2) and 50 C.F.R. § 80.90 (f),

respectively, a State fish and wildlife agency, as a grantee, is responsible for maintaining

records and control of all assets acquired under the grant to ensure that they serve the

purpose for which they were acquired throughout their useful life. Further, 2 C.F.R. §

200.329 states that if the Federal interest in real property extends 15 years or longer, the

Division must report the status of the property to the FWS at least every 5 years.

Until a reconciliation of real property records between the Division and the FWS can be

completed, neither party can fully ensure that lands acquired under the Program are being

used for their intended purposes. We are therefore repeating the recommendations from

our prior audit report. The FWS should submit any documentation to the PMB to track

implementation under the prior audit.

Repeat Recommendations 

We recommend that the FWS: 

 Work with the Division to reconcile their respective records of lands purchased with

Program funds and resolve any acreage differences identified

 Require the Division to certify that grant-funded real properties are being used for

their intended purposes

Division Response 

The Division concurs with the recommendations and will work with the FWS to address and 

resolve them. 

FWS Response 

FWS has discussed the finding and recommendation with the Division and concurs with our draft 

audit report. The FWS will work with the Division to prepare a draft corrective action plan. 

OIG Comment 

Based on the Division’s and the FWS’ responses, we consider this repeat recommendation 

resolved but not implemented. 

11 
Appendix 1 

 State of Colorado 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

Grants Open During the Audit Period 

July 1, 2016, Through June 30, 2018 

FBMS Grant Number Grant Amount Claimed Costs 

Funds To Be Put 

To Better Use 

F07AF00094 $395,848 $464,282 $0

F08AF00141 730,000 730,000 0

F11AF01255 178,368 125,243 0

F12AF00819 37,750 38,874 0

F13AF01281 29,210 11,193 0

F14AF00216 60,000 40,450 0

F14AF00501 6,155,796 6,155,823 0

F14AF00524 30,000 0 0

F14AF01187 146,667 0 110,000

F14AF01241 89,333 79,820 0

F14AF01295 1,093,141 1,093,141 0

F14AF01296 208,650 113,617 0

F14AF01333 180,000 180,000 0

F15AF00052 424,801 348,778 0

F15AF00185 370,000 190,000 141,343

F15AF00205 $80,000 80,000 0

F15AF00213 114,000 114,000 0

F15AF00408 32,000 31,579 0

F15AF00486 64,000 64,000 0

F15AF00515 447,750 352,314 0

F15AF00609 50,000 38,000 0

F15AF01045 207,018 150,783 0

F15AF01130 5,663,227 211,636 0

F15AF01131 57,000 57,000 0

F15AF01209 139,000 247,977 0

12 
FBMS Grant Number Grant Amount Claimed Costs 

Funds To Be Put 

To Better Use 

F15AF01210 $40,000 $0 $927 

F15AF01211 46,000 46,000 0 

F15AF01212 37,500 41,949 0 

F15AF01213 52,500 52,500 0 

F15AF01219 37,805 37,805 0 

F15AF01221 45,600 45,700 0 

F16AF00009 289,000 263,741 0 

F16AF00072 105,000 143,053 0 

F16AF00073 120,000 0 90,000 

F16AF00168 60,000 160,000 0 

F16AF00176 18,415 0 0 

F16AF00235 46,500 22,448 

F16AF00256 90,000 53,934 0 

F16AF00323 32,000 0 24,000 

F16AF00473 11,250 11,250 0 

F16AF00503 971,872 986,052 0 

F16AF00504 2,909,622 3,170,681 0 

F16AF00505 1,338,901 1,168,774 0 

F16AF00506 1,768,069 1,715,775 0 

F16AF00507 940,390 170,229 0 

F16AF00508 435,259 551,660 0 

F16AF00521 92,586 180,719 0 

F16AF00522 474,583 625,726 0 

F16AF00523 740,660 694,376 0 

F16AF00574 1,498,989 1,260,508 0 

F16AF00540 640,057 917,108 0 

F16AF00575 1,410,000 1,389,961 0 

F16AF00576 166,842 157,588 0 

F16AF00581 301,047 313,014 0 

F16AF00582 182,349 226,826 0 

13 
FBMS Grant Number Grant Amount Claimed Costs 

Funds To Be Put 

To Better Use 

F16AF00607 $628,378 $637,297 $0 

F16AF00608 913,539 1,174,453 0 

F16AF00609 7,057,915 7,619,882 0 

F16AF00610 270,000 270,000 0 

F16AF00611 2,444,831 6,413,088 0 

F16AF00652 378,188 374,033 0 

F16AF00653 2,354,393 2,732,420 0 

F16AF00654 1,233,400 410,560 0 

F16AF00655 1,701,468 1,575,708 0 

F16AF00670 157,775 161,993 0 

F16AF00701 2,137,002 2,143,891 0 

F16AF00866 40,000 40,000 0 

F16AF00867 67,536 67,536 0 

F16AF00868 185,249 48,900 0 

F16AF00974 289,600 227,588 0 

F16AF00975 100,000 28,650 0 

F16AF00978 66,950 66,951 0 

F16AF00979 796,000 0 597,000 

F16AF00980 200,000 200,000 0 

F16AF01002 99,976 83,890 0 

F16AF01081 903,500 385,332 0 

F16AF01096 333,000 6,001 0 

F16AF01097 228,200 0 60,479 

F16AF01098 107,600 0 80,700 

F16AF01099 34,431 7,351 0 

F16AF01200 30,000 30,005 0 

F16AF01201 16,500 0 0 

F16AF01210 915,891 0 686,968 

F16AF01250 66,667 0 50,000 

F16AF01251 161,691 204,682 0 

14 
FBMS Grant Number Grant Amount Claimed Costs 

Funds To Be Put 

To Better Use 

F17AF00027 $126,000 $72,050 $0

F17AF00028 124,866 71,561 0

F17AF00087 117,750 117,750 0

F17AF00090 554,274 264,629 0

F17AF00103 2,038,800 814,379 0

F17AF00174 85,039 145,706 0

F17AF00183 65,333 66,088 0

F17AF00201 100,000 72,373 0

F17AF00206 75,300 0 50,200

F17AF00211 68,220 0 45,480

F17AF00286 155,546 152,783 0

F17AF00287 111,680 99,971 0

F17AF00361 6,976,927 6,963,889 0

F17AF00365 589,058 589,056 0

F17AF00369 616,911 616,911 0

F17AF00371 1,684,380 1,678,821 0

F17AF00372 508,920 508,920 0

F17AF00374 97,597 97,597 0

F17AF00380 380,037 0 285,000

F17AF00381 280,595 280,595 0

F17AF00382 3,376,413 3,376,413 0

F17AF00384 355,068 268,315 0

F17AF00386 983,433 982,724 0

F17AF00387 756,638 739,562 0

F17AF00388 1,973,649 2,109,763 0

F17AF00400 1,303,684 1,260,882 0

F17AF00401 2,882,309 2,882,183 0

F17AF00402 867,818 782,816 0

F17AF00403 1,312,212 1,312,212 0

F17AF00404 180,298 180,298 0

15 
FBMS Grant Number Grant Amount Claimed Costs 

Funds To Be Put 

To Better Use 

F17AF00406 $346,545 $329,244 $0 

F17AF00407 155,751 154,072 0 

F17AF00408 875,447 870,962 0 

F17AF00409 173,967 173,967 0 

F17AF00410 4,689,436 4,689,436 0 

F17AF00412 29,348 0 22,011 

F17AF00415 25,000 24,999 0 

F17AF00422 2,243,081 2,243,081 0 

F17AF00425 100,500 0 75,375 

F17AF00438 117,200 117,200 0 

F17AF00529 50,303 50,294 0 

F17AF00586 558,954 556,287 0 

F17AF00592 125,153 0 93,864 

F17AF00675 9,000 6,806 0 

F17AF00757 980,980 955,213 0 

F17AF00978 13,333 0 0 

F17AF01052 65,333 0 49,000 

F17AF01101 34,667 0 26,000 

F17AF01106 153,333 0 115,000 

F17AF01153 32,000 0 24,000 

F17AF01160 250,000 0 187,500 

F17AF01161 120,000 0 90,000 

F17AF01165 150,000 0 112,500 

F17AF01190 102,000 0 51,000 

F17AF01251 669,472 596,289 0 

F18AF00178 160,000 0 0 

F18AF00179 12,000 0 0 

F18AF00183 38,000 0 0 

F18AF00217 73,867 0 0 

F18AF00246 29,065 0 0 

16 
FBMS Grant Number Grant Amount Claimed Costs 

Funds To Be Put 

To Better Use 

F18AF00536 $60,000 $0 $0

F18AF00656 3,544 0 0

Total $97,002,070 $87,489,748 $3,090,795

17 
 

 

Appendix 2 

State of Colorado 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

Sites Visited 

Headquarters 

Denver, CO 

Regional Offices 

Denver, CO 

Durango, CO 

Grand Junction, CO 

District Offices 

Glenwood Springs, CO 

Monte Vista, CO 

Pueblo, CO 

Durango, CO 

Fish Hatcheries 

Durango Fish Hatchery 

Glenwood Springs Fish Hatchery 

Wildlife Management Areas 

Arkansas River/Big Bend 

Beaver Creek Reservoir 

Bodo 

Cline Ranch 

Dolores River 

Echo Canyon 

Horsethief Canyon 

Lake Beckwith 

Mountain Home Reservoir 

Orchard Mesa 

Pastorius Reservoir 

Perins Peak 

Walker 

Subrecipients – Boating Access 

Rifle Boat Ramp 

Silt Boat Ramp 

Vallecito Conservation and Sportsman’s Association 

18 
Subrecipients – Shooting Ranges 

Grand Junction Trap and Skeet Club 

Pikes Peak Gun Club 

Royal Gorge Gun Club 

Other 

Cameo Shooting and Education Complex 

Colorado Department of Transportation 

19 
 

Appendix 3 

State of Colorado 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

Status of Recommendations 

Recommendations Status Action Required 

Recommendations 1 – 8 

We consider these 

recommendations resolved 

but not implemented. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) regional 

officials concurred with the 

recommendations and will 

work with the Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife 

(Division) to develop and 

implement a corrective 

action plan for these 

recommendations. 

Complete a corrective action plan 

that includes information on actions 

taken or planned to address the

recommendations, target dates and 

titles of the officials responsible for 

implementation, and verification that

FWS headquarters officials reviewed 

and approved of the actions taken or 

planned by the Division. 

We will refer unimplemented 

recommendations at the end of 90 

days (after June 29, 2020) to the 

Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget for 

implementation tracking. 

20 
Report Fraud, Waste,

and Mismanagement

Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in

Government concern everyone: Office 

of Inspector General staff, departmental 

employees, and the general public. We 

actively solicit allegations of any 

inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud, 

and mismanagement related to 

departmental or Insular Area programs 

and operations. You can report 

allegations to us in several ways.

 By Internet: www.doioig.gov

 By Phone: 24-Hour Toll Free: 800-424-5081

Washington Metro Area: 202-208-5300

 By Fax: 703-487-5402

 By Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior

Office of Inspector General

Mail Stop 4428 MIB

1849 C Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20240